Categories

Peer Review

All the articles published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics are Peer Reviewed. The Peer Review of every paper is made by at least one University Physics Professor.

New excited levels of the bottom and anti bottom mesons in integral charge quark SUSY

by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
On 21 December 2011 a new meson of rest energy 10.530±0.005 GeV was detected in CERN – LHC and the ATLAS detector.
This new meson, known as χb (3p), consists of two parts – an elementary particle known as a `beauty’ quark and its opposite antiquark, which are bound together by a `strongforce’[1].
Its existence was predicted in our published paper [2]: page-278, table-16, last row, last column.
Before going further, authors request the interested readers to please go through the two published papers [2] and [3].
This paper is a combined and unified version of the published papers [2,3] and proceedings of the DAE symposium on nuclear physics 2011, India [4,5].
Please note that in our previous paper [2] it was suggested that: W boson is the super symmetric boson of the top quark fermion and the charged Higgs boson pair generates the neutralized Z boson.
It was also suggested that [3,5] Higgs charged boson and W boson couples together to form a neutral boson of rest energy 126 GeV.
Its existence was detected and is under open discussion [6,7].
Another interesting idea is: W boson pair generates a neutral boson of rest energy 161 GeV. This is our prediction and needs to be verified.
.

199 comments to New excited levels of the bottom and anti bottom mesons in integral charge quark SUSY

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alessandro Coppi:
    I can only repeat that the tests of the third indipendent party is totally separated from our industrial activity.
    The responce will be totally indipendent from us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, thank you again for your daily updates on the growing of the project, but it is clear, we are looking forward to the response of the third party tests.
    I do not agree with: “I hope the report will be positive, but in any case …”.
    In fact the responce will count, and very much, it is quite unbelievable that you at this point, do not have a clear vision over the tests, and I am seriously worried of your words.

    warm wishes
    Alessandro Coppi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    I hope the report will be positive, but in any case our industrial production and strategy is totally indipendent from the third Party report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Do you feel confident that when your third party report is published the World will quickly embrace your technology to help solve many of it’s current Energy problems.
    Many thanks.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini, John:
    Correct,
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  • Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
    Today has been published the article ” Tools and concepts in particle cosmology” by Prof. Seshavatharam and Prof. Lakshminarayana ( Andhra University, India)
    JoNP

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Actually, the complete shut down takes 4 hours, for safety issues. Yes, we can cool down the reactor with the cooler in the primary.
    The release of hydrogen is not Dangerous because the amount is minimal ( grams).
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You responded that it normally takes two hours to shutdown an eCat running at full output. Is there a feature to quickly quash the reaction, such as using excessive amounts of water to bring the reactor below the temperature needed for the reaction to occur? I know you could also release the hydrogen within thre reactor but that seems unsafe to me.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    Dr Dennis Bushnell is a top level of NASA, therefore I am honoured of his comment: now we have to merit it!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear John (… and Andrea Rossi …),
    I appreciate your post about determining COP Measurement Uncertainty.
    Thanks, best regards,
    Giuliano Bettini

  • John

    Dear Giuliano Bettini,

    Thank you to your questions to A.R. If exact COP is under investigation, then A.R answer has enabled me to realize that a longer test time required by the Third Party is necessary. This is perhaps to establish the COP profile over > 6 weeks and from these data, they will establish the mean COP value. According to ISO standard (ISO GUM), the final reported result will be a mean measured value (mean COP value) +\- uncertainty. If their K value is higher than 2 (95%), they would need more data and repeating measurements to find SD and ESDM for accurate uncertainty calculation.

  • Gentile ing. Rossi in una recente intervista lo scienziato Dennis Bushnell ammette che l’E-Cat funziona! Cosa ne pensa?

    Dear ing. Rossi in a recent interview with the scientist Dennis Bushnell admits that the E-Cat works! What do you think?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p2ZSVArutS4

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Franco:
    We do not know, must wait for the report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Will Hurley:
    Please contact info@leonardocorp1996.com for commercial issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    We are computing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your statement “In any case we can modulate a 1 MW plant with quantum steps of 10 kW.” indicates the Hot eCat would be an excellent power source for large-scale baseload and intermediate load electricity generation. The four hour turn-on time and the two hour load change time is short compared to current systems. Just this technology alone could significantly change the world’s carbon generation and cost of power.

    Another application we had previously discussed is desalinization of sea water using the ocean’s temperature difference between deep sea water and surface water. Here, Hot eCat technology could continuously provide the electricity to run the facility, even if it is located at sea doing so on a continuous basis.

    I recall a previous cost estimate of $1MUSD to $2MUSD per MW for acquisition costs and $100USD per 10kW module per year in fueling costs. Do you have updated costs for computing Life Cylce Cost (LCC)?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in March 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 AM
    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    I forwarded your comment to Santa Claus for fast delivery.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Dear Andrea
    I am not sure it’s a good idea.
    The nuclear physicists forgot to tell to God that cold fusion is impossible. And as God do not know it’s impossible, that’s why the e-cat is working.

    If God decides to change His nuclear model, so that to work as predicted by the Standard Nuclear Physics, your e-cat will stop to work.

    So, lets leave God to continue thinking that cold fusion is possible

    regards
    WLAD

  • Will Hurley

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    If I want to buy a commercial 1MW ECAT for my refinery, where would I get it and do you have a price?

    Thank you and congratulations on your success.

    WIll Hurley

  • Franco

    Dear ing. Andrea Rossi,

    answering to the question of Giuliano, you wrote that the third party independent commission was (and probably still is) interested to measure the exact value of COP.
    I believe that you (maybe) could also know this measured value, is it in line with your past estimation of about 6 (or more)?
    Thanks.
    Kind Regards

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    Pekka Janhunen is right about ammonia. Right now more than 50 Millions tonns of ammonia are produced every year for fertilizers in agriculture with a high pulluting process (haber bosh) and starting from methane. If your Hot Cat will be able to give 800 – 900°C with high COP, new processes of ammonia sinthesis could be used with very low level of emissions. Once you have “clean” ammonia you can do whatever you want also (and i hope) using it on vehicles. By the way, for those interested, also in Italy research and development on ammonia as fuel is going on ( see http://www.progettosavia.it/ ) … in this case an ammonia engine is used as range extender for electric vehicles…interesting
    Neri B.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    In any case we can modulate a 1 MW plant with quantum steps of 10 kW .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    Exact value of COP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
    I forwarded your comment to Santa Claus for fast delivery.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    A letter to God

    Dear God

    Please change the nuclear structure of the nuclei and the principles You had used for their working, because your creation do not fit to the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics.

    You have adopted some conjectures not accepted in nuclear physics.

    In my oppinion your nuclear model is very stupid, and it cannot work, because some principles you have adopted disagree what we know from the classical standard nuclear physics.

    If you dont trust my advise, please write a paper and submit it to any reputable journal as Nature, European Physical Journal, Physical Review, and You will realize that your paper will be rejected.
    The editors will tell you that your work comes across as a conjecture rather than as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work.
    Dont be so stupid. Deny your work. Please follow their advise. Change your work.

    I also dont understand why you had created those light nuclei which exhibit strange behavior defying the classical nuclear physics. Stop to create such aberrations. We dont need them. Our classical nucler physics works very well, and there is no place for those stupid light nuclei.

    Yours sincerelly,
    Wladimir Guglinski

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    on February 5th you said:
    “… I have been informed that more tests will be made to be sure of the results, repeating again the tests…” and “….we can assist to the tests, but we cannot make any operation during the tests.”
    If someone has assisted to the tests (… at least sometimes …) can you tell us: at what the team is most interested in? I mean:
    1) more tests regarding the exact value of COP, or
    2) more tests in order to fully characterize the nuclear reaction (ex. X / Gamma spectra). or
    3) other?
    Thanks. :)
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Thank you for the information on the eCat turn-on/turn-off characteristics. I think this currently significantly limits your commercial applications to those that run continuously. These would include baseload electrical generation, commercial heating, aluminum smelting (through electricity generation) and similar applications. Although these are still a huge number of applications and potential benefit to the world.

    If these characteristics remain in future eCats, I could see residential use evolving as residential electricity production. The home could be electrically heated but most of the eCat produced energy would be lost due to Carnot efficiencies or direct conversion efficiencies (~30%?). Excess electricity generation (since the eCat runs at 100% on or off) could be sold to the utilities but the most power would be available at night when it is least needed by the utilities.

    If we all went to electric vehicles that charged at night and with smart controllers that moved the available eCat electricity to residential heating or car battery charging as demand changed, that might work. An intersting constraint to consider.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    a. correct
    b. correct
    c. correct, but if you make a total shut off it takes 4 hours
    d. correct
    e. correct
    f. see c.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Reading your responses, I gather the following:

    a. The 10kWh/h output is done by running only one of the 100 eCat units in the 1MW system.
    b. The eCat runs either full output or off.
    c. It takes 2 hours to bring an off eCat to full power.
    d. SSM mode can last up to 2 hours.
    e. There is no way to turn off an eCat while it is in SSM.
    f. It takes 2 hours to turn off an eCat running at full power.

    Is this essentially correct?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    On the meaning of conjectures in Theoretical Physics

    Report by the editor of Physical Review C, rejecting my paper On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One


    Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:48:30 -0500
    From: prc@aps.org
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: Your_manuscript CB10370 Guglinski

    Re: CB10370
    Stability, magnetic moments, nuclear spins, and electric quadrupole moments of light nuclei with Z<9: Part one
    by Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Guglinski,

    We have examined your manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review C. We regret to inform you that your manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review. The manuscript does not present work at a level comparable to present-day research in nuclear physics.

    As the manuscript is written, the work comes across as a conjecture rather than as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work. The manuscript does not give one confidence that the work satisfies the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics. Meeting such standards is a requirement before a manuscript can be considered for publication in any of the Physical Review journals. Your manuscript fails to pass this initial test. Therefore, we are not considering your manuscript further.

    Yours sincerely,

    Benjamin F. Gibson
    Editor
    Physical Review C
    Email: prc@ridge.aps.org
    http://prc.aps.org/

    My reply to the editor of Physical Review C :

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: prc@aps.org
    CC: johna_6@yahoo.com; m.freer@bham.ac.uk; josehelayel@gmail.com; noerters@uni-mainz.de; j.dunning-davies@hull.ac.uk
    Subject: RE: Your_manuscript CB10370 Guglinski
    Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:46:46 -0300

    Dear Dr. Benjamin Gibson
    Editor, Physical Review C

    In your report you state that my “work come across a conjecture”.

    You are wrong. My work had been a conjecture in 2006, when my book Quantum Ring Theory had been published. But today my work is not conjecture, because what you call “conjectures” have been confirmed by experiments, published after the publication of my book in 2006. Therefore, today what you consider as “conjecture” is actually some correct theoretical prediction, confirmed by the experiments, as follows:

    1- The light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non spherical shape, as predicted in my work, and confirmed by experiments, although along more than 80 years those works which “satisfy the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics” had predicted wrongly that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have spherical shape.

    2- The aggregation of nucleons within the light nuclei is not promoted by the strong nuclear force, as correctly predicted in my work, and now confirmed by the experiment published in 2009, although along more than 80 years those works which “satisfy the high standards that one expects of current research in nuclear physics” had predicted wrongly that light nuclei are linked thanks to interactions by the strong nuclear force.

    Therefore you are wrong when you consider that my “work comes across a conjecture”.

    But suppose you should be right (but you are not), and suppose the correct predictions of my work should be conjectures, as you claim. However the light nuclei exhibit some nuclear properties which are IMPOSSIBLE to be conciliated with the classical principles of the Nuclear Physics that rule the working of any current nuclear model considered by you as a “solid piece of rigorous scientific work”. For instance:

    1- The excited 6C12 has null magnetic moment =0 and nuclear spin i=2. Well, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those two nuclear properties by considering any conjecture supported by any current nuclear models proposed as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work.

    2- The isotope 4Be7 has null electric quadrupole moment, but it A=7 (odd), it has non null magnetic moment = -1,399, and it has nuclear spin i=3/2. Again, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those nuclear properties by considering the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics. If you know any conjecture suported by a nuclear model proposed as a solid piece of rigorous scientific work, please tell me, because I would delighted hear that.

    3- The isotpes 6C9, 6C13, 6C15, and 6C17 have null electric quadrupole moment, but they have A=odd, they have non null magnetic moment, and they have non null nuclear spin. Again, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate those nuclear properties by considering ANY CONJECTURE supported by a solid piece of rigorous scientific work, capable to explain how those four carbon isotopes can have null electric quandrupole moment, since they cannot have a spherical distribution of charge, and they have not =0 and i=0.

    Therefore, Dr.Gibson, what you consider as a “solid piece of rigorous scientific work” is actually a fallacy, because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to propose ANY CONJECTURE supported by the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics with the aim to explain many properties of the light nuclei.

    If you dont know ANY CONJECTURE capable to explain the anomalies of the light nuclei, you have not the right of rejecting any conjecture proposed in a work developed from a coherent method of reasoning, mainly in the case of the conjecture to be confirmed by experiments, as occurs with some of the conjectures of my work.

    Eisntein also had proposed many conjectures in his papers of 1905 and 1916. He did not propose them because he loved to propose conjectures. He proposed conjectures because he had NO CHOICE, since his conjectues had been the unique possible solution capable to solve the paradox raised up by the Michelson-Morley experiment. If should be possible to solve the paradox by considering a conjecture based on the Newtonian principles prevailing at that time, then of course Einstein would not had proposed his conjectures.

    Today Einstein’s conjectures are not conjectures, because they have been confirmed by experiments along years. But if Einstein had written his two papers today, they both would be rejected by any editor of any reputable journal of Physics, with allegation that his “work comes across a conjecture rather than as a solid piece of rigorous scientific method”. And then his theory would never be tested by experiments, and his conjectures would never become correct predictions.
    Therefore, Einstein’s conjectures have been tested because his papers had been published.

    We live today a similar situation. We have no choice, we cannot avoid new conjectures, because there is NO WAY to propose conjectures so that to explain the nuclear propeties of the light nuclei, by keeping the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    My nuclear model is the unique work in which IT IS POSSIBLE to allow conjectures so that to explain the nuclear properties of the light nuclei, because my new nuclear model does not work through the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics. And some of the conjectures had been confirmed by experiments.

    Your decision, rejecting the publication of my work, represents a lamentable attempt of trying to stop the advancement of science.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    1- I am worried of certifying the ammonia fuel in cars, trucks, whatever mobile, mainly if coupled with an E-Cat.
    2- In this case I misunderstood your comment, sorry for this. Yes in this case, I mean in the case of producing fuels by the E-Cats, our technology can surely improve the competitivity.
    Sorry for my disattention: sometimes I read too fast…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    I answer taking in consideration that we are talking of a 1 MW plant, made by circa 100 modules of 10 kW each, since the single modules are not for sale. We will talk of the single modules when they will be a real product.
    Answers:
    1- 10 kWh/h
    2- 2 hours
    3- yes
    4- 2 hours
    5- 4 hours
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    My original question had nothing to do with automobiles. I was attempting, apparently unsuccessfully, to solicit information on the control times and properties of a single eCat. In the past you have stated that the eCat has a linear response to the input control parameter(s), e.g., input electric power turned into thermal heat. So for a single eCat,
    1. What is the minimum sustained output level?
    2. How long does it take to go from the minimum sustained output level to the maximum sustained output level? Seconds, minutes?
    3. Can the Self Sustaining Mode (SSM) occur while it it outputting the minimum sustained output level?
    4. If the eCat is at maximum power, how long does it take to reach the minimum sustained output level?
    5. If the eCat is in SSM at maximum output, how long does it take to reach the minimum sustained output level?

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I am not quite sure if we understood each other correctly. Are you worried about E-cat certification issues (which is not needed in the ammonia case), or certifying the use of ammonia fuel in cars (which, I agree, might be some kind of an issue, but is unrelated to the E-cat)?

    My point was that in the ammonia case the E-cats would only need to produce thermal and electric power in industrial setting, to produce fuel for cars. (If one could make hydrogen directly by an industrial E-cat, it would be a bonus, but not a necessity.)
    regards, /pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    Maybe good ideas, but have you a slight idea of the certification time for these devices?
    In future it can go, at present we stay well focused on what we can do: thermal and eventually electric power.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Regarding cars, it sounds that, as you said, E-cat loading a battery would be a solution. Its feasiblity depends at least on the controllability timescale of the E-cat. If the timescale is long, such as one hour, one needs a large battery and waste heat removal after stopping in a garage might become an issue.

    There would be also another solution: produce synthetic ammonia NH3 with E-cat electric and heat energy in an industrial plant (starting substances are water and air) and use the liquid anhydrous ammonia as engine fuel (see e.g. http://nh3car.com). Such cars have traditional engines, but they produce no pollution because ammonia burns back into water and air.

    Of course, as has often been suggested, instead of ammonia one could also use hydrogen as the energy carrier. But ammonia has higher per-volume energy density and is easier to store. Already now, ammonia is transported by rail etc. in large quantities for the fertiliser industry without notable safety problems.

    Ammonia is made by Haber-Bosch process from nitrogen and hydrogen. So once there is a good way to make hydrogen, turning it into ammonia is not difficult at the factory.
    regards, pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    It is impossible to make an E-Cat with the elasticity you are describing. There must be an indirect transmission of energy. Is not an easy task and I repeat that this application, now, is not a priority. Anyway: the E-Cat must give mechanical energy to an interface system ( to be defined) that can tranmit the mechanical energy with the necessary elasticity. Or, simpler, E-Cats can charge a battery.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When I drive my car, the internal combustion engine may be at idle (~800 rpm) or I might be accelerating (maximum torque) or crusing (some nominal output). Can the same be said for a single eCat reactor module.

    1. Is there an “idle” level (say 10% of maximum thermal output)? If so, what is that level?
    2. How long does it take to go from “idle” to maximum output? Seconds, minutes?
    3. Can the Self Sustaining Mode (SSM) occur while it it “idleing”?
    4. If the eCat is at maximum power, how long does it take to “throttle back” to an idle level?
    5. If the eCat is in SSM at maximum output, how do you “throttle back” to a lower power?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Greg Leonard:
    I will think about this. It is, basically, a jet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Greg Leonard

    Dear Koen Vandewalle and AR
    It is sounding a bit like a ram-jet, except there would be no combustion.
    The engine would be slightly conical in shape, with the air entering at the sharp end.
    The air would expand and increase in both pressure and speed from the hot-cat heating.
    At the blunt end there would thrust from the increased pressure at exit (on a larger area) plus some displacement thrust from the faster moving exhaust mass.

    If the heating of the air needed more time to absorb the hot-cat heat, then something more like a pulse jet would perhaps do the job.
    Greg Leonard

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Interesting insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    maybe the Hot-Cat is still too concentrated for the use in non-phasechanging heat exchange.
    That happens, with all new stuff.
    Otherwise -but expensive- could be valve operated pulsating flow per hot-cat. The hole in the center could be the ultimate place to put a valve on. The latest commercial Renault-TCE engine uses the pressure pulse at exhaust valve opening time to increase efficiency on the turbo. Apparently, turbines do like shockwaves. After decades of improvements on Internal Combustion engines, that seems to be a novelty.
    Just an Idea, based on your latest answers.
    Please, feel free to remove if inconvenient.
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    1- the efficiency of the carnot cycle is around 30-35%
    2- no
    3- should have the cristal ball
    4- all of them
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Thanks for the information you have been giving us, I know you are treading a delicate line between trying to give us information and revealing your IP, we appreciate your efforts. But could you give us just a little more information about the Hot Cat. 1) How efficient has it become using the Carnot cycle gauge? 2) Have you made any progress with using thermoelectric process? Do you see a future in using thermoelectric process? 3) In what areas of research has your partner helped you the most? Thanks.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    You are right, but I wouldn’t say ” science outcomes vs business”, I would say that the two fields must be well distincted.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    You said: “I don’t know the outcome of the 3rd party test, nor what they will write”. You also said the commercial issues are not related.
    The only possible meaning is: you (and your Big Partner) already know that it works. :)
    (Science outcomes versus business).
    Is that it?
    Thank you. I wish you a nice bike ride.
    Giuliano Bettini

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank Acland:
    1- No, we secured the safety certification for the E-Cats
    2- the certification for the Hot Cat is in course ( advanced). Obviously we talk of the induatrial plants.
    3- The product certification is also in course.
    Warmest Regards, and still a big Hug to your Readers.
    A.R.
    p.s.
    Now I spared 1 free hour: I go to ride my bike.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea, thank you for you responses. I just have one follow up, if you don’t mind.

    Last year we saw a safety certification from SGS which was for a voluntary self-certification of one of your plants. At the time, you said that this was not a ‘product certification’, and that would need to have been completed.

    Does you answer to question 4. below mean that now you have secured this product certification for the 1 MW plant?

    Is this also the case for the US hot-cat?

    Thank you very much. Some readers appreciated the hug!

    Best wishes,

    Frank

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Frank Acland:
    1- they are not related
    2- yes
    3- confidential
    4- we already got the safety certification
    5- close to be completed
    6- advanced, already under test
    Warm Regards and a hug to all your Readers

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    There’s a great deal of interest out there in your work, as I am sure you know — I hope you don’t mind some questions.

    1. What is the importance of the 3rd party tests and report to your commercial work?
    2. Will the US partner be involved in commercialization of your technology outside the United States?
    3. Is you US partner a public company?
    4. How is obtaining safety certification progressing for your first industrial plants in Europe and the USA?
    5. What is the current production status of your first low-temperature non-military plant?
    6. What is the current production status of the hot cat prototype?

    Many thanks and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>