Radioactivity Physics Fundamentals

by
Will Schmidt

.


Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Introduction
The purpose of this article on radioactivity is to explain and describe the following subjects:
.
• What radioactivity is
• How radioactive decay processes work
• When radioactive decay is initiated
.
Radioactivity is like the atomic nucleus speaking.

This article is really about the neutrino.  How can such a small particle with no electric charge and very little mass (if any) control the destiny of the world and all living things?
Listen, the radioactive nuclear atom will tell you.  This article will explain how the neutrino works and what it does.  What the neutrino really is, has not yet been discovered.
There are three types of neutrinos: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino.  They will be mentioned in examples below.
There are three major classes of radioactivity processes:
.
• Radioactive beta decay
• Alpha particle decay
• Decay of proton particles
.
These radioactivity processes will be described below and include:
.
• Radioactivity decay of the free neutron.
• Radioactivity decay of the proton (if any)
• Pion particle decay
• Muon particle decay
.
By these radioactivity  processes, nuclear structure is unfolding.
H. Becquerel discovered the ionizing effects of radioactivity radiation in 1899, and Rutherford showed that alpha particles were emitted as well as beta electrons.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.

442 comments to Radioactivity Physics Fundamentals

  • eric ashworth

    Wladimir,

    Thanks for the comment could not agree more. Discussions as such are elightning

  • Steven N. Karels

    Joe and Wlad,

    Can I assume we are talking about the Strong Nuclear force that holds together the nucleus of an atom? My nuclear physics may be dated but that is what I recall in my ancient days at school.

    If we speak as the Strong Force being the cause and the effect is a force of attraction, does that imply some time difference between the Strong Force and the force of attraction? If we speak of the force of attraction as being the cause and the mass defect as the result, again, is there a time between these? Or are they simultaneous? If they are simultaneous, then I don’t see how cause and effect is defineable. It is like asking “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Wlad mentioned electromagnetic fields (or other sort of interaction) but my understanding is the Strong Force was different from electromagnetics. Please clarify.

  • I’m not a nuclear physicist, but back again, I agree with Wladimir. Electromagnetic (or other) interaction comes first, and mass defect is a consequence of it. A good physical understanding discriminates between causes and effects. And mathematical models that are made to try to fit the results of experiments, can be a helpfull tool to find new or better physical laws, but they always have to be accompanied by physical understanding, trying to build or to improve or to expand a physical model/theory that explains ALL phenomena and that is confirmed by ALL experiments. Otherwise, we have no understanding of what really happens, or we do not really understand how nature works, and we are not doing physics anymore. The purpose of physics is to understand how nature works, and if possible, to derive laws by which nature is governed. And the examples (of experiments) that Wladimir has given on this and other fora, really prove the inconsistency of present nuclear physics, so we need a better theory and/or more understanding to anchor the floating ship of nuclear physics… 😉 And Wladimirs’ QRT is a good candidate for this, but of course, it still has to be proven by many experiments.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in July 29th, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    ——————————————————–
    Dear Wladimir,

    I’ll let Joe answer for himself. But personally, I don’t think that Hans Bethe is an idiot
    ——————————————————–

    Then I dont understand you, dear JR.

    You had proposed that the instability of 4Be8 is easily explained via mass defect.

    You say that you dont think that Hans Bethe is an idiot.

    However you are suggesting that Hans Bethe is an idiot, because did not succeed, along his life, to solve the puzzle of 4Be8 instability, solved so easily by you.

    You think that Hans Bethe is not an idiot, however you are proving to us that he was an idiot, because he was unable to discover a solution so easy to be discovered.

    Your mind is very paradoxical, dear JR.

    Now I understand why you have so many troubles to understand fundamental questions in Physics

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    The puzzle of 4Be8 solved by Joe and Mr. JR

    Question 1: why is the nucleus 2He4 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 4 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 2: why is the nucleus 6C12 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 12 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 3: why is the nucleus 8O16 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 16 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 4: why is the nucleus 10Ne20 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 20 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 5: why is the nucleus 12Mg24 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 24 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 6: why is the nucleus 14Si28 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 28 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 7: why is the nucleus 16S32 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 32 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 8: why is the nucleus 18Ar36 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 36 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 9: why is the nucleus 20Ca40 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 40 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 10: why is the nucleus 22Ti44 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 44 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 11: why is the nucleus 24Cr48 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 48 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 12: why is the nucleus 26Fe52 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 52 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    Question 13: why is the nucleus 28Ni56 stable ?
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    Because the 56 nucleons within the nucleus interact via strong force.

    ——————————————————-
    Question 14: why is the nucleus 4Be8 NO stable ?
    ——————————————————-
    Reply by Joe and JR:
    —————————————-
    Because 4Be8 has no mass defect
    —————————————-

    Question 15: why the explanation for 4Be8 is different?

    Question 16: the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe did not use the mass defect so that to explain why 4Be8 is no stable.
    Whay ???????

    ——————————————————
    Question 17: Do you believe that Hans Bethe was an idiot ?
    ——————————————————

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I’ll let Joe answer for himself. But personally, I don’t think that Hans Bethe is an idiot. You on the other hand are making a very strong case for yourself.

    By the way, the reason you think that my argument implies that all light N=Z nuclei must be bound is because you didn’t listen to it. In particular, you decided to mock rather than read the initial short answer I gave. While I admit it was largely a simple clarification of the definition of being bound, it was clearly something that you still fail to understand, because it is the key point that you appear to be missing.

    p.s. to be clear, I am arguing from conventional nuclear physics. I find the cause and effect discussion to be relatively philosophical (the way the discussion is going), and not, in my mind, relevant to the question of 8Be.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 28th, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    1-
    ——————————————————-
    There is no inversion of causality since there is no causality, just simultaneity as I have already explained. In fact, you seem to agree with me when you say, “The mass defect appears only when the attraction force exists.”
    ——————————————————-

    Joe,
    you are wrong.

    The mass defect does not exist if the force of attraction does not exist.

    But the force of attraction exists independently of the existence of the mass defect.

    The force of attraction appears because of the physical interaction between the electromagnetic fields of particles (or other sort of field).

    The force of attraction DOES NOT APPEARS BECAUSE OF THE MASS DEFECT.

    The force of attraction is caused by the electromagnetic interaction (or other sort of interaction).

    Therefore the sequence of cause and effect is the following:

    ——————————————————-
    electromagnetic attraction -> force of attraction -> mass defect
    ——————————————————-

    Sequence of causes and effects:
    ——————————————————-
    Electromagnetic attraction = cause 1

    Force of attraction = effect of the cause 1

    Force of attraction = cause 2

    Mass defect = effect of the cause 2
    ——————————————————–

    2
    ——————————————————–
    As far as force is concerned, it is a concept. You conceive of force as something created between particles. It can be conceived in many ways as history shows. But there is only one test to determine its true nature: its ability to be described mathematically. Magical creatures or angels doing the pushing and pulling of objects can not be described mathematically so rigorously as to be able to predict potential outcomes of their actions. Therefore, we do not consider them to be responsible for the initiation of movement. If you want to talk about force away from its mathematical home, then we will be dealing in fantasy. A true force only exists in its mathematical description.
    ——————————————————-

    Dear Joe
    many physicits (among them the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe) had tried to explain along decades why the 8Be is no stable (unlike, all the other light nuclei with Z=N=pair are STABLE).

    Now you and Mr. JR are claiming that the instability of 8Be can be explained by considering the calculation of the mass defect.

    First of all, your explanation is very strange, because we can apply it to all the other nuclei with Z=N=pair.
    And therefore:
    ——————————————————–
    From you explanation all the nuclei with Z=N=pair would have to be NO stable, and not only 8Be.
    ——————————————————–

    But let us suppose you are right.

    So, the explanation is very easy, according to you and Mr. Jr.
    But Hans Bethe (and many other) did not discover such so easy explanation.

    Then, dear Joe,
    please tell us the following:
    ——————————————————–
    are you suggesting that the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe (and all the other physicists who tried to explain why 8Be is no stable) are idiots ?
    ——————————————————–

    Please, tell us:
    ——————————————————-
    do you consider Dr. Hans Bethe an idiot ?
    ——————————————————-

    regards
    wlad

  • Steven N. Karels

    Joe,

    Mucho thanks. A clear, concise explanation.

    Steve

  • Joe

    Steven,

    Mathematics is only a language. It does not support one philosophy (reversibility of time) over another (non-reversibility of time). The only important matter in math is that no part of a system contradict any other part. Self-consistency is the only underlying rule in all mathematics.

    As far as time is concerned, it is both perception (due to our biological nature) and concept (we use it as a factor in physics). Neither aspect of time speaks to time’s potential reversibility. As a factor in physics, we can change its direction by changing its sign, but obviously that does not mean that it is necessarily true in physical reality. As perception, it is difficult to speak of the potential reversibility of time since it is a subject that skirts absurdity. For example, we perceive color, but can color be reversed? What does such a notion mean?

    As far as binding is concerned, the force is attractive necessarily, so no external energy need be applied. Part of the mass is given over to an equivalent amount in energy which is, by law, related to force.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    There is no inversion of causality since there is no causality, just simultaneity as I have already explained. In fact, you seem to agree with me when you say, “The mass defect appears only when the attraction force exists.”

    As far as force is concerned, it is a concept. You conceive of force as something created between particles. It can be conceived in many ways as history shows. But there is only one test to determine its true nature: its ability to be described mathematically. Magical creatures or angels doing the pushing and pulling of objects can not be described mathematically so rigorously as to be able to predict potential outcomes of their actions. Therefore, we do not consider them to be responsible for the initiation of movement. If you want to talk about force away from its mathematical home, then we will be dealing in fantasy. A true force only exists in its mathematical description.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    No, you did not show that I was wrong – you haven’t even tried to refute what I said. You have simply ignored physics related argument I made and pretended that you haven’t been given a meaningful answer.

    You choose to claim that clarifying why it is unbound, specifically that it is unbound only with respect to breakup into 4He, is ignoring the question and “inverting causality”. It isn’t, it directly goes to one of your basic misconceptions about the binding of nuclei. On top of that, I’ve given you a more complete explanation multiple times and you simply repeat the phrase “inversion of causality” over and over like a deranged parrot. It’s clear that have no real argument to provide and so you are forced to pretend that no one has answered your question or to acknowledge your error, and I certainly won’t be holding my breath waiting for the latter.

    As a side note, Joe misstated one aspect of the discussion; the issue of wavefunctions didn’t come up in this context. I assume he’s referring to the issue with 11Be, which is an entirely different question.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Joe and Wlad,

    Again some clarification. I always understood Causality to be a concept due to the forward flow of time. Action A causes Result B to occur. Although mathematics supports reverse time, reality does not.

    Arguing that at steady state two particles are at zero energy (arbitrarily zero) and together, they are bound and their mass defect is some non-zero value and that is equal to the energy that holds them together says nothing to me of cause. Einstein’s equation talks to me of the interchangeablility of mass and energy, nothing more. I still have no idea as to which one caused the other.

    The only thing I can say is that at a widely separated state the binding energy is zero (or low) and the mass is high. At the other condition, the binding energy is high and the mass has decreased by an appropriate amount.

    If the argument is that energy must be added to force them together (binding), should not the mass increase? But this is not what is observed. The mass decreases compared to the components. Please clarify this for me.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 27th, 2013 at 7:35 PM

    ——————————————————–
    Steven,

    The discussion was about the reason for the unstable nature of 4Be8.
    Wladimir claims that science can not presently explain it without the use of his Quantum Ring Theory which includes a specific balance of forces between nucleons.
    JR talked in terms of standard physics which includes the concepts of wavefunction (probability) and mass defect (nucleus is less massive than the sum of its parts).
    Wladimir responded that probability is not mechanism, and that mass defect is an inversion of cause and effect (first comes the binding, then the defect).
    JR responded that he had only given a partial answer, never meant to be complete, but that it was still a valid answer.
    I chimed in by stressing that the concept of cause and effect, while useful in everyday life, is ultimately meaningless in science since timeless equations dictate everything that transpires in the Universe at every moment.

    I hope that helps.

    All the best,
    Joe
    ——————————————————–

    And so, dear Joe, I have shown that you and Mr. JR are wrong.

    It is very easy to understand, from my two explanations, that mass defect is consequence of the binding energy (cause).

    Therefore, using the mass defect so that to explain the instability of 4Be8 is an argument based on the inversion of causality.

    And therefore it’s an unacceptable argument.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 25th, 2013 at 6:48 PM

    ———————————————————
    This implies that the mass defect is SIMULTANEOUS with the force of attraction.
    ———————————————————

    Joe,
    you can also realize that you are wrong by considering a mathematical argument, as follows.

    The mass defect is obtained from Einstein’s equation :

    E = m.c^2

    So, the mass defect is:

    m = E/c^2

    As you may realize, the mass defect depends on the energy E between the two particles.

    When the two particles are far away, the energy is zero, E= 0, and the mass defect is zero.

    When the two particles start up to aproach one each other, the energy E grows, and by consequence the mass defect grows too.

    The growth of the energy E is the cause of the growth (effect) of the mass defect.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 25th, 2013 at 6:48 PM

    Joe, I did not see your reply.

    ——————————————————-
    1. Although the rule of cause-and-effect is an important one to follow in superficial matters, it is ultimately an illusion since all phenomena are the result of a system of equations in the process of being solved. This implies that the mass defect is SIMULTANEOUS with the force of attraction.
    ——————————————————–

    COMMENT
    No, Joe
    the mass defect does not exist if the force of attraction does not exist.

    The mass defect appears only when the attraction force exists.

    It’s impossible to have mass defect if the attraction force does not exist.

    When two nucleons start up to have attraction, the mass defect grows with the growth of the energy of attraction. When the energy of attraction (binding energy) becomes maximum, the mass defect becomes maximum too.

    2-
    ——————————————————-
    There really is no cause-and-effect here. How could it be otherwise? If the mass defect is waiting for the force of attraction to act before the mass defect responds, this means that there exists a period of time when the force of attraction is acting and no response from the mass defect is forthcoming. But this contradicts your view that the force of attraction is responsible for the mass defect.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT
    You are wrong, Joe

    Your error is because you had not considered the growth of the mass defect, caused by the growth of the binding energy.

    When the two particles aproach one each other, the force of their attraction increases, increasing the energy of attraction (binding energy). The mass defect grows from zero the maximum as consequence of the growth of the binding energy, from zero to maximum.

    2.
    ——————————————————
    The only tool that scientists have to describe and predict physical phenomena is mathematics. When you claim that a mathematical object is not a force, you are divorcing the concept of force from its rightful matrix: mathematics. Then, all that you have left is your intuitive understanding of the concept of force. But one person’s understanding of any issue does not create a common understanding unless it is described in a common language. In the case of force, that language is mathematics.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT
    You are wrong, Joe

    Force is created by interactions between corpuscles of matter (or their fields): electric, magnetic, gravitational interactions, and strong nuclear force interactions.

    So, force is created by the interaction between matter.

    Mathematical concepts cannot create those sort of interactions.

    So, mathematical abstract concepts cannot create force, because force is caused by interaction between matter with matter.

    ——————————————————
    Mathematical abstract concepts cannot create matter, so that to create force.
    ——————————————————

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    A nail being hit on the head is a mundane matter where cause and effect have a role to play. You obviously missed my response to you that I posted in the last thread (July 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM).

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    Limitation provides definition.
    And a physical phenomenon that is definite in nature (example: the mass of an electron) needs an equation that is limited in nature to describe it.
    Open-ended computations on randomly chosen rules will never lead to outcomes that must be specific in nature (electron mass).
    The proof that such an approach does not work is that the book that you mention is about two decades old and we have yet to see any of its predictions come to pass even though we have had powerful computers throughout that time to help in establishing this supposed new paradigm of science.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg wrote in July 28th, 2013 at 2:15 AM

    ——————————————————-
    Joe,

    Science in the future will be based on rules and simple computations. These models will be much better at predicting the future.
    ——————————————————-

    Dear Peter
    I share your opinion.

    Some phenomena are so complicated that it’s no viable to describe them via equations.

    The models and rules suggested by you are proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    What is need now is the performation of some experiments so that to supply data, and later to make computations with the data, according to the rules established in my models.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Will Schmidt

    I found interesting your paper, but I have some doubts. I will exhibit two of them, and if you succeed to give reasonable arguments, I will exhibit other ones later.

    1-
    ——————————————————-
    Similarly, the proton is assumed to consist of a neutron, an orbiting positron, and a neutrino.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT
    We have:
    a) The neutron has no charge. So it cannot interact with the positron via electromagnetism

    b) The positron is a lepton. And leptons do not interact via strong force. Therefore the positron cannot interact with the neutron.

    So, how do you explain the stabilty of the proton?

    2-
    ——————————————————-
    By virtue of the weak charged current(3), the anti-neutrino goes to the proton and changes the electric charge from positive to negative.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT
    Such process violates the conservation of charges, which is one of the most fundamental laws of Physics.

    Do you think is it possible a violation of the charge?

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 27th, 2013 at 6:56 PM

    ——————————————————-
    Peter,

    As for cause and effect, they can exist only within an all-knowing mind if they exist at all. The only thing that we limited beings can do is create equations that describe associations between events.
    ——————————————————-

    Dear Joe
    if I take a hammer and beat it on the head of a nail that is fastened in a wood, the nail enters in the wood.

    The cause of the nail to enter in the wood is hammer blow on its head.
    And the effect was the penetration of the nail into the wood.

    And I dont need to write any equation so that to understand what is the cause and the effect.

    One of the big problems of Modern Physics is the fact that physicists rejected the logic in their theories, because they did not succeed to find a theory compatible with the logic.

    500 years ago Galileo already had told us that supressing the logic from the development of science represents the suicide of science.

    I share Galileo’s opinion.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe,

    I have nothing against experiments. I agree that they are vital. I don’t know exactly what you imply when you write about endless computations. Do you not believe that the time in our universe is in principle endless?

    Have you by the way read the book “A New Kind of Science” by Stephen Wolfram? Otherwise I very much recommended it. Even though I don’t agree with all the conclusions in the book, I think it is ground breaking. A new paradigm will rule Science some day in the future. Thanks to computers a new era has dawned where it will be possible to find the detailed rules that govern: biology, physics, chemistry and so on. And in that era equations will not be king. Equations are a straight jacket. They can only exhibit a limited behavior and will therefore only be able to approximate nature. Nature is much richer than Maths. I’m sorry to crush a cherished assumption of yours.

    In current science you are frowned upon when you do science and don’t use equations. Everyone tries to write there scientific theories in the form of equations. Even biologist. But this is just a type of useless snobbery. A way to exclude others from science. Equations is to science what Latin was to the Catholic Church. Science in the future will be based on rules and simple computations. These models will be much better at predicting the future.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joe

    Peter,

    Experiments provide solid numbers and finality to a question.
    Endless computation lacks finality and will, therefore, never be able to provide the right mathematical tool to describe a physical event. At best, it will be creating mathematical art that can only simulate a particular physical phenomenon and never represent it.

    As for cause and effect, they can exist only within an all-knowing mind if they exist at all. The only thing that we limited beings can do is create equations that describe associations between events.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in July 27th, 2013 at 1:18 AM

    Wladimir,

    We are all aware of the denial by powerful individuals who hold sway in academia of LENR. Andrea has solid proof but still there is denial and with it lack of interest by the news media.

    COMMENT
    Dear Eric,
    not only by news media, but Rossi’s technology is also neglected yet by the scientific community in general.

    So, as it so hard to get acceptation even for cold fusion technology ( which is supported by so many experiments) published in Rossi’s JNP along more than 2 years, then we realize how harder is to get acceptance for new theories which defy the current theories.

    regards
    wlad

  • orsobubu

    Joseph Fine, I hope in the 2.5% calculation the nuclear fission quota will soon head towards the zero. Talking about quadrillions numbers, it is estimated that in Fukushima reactor n.2 there could be nearly 12 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive cesium (not to mention other nastier elements) in only one trench filled with water going directly from the 3 melted nuclear cores to the ocean.

    This is one aspect of the tragedy, full of countless other criticalities and spewing deadly particles into water, ground and atmosphere all around the globe, going on since march 2011 and with no end in sight for at least 20 or 30 years from now. This catastrophical event is poisoning especially the pacific ocean and the western shores of USA, but the entire northern emosphere is already affected. Large parts of Japan could become lost territories for millions of years if another big quake strikes, collapsing the already compromised structures where all the exhausted fuel is stored.

    Capitalism here is surely the greatest accountable, unable to allocate sufficient capitals to manage such a critical technology, with capitalistic conglomerates aiming exclusively not to damage their shareholders rather then make an international coalition to fight the monster. In general, I see in the capitalistic system of production the worst danger to mankind, because the inevitable marxistic fall of the profit rate is a constant menace of crisis and war, much, much more than a simple shortening of energy sources.

    You can see this phenomenon at work also during the current economic crisis, where the fall of oil and energy prices, overproduction and unemployment are way more to blame than non existent scarcities in the commodities. I can assure that the real crisis will start when also in Asia the growth will start to falter due to the inability to further extend the market uptake of produced goods; just the opposite of what you say. For example, geopolitical tensions in Middle East must be interpreted just as a strategic positioning especially between China and the U.S. in the struggle for the conquest of markets and definitely not as due to energy issues.

    In this perspective, I warn the readers not to delude themselves too much on the miraculous virtues of new energy sources, which if anything can – because of falling prices – accelerate even more the contradictions of this fragile economic system.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Prof. Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for your insight.
    I agreee.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, your partners and readers:

    According to the Energy Information Agency, future world energy demand will increase by 56% by 2040.

    See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-25/world-to-use-56-more-energy-by-2040-led-by-asia-eia-predicts.html

    “World energy consumption will rise 56 percent in the next three decades, driven by growth in developing countries such as China and India, the Energy Information Administration said.”

    “Demand will increase to 820 quadrillion British thermal units in 2040 from 524 quadrillion in 2010, the EIA said in the International Energy Outlook 2013, with the two Asian countries accounting for half the gain. One quadrillion Btu is equal to 172 million barrels of crude oil. China, which used 3.4 percent more energy than the U.S. in 2010, is expected to double U.S. demand by 2040.”

    The report also made these predictions:

    — Fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas and coal, will supply almost 80 percent of world energy through 2040.

    — Natural gas use will grow 64 percent, faster than any other fossil fuel. Consumption will be 185 trillion cubic feet in 2040, up from 113 trillion in 2010.

    — Renewable and nuclear, the fastest-growing sources, will increase by 2.5 percent a year.

    — Coal consumption will rise 1.3 percent a year to 220 quadrillion Btu in 2040 from 147 quadrillion.

    — Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase 46 percent to 45 billion metric tons by 2040.

    — Net electricity generation will almost double, rising to 39 trillion kilowatt-hours from 20.2 trillion.

    1: Do you have any idea how busy you and your partners/team are going to be?
    An increase of 2.5% per year is only the beginning! After several years, you will have to mass produce the factories to produce the products.

    2: How will be able to communicate with you if you are working an impossible 48 hours per day!

    Doubling world electricity production is going to be a tough problem.

    Powerful regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco Serra:
    Both.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    David LaFleur,

    The issue sounds reasonable but business questions need to be addressed:

    a. How many villages are there that could benefit from an eCat? How much do they currently spend or cost on heating & electricity?
    b. Thermal and electricity requirements?
    c. Legal liabilities if an eCat should fail (during the winter time, this could be bad) I assume an oil back-up would be needed
    d. Other countries and commerical opportunities? artic and southern circles?
    e. logistical support – trained maintenance techs and companies to service the units – sounds like the 6 month fuel change would be required during the spring and fall when the area is accessible?
    f. probably other concerns???

    Not a showstopper, and a great application, but there are business concerns.

  • Marco Serra

    Dear Ing. Rossi.
    in the last 2 years to immagine a future applications list was my favorite hobby. ECat announcement gave me the optimism I’ve never got in this era of global warming.

    I think there can be 2 possible lists of future long term applications: one that takes in accounnt an ECat that need electricity to produce heat and one other for an ECat that self-produce the electricity it need and possibly a bit more.
    No need to say that the second list would be much much more interesting.

    Which list do you think it’s better for us to compile ?

    Best Regards
    Marco

  • Peter Forsberg

    Continued from last post: The future in physics lie in computation of simple rules. So, it is wrong to claim that the pursuit of causality is futile.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe,

    You stated several comments back that Mathemathics was the only tool for science. But Math is just a shortcut for simple calculations. Advanced math (e.g. Matrices) provides extreme such shortcuts. But science based on math will only be an approximation of the world.

    Steven Wolfram has proven that simple rules (or calculations if you will) executed on a massive scale can yield vast complexity. Before the age of computers math made sense. But the future in physics

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir,

    I take note of your reply and appreciate your comments but without Andrea’s JONP I would not be aware of yourself or QRT. We are all aware of the denial by powerful individuals who hold sway in academia of LENR. Andrea has solid proof but still there is denial and with it lack of interest by the news media. You yourself Wladimir have been rejected by a publisher. What is wrong with putting a theory forward for evaluation?. Apparently there seems to be with regards your theory. What this amounts to is that you are not allowed to express yourself. So there is a problem with freedom of expression but this does not just apply to you, it applies to many,many people who go against the present establishment with its enforced stricture. Very frustrating to say the least but as annoying as it is I understand that it is according to ‘the systemic system of human evolution’. Why would I say such a thing. Because I have been told by people involved with the establishment which is government organization funded by industry to a large extent, that there are technologies before their time and I believe also theories such as QRT that fall into the same category. This I believe is the importance of the JONP because it’s a link where people can express their ideas without being censored and I am sure it will prove itself sometime in the not too distant future of such importance together of course with the acceptance of the E-Cat technology by the informed general public. My theory with regards cubic neutrals is in fact embodied with a patent, lots of problems, too complicated to explain and of no importance. Briefly, it’s a mechanical unifying field oscillator that is designed upon four dimensions, each of which represents a 90 degree angle situated between two manufactured potentials of power. Why four dimensions?. Because there are four dimensions in nature. Solid – Liquid – Gas – Aether. Mineral – Vegetable – Animal – Man contained between two gravity values. This subject is technical and I realize it is before its time and therefore it has limited general public appeal. Consequently, I use the JONP to express myself and of course I enjoy reading the published thoughts regarding LENR and nuclear physics in general. Where else in the world are you going to have such freedom of expression with regards such a technical subject.

    P.S. As an analogy with regards a binary system. Matter with its negative and positive. Anti-matter with its negative and positive constitute four dimensions of nature or you can envisage a negative/positive body with a negative/positive spirit that animates the fully fused positive principle (body) that is always between two gravity values. Consequently,nature has a pulse as it responds to each in turn. Physics is a fascinating subject. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Andrea Rossi

    David La Fleur:
    You are perfectly right. I agree.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • David LaFleur

    Dear Mr. Rossi;
    Regarding future applications:

    Many small northern arctic villages in Canada (elsewhere?) are heated via a central plant. A insulated utililty corridor runs hot water to each house for heating purposes. They also generate electricity.

    These plants run on oil. This oil is barged in over great distance once a year during the short summer and is often in drums. Very expensive. If e-cat could solve the heating problem it would seem economical- if it could produce electricity amazing. These are very small towns, so a large plant may not be needed.

  • Andrea Rossi

    renatoestri:
    Thank you, interesting,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Maybe the germ of a great idea. Today we have decided to open a new divison in our organization, with a proper responsible: ” Future Applications Division”. To study where is more convenient we put our efforts for the long term . Your comment is inspiring in this sense.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Will,
    Nice tutorial paper! I would like to expand it somewhat to clarify my thoughts on the mechanisms involved in LENR.
    When the nucleons are disrupted in nuclei, the strong forces which holds them together, responds through the formation of 10Mev photons. These photons for example in a decay process, are absorbed to some extent by the products of that decay. These include the ubiquitous neutrinos, Beta particles, etc. An example of this is 60Co which when it decays, produces a neutrino, a Beta particle and two Gamma photons of approximately 1.5Mev each which exit the nucleus. Most nuclear reactions therefore produce some Gamma emission. This point is used by mainline physicists to dismiss LENR since only minor amounts have been reported by investigators. However, when a decay is effected by electron capture, the sum total of the 10Mev photon can be captured by the neutrinos, Beta electrons and the conversion electrons which are produced. All these comments can be verified in published peer reviewed papers. The net effect is energetic electrons ejected into the surrounding atomic structures capable of absorbing them to produce thermal phonons. the main purpose of the H atoms is to force 1S electrons into the nucleus perhaps through the influence of their negative nature(H- ions).

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Steven N Karels,
    Once, LENR will become commonplace. The sooner the better. We all count on Andrea and his Partner for that.
    But then, once commonplace, to obtain a patent, the inventor must not do the obvious. In particular, the operations that a skilled person would do in order to obtain the same effect.
    From what I understand of your suggestion, and from some of the explanations that exist on LENR, the process that you describe is more or less obvious.
    Especially when compared with something very unexpected as being self sustaining (1) and very cheap (2).

    But, as always, I could be wrong. Therefore, it is with most gratitude that I receive the fruits of effort in proving my wrongness. These fruits contain the inspiration for improvements. Sometimes, as with plums, you spit out the pit and only eat the flesh. One should never bite the pit, that is intended as a seed. The pits of intentionally (genetically) modified fruits must not be seeded. They should be converted into biofuel to be of use.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    With the long term theoretical physics battles, we have strayed from talking about eCat applications.

    The significant characteristic of the eCat technology, in my humble opinion, is that it is excellent for long term, constant output applications. An example of this is the baseload electric power plant, previously discussed.

    Two other applications that come to mind are:

    naval powerplants and railroad powerplants

    The naval powerplants feature long duration (weeks or months) of near constant output. My thoughts would be an eCat electricity to electric motor approach. Use of batteries for startup situations.

    The locomotive approach would be modeled after the diesel-electric but replacing the diesel/generator with an eCat electricity production unit. Somewhere arounf a MW capacity would be needed – maybe 300 10kW eCats could do the job?

    What do people think? Is this nonsense or the germ of a great idea?

  • renatoestri

    Dear Andrea,
    exploring the state-of-the-art in Rankine
    organic cycle, there is an interesting
    publication at the following link:

    http://www.slideshare.net/IcenovaEngineering/intervento-al-klimaenergy2011-prof-marco-marengo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    What you propose should have to be tested. Interesting idea.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Based on your extensive experience with eCat technology, do you believe an LENR output of power could be obtained with a Nickel nanopowder (no catalyst) and a low pressure (< 1 atmosphere) plasma of Hydrogen. I am assuming the Nickel would be nano-particles and adhered to the inside surface of the enclosure containing the plasma.

    This would probably not be commercially viable as the energy density would be so low but it might be of scientific interest.

    An experiment might be to use an inert gas, raise the container's temperature to the point of Nickel activation and then induce a plasma. This would establish the baseline thermal conditions. Then pump out the inert gas and replace it with Hydrogen. Repeat the experiment. Any increase might indicate LENR activity.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    1- top
    2- remarkable
    3- at last I can dedicate all my time to the scientific improvement, focusing on this all my energy
    4- I am very optimist about this .
    Thank you for your contonuous attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Understanding you are not able to answer specific questions regarding the current state of your technology and R & D, I wonder if you could indicate in general terms:

    1. What is your level of satisfaction about the direction the E-Cat is going?
    2. What is the rate of improvement to your systems since you have made your partnership?
    3. How much enjoyment are you having in your role as Chief Scientist?
    4. What is your level of optimism of seeing E-Cat products diffused in the marketplace over the next few years?

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in July 25th, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    1-
    Could this be the case Wladimir or am I missing something that would prevent such an activity regarding an outer layer of quarks from being possible?

    COMMENT
    Dear Eric
    it’ hard to get enough knowledge on a theory explained in few words, as you did. Besides, we dont know the fundamental principles that rule the models of your theory.
    I suggest you to write a book, so that to explain your theory.

    2-
    Also what do think about my other thoughts, would they be refuted by the academics?

    COMMENT
    Academics oppose great resistance against new theories. The only way a theory to be accepted by the academics is to show that the proposals of the theory are corroborated by experiments

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Thank you for your interesting information and for your intelligent comment.
    In this period all we need is work, much more than talk. The work of production organization, testing , products evolution we are making is titanic, and the time for talking is very short.
    At a personal level, I am gratified that you and others continue to be interested in what we are doing relating to the technology . I hope you will understand, for now, we need to be allowed the opportunity for further assessment, testing, production organization and validation. While that process continues, I will not be able to respond to specific questions about where we are or exact timing. Thank you for the continued inyterest and support of you all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Tom Conover

    Hello Andrea,

    I found this in my notes, they have off the shelf generating systems that ship in two days: http://www.norwall.com/brands/Kohler-Power-Systems.html?gclid=COy-4bXYo7MCFdRQOgod4nMAKg
    I am sure that they would at least consider selling components of the system that you need, but you could order 1,2,5 or more and receive them almost immediately for testing. We all miss your regular comments in the Journal, but understand that the comments become twisted by those that cannot sleep at night unless they have something wicked to do the next day.

    God bless you,

    Tom

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir

    I have been keeping track with interest of your comments and replies to readers of the JONP. Some of it I can understand but a lot is way too technical. Anyway maybe some of my own personal thoughts may be able to help with some of the anomalies. I would like to suggest the following considerations based upon the fact that it takes so many MEVs to pull molecules apart and the same number of MEVs are produced when molecules are formed. Browns gas makes an ideal example of such a phenomena.

    Because of this I consider that the atom is a combination of cubic neutrals (cubic neutral is comprised of six units). A protn and a neutron form a cubic neutral (three quarks in each). The neutron must be negative in comparison to the proton and positive to the electron. Negativity I believe indicates more space within which a unit exists. Thereby the neutron quarks are more active while within their structure in comparison to the proton quarks. Thereby two identical energized structures will repel one another because they are both vying for the same space and they contain the same amount of latent energy that would provide the identical amount of kinetic energy upon transition. The proton is attracted to the neutron but because the inner space of the atom contains very little or no quark aether activity the proton is stuck to the inner empty space and the neutron is attracted to the proton and electron because the electron is more negative as it occupies more empty space than the neutron. The electron quarks are more active than the neutron quarks but the neutron together with the proton equals a cubic neutral that is stable. The electron I believe is also a cubic neutral because surrounding the electron is aether in quark structure and thereby the electron quarks together with the aether quarks equal a cubic neutral negative whereas the proton quarks together with the neutron quarks form a cubic neutral that is positive. Together these four dimensions of quark substance equal a cubic neutral of a potential (atom). Between these cubic neutrals of potential are the outer quarks of the outer aether that surround these cubic neutral potentials. When molecules are formed the surrounding aether quarks are displaced as MEV potentials but when individual cubic neutrals are isolated by applying MEVs the aether quarks once again take up the outer position of the electron/quark field.

    Because aether quarks are so massive I think they are undetectable as a substance. I know previously I have stated that quarks are composed of three aethers but I am now of the opinion that quarks are formed of only two aethers because of the binary system. If so there would in theory be six types of aether at any one time with regards rapid transitions as they occupy their space requirements upon their cyclic circuit.

    These outer aether quarks that I speculate exist with regards atoms would be in various states of activity with regards the specific density of the atom in question and this I suspect could account for variations in the performance of individual atomic units providing what could be termed no hard and fast rule, even differing environments could in theory interfere with an analysis. If a proton with its neutron component could equal a cubic neutral positive and an electron with its aether component equal a cubic neutral negative, hydrogen would equal a cubic neutral which would provide it with an attribute of compatibility. What is a cubic neutral you may ask. From what I believe, a cubic neutral is six potentials comprised of four minor and two major or you could say six vibrations after which the seventh represents transmutation. Between cubic neutrals are gaps due to gravity that compartmentalize the unit. A cubic neutral could be termed a state in which development occurs of a unit after which when full development has been attained a higher state of neutral is required to allow for further development (higher state is more fusion and thereby more fission, lower state less fusion with less fission) regarding the two aether states of a quark or whatever. Also negative and positive relationship I see as: Positivity is a fused state of energy that is latent because of its compressed state. When latent energy becomes kinetic due to being fizzed, positivity is expressed as particle velocity. Negativity is a fizzed state of energy that is kinetic because of its expanded state that becomes more latent due to velocity retardation. These two states neutralize to form a neutral with potential that could be heat or light depending upon the magnitude of the two states.

    If the aether does exist as described then people who say that everything in nature is connected are correct because no matter how weak the connection is it would still be connected by quarks of aether.

    Could this be the case Wladimir or am I missing something that would prevent such an activity regarding an outer layer of quarks from being possible?. Also what do think about my other thoughts, would they be refuted by the academics?. And as a point of interest, it seems that the current accepted thought with regards magnets is that the north pole expels aether and the south pole is the intake. Maybe I have miss read such information but from my experience and observations the north pole is an inroad and the south pole an out road. To verify this, one can heat a metal rod to red heat and centrifuge it from an axis as a radial dimension until cold then check it with a compass to find the direction of flow, map its field and assess its responsiveness to both heat and light. I found this to make an interesting experiment. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe and Daniel De Caluwé

    I have posted comments for both you in Advanced concepts in black hole cosmology

    regards
    wlad

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>