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
With reference to the current physics concepts, implementing the gravitational constant in atomic and nuclear physics and studying its consequences is beyond the scope. 10 dimensional String theory is also not in a position to couple the nuclear scale and planck scale. Role of dark energy or dark matter is very insignificant in understanding the basic concepts of unification of fundamental interactions. Considering the atomic and nuclear physical constants till today cosmic acceleration is not yet verified.
.
Project summary
.
Project summary
Within the expanding cosmic Hubble volume, Hubble length can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Product of ‘Hubble volume’ and ‘cosmic critical density’ can be called as the “Hubble mass”. The three proposed assumptions are: 1) within the Hubble volume, each and every point in free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, 2) ‘molar electron mass’ can be considered as the rest mass of a new heavy charged elementary particle and 3) atomic gravitational constant is Avogadro number times the classical gravitational constant. This is a new approach and may be given a chance in understanding the four fundamental cosmological interactions. Approach may be different but involvement and encouragement may bring this subject into main stream.
.
Dear Georgehants:
1- I have no idea of what the indipendent report will say
2- we have the organization necessary to develope our industrial manufacturing and it is totally indipendent from any report.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When the third party report is published then the whole scientific world will at last begin to take notice of Cold Fusion.
Do you feel that you will have enough of a technological lead to keep ahead of them and others for a while.
Best wishes.
Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, I am satisfied, it has teached to us an enormous amount of data.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
It’s interesting to hear about the plant installed by the military customer, and to learn that you think the customer is satisfied.
Are you satisfied with the performance of this plant so far? How closely has it met your expectations and specifications?
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dear Gian:
1- yes, we are in dayly contact with him
2- yes, the recharge has been made
3- information is confidential
4- we are working very well with the Customer: I think he is satisfied.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Andrea Rossi
first of all thanks for your work and for the courtesy with which responds to our often insolent curiosity.
I’m wondering what news you are able to give of the hot cat from 1 megawatt delivered to a military Institution unknown to us.
It’s a long time this hot cat is operational.
We wonder if, after delivery, your customer has remained in touch with you: if requested technical informations, expressed his satisfaction or his complaints.
After more than 6 months of operation a fuel recharge has already been carried out by your technicians .
When recharging your technicians have definitely reported information, comments, news.
Would you to tell us something?
Would you to tell us what you believes is the degree of satisfaction of your client?
Warm regards
Gian
Caro Ing.Andrea Rossi
prima di tutto grazie per il Suo lavoro e per la cortesia con la quale risponde alla nostra spesso insolente curiosità.
Sto chiedendo quali notizie Lei è in grado di dare sull’Hot-cat da 1 megawatt un nuovo esemplare del quale è stato consegnato, ad un a noi sconosciuto Ente militare.
Ormai da molto tempo questo Hot cat è operativo.
Si può pensare che questo Hot Cat abbia soddisfatto il vostro cliente, perchè diversamente voi sareste a conoscenza delle sue rimostranze.
Noi ci domandiamo se, dopo la consegna, il vostro cliente è rimasto in contatto con voi: se ha chiesto informazioni tecniche, ha espresso la sua soddisfazione o le sue lagnanze.
Essendo ormai trascorsi più di 6 mesi dall’inizio dell’operatività dell’apparato, è già stato effettuata dai vostri tecnici una ricarica del combustibile.
In occasione della ricarica i vostri tecnici hanno sicuramente riportato, informazioni, osservazioni, notizie.
Vuole comunicarci qualche informazione?
Vuole indicarci quale Lei ritiene sia il grado di soddisfazione del Vostro cliente?
Con stima e gratitudine
Gian
Report from the Journal Science on my paper “On the stability, magnetic moments, nuclear spins, and electric quadrupole moments of light nuclei with Z<9 – Part One"
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:41:33 -0400
From: jyeston@aaas.org
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Decision on your Science Manuscript 1237385
11 March 2013
Dr. Wladimir Guglinski
IFET- Instituto Federal de Eduação e Tecnologia
R santo antonio, 637 / 306
juiz de fora MG 36015-001
BRAZIL
Manuscript number: 1237385
Dear Dr. Guglinski:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript “On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we will not be able to send it out for in-depth review. Although your analysis is interesting, we feel that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.
Sincerely,
Jake S. Yeston, Ph.D.
Senior Editor
My reply to the journal Science
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: jyeston@aaas.org
Subject: RE: Decision on your Science Manuscript 1237385
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:24:01 -0300
Dear Jake Yeston
I dont understand your decision, since you claim that in Science Journal “Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance”.
My new nuclear model is corroborated by the last experiments published between 2009 and 2012, concerning new nuclear properties incompatible with the Standard Nuclear Physics..
My paper is supported by two different and independent methods of calculation, so that to explain the stability of light isotopes (IMPOSSIBLE to be explained by the current nuclear models based on Classical Nuclear Physics).
So, the mathematcs and new experimental findings are strong evidences that my new nuclear model is the real image of the nucleus existing in the nature.
And if my new nuclear model is correct, it will change all what the nuclear physicists know about Nuclear Physics.
Don’t you think such a changing in the current Nuclear Physics has a great significance for the development of science ?
Don’t you think the nuclear researchers need to investigate my model ? After all, it is corroborated by several evidences, while the current nuclear models are denied by those several evidences that reinforce my model.
How many years will the scientific journals continue publishing fantasy nuclear models, unable to be conciliated with the nuclear experiments and the data supplied by nuclear tables ?
Do you think that continuing to publish papers which propose fantasy nuclear models, unable to be conciliated with the nuclear experiments, is the right way for developing the science?
If you think so, good luck with such pseudo-scientific criterion of publication.
regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Report from Journal of Physic G on my paper On the stability, magnetic moments, nuclear spins, and electric quadrupole moments of light nuclei with Z<9 – Part One
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. – G/466076/PAP/111441
From: jphysg@iop.org
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:29:16 +0000
Ref: G/466076/PAP/111441
11 March 2013
Dear Dr Guglinski
TITLE: On the stability, magnetic moments, nuclear spins, and electric quadrupole moments of light nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One
AUTHORS: Dr Wladimir Guglinski
Thank you for your submission to Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. However, we do not publish this type of article in any of our journals and so we are unable to consider your article further.
Thank you for considering Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics.
Yours sincerely
Tom Slader
Publishing Administrator
Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics
Publishing Team
Tom Slader – Publishing Administrator
Ben Sheard – Publishing Editor
Rachel Lawless – Publisher
Jacky Mucklow – Production Editor
My reply to Journal of Physics G:
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: jphysg@iop.org
Subject: RE: Final decision on your article from J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. – G/466076/PAP/111441
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:52:30 -0300
Dear Tom Slader
Sorry for my mistake.
I had wrongly supposed that Phys. G: Nucle Part. Phys. should be a serious scientific journal, devoted to publication of papers written according to the scientific method.
My new nuclear model is able to explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes, and the model is corroborated by the last experiments published between 2009 and 2012.
Then I conclude that your journal publishes only those fantasy nuclear models, incompatible with the nuclear properties of the light nuclei, and denied by the data supplied by nuclear tables.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Dear Neri B.:
The theory contains the technology and the confidential part of the intellectual property.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
It does not depend on me.
I signed an NDA, by the way.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Gini:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cortese A.R.
Ho testé finito di leggere “il segreto delle tre pallottole” scritto da Emilio del Giudice (già assistente del grande Giuliano Preparata) e Maurizio Torrealta (giornalista RAI) e devo dire che, per chi avesse ancora delle perplessità, potrebbe essere propedeutico.
Se ha del tempo, lo legga. E’ scritto in maniera professionale e, secondo il mio parere, anche
molto veritiero su come sono andate le cose nelle ultime guerre.
Cordiali saluti
Dr. Rossi: When do you think your new partner will reveal his identity? Why is he so hesitant to do so? Thanks.
Dear Andrea,
so the great dates for this year are:
1- Publication of Third Party Test (estimate end of March/April)
2- Installation of a low temp civil plant (March/April)
3- Installation of a high temp plant (within end of 2013)
Are you still supposed to public your personal theory about nuclear reactions inside ecat?
Where would you put this other important date? I really can’t wait to read about the theory
Thank you
Neri B.
Dear Valac:
When the Hot Cat will be ready for the market we will publish the average COP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
The published Hotcat’s COP on Ecat website is very conservative as heat loss due to convection/conduction and endcaps radiation was not taken into consideration in your calculation (Boltzman equation). From any prospective customer’s point of view, is it reasonable to expect that the average operational Hotcat’s COP would be higher than your nominal COP ? Regards. Valac
Good Evening everyone!
I just would like to inform you that my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ is back on-line again. Last week I made some very important corrections as also I throw away about 20 pages that cannot be considered at the moment as detailed and serious development. I am pleased to announce about the new version of my paper (SEPPv7) which is around 43 pages which includes subjects from Quantum Physics to Cosmology (the link for the paper can be found by scrolling down the web page). When you visit my new web site, you will notice just at the beginning of it, a nice illustration. Exactly this picture is the entire essence of my theory.
Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Kind Regards and Enjoy!
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland
Dear Giuseppe:
Our US Partner has decided, together with us, to maintain in Italy a productive unit.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Thomas Florek:
You published exactly what I said. Thank you for your honesty.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Next week’s “Tom and Doug Radio Show” features part of an interview with Andrea Rossi where he discusses his thoughts about the independent report, and his plans for delivering more industrial ECATs.
A video version of the interview can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGGwfKJ6exU
Dear Eng Rossi,
Will be the E-Cat a special opportunity for Italy?
Or,our frustration for politics, economy,legality and corruption is a never ending story?
Are you working to start a new “Risorgimento” for our story?
At this moment you are our only hope.
Giuseppe
Dear Steven N. Karels:
OK
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Please promise you will let us know when the third party report on eCat has been released and please provide information on how to access it.
Dear Valac:
I will not make any press conference regarding the third party indipendent report. As I always said, it is not connected with our industrial strategy or production: it is a purely scientific job, indipendent from us and our activity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Engineer Rossi,
Would there be a press conference upon the completion of the third party test – at least to mark the significance of the event, regardless of result?
regards. Valac
Dear Pietro F.:
In this period many important things are on their way, it will not take long before important events.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Buongiorno sig. Rossi,
per noi, persone comuni, la fiducia nel suo lavoro é sempre grandissima.
Attendiamo che il futuro dei nostri figli, grazie alla sua invenzione, sia pieno di speranza.
E’da qualche mese che non si hanno novità rilevanti riguardanti l’Ecat, perché non farci un regalino confidandoci qualche informazione importante e finora sconosciuta, non chiedo il segreto della sua invenzione ma, magari, un dettaglio del suo lavoro che possa riaccendere l’attenzione nel mondo.
in qualsiasi caso le auguro buon lavoro.
Pietro F.
Dear Wladimir Guglinsky,
I think that your interpretation is the only one that could explain most of Rossi’s says and actions. On the contrary, considering the big contraddictions of his behaviour, the only other explanation would be that he is joking and he never discovered any new energy source.
Reguards.
Dear Steven N.Karels:
1- no
2- no
3- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You previously posted “the primary fluid can be of different kinds: water, diathermic oil, liquid metal, molten salts…” and also that the times to change from full off to full on was two hours. This seems long to me. Perhaps this is because the primary fluid heat exchange uses natural convection to carry heat between the reactor portion of the eCat and the external surface (to the eCat)?
1. Is this what is happening?
2. Does the physical orientation of the eCat relative to gravity matter?
3. If you were to add active fluid pumping to the eCat design, would the times to change the state of the eCat be significantly reduced?
Francesco wrote in March 8th, 2013 at 6:01 AM
In my opinion this consideration has no sense.
If your new energy source would works as you say, and so if it is so cheap and clean, (1-2 eurocent per kWh and no waste of any kind), every other known energy source , would not be useful any more.
Dear Francesco
you are right, however along some years there will the integration between the different sources. The other sources will be replaced along years.
However Andrea Rossi prefers do not talk about, because he wishes to avoid the other suppliers of energy to be against his work. The best it’s do not make them angry.
regards
WLAD
Dear Steven N. Karels:
The economy scale will affect prices lowering them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giuliano Bettini,
No news about COP so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
you have repeatedly said you don’t know the outcome of the 3rd party test, nor what they will write. In the same time you also said the industrial and commercial issues are not related, and you are working hard on Hot Cat.
IMO this means that you have your personal measurement and / or evaluation of COP (which is, of course, very promising …). Isn’t?
Another question is:
what is your measurement / evaluation of COP at this moment?
(I understand it’s a complicate issue, but I mean the order of magnitude).
Thanks, have a good day,
Giuliano Bettini.
You said:
“as I always said, energy demand makes necessary an integration of the different sources, with advantage for any source.”
In my opinion this consideration has no sense.
If your new energy source would works as you say, and so if it is so cheap and clean, (1-2 eurocent per kWh and no waste of any kind), every other known energy source , would not be useful any more.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “the cost of 1 kWh made by the E-Cats will be around 1-2 cts, I suppose
2- at the moment the price of a 1 MW plant is 1.5 million $”
Let us assume a conversion efficiency of 45% (thermal to electricity) and a life time of 20 years of continuous operation. During the 20 years, the amount of electricity produced by that 1 MW unit will be: 20 years * 365 days/year * 24 hours per day * 1MW * 45% or 78,840 MWhrs of electricity. Assuming $100 per reactor refueling charge performed each 6 months, then the material (acquisition and refueling) costs will be $1.5M + 40 * $100 * 100 reactors per 1MW unit or a total of $1.9M. The cost for the eCat equipment and operation per kWhr is therefore $1.9M / 78.84 Million kWhr or about 2.4 cents per kWhr of electricity. This does not include the other capitol costs (turbine, buildings, etc) or operating costs. Typical current selling price for bulk electricity is $50 per MWhr or 5 cents per kWhr.
So for your 1 – 2 cents per kWHr to be correct, I assume the acquisition costs will be much lower due to quantity and technology improvements?
Dear Giuseppe:
1- the cost of 1 kWh made by the E-Cats will be around 1-2 cts, I suppose
2- at ther moment the price of a 1 MW plant is 1.5 million $
3- I do not know what can happen at this regard, but jobs will have their weight
4- as I always said, energy demand makes necessary an integration of the different sources, with advantage for any source.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I hope that the continuous improvement of your product go ahead unhindered. In the meantime, I’d like to ask you a few questions about costs.
The cost per kWh of energy produced by a nuclear power plant is about 9 c €, what could be instead of a plant with your Hot-Cat, of course not considering the burden of radioactive waste?
What would be the cost of a plant of 1 MegaWatt?
What is your opinion, if a more advantageous cost per kWh, these will be absorbed by the institutions and governments that do not want to run the risk of lower tax revenues?
if you want then, otherwise delete this question;I would like to have your opinion on how they will react in the countries that has in oil, the main source of income in case of a success of your product.
Thank you, Giuseppe
Dear Frank Acland:
1- the certification process id going on also for the Hot Cat.
2- March/April, as I said
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. You mention that issues regarding temperatures and pressures are causing difficulties and complications for certification. Does this refer to the Hot Cat, low temperature E-Cat, or both?
2. You estimated that the first low temperature plant will be completed and delivered to the first customer in March. Is this still on schedule?
3. Will your USA partner be manufacturing low-temperature plants as well as the Hot Cats?
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dear Neri B.:
The Hot Cats will be in the market, I suppose, within the year 2013.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
ok thank you. So it will be a low temperature application.
I remember your report in Pordenone where data were showing surface temperature of about 800°C.
At what stage of R&D you are right now for Hot Cat?
Let’s suppose i need, for an industrial process, that kind of temperature (800°C). When do you think you will have a working plant to be installed?
Thank you.
Neri B.
Dear Neri B.:
Remote warming, 110 °C.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
regarding the 1 MW plant you are delivering in the next weeks, can you tell us (I only recall it is a Hot Cat type) which will be the end-use of the plant? Will it be used as a pre heater in industrial processes or remote warming? Which will be the max temperature achieved?
Thank you
Neri B.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1- correct
2- yes
3- the primary fluid can be of different kinds: water, diathermic oil, liquid metal, molten salts…depending on the specific needs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
So the “Cooler” is the primary fluid circuit. I understand this to mean that if you want a faster reduction in the reactor internal temperature, you move the primary fluid faster to increase the heat transfer? 1. Is this correct?
The reactor temperature reduction would be limited by the primary fluid’s temperature. 2. In the Hot eCat, is there a separate primary fluid from the water being heated to 600deg C?
3. If the primary fluid circuit is not the water/steam being heated, then can you tell us what is this material (e.g., molten salts)?
Dear Luca Salvarani:
1- yes, but before having substantial news several months will be necessary
2- this will depend on the Partner
3- we are on our way along this path, more difficult than you can think, for thr temperatures and pressures involved, which also complicate things concerning the safety certification.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
The cooling is made by means of the primary fluid circuit. It does not affect the COP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
1) Are you on schedule with your first 1 MW civil plant, so we can expect news in april? Please tell me yes because I can’t wait!
2) Will you disclose the identity of your main partner on the plant’s inaugurazion day?
3) In the meantime have you achieved some improvements with the electricity production? I don’t understand why this application, which seems to me much more simple than the others you have already achieved, is so complicated…
In bocca al lupo e buon lavoro!
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You mentioned a “cooler” within the eCat reactor.
1. Is this an electric cooler? (or water based?)
If it is electric, than it must produce greater thn 10kW of cooling to negate the eCat reactor power. This would take much more than 10kW of electric power to do this. To maintain COP, I assume you do not use this cooler in your normal control system.
2. Is this correct?