Stability of light nuclei

by
Wladimir Guglinski
retired, author of the Quantum Ring Theory
.
.
Abstract
Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Helmhotz Center for Heavy Ion Research at the University in Mainz says on the 2009 experiment which had detected a neutron halo in 4Be11 with distance 7fm from the cluster:
“By studing neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics”[ 2 ]
In the case of 4Be11, the halo neutron and the nuclear core are separated by the distance of 7fm, and so such isotope represents the experimental proof that the cohesion of nucleons within the light isotopes cannot be promoted by the strong nuclear force.
Such experimental discovery published in 2009 had been predicted years ago, because according to the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, the cohesion of the nucleons within the light nuclei is not caused by the strong nuclear force.
Here in this paper the new nuclear model is submitted to a scrutinity so that to verify whether from its structure it’s possible to explain the stability of the light nuclei and to reproduce the nuclear properties as nuclear spins, electric quadrupole moments, and magnetic moments. Nuclear magnetic moments are calculated from two different and independent methods.  In the second, named “method of equilibrium between nucleons”, it’s presented the Lagrangian for nuclei with Z < 8.  The results obtained from them agree each other, and are corroborated by nuclear spins and electric quadrupole moments suplied by nuclear tables.
In this Part One are presented calculations on magnetic moments for the isotopes of lithium, beryllium, and boron. In the next paper Part Two will be exhibited  calculations for carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.  In the paper Part Three the author will exhibit calculations for electric quadrupole moments.
.
.

485 comments to Stability of light nuclei

  • Enrico Billi

    Dear Andrea,
    i am wondering if the Hot-CAT can supply AC power. Because i am dealing with new hybrid inverter UPS. These inverters can manange several power generators both DC power supply (solar pannels) and AC (utility or power generators) with also energy storage function into only one device:

    http://www.vectronenergy.it/it/prodotti/opti-solar/inverter-ups-ad-isola-ibridi/serie-sp-efecto

    I hope we can see the result of the report soon,
    lavoLaLe lavoLaLe :-)
    Enrico Billi

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You mention you are not going to go public at this time, and that you enter into strategic partnerships with individuals and corporations. Does this mean the Leonardo Corporation is still an independent entity? From some of your comments it seemed possible that you had merged with a larger corporation.

    Many thanks and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in April 10th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
    I’m interested to know possible links and contact points between your theoretical work and other “heretic” reserchers’ theoretical works on the same issue. For example, I read something about Julian Barbour’s crtics (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far#.UWU_la7canI) about classic quantum mechanics.

    Dear orsobu
    I dont think there is links and contact points between my work and heretic researchers.
    Because my work is not a theory concerning a specific branch of Physics.
    Actually my work is a System, which covers all the fundamental branch of Physics.

    My theory proposes:

    1. A new model of the neutron, based on the hypothesis of spin-fusion phenomenon (the electron becomes a boson within the structure of the neutron).
    Some reactions in the field of Particle Physics, which cannot be explained by the Standard Model, are explained by considering the spin-fusion mechanism.
    There is not a similar theory in the world

    2. A new hydrogen atom, which works with new concepts as follows:
    a) helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) of the electron
    b) non-euclidian space within the electrosphere
    c) change of the electron’s inertia within the electrosphere
    Such new hydrogen atom works by the real physical mechanism of the Schroedinger equation. When he discovered his equation, actually he discovered (without to know) the equation which describes the behavior of the electron moving with helical trajectory within a non-euclidian space, having its inertia changing regarding to the central proton.
    This new hydrogen model conciliates the Bohr model of hydrogen atom with the Schroedinger theory. The physicists believed to be impossible to conciliate them, and that’s why Bohr proposed his Principle of Complementarity, according to which some phenomena must be explained by considering a corpuscular model, and other phenomena must be explained by considering a wave model. My hydrogen model meet the corpuscular and wave features together. There is no need the Bohr Principle of Complementarity (his principle was denied by an experiment made two years ago).
    There is no similar work in the world.

    3. A new nuclear model, with a central 2He4 and hexagonal floors.
    This nuclear model explains all the nuclear properties
    There is no similar in the world

    4. A model of photon, which body is formed by particles and antiparticles of the aether, moving with helical trajectory.
    With such a model it’s possible to explain the EPR paradox without to consider the phantasmagoric action at distance.
    This photon model explains all the properties of the light.
    There is no similar in the world

    5. Replace of de Broglie interpretation for the duality. According to my theory the duality wave-particle is not a property of the matter, actually it is decurrent of the helical trajectory of particles

    So, my theory is a System which connects all the constituents of the matter, since from the photon up to the atom.
    There is no similar work in the world

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear eernie1:
    Thyank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    To the readers of this site,I would like to present a few thoughts while we await the TP report.(1)Trying to explain LENR by using proton capture(fusion)processes is very difficult because of the high energy(Mev)or the requirement of exotic means for overcoming the barrier that is necessary.I would leave this approach to the hot fusion experimenters and wish them good luck.(2)Electron capture is much easier achieved,is involved in many isotopic branching stimulations,and in some cases occurs spontaneously in certain atoms.The energy associated with forcing electrons into the nuclei are in the ev range(H-,D-,plasma discharges,rf pulses,electron clusters etc).(3)Use isotopes that decay with Beta emissions.With each electron capture you get two electrons emitted(conversion electrons and Beta electrons along with neutrinos and sometimes a small amount of Gamma).This is an analog of U235 where a neutron capture produces more neutron emissions(chain reaction).
    Perhaps the electron emission of proper isotopes can also produce a sustained or manageable chain reaction.(4)Possible isotopic mechanisms may include 63Ni to 63Cu,and 65Ni to 65Cu,both by Bete decay and both end products are stable copper isotopes.Copper has been reported to be found in reactor ash in early accounts by a number of reporters.Perhaps better isotopes were discovered in later experiments.(5)I would highly recommend, that if anyone has thought of a possibe mechanism,that person should run it into a patent application as soon as possible no matter how obscure it may be.This is what companies like IBM and Microsoft do.You don’t need expensive lawyers since inexpensive patent application packets are available and the Patent office will guide you for free if you make any mistakes in your applications.They are already issuing some applicable patents at the present time.If I were not independently wealthy and 83 years old I would put in the effort myself.Good fortune in all your efforts.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear barty:
    No, I think that our enterprise is still very risky, and, as I always said, I want not to play foot ball with the bones of the others. We sign contracts only with expert persons and corporations, perfectly aware of the fact that they are joining a warship, not a cruise ship. When we will be at a stage in which investments on us from unexpert persons will be safe, we will go public, respecting all the ethical, deontological and National laws.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • barty

    Hello Andrea Rossi,

    probably this was asked before, but is it possible to buy shares of your company?
    Or will it be possible in the future?

    Greetings
    barty

  • orsobubu

    Mr. Guglinski, you say there are multiple experimental evidences of something wrong in standard quantum theories. I’m interested to know possible links and contact points between your theoretical work and other “heretic” reserchers’ theoretical works on the same issue. For example, I read something about Julian Barbour’s crtics (http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far#.UWU_la7canI) about classic quantum mechanics. Please excuse me, I’m asking this as a perfect ignorant on the subject. I think, if 100 years ago the scientific establishment had been soaked in personal and/or capitalistic interests like today, also Einstein’ papers would have met many more resistance to publishing at first instance. Best regards.

  • Carloluna

    dear Wladimir Guglinski
    All my admiration for your theory. It is natural that the physics of the aether to become the new scientific paradigm.
    When the low energy transmutations will be recognized, thanks to your theory,
    astrophysics, biology, medicine, geology, botany (and perhaps even politics) will gain a huge progress.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in April 9th, 2013 at 2:55 PM
    Wladimir,

    1. Do neutrons have their own strong gravitational fluxes – n(o) – like protons do?

    2. If so, can they form hexagonal floors?

    3. Is there a theoretical limit in QRT to the number of excess neutrons that an isotope can have in its nuclear halo?

    All the best,
    Joe

    Dear Joe,

    1- As the neutron is formed by proton+electron, its gravitational flux n(o) is formed by the overlapt of their fluxes n(o)

    2- Only 2He4 is able to form hexagonal floors.

    3- in the light isotopes (because they have no hexagonal floor) the excess neutrons is consequence of Pauli’s principle and the Least Action Principle, as explained in the present paper published herein.
    The number of excess neutrons grows with the quantity of hexagonal floors.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Do neutrons have their own strong gravitational fluxes – n(o) – like protons do?

    2. If so, can they form hexagonal floors?

    3. Is there a theoretical limit in QRT to the number of excess neutrons that an isotope can have in its nuclear halo?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:

    I’m glad to announce a new experimental discovery:
    New experiment corroborates the structure of aether proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory

    In QRT it is proposed that the space is filled by the aether, which structure is composed by a particle and an antiparticle.
    The photon proposed in QRT is formed by the agglutination of both them.
    So, the particle and antiparticle are a fermion and an antifermion.
    The size of a photon depends on the quantity of fermion and anti fermion agglutinated in its body.

    A new experiment is corroborating such hypothesis:
    The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    In the item 3 of the article (The vacuum permeability), the authors say:
    “We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

    We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion”

    This is just what is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    The photon formed by a lot of particles and antiparticles (fermions and anti fermions) moves in the “soup” formed by the elementary fermions and anti fermions, a soup named aether.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear manuel cilia:
    1- no
    2- yes
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Mr Rossi,
    1- Do you think we will see any long time data from the military units.
    2- I have started to design commercial absorption chillers for large commercial buildings using the principal of the hot cat, I am assuming the connection between the ECAT and the chiller unit will be basic plumbing. Long term data makes the customer more relaxed about it actually working.
    3- Also can we vary the temp of the ECAT or is it one temp.
    Thank you

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Decision on manuscript by the European Physical Journal A, concerning the Guglinski’s paper Stability of Light Nuclei

    =====================================================
    Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:03:28 -0500
    From: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    CC: epja.bologna@sif.it
    Subject: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-102257

    14-Feb-2013

    Dear Prof. Guglinski:

    Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”.
    However, I do not believe that your proposed model of the nucleus is state of the art.
    Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.

    Sincerely yours
    Prof. Ulf Meissner
    Editor in Chief
    European Physical Journal A
    epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
    epja.bologna@sif.it
    =====================================================

    Reply by W. Guglinski:
    =====================================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
    Subject: RE: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-102257
    Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:37:47 -0200

    Dear Prof. Ulf
    what do you mean with “I don not believe that your proposed model of the nucleus is state of the art” ?

    My nuclear model is supported by calculations with two different methods, and both the methods give the same results for the magnetic moments of the light nuclei.

    There is NO ART in my theory. The figures are used so that to ilustrate the structure of the light nuclei, and the physical principles that rule their behavior.

    The last experiments in the field of nuclear physics in the last 5 years are showing that the principles adopted in standard nuclear physics cannot explain the nuclear properties of the light nuclei.
    Look for instance what says Dr. Wilfried Nortershauser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, regarding the experiment published in 2009, which detected the halo neutron in 4Be11 with a distance of 7fm from the cluster:

    By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics.

    The discovery of these exotic atomic nuclei created a new area of research, which Nörtershäuser as the head of a young investigators group funded by the German Helmholtz Association has pursued since 2005 at the University in Mainz and at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt.

    The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the halo neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the outermost proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5 femtometers. “This is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo character of this isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is thus much farther from the other nucleons than would be permissible according to the effective range of strong nuclear forces in the classical model,” explains Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers
    https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916

    Therefore, the neutron halo in 4Be11 is proving that strong nuclear force cannot be responsible for the cohesion of the nucleons in the light nuclei. and so there is need to discover a new nuclear model capable to explain the cohesion of those isotopes.

    My book was published in 2006, and in that time it was already proposed in my theory that the cohesion of the nucleons within the nuclei is NOT PROMOTED by the strong nuclear force. The experiment published in 2009 proved that my assertion was right.

    There is need to look for a new theory, with new principles, with a a new nuclear model, so that to explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes. This is just what my theory proposes.

    I suggest you to read carefully the paper, forgetting what you know about nuclear physics, because the classical nuclear physics you know cannot be applied to the light nuclei, as enphasized by Dr. Wilfried.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    =====================================================

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- there are no variations in price; the other questions are premature
    4- I do not understand the question
    5- yes
    6- yes, but remember the reserve due to the safety certification issue
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,

    It remains very impressive to read about the continued improvements on your creations.
    In order to avoid multiple repeats of questions and remarks, I’ve been waiting a while. But now, some questions are coming into mind.

    1: Does the “mouse” in the newest version of the E-cat do more than just replacing the gas burner of the gas-cat version ? Honestly, It is very difficult to understand a “gas-cat” without chimneys on the container or on each one of the reactors.

    2: You stated that the second “cat”-stage can be both: e-cat and Hot-Cat. Even more: the next 1MW thermal plant deliveries will be immediatly released with mouse and cat combined systems. Does this mean that de thermal plants have Hot-Cat cores, and that the former cores (with cooling fins) are obsolete and abandonned ?

    3: How much more expensive is this new system (in estimated percent) per MW? In investment and in refueling and labour costs, both for initial manufacturing and service ? The intention of this question is this: if COP was 6, and the price was 1.5M, then if COP now becomes 18 (just a number), and the price becomes 2.5M, it would be a huge improvement. Do you think it will be better than what I write ? Would you call this latest improvement “better” or “huge” or more “a quantum leap” ?

    4: do you have something that works nearly at the performance of double self sustaining mode (or enhanced driven mode) ? (“Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur”, but maybe something very close)

    5: You stated that now the modules are 1kW instead of 10kW. This makes me think of a device that has the size and power of an electric paint stripper. These handheld devices are capable of producing an air flow of 500°C and flows of some hundred litres per minute at nearby atmospherical pressure. Does this downsizing of power per Hot-Cat mean that you have found the best fit in power density for heat exchanging with gaseous fluida and that you are about to produce electricity using a very efficient Carnot cycle ?

    6: Does this perfect fit, if it is correct as mentioned in 5, mean that it can be expected that small scale electricity production will be a viable option in the near future, if and only if some urgent administrative and mostly juridical issues are solved ? In that case, I would like to replace my earlier reservation with this upgrade. At any cost within my personal range.

    I hope there are some positive anwers.

    Best Regards,

    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Robert Curto:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in April 7th, 2013 at 1:29 PM
    Wladimir,

    If there is only one 2He4 at the centre of any nucleus, what happens to the heavier nuclei as they undergo spontaneous alpha decay:

    1. Is it the central 2He4 that is ejected?

    2. If so, is it along the z axis?

    3. How is a new central 2He4 formed for the daughter products using the available halo nucleons?

    4. What conditions are necessary for a 2He4 to be spontaneously ejected from a nucleus?

    All the best,
    Joe

    Dear Joe,
    your questions are responded in the Paper No. 15, entitled Contribution of gamma-rays as the cause of alpha-deecay, which begins in the page 186 of my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    regards
    WLAD

  • Robert Curto

    Dear Readers, please Google

    http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/home.php

    Read about the small Generator that can convert heat into electricity.

    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    If there is only one 2He4 at the centre of any nucleus, what happens to the heavier nuclei as they undergo spontaneous alpha decay:

    1. Is it the central 2He4 that is ejected?

    2. If so, is it along the z axis?

    3. How is a new central 2He4 formed for the daughter products using the available halo nucleons?

    4. What conditions are necessary for a 2He4 to be spontaneously ejected from a nucleus?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    To our Commentators:
    I am receiving many comments asking what I think of our Competitors, or wannabe such: all these comments are being spammed, because, as I said and wrote many times, our policy is never to comment the work of our Competitors. The work of our Competitors will be taken seriously in consideration from us only when we will have evidence that they have put in the market a real product, or after some of them will have made a real indipendent third party test with a real product, able to produce kilowatthours, which means an amount of energy that beyond any possibility of error of measurement gives evidence of a real product. With all respect for all the scientists that are engaged in this difficult field.
    Therefore, please stop asking me what I think about what our Competitors and our wannabe competitors do ( sometimes) and say ( lot of times).
    The same is valid for journalists: when I receive questions regarding our Competitors, I reject the request of interview.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin:
    We train and make the exams only the employees of our industrial Customers to make them certified E-Cat operators . If the household apparatuses are not certified, we cannot sell them anyway.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Martin

    Dear Andrea,

    I’m still happy with your approach and invention, keep up the good work!
    Only a little dissapointed because the small reactors for home use aren’t
    delivered yet. My question: is it possible to train ordinary people like me (relatively fast) to operators? Could this speed up the certifications for home use? And I smell a nice businesscase!

    I’m looking forward for your answers!

    Best regards

    Martin

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    REPORT BY THE JOURNAL NATURE

    Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:24:08 -0500
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: NATURE: Thank you for your submission to Nature
    CC: wlasdki@yahoo.com
    From: decisions@nature.com

    13th February 2013

    Dear Mr GUGLINSKI,

    Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which we are
    regretfully unable to offer to publish.

    It is Nature’s policy to return a substantial proportion of
    manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be
    sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by
    the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
    succeed in the competition for limited space.

    In the present case, while your findings may well prove
    stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
    that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
    firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
    publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would
    find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.

    I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this
    occasion, but I hope that you will rapidly receive a more
    favourable response elsewhere.

    Yours sincerely,

    Manuscript Administration, Nature

    This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

    Confidentiality Statement:

    This e-mail is confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.

    =========================================
    First reply to Nature:

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
    Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
    Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:18:29 -0200

    Dear Peter,
    I have received the decision on my paper.

    However, the decision is very strange, because of the following:

    1- First the editor says:
    Decisions of this kind are made by
    the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
    succeed in the competition for limited space

    COMMENT: Such argument is very strange. Because if the new nuclear model proposed in my theory is correct, it can change the way of the theoretical way in which the Nuclear Physics has been developed up to the present days. Then if makes no sense to claim that my paper is “unlikely to succeed in competition for limited space“. A paper with the magnitude of changing some principles of Nuclear Physics merits to have any space at its disposal.

    2- The second argument of the editor is:
    In the present case, while your findings may well prove
    stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
    that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
    firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
    publication in Nature

    COMMENT 1: First of all, the findings are not of mine. The findings were obtained by EXPERIMENTS, made in the last five years. If the editor is afraid that my paper is threatening the Classical Theoretical Nuclear Physics, he is wrong. Because the Classical Nuclear Physics is being threatened by the recent EXPERIMENTS published between 2008 and 2012. The experiments are only corroborating my new nuclear model.
    So, if the Standard Nuclear Physics needs to be changed, the changing is required because of the EXPERIMENTS require it, and not because my theory is suggesting it. My theory is only pointing out a possible theoretical way.

    COMMENT 2: The paper provices equations, it proposes a Lagrangian for the light nuclei, and it shows how to calculate magnetic moments. Then, with the publication of the paper, other nuclear theorists can undertake the enterprise of submitting the new nuclear model to more and more calculations. From such work, they will be able to conclude if the nuclear cohesion of light nuclei is indeed promoted by the magnetic and spin-interactions, as calculated in the paper.
    The editor confesses that “we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding…”.
    Well but the experiments published in the last five years are very firm when they point out to us that the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics do not give any advance for us in understanding the behavior of the light nuclei. There is not any theory capable to explain the distance of 7fm between the halo neutron and the cluster in 4Be11. And now the editor decides to decline the unique theory which proposes a coherent explanation for the phenomenon. This makes no sense.
    Probably the editor is afraid because my theory proposes new principles different of those considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics. However his fear makes no sence, because the need of changing some principles of the current Nuclear Physics is not decurrent of my paper. Such need is decurrent of the last experiments published in the last five years.

    3- Finally, the editor says:
    We therefore feel that the paper would
    find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.

    COMMENT: this is no true. The paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster has been published by Nature in July 2012. If the argument of the editor should be true, that paper would never be published by Nature.

    CONCLUSION: the arguments used by the editor are not supported by the facts, and therefore the paper cannot be declined by such sort of reasoing.

    So, I would like to ask to submit the paper to another editor.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    ===========================================

    ===========================================
    Second reply to Nature:

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
    Subject: FW: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
    Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:44:36 -0200

    Dear Peter,
    what I had disliked in the criterion for rejection of my paper is the incoherence of the arguments.

    I could accept the rejection of the paper if the editor had used coherent arguments.
    For instance, he could say:

    1- I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work developed along 80 years of research in the field of the Standard Nuclear Physics provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding of the light isotopes, because the experiments in the last 5 years are showing us that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.
    However I regret to say that it’s hard to me to reject 80 years of research, and so I confess that I preffer to keep my trust in what we believed along those 80 years.

    2- I know that current nuclear models are wrong, because the experiments published in the last 5 years are proving that the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes. I know that strong nuclear force cannot promote the cohesion of the light nuclei, as we used to believe along 80 years, because the halo neutron far away 7fm from the nuclear core in 4Be11 cannot be linked by the strong nuclear force. However I cannot reject 80 years of theoretical work, along which we believed that the nuclei have their cohesion thanks to the strong force.

    3- I know that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics must be replaced. For instance, I know that we need to find a model in which the nucleons are not linked by the strong force. However I cannot reject the Standard Nuclear Physics. Instead of, I prefer to betray the scientific method, by rejecting the experiments published in the last 5 years (some of them published in the own Journal Nature).

    Therefore, we are regretfully unable to offer to publish Guglinski’s paper.
    Yours sincerely,
    Manuscript Administration, Nature

    Dear Peter,
    This is a coherent argument, and it is acceptable. But not that nonsense with which the editor declined my paper.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    ==============================================

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:

    The present paper Stability of light nuclei has been declined by the most reputable journals of Physics of the world:

    NATURE
    EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL A
    PHYSICAL REVIEW C
    JOURNAL OF PHYSICS G: NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICS
    SCIENCE

    All the editors used unacceptable arguments so that to decline the paper.

    Here are exhibited the reports, and my reply to the editors of each journal.

    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Interesting, but that application belongs to the cathegory of the domestoc applications, even if in public area.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    While at Boston airport, I noticed a few quartz radiant heaters in the covered sidewalks where you check-in luggage. These quartz radiant heaters have rated power consumption of 1000W to 6000W depending on model. Would not a Hot eCat running at 600 degC and consuming 1/6 (or less) the electrical power be desirable? The quartz lamps have a lifetime of around 4000 hours (six months continuous operation) so maintenance change-out is about the same.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ville Kanninen:
    Thank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:

    When I wrote the Part-One of this present paper published herein in Rossi’s journal, I did not discover at that time the true mechanism responsible for shrinkage of the orbits of the 3 deuterons in the structure of 5B10 (Fig. 39 in this present paper).

    I am writting the Part-Two of the paper, and I finally discovered the mechanism.

    In all the light isotopes the nucleus gyrates about the central 2He4, because there is nucleons in the both sides Ana and Douglas.

    But 5B10 has an anomalous structure. Its 3 deuterons take place in the side Ana only.
    Therefore, in the case of 5B10, the nucleus does not gyrate about the central 2He4. Actually it gyrates about a point situated between the 3 deuterons and the central 2He4.
    This dislocation of the center of rotation imply in the reduction of the orbit orbit of each deuteron, and therefore each of them induce a magnetic moment weaker than if the nucleus should be gyrating about the central 2He4.
    In this paper Part-Two it is calculated the electric quadrupole moment of the 5B10 by considering such point of rotation, and the value is near to the experimental value.

    Regards
    Wladimir Guglinski

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in April 4th, 2013 at 1:34 PM
    Wladimir,

    1. If only 2He4 can have gravitational fluxes – n(o) – how does 1H2 capture and maintain a neutron to form 1H3 (triton)?

    2. Does 52Te104 (tellurium atom) have 2He4 at its centre? If not, what does it have at its centre?

    All the best,
    Joe

    Dear Joe,
    I suggest you to read my book Quantum Ring Theory

    1. The proton has a flux n(o), but it is not able to form hexagonal floors.
    The structure of of 1H2 and 1H3 are shown in the book. There is no way to explain it without figures. In the book it is also calculated their magnetic moments, agree to the experimental results.

    2. All the nucleons have a central 2He4. The oxigen 8O18 has ONE complete hexagonal floor about the central 2He4. The 14Si28 has TWO complete hexagonal floor. The 20Ca40 has THREE complete hexagonal floor, and so one.
    I suggest you to read the present paper published here in Rossi’s JNP.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations for your wonderful scientific and engineering progress. If you think about the history of nuclear physics and its applications, what is your personal insight, why no one else could find this ingenious breakthrough before you, say already 20 or 30 years ago ?

    I think nuclear physics somehow stuck in the early 1950s situation and only very modest progress have been seen after that. Particle physics have been progressing a lot during the last 60 years, but nuclear physics doesn’t (says someone who is not physicist himself, but has a control engineering and information technology background …).

    Around 10 years ago I asked from a very bright young physicist why most of the chemical elements have known practically useful chemical reactions, but no known practically useful nuclear reactions ? In the area of energy production there are only uranium and plutonium fission. Plus there is hydrogen fusion in very high temperature, which still does not work properly at all after 60 years of research. Why aren’t physicists systematically studying all the other elements for finding suitable nuclear reactions for energy production ?

    The answer was something like that since nuclear binging energies are so huge compared to chemical binding energies, there are most likely too high barriers to start any useful well controlled and safe reactions. With your creativity and hard work, you have been able to find routes to bypass the barriers. We are all very happy for your success !

    kind regards,
    Ville Kanninen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian Luca:
    Yes, but the problem is not in the compatibility, conversion is easy.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gian Luca

    Dear A.R.
    Have you analized the electromagnetic compatibility of the ECAT/HCAT sistem with measurement of EM fild?

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. If only 2He4 can have gravitational fluxes – n(o) – how does 1H2 capture and maintain a neutron to form 1H3 (triton)?

    2. Does 52Te104 (tellurium atom) have 2He4 at its centre? If not, what does it have at its centre?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Antenna:
    1- yes
    2- no, they wait for statistics of industrial operating units.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Antenna

    Andrea Rossi,

    Regarding the home e-cat, are you running some of them somewhere in a continual fashion to obtain statistical information for your own knowledge base and to further the case for certification? Are the certificators running them as well to gain confidence in their certification.

    Thank you,
    Antenna

  • Martyn Aubrey

    Reply to Neri B.

    Dear Neri B.

    Yes! Ha Ha!
    Very good.

    Regards Martyn

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Georgehants:
    We have to expand our technology, the market will make selection wherever useful, in the context of the integration between the different sources.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian Luca:
    That is an issue totally out of our horizon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gian Luca

    Dear A.R.
    in a notice publicated here (http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Italian-Anti-Mafia-Police-Seize-1.3-Billion-from-the-King-of-Alternative-Energ.html) the mafia extends its interests in renewable energy for 1.7 bilion dollars. LENR and also ECAT/HCAT will be of great interest to the global economy and thus also for criminal organizations. Are doing something in this direction?

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi, you may have noticed that both the U.S. and U.K. have announced the beginning of construction of new Nuclear Power Plants.
    Will your future production of Cats be large enough to possible make these Nuclear Plants unnecessary.
    Best wishes.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Martyn Aubrey,
    then i suggest the E-Mongoose! :)
    Neri B.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in April 3rd, 2013 at 1:21 PM
    Wladimir,

    How does QRT account for such extremes of half-life as 10^-24 seconds (hydrogen-7) and 10^24 years (tellurium-128)?

    All the best,
    Joe

    Dear Joe,
    the stability of the light nuclei considered in my paper is regarding the nuclei with a central 2He4, which flux n(o) captures protons and neutrons.

    All the hydrogen isotopes have NOT a central 2He4 (and its flux n(o) ). A isotope formed by one proton and more than 2 neutrons must have extremelly short half-life.
    1H4 has half-life 10^-22s
    1H7 has half 10^23s
    1H8 even does not exist.

    With regard to tellurium-128, it is not a light nucleus, and it can be explained well by the current nuclear physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    How does QRT account for such extremes of half-life as 10^-24 seconds (hydrogen-7) and 10^24 years (tellurium-128)?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Martyn Aubrey

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Continuing with the thread of animal related names for the new e-cat, another possibility would be the e-porcupine, or e-hedgehog.

    With possibly a thousand 1kW quills this would really scare the Snakes!!

    Humorous regards,
    Martyn Aubrey

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian Luca:
    I have no news, but, as I said, the publication should not be done before the half of April. No discretion at all, I am no more in contact with the T.P.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gian Luca

    Goodmornig A.R.
    there is a news about pubblication tests of T.P.?
    Have you any discretions about it?
    We are all in trepid awaiting publication.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Per:
    1- confidential
    2- I do not understand the question
    3- we are working on it
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Per

    Andrea Rossi,

    Given that you state you have a good idea about the theory behind the effect in the E-cat, can you please tell us what the theoretical energy-density is (W/g in the active material and perhaps also as a function of the full reactor weight)? How close to this theoretical value you have actually realized? Also, is there any progress in the direct conversion project you studied months ago?

    /Per

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>