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.
.
.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
Not impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in April 21st, 2013 at 1:20 AM
Wladimir,
1. In the neutrino, as the electron moves forward in a helical trajectory, does the positron that orbits the electron still have its helical trajectory, or has it become classical?
RESPONSE:
The positron moves classically about the electron
2. Does the spin-interaction force F(SI) follow an inverse-square law? (Does F(SI) decrease with increasing distance from the source nucleon?)
RESPONSE:
I dont know. Some questions about the model will be responded in the future, by other researchers.
3. In the case of an isotope with excess protons instead of neutrons, how can an equilibrium of forces be achieved, since the only thing preventing protons from collapsing into the 2He4 is (at least) an equal number of neutrons that are utilizing their mass by pairing up and forming deuterons, or utilizing their F(SI) by remaining single and pulling the protons away from the z axis?
RESPONSE:
An isotope with protons excess cannot get stable equilibrium.
Read the item 2- Isotopes dependent on the spin-interaction, in the page 21. Some isotopes have a faster spin.
The centripetal force depends on the square of the angular velocity ω:
Fc= = m.ω^2.R
The magnetic force depends on angular velocity ω:
Fm = 1,6×10-19.ω.R
So, Fc grows more than Fm with the growth of ω.
Therefore, in spite of the mass of a proton is half of the deuteron, within an isotope with faster spin the greater angular velocity gives a greater centripetal force to the proton.
4. How can 6C8 decay into two 2He4? With the expulsion of two protons from 6C8, 4Be6 remains to potentially decay into one 2He4 and one 2He2 (a diproton)?
RESPONSE:
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium
Regards
wlad
Dear Giuseppe:
Please do not listen to these guys: what they say is one of the biggest stupidities I have heard of in these last weeks. Our company ( Leonardo Corp) is a USA company, our Partner is a USA Company, our business is mainly developed in the USA and in Europe our strategy in the short term is a development mainly in Sweden, where we are putting strong bases. The Government of Italy has absolutely nothing to do with us, whatever it is or it will be. We, as Leonardo Corporation, will maintain in Italy a R&D Center, in Ferrara. The Third Indipendent Party Report, as I explained many times, for the fact that is “indipendent” does not depend on me, does not depend on me the content, does not depend on me the date of the publication, does not depend on me where it will be published. One only thing is pretty sure, because the Professors have been adamant about this: it will be published. I imagine ( and underline IMAGINE) that, since the test is finished on the 23rd of March, 2-3 weeks have been necessary to write the report, so the report should be not far from being ready; then there is the reviewing time, I have not idea of the time it takes. I want not absolutely to disturb the Professors contacting them, that would not be deontologically correct. This very superficial demand of a quick publication of this Report is a ripercussion of the fact that in the LENR field it is the first time that an industrial module is examined by a Third Indipendent Party, and there is not experience of the necessary timeframes. Think to all the other fields of Physics, and compare: you will see that the time between a test and the publication of a third indipendent party takes minimum a month, maximum several months.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Some one around says that you, as italian, are waiting for an Italy stable government to autorize third party report.
Please, retreat from this intention, may be the end of E-Cat.
Nicely, Giuseppe.
Wladimir,
1. In the neutrino, as the electron moves forward in a helical trajectory, does the positron that orbits the electron still have its helical trajectory, or has it become classical?
2. Does the spin-interaction force F(SI) follow an inverse-square law? (Does F(SI) decrease with increasing distance from the source nucleon?)
3. In the case of an isotope with excess protons instead of neutrons, how can an equilibrium of forces be achieved, since the only thing preventing protons from collapsing into the 2He4 is (at least) an equal number of neutrons that are utilizing their mass by pairing up and forming deuterons, or utilizing their F(SI) by remaining single and pulling the protons away from the z axis?
4. How can 6C8 decay into two 2He4? With the expulsion of two protons from 6C8, 4Be6 remains to potentially decay into one 2He4 and one 2He2 (a diproton)?
All the best,
Joe
Dr. Rossi: For the last two plus years you have steadfastly held to the E-cat producing no more than a COP of six. With your new mouse cat are you willing to say the COP can go higher than six? Thanks
Dear Robert Curto:
Very good idea.
By the way: your comment is the # 14 000 !
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi with all you have on your Plate, I would like to add a Desert !
Cities spend an enormous amount of money to clear snow from Streets.
If you have the space, a Snow Plow will push it to the side.
You cannot do that on a City Street.
You would have snow 5 feet high on the Sidewalk.
What they do today:
A Front End Loader, scoops up a Bucket of snow, and dumps it into a Truck.
The Truck is then driven to a river, or a empty lot,(there are no empty lots within the City Limits) and dumps it.
What I picture in my mind, a Truck with a scoop on front to pick up the snow, and dump it into a 900C E-Cat, which will turn it into water, which will flow out of a hose in the back of the Truck, which will flow into the Storm Drain, on every City Street.
Is this possible ?
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Report from the Journal SCIENCE on my paper “Stability of light nuclei”
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
Dear Rudy Meiner:
As you know, we now have other priorities: heat and electric power production. A work like that implies our full involvement and a strict and not easy control on the IP. NDAs give the same protection of an umbrella under the Niagara Falls. When we will start to think to that kind of application, we will be open to elaborate an Agreement with ESA-ESTEC. Please forward my thanks to the Head of the Power Management & Distribution Division, we are really honoured of their interest, but we are not mature for this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paul:
Interesting. Direct electrical conversion is still under R&D process, though, and you know what I think about A&S applications. About MIT and my friends there: we all have been hurt by the tragedy of our great Boston, but this wonderful town will win against the adversities, as the Bostonians always did in the History.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
MIT has recently shown that ionic wind thrusters can be more efficient than conventional jet engines. The voltage produced by the direct electrical conversion e-cat is theoretically limited to the energy of the photons produced (KV’s). If these voltages could be produced with sufficient efficiency, e-cats would be an ideal energy source for ionic wind thrusters.
http://m.inhabitat.com/inhabitat/#!/entry/mit-developing-ionic-wind-thrusters-as-efficient-alternative-to-jet,516469eed7fc7b5670a415c1
Paul
Joe wrote in April 19th, 2013 at 1:03 AM
Wladimir,
1. How does a nucleon following in the shadow of another nucleon, affect each of the two nucleons, as compared to a non-shadow situation?
RESPONSE:
Joe, I dont know exactly how it occurs. I proposed it because it is the most reasonable explanation at hand. The space is filled by the particles of the ether. One nucleon moves in the trail of the other in a motion very close (because the orbit radius is very short) and big speed, and it is reasonable to suppose that the front nucleon interacts with more particles of the ether than the behind nucleon;
2. Must a fundamental particle have charge in order to have an intrinsic magnetic moment? (Does the neutrino and the Z particle have an intrinsic magnetic moment?)
RESPONSE :
According to Quantum Ring Theory, the neutrino is formed by one electron and one positron, moving with helical trajectory. But their motion is different of that of a photon. In the photon the two corpuscles (particle and antiparticle) move they both gyrating about the line center of the photon rectilinear displacement.
In the neutrino the electron moves with helical trajectory, and the positron gyrates about the electron. In the antineutrino the positron moves with helical trajectory, and the electrn turns about the positron. Because of this, the total magnetic moment of the neutrino is, in average, zero, because the magnetic field of the positron is cancelled by the magnetic field of the electron.
3. Is the intrinsic magnetic moment of a particle generated by
a) its intrinsic spin alone
b) its helical trajectory alone
or
c) its quantum spin (a + b)?
RESPONSE:
Its intrinsic spin alone
4. What is the cause of the intrinsic spin (not the quantum spin)?
RESPONSE:
When an electric charge crosses a magnetic field, the trajectory of the particle is bent: it starts to move in circular motion. This is a law.
When a particle is created from the agglutination of the elementary particles of the ether, the newborn particle gets a form of ring, because of the rotation of the particles. This is a law.
For instance, the 3 quarks of the proton gyrate, and such motion perform a ring. The rotation of the ring induces the gravitational fluxes n(o). The fluxes n(o) induces the electric and magnetic fields of the particle.
The intrinsic spin is caused by the rotation of the ring.
5. In what ways can the intrinsic spin of a particle be brought to zero?
RESPONSE:
Never.
If the intrinsic spin is brougth to zero the particle desintegrates, because its gravitational flux n(o) disapears.
6. Since the quantum spin of a particle disappears when the helical trajectory disappears, can the quantum spin also disappear when the particle’s intrinsic spin disappears?
RESPONSE:
Responded in item 5.
NOTE:
The first one to propose that quantum spin and magnetic moment of the electron is caused by the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) was Schroedinger. When I published my book in 2006 I did not know it, because the physicists try to hide some facts of science from the knowledge of people. I knew only that Schroedinger discovered the zitterbewegung of the electron in the Dirac equation.
In 2008 I had discovered in the internet the article The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by David Hestenes, where he tells that Schroedinger had convinced Dirac on the importance to consider the zitterbewegung for the development of Quantum Mechanics.
http://ckw.phys.ncku.edu.tw/public/pub/Notes/Mathematics/Geometry/Hestenes/GAinQM/ZBW_I_QM.pdf
But the theorists did not embrace the Schroedinger proposal, and his idea has been forgotten by the scientific community.
Regards
WLAD
Dear Andrea Rossi.
Today I visited ESA-ESTEC in Noordwijk, Netherlands. I talked to the head of the Power Management and Distribution Division. They would be willing to test the small or big ECAT (if desired under NDA) for their own purposes: satellites or lunar or Mars bases.
They have high security and excellent lab facilities and, of course, would add the highest level of trust for the outside world.
Regards, Rudy Meiner
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
The CEO of one of the most important car manufacturing company of the world told me that the certification process to apply our technology to cars or trucks can last up to 20 years. Can you imagine how much could last the certification process for a flying object containing persons? I am used to fight my battles one per time, win it and eventually fight another. Now we have to focus all our strength to make heat and electric power. Said this, your comment is interesting indeed. In future I cannot exclude what you envision can happen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I remember looking at the HotCat numbers from last autumn and they indeed seemed sufficient for a long-distance airplane, even saving some mass relative to the present practice of carrying onboard kerosene for the whole cruise phase. So it looks to me as technically possible, if control issues can be solved, to build a direct-cycle E-cat powered jet engine (i.e. a device with air compressor, E-cat air heater and air turbine which runs the compressor).
Coming to certification, perhaps an incremental strategy would work: first consider only long-distance cargon planes and do not leave out the ordinary jet engines, but only augment their thrust during cruise phase by new E-cat engines. In this way the E-cat engines still save a lot of fuel, but the plane could fully take off and land by its ordinary kerosene jet engines. Later one could extend to passenger aircraft and gradually consider using the E-cat also during takeoff and landing, and finally perhaps leaving out kerosene engines.
regards, pekka
Dear Silvio Caggia:
Good suggestion…actually, we are working on it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am very glad of the latest two-level e-cat model (the one with mouse and cat).
I imagine a multiplicative effect on COP, still maintaining an high safety level.
But… why not follow the suggestion of Angelo Branduardi’s song “Alla fiera dell’est”?
This means extend the sequence: after mouse and cat you add dog, club, fire, water, ox and so on… 🙂
Seriously… Imagine an onion like architecture, with the mouse inside, and various layers around…
Good Work!
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your suggestion. I have not experience and culture in Air & Space, but NASA surely has. I do not know, honestly, if our technology can be useful for them, but I must say that the contacts I had with their Scientists have been interesting. At the moment our priority is production of heat and electric power. It is true, though, that with heat is possible to make many things, but the question is if we can produce heat at the tremendous speed they need.
It is a very, very difficult problem, but we must never put limits to the Will of God…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Some time ago you expressed a view that developing applications in aviation for the ecat would be a priority for Leonardo Corp. At the time I read your comments, I was unaware the the United States had an extensive program for creation of a nuclear powered aircraft. The program ended in 1960’s. One design sought to use a small nuclear reactor to produce heated air which would then be routed into a jet type engine for propulsion. R&D contracts were made with Pratt & Whitney and GE Aircraft Engines. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powered_aircraft for more of this history.
Perhaps Leonardo Corp would interested in contacting Mr. Zawadny, or someone else at NASA to explore revisiting this technology with Leonardo Corp’s new source of light weight heat.
Best regards
Bob
Dear Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
I perfectly understand your anxiety, which I share, regarding the report. I have no news, because, as I said, I have not contacts with the Third Indipendent Party’s Professors since the end of the tests. I can only repeat that the publication of the report will be surely published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are perfectly right. To ease the distribution of clean fresh water is one of the tasks the E-Cat can do better right now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I returned last week from 9 days in Guatemala on a church mission trip (construction work on a school). We couldn’t drink the water because we would get sick — the same water the Mayans drink daily. We could flush with the toilet paper because their plumbing wouldn’t handle it even in the hotels. Such a change from the world I know.
I would encourage you to continue your work. Less expensive energy (heat or electricity) will change the face of the planet. Poverty will be eased and disease reduced by your New Fire. Please, please, keep up the good work and run the good race.
prejudice engineer, as we go? there are fresh news on the report?
I’m praying every day for his success!
Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
Thank you for your kind comment: actually it is true that Internet has extended infinitely the potential of a brain and we are using only a small fraction of this potential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
1. How does a nucleon following in the shadow of another nucleon, affect each of the two nucleons, as compared to a non-shadow situation?
2. Must a fundamental particle have charge in order to have an intrinsic magnetic moment? (Does the neutrino and the Z particle have an intrinsic magnetic moment?)
3. Is the intrinsic magnetic moment of a particle generated by
a) its intrinsic spin alone
b) its helical trajectory alone
or
c) its quantum spin (a + b)?
4. What is the cause of the intrinsic spin (not the quantum spin)?
5. In what ways can the intrinsic spin of a particle be brought to zero?
6. Since the quantum spin of a particle disappears when the helical trajectory disappears, can the quantum spin also disappear when the particle’s intrinsic spin disappears?
All the best,
Joe
Andrea Rossi wrote in April 18th, 2013 at 2:03 PM
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
We are resolving the problems, now we have found a very high stability at temperatures enough high to have good efficiencies. We got much help from the Readers of this blog who sent comments on this issue, we learnt many issues that we used.
I am really indebted with the enthusiasm of our Readers and the strong help I got from them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:
It’s interesting to call attention that such procedure used by Andrea Rossi (by improving his invention with the contribution of readers) had never happened in the History of Science and Technology.
Beyond his contribution to Science and Technology with the invention of the e-Cat, he had also introduced a new procedure of improving his invetion never used before.
regards
wlad
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
We are resolving the problems, now we have found a very high stability at temperatures enough high to have good efficiencies. We got much help from the Readers of this blog who sent comments on this issue, we learnt many issues that we used.
I am really indebted with the enthusiasm of our Readers and the strong help I got from them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Without revealing any IP, could you tell us the main problems you are facing with power production? Maybe friends on this site can help? Thanks.
Dear Jan.Gustavsson:
Our Swedish Team ( Hydrofusion ) is working very hard to allow us to put a plant for heat distribution in the area of Stockholm, therefore maybe your next winter will be warmed up also by the Cat.
Warm (!) Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Thank you for your answer, I did not hope you could be so prompt!
I live in Stockholm: where will you install the 1 MW plant?
Jan
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Selectively approaching targeted Customers, at least for the first stage of marketing, which is called the “Pioneers stage”.
This choice for 2 main reasons:
1- consolidate the technology in an easy to assist environment
2- protect the I.P. during the first stage of expansion
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jan.Gustavsson:
Thank you for your kind attention: I think that the next Winter will be warmed in Sweden by a 1 MW E-Cat. Hope you live in proximity!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paul:
Commercial priority: we are developing with our USA Partner a robotized line for the reactors even for the industrial plants. We will have also to continue to manufacture plants for heat production. Technological priority is electric power production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
What will be your top priority after the industrial plant is delivered on April 30th?
Paul
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am following your work since jan 2011 and I undestand that you made unforgettable milestones:
– jan 2011 event with the professors of Bologna university
– oct 2011 test with european and U.S. professors
– oct 2011 test with your “military” customer
– oct 2012 agreement with U.S. Partner
– jan-march 2013 third party indipendent test
now, as you said, delivery of a 1MW plant to your U.S. Partner.
Obviously we all are waiting for the report of the Professors of the third indipendent party, test that nobody has had the courage to make in 30 years of LENR history!
Congratulations, it seems the E-CAT will warm up our long swedish winters.
Jan G.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Usually in business, when there is a new product released, there are news releases, product brochures and an advertising campaign. None of this appears to be happening with eCat technology products.
Can you clarify your business strategy on how you will “get the word out” on your product(s)?
a. “Word of Mouth”
b. Demonstrations
c. Selectivly approaching targeted customers
Dear Tony:
I am very sorry, but I have absolutely no more contacts with the Third Indipendent Party Professors. The only thing I know is that the publication is pending, but I have no information about when and where.
We all are very anxious to read it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in April 17th, 2013 at 1:09 AM
Wladimir,
1. Are the nucleons in constant motion along n(o), or are they fixed at certain points? For example, in the case of 5Be10, you state that the distribution of deuterons forms an isosceles triangle. Is this a triangle that has fixed z-axis coordinates; or does the triangle constantly move along the three fluxes n(o), changing its z-axis coordinates, but always maintaining its specific isosceles dimensions?
RESPONSE:
The nucleons oscillate along the flux n(o), about an intermediary point, because there is repulsion between them.
Look for instance the structure of 8O16 shown in Fig. 2 (page 5 of the article). That structure is non-spherical.
If the nucleons should be fixed in the 8O16, it would not have null electric quadrupole moment. This is explained in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, referring to the Fig. 1.2 in the page 144 of the book, where it is shown the oscillation of the 6 nucleons of the 8O16.
As the nucleus 8O16 has magnetic moment zero and nuclear spin zero, and because the 6 nucleons oscillate along the flux n(o), then the nucleus 8O16 has a chaotic spin, and the experiments cannot detect its non-spherical shape, because in average its distribution of charges behave as if the nucleus should have a spherical shape.
Along 80 years the nuclear physicists believed that light nuclei with Z=N= pair have spherical shape, because they have null electric quadrupole moment, Q(b)=0.
Look for instance the spherical structure of 8O16 proposed by Martin Freer in 2009 (Figure 1):
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei
But in 2011-2012 the experiments had shown that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have non-spherical shape.
Then in 2012 the journal Nature had published the article How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where the authors propose explanations for the new experimental findings:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
As Q(b)=0 requires a spherical distribution, I had sent to Nature the following message:
——————————————————-
With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)
——————————————————
And Martin Freer had sent me the follwing answer:
——————————————————
The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin
——————————————————-
That argument used by the authors of the Nature’s paper is the same argument of mine proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, as follows:
——————————————————-
Note that as the 8O16 has a null nuclear magnetic moment µ=0, then its nuclear spin cannot be aligned toward a direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the x-y plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of a sphere, and the z-axis has a chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it should be a spherical distribution of positives loads, and not a flat distribution. That’s why the 8O16 has Q(b) = 0.
——————————————————-
So, after 80years of wrong belief that light nuclei with Z=N=pair have spherical shape, in 2011-2012 finally the experiments detected that such assumption was incorrect (as predicted in my book, published in 2006), and in 2012 the journal Nature had published a plagiarism of the argument proposed in the page 137 of my book.
2. What do you mean when you say that a nucleon moves in the “shadow” of another nucleon?
RESPONSE:
A nucleon B moves in the “shadow” of a nucleon A when they are moving in the same trajectory, and A is ahead in the motion. For instance, it’s similar to the “vacuum” experienced by a F-1 race car when one of them moves behind the leader of the race.
3. When you say that a helical trajectory a caused by spin, do you mean the rotation of a body about its own line centre like the Earth does, creating 24-hour days?
RESPONSE:
The free particles as photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., have the following motions:
A) Helical trajectory: its a circular motion with radius R, about a rectilinear central line.
B) The intrinsic spin of the particle: its rotation about the axis which crosses the center of the particle.
The combination of the two motion gives to it the “quantum spin” known in Quantum Mechanics, and some properties.
For instance, the free electron has a magnetic moment by three order of magnitudes larger than that of the neutron. But when the electron is captured by the proton and they form the neutron, the electron loses its helical trajectory, and so within the neutron it has not anymore that big magnetic moment. The spin considered in Quantum Mechanics is also consequence of the combination of the helical trajectory and the intrinsic spin. When the electron is captured by the proton and they form the neutron, because the electron loses its helical trajectory it also loses its quantum-spin.
4. Must a particle have charge in order to have a helical trajectory? (Does a free neutron have a helical trajectory?)
RESPONSE:
No.
The helical trajectory is caused thanks to the interaction of the intrinsic-spin of the particle with the aether, when the particle is moving. The helical trajectory is not caused by the charge.
As all the particles have an intrinsic-spin, all they have helical trajectory (when they are not constrained).
You can visualise such property by thinking about a kite having one side longer than the other when the child will spinning holding the twine to start running, because the air will cause a torque on the kite.
The intrinsic-spin of the particles cause the rotation of the particle with radius R about the rectilinear line along which the particle is moving.
5. What is the difference in strength between a magnetic field that is generated by the motion of charged particles, and a magnetic field that is generated by intrinsic spin? For example, what is the difference in strength between the F(M) of a proton in orbit about the z axis, and the F(SI) of a neutron?
RESPONSE:
Look at the Fig. 13 in the page 17. The two forces Fsi (green) on the deuteron and on the neutron cancell each other. So, the forces Fsi do not contribute for the equilibrium of the nucleus. The equilibrium occurs between the forces FM and Fc.
Read the item 1- Isotopes which do not depend on the spin-interaction in the page 20, so that to understand how the 3Li7 gets the equilibrium between the force F(M) on the proton and the force F(SI) between the proton and the neutron. When the neutron is captured by the 3Li6 and the a newborn 3Li7 is formed, there is an initial unbalance of forces, and do the orbit radius of the neutron increases. With the growth of the orbit radius of the neutron, the magnetic moment of the 3Li7 increases, and so the force F(M) on the proton increases, and they get equilibrium.
6. Why is the role of weak gravity insignificant in the nucleus?
RESPONSE:
In Quantum Ring Theory the gravity and the magnetism have the same magnitude. So one could expect that gravity would have to influence in the equilibrium of nucleons. But do you remember what I said before? There is a clouod of repulsive gravity G about each of the fluxes n(o). So, the gravitational influence of each flux n(o) is blocked, and therefore there is no gravity interactions withing the nuclei.
I think cold fusion should be impossible if gravity should not have the same magnitude of the magnetism.
Regards
wlad
Ing. Rossi,
What is the latest news on the report? Surely as we have passed the mid-April publication date that you have stood by on numerous occasions there must be some word from the indipindent certificators as to when and where the report will be published.
Tony
Dear Luca Salvarani:
You are not wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I don’t understand one important thing: even if you get an as wide as possible IP protection; how could you pragmatically prevent others from coping your technology and commercializing it, expecially in the domestic market? I think it would be actually very difficult indeed your policy of low cost and high volumes (the opposite for istance of pharmaceutical companies one) seems to respond to this problem. Am I wrong?
Thank you, and again good good work!
Dear John:
I agree with you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The IEA just reported that progress toward clean energy has stalled. http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/april/name,36789,en.html
The atmospheric CO2 level is increasing by over 2 ppm per year due to continued dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas to meet a majority of the 15 TW of Global energy demand.
The only way to end this fossil fuel addiction is to make the cost of clean energy considerably cheaper than fossil fuels. Scalability is equally important because we need to deploy several TW of this cheap clean energy within the next few years to avoid triggering climate tipping points.
Solar and wind energy are declining in price but will always be intermittent and location sensitive, and also lack the energy density and portability needed for many applications.
LENR however might meet the criteria of zero emissions, very low cost, high energy density, and massive scalability.
I hope a positive report on the Hot-Cat is soon published by the professors. Time is running short to avert climate chaos.
Wladimir,
1. Are the nucleons in constant motion along n(o), or are they fixed at certain points? For example, in the case of 5Be10, you state that the distribution of deuterons forms an isosceles triangle. Is this a triangle that has fixed z-axis coordinates; or does the triangle constantly move along the three fluxes n(o), changing its z-axis coordinates, but always maintaining its specific isosceles dimensions?
2. What do you mean when you say that a nucleon moves in the “shadow” of another nucleon?
3. When you say that a helical trajectory a caused by spin, do you mean the rotation of a body about its own line centre like the Earth does, creating 24-hour days?
4. Must a particle have charge in order to have a helical trajectory? (Does a free neutron have a helical trajectory?)
5. What is the difference in strength between a magnetic field that is generated by the motion of charged particles, and a magnetic field that is generated by intrinsic spin? For example, what is the difference in strength between the F(M) of a proton in orbit about the z axis, and the F(SI) of a neutron?
6. Why is the role of weak gravity insignificant in the nucleus?
All the best,
Joe
Reply by John Arrington:
===========================================
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:30:47 -0700
From: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de; helayel@cbpf.br; jyeston@aaas.org; prc@aps.org; apr-edoffice@aip.org; nature@nature.com; cjp@fzu.cz; ver@cisp-publishing.com; pnj@bauuinstitute.com
Dear Wladimir,
I said that I was not aware of any significant deficiencies in the current models describing the structure of light nuclei. The size of the proton is an almost entirely unrelated question. So no, I have not changed my mind.
I also said that there wasn’t much point discussing such matters if you were only going to base your arguments on half-read press releases and blog posts. I haven’t changed my mind on that either. Even in the short news release you refer to, they explain that we are discussing a discrepancy between techniques which result in extracted RMS radius values of either 0.88 fm or 0.84 fm. In either case, your referee’s statement that the radius is “about 0.8 fm” is still correct.
Finally, I suspect that the good people at various worldwide publishing offices aren’t interested in receiving copies of every personal correspondence you send.
Sincerely,
John Arrington
===========================================
My reply to John:
===========================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: johna_6@yahoo.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de; helayel@cbpf.br; jyeston@aaas.org; prc@aps.org; apr-edoffice@aip.org; nature@nature.com; cjp@fzu.cz; ver@cisp-publishing.com; pnj@bauuinstitute.com
Subject: RE: Proton Size Smaller Than Physicists Thought, Puzzling New Measurements Suggest
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:52:40 -0300
Dear John
In the muon-proton scattering to be made in 2015 and 2016 the experiments will get the proton’s radius much lesser than 0,84 fm.
Regards
Wlad
===========================================
To the readears of Rossi’s JNP:
Years of measurements pegged the proton at 0.8768 femtometers in radius
Such method is the electron-proton experiments
But a new method made by Pohl used in 2009 found a different measurement: 0.84087 femtometers, a 4 percent difference in radius.
Pohl and his colleagues didn’t use electrons at all in their measurements of the proton. Instead, they turned to another negatively charged particle called the muon.
Another goal is to repeat the scattering experiments, but instead of shooting electrons at protons they’ll shoot muons at protons. This project, the Muon Scattering Experiment, or MUSE, is set to take place at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. The facilities there will allow researchers to simultaneously measure electron- and muon-scattering in one experiment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/proton-size-smaller-physicists-new-measurements_n_3080196.html?utm_hp_ref=science
I expect that in the muon-proton experiments to be made in 2015 and 2016 they will get the proton size less than 0.84087 fm
Regards
wlad
Dear Brian:
1- industrial
2- industrial heating
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you are well. I had some questions about the commercial 1MW plant you will be delivering and your relationship with your partner, if your confidentiality obligations permit you to talk about it.
1. Is the plant being delivered for industrial/functional purposes or for research purposes? Will they actually be heating/powering some sort of industrial plant or is it there primarily to test?
2. Is your partner separately making its own E-Cats? Do they have the knowledge to do so independently?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
The shrinking of the proton
Dear Joe,
I think the shrinking of the proton’s radius is caused by the gravitational flux n(o) which crosses its body-ring.
The proton’s radius Rp= 0,275fm calculated in my paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON had been obtained from the deuterons captured by the flux n(o) of the nuclei.
Look at in the Figure 1 and Figure 2 of that paper.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516#more-516
The Figure 1 shows the shell thickness of some nuclei, from where I had obtained the radius of the deuterons crossed by the flux n(o).
In the old experiments the proton’s radius had been obtained from the electron-proton scattering.
The electron has a small mass (2000 times less), and therefore its flux n(o) is very weak compared with that of the proton.
So, the flux n(o) of the electron does not contribute significantly for the shrinking of the proton’s size, when they interact during the scattering.
As the free proton has a radius in order of 0,8fm, the electron is not able to cause the shrinking, and so the experiments detected the radius 0,8fm in the scattering proton-electron.
regards
wlad