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

  • Joe

    eernie1,

    The straightforward world of electrons has a tendency to gladden all our hearts.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    There exists a temporal order to macroscopic events that we can easily discern. But this is NOT the same as deducing a cause and effect. At one moment, a gas is not expanding. In the next moment, it expands and applies a force on an object. But that object also provides an equal and opposite force to the gas simultaneously. Newton’s law is action/reaction, and not action/wait-a-moment/reaction. There exists no cause and effect in this phenomenon, but there does exist a sequence of events (first, no expanding gas; then, an expanding gas). The same holds true for any force, including gravity.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • eernie1

    Joe,
    When I drink my Lepton tea I am energized and I do flips. I also love my more colorful existence.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Honestly, I do not remember, but if I forgot it , surely it is because the offer was not acceptable: all the offers we received were for prototypes or products sold at impossible prices, like 10,000 $ per kW or similar. We are not searchng a model to understand a concept, we are searching products with market prices, competitive for efficiency and price with other technologies.
    Anyway, I will review that offer: technological development, as I said, can require a long process , involving many changes as a technology moves forward.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mario P.

    Dear Andrea,

    it looks that you have received no offers at all about Sterling Engine.
    You will need to monitor your spam checker.

    Greetings
    Mario P.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    On January 7 you wrote that you had received an offer from Green Turbine.
    Regards, pekka

  • Joe

    eernie1,

    The pre-QCD world was a simple world where things were black and white.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • eric ashworth

    Hey Wladimir,

    I have to laugh with the latest message from JR. I would say you are upsetting a lot of people with your knowledge, JR I suspect is only the mouthpiece. As I have said many times a lot of what you say is way over my head but some of it I do understand To deny the existence of the aether by people who profess to be learned open minded experts in sub atomic physics proves to me that they are either a genuine idiot, not to consider its existence or a person being paid to talk nonesense I suspect the latter not only by the outright rejection of the aether but to put so much effort into making a mockery of your QRT. This speaks volumes to me that there is an ongoing conspiracy towards yourself. lets face it this subject is in its infancy, All the best, Regards Eric Ashworth

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 1st, 2013 at 12:18 AM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    ——————————————————–
    When a domino is falling and about to hit another domino, there is yet no interaction. When the two of them make contact with each other, they interact immediately with each other. When you mention F=ma to show that (using this example) the first domino is the cause for the acceleration of the second domino, you have not considered that there is an equal and opposite phenomenon occurring on the first domino as well. Therefore, mass defect is as legitimate an answer as force of attraction is, since each occurs only if the other one is present.
    ——————————————————–

    COMMENT

    Consider two phenomena:

    PHENOMENON 1
    when the gases are expelled from a spacecraft (with the turbines running), the spacecraft receives an acceleration “a”, according to the law of action and reaction of Newton, because a force F causes the spacecraft to accelerate according to Newton’s law F = ma

    PHENOMENON 2
    But you can provide the same acceleration “a” to one spacecraft through another process (with the turbines off). For example, if the spacecraft is falling down under the gravitational attraction.
    In this case the spacecraft also has an acceleration according to the law F = m.a .

    CONCLUSION
    When falling with acceleration “a” under the action of gravity (with the turbines off), the gases will be not expelled.
    Therefore the acceleration “a” in the phenomenon 1 cannot be considered to be the cause of the phenomenon 1, because the same cause cannot produce two different phenomena 1 and 2.

    2.
    ——————————————————–
    Although your thesis concerning the necessary presence of excited 6C12 within the structure of some larger excited nuclei is interesting, keep in mind that the only positive proof is the single example of 18Ar36 for which we have empirical values.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT
    18Ar36 and 6C12 have empirical values in Stone’s nuclar table.
    We have not empirical value only for 30Zn60

    3.
    ——————————————————–
    Has John Arrington responded to your reminder that you successfully predicted orbiting deuterons many years ago, before the recent discovery as mentioned in Scientific American?
    ——————————————————-

    No, he did not.
    I am waiting the experiments to be made in 2015/2016, when they will measure the proton’s radius by the scattering proton-meson.

    If the experiments confirm my prediction that proton’s radius is very shorter than 0,8fm when it has interaction with particles heavier than the electron, then I want to hear what John Arrington will respond.

    Meanwhile, I hope new upcoming experiments will bring more confirmations for my nuclear models and some predictions of my theory.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in July 31st, 2013 at 5:04 PM

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

    And, interestingly enough, you’ve been using many of these nonsensical (or worse) arguments to promote your theory in spite of the fact that these errors have been pointed out to you numerous times in the past. In fact, some people were helpful enough to put together a nice guide outlining your errors several years ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8255331#post8255331
    ——————————————————–

    HA HA HA HA

    Dear JR,
    you are a joker…

    Well, Mr. JR,
    as I already had said, I am not interesting in what you say, in what you think, and in what you believe.

    You are a lier , and I dont waste my time with liers

    Please stop bothering me with your bullshit

    goodbye,
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    I will.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Thank you for listening to all our ideas on Stirling engines…..sorry but here is anogher one: Would you please give some thought to mating the E-Cat with DEKA’s Stirling generator and their Slingshot water purifier for remote areas in need of water? Thanks.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/remediation/slingshot-water-purifier1.htm

  • eernie1

    Joe, I am not a very colorful character.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mario:
    good point,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dima Redko:
    I didn’t receive from them the offer I requested.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Harold:
    I didn’t receive any. They can send again.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mattias:
    True, but the efficiency of the ORC is too low and the price very high.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • mattias

    Dear Rossi
    You are looking for a sterling engine can’t a Rankine Cycle Engine such as Cyclone Energy’s “Schoell Cycle” be used. According to them the external combustion engine will run on any fuel that can produce enough heat to make steam. Just wondering…. I’d think it should be investigated as a possible.
    They have engines ready but not “mass-produced off the shelf” to by but tested by the US army.
    http://www.cyclonepower.com/

  • Harold

    Dear Andrea,

    I have asked Green turbine to comment on the offering of their products to you.
    They state that they did have sent you a price list offering a while back but did not hear from you since.

    So what to expect now?
    Are their products not applicable or is there another issue like low efficiency.
    In any case their engine is tested and will work at 200 degree Celsius.

    Kind regards,
    Harold

  • Dima Redko

    Dear A.R.
    here is site selling Sterling Engines that seems to fit your purpose:
    http://www.cleanergy.com/chp/
    best regards,
    D.R.

  • mario

    Dr.Rossi,
    give us (market) the energetic product, fix your price, and let’s use the heat in ways that now is even impossible to know.
    When you buy lng they don’t ask you who what when how and what you’re going to heat although burning lng is environmentally an issue.
    The same happens when you buy a boiler.(excuse me for the irriverent comparison)
    You have to decide if tou want to sell a service or a product.
    This difference is the advantage you are called to manage and decide in the battle against the followers or future overtakers.
    In any case in the long run the market will always win.
    The problems are not the features, I know will come, is the concept. To be or not to be that is the question.
    Selling a product as a service is far more expensive and limited, even too big to manage, than selling a product as a product.
    Many thanks anyway

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. When a domino is falling and about to hit another domino, there is yet no interaction. When the two of them make contact with each other, they interact immediately with each other. When you mention F=ma to show that (using this example) the first domino is the cause for the acceleration of the second domino, you have not considered that there is an equal and opposite phenomenon occurring on the first domino as well. Therefore, mass defect is as legitimate an answer as force of attraction is, since each occurs only if the other one is present.

    2. Although your thesis concerning the necessary presence of excited 6C12 within the structure of some larger excited nuclei is interesting, keep in mind that the only positive proof is the single example of 18Ar36 for which we have empirical values.

    3. Has John Arrington responded to your reminder that you successfully predicted orbiting deuterons many years ago, before the recent discovery as mentioned in Scientific American?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    eernie1,

    A turn from the world of QCD to that of QED would certainly be less electrifying… ironically.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    We must put a distinction between future developments and present needs. Our present need is to find devices ready to work properly. Future products follow a complete different approach. I am very pessimistic regarding immediate application of the Sterling Engine, while I am optimistic about future developments.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ian Walker:
    I thank you for your enthusiasm, but
    none of the companies you suggested has sent us precise offers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ian Walker:
    Thank you for the information. We have asked an offer for any of the shelf product they have, of any power: we can make an E-Cat fit to test it. We can use either air, oil, water as a medium, but we want not to lose time with concepts and with prototypes without experience.
    We need well experienced suppliers with mature products. We did not find any, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ian Walker

    Hi Mr. Rossi

    Here are some more companies:
    US based and they do a Hot Air Stirling Engine,
    http://www.stirlingbiopower.com/STIRLING/BASSE.swf

    I am sorry but I am unclear on your heat transfer medium, air, dry steam, inert gas, water, oil; expected temperature and temperature variation etc. I would need more information to find a good fit.

    So I am sort of guessing in the dark here.

    This is the part many commercial systems use:
    http://www.sunpowerinc.com/library/pdf/publications/Doc0087.pdf

    http://www.sunpowerinc.com/library/pdf/productlit/Engine%20Brochure.pdf

    http://sunpowerinc.net/library/pdf/publications/Doc0083.pdf

    Scandinavian supplier:
    http://www.sppower.no/velkommen

    Kind Regards walker

  • Ian Walker

    Hi Mr. Rossi

    More CHP Stirling engine suppliers many are included with modern Gas Boilers but they are all commercial, have the capability you need, and I would think can supply the parts you need.

    I would suggest the following business model for the long term contracting. Divide the suppliers in to 4 or 5 competitive supply groups. I suggest the best supplier gets 40%, second gets 30%, third gets 19%, fourth gets 8% 5th gets 3% and is subject being replaced every year by a new market entrant, each of the others can be replaced by its lower level supplier dependent on whatever metric or combination of metrics you want.

    A good company to build a relationship with perhaps as they are already in the home market.
    http://www.baxi.co.uk/baxiecogen/

    http://www.vitalenergi.co.uk/Combined_heat_power_and_trigeneration.aspx

    http://www.shentongroup.co.uk/products/power-therm/chp-powertherm/

    I guess that can start you off.

    If you need more or want some one to research it and pick the best three let me know.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Why do you think an “off the shelf” stirling engine could exist, even modified, that fits e-cat ?

    Whispergen – claiming 25 yrs of research – reaches 1kWe on 7,5 kWth efficiency. Every ICE genset with natural gas does much much better.
    It is the GAS that has to be heated very fast. Not the mantle !

    The “off the shelf” stirling devices have their own purpose. Besides that, they are expensive. A tabletop demo/education device, producing 1 Watt E (found on Ebay) costs 250$. (made in PRC). A simple 16Hp ICE costs the same.

    I would advise to reread very carefully all (ancient) comments by Prof Joseph Fine, and develope an own Stirling-like device (if your partner agrees on that), based on super critical CO2. E-cat is the best of the LENR world, it deserves the best of others too.

    Besides that, the conversion of heat-to-mechanical energy seems the one and only remaining very inefficient one. My “informatic” tells me that Carnot never experimented with vacuum at the output.

    This battle has come to the level of not only having the best LENR, but the best engineering.

    For the team that works on long-term strategy: the direct conversion from magnetic tot electric is, by far, top priority. I Believe. Even if you have to shape every grain of nickel by hand.

    Kindest Regards,
    Koen

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    For the record, I have neither lied nor used dishonest arguments. That is your bailiwick:

    You make up properties for nuclei and claim that standard models cannot explain them. You continue to insist that these things exist even after it’s pointed out by multiple people that you’re misreading the tables and you’re shown papers specifically stating that they haven’t been measured.

    You took 11Be measurements which agree remarkably well with conventional calculations and claimed that they showed that these conventional calculations cannot explain 11Be.

    You claim that conventional physics cannot explain the deuteron binding energy, even though this is a straightforward and long-solved problem.

    You not only dismiss the idea of a repulsive part of the N-N potential, you actively mock the idea that such a thing could exist, despite the fact that it’s been a part of every entry level textbook on nuclear physics for decades.

    You took every physics explanation that you did not understand and, rather than asking for clarification, dismissed it as “bla bla bla”

    You claim that conventional physics requires that all light N=Z=even nuclei must be bound (which, by the way, is not true), and refuse to provide any information at all as to why you think conventional models require this.

    Digging back a little further:

    You insist quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality does not give interference when going through a single slit, even though every intro to modern physics textbook will say the exact opposite. Similarly, you claim that quantum mechanics says that a particle must behave either as a particle or as a wave, not both. Again, this is quantum mechanics 101 stuff, and once again, you’re just wrong.

    You accuse anyone who points out flaws in your argument of betraying science. This includes a recent post where you criticized John Arrington for not agreeing with your claim that his measurement proves that there’s something wrong with calculations of 9Be. This even after you admitted that you were talking about a totally unrelated measurement on a different nucleus.

    You claim that a debate over the proton radius being 0.94fm or 0.98fm somehow proves that you’re correct in saying that it’s 0.27fm.

    And, interestingly enough, you’ve been using many of these nonsensical (or worse) arguments to promote your theory in spite of the fact that these errors have been pointed out to you numerous times in the past. In fact, some people were helpful enough to put together a nice guide outlining your errors several years ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8255331#post8255331

    There were other examples, but having seen that someone already compiled many of the earlier ones, I’ll leave it at a partial list to demonstrate your record of being constantly and consistently wrong in just about every statement you make about conventional nuclear theory. I do not question your knowledge/expertise of QRT, although given your track record, I certainly wouldn’t recommend that anyone waste their time trying to understand it as it seems likely that it will also be utter nonsense.

    Still, you leave one open question. Are you really as big of an idiot as you appear to be, insisting that you know everything when you are clearly unable to understand even the simplest points, or are you actively and intentionally deceiving everyone to somehow convince people to throw away their time and money on your book.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Njonatan:
    Yes, no offers received.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Njonatan

    Dear mr Rossi, have you been in contact with the Swedish company cleanergy? http://www.cleanergy.com
    They have been producing Stirling engines for a few years for industrial use.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe and Daniel De Caluwé

    When we apply a force on a body it gets acceleration a according to Newton’s law F= m.a .

    The application of the force F and the appearance of the acceleration a is simultaneous.

    However the cause is the force F. The body accelerates because the force is applied.

    It makes no sense to claim that, because of the cause and the effect are simultaneous, we may consider that the acceleration can be the cause too.
    In another words, we cannot claim that the force appears because the body had started up to accelerate.The force cannot be the effect, and the acceleration cannot be the cause

    This is what Joe refuses to himself to understand.

    So, I give up

    regards
    wlad

  • eernie1

    Dear JR and Joe, Perhaps what we need is an injection of Lepton tea.
    It makes good protons don’t you think?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in July 30th, 2013 at 11:10 PM
    ———————————————————
    Dear Wladimir,
    If you want to have a discussion based on questions you actually asked or answers I actually gave, I’ll be here.

    If you just want to make up long list of questions you didn’t ask and answers I didn’t give, you don’t really need my input.
    ———————————————————

    Dear Mr. JR
    you use dishonest and stupid arguments in the discussions, and you are a lier.

    I have not interest to discuss with a dishonest and lier person, and therefore I have not interest in any argument of you, since I do not enjoy to hear lies.

    goodbye
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 30th, 2013 at 2:29 AM
    ——————————————————–
    Wladimir,
    1. I never said that mass defect precedes force of attraction. I said that neither phenomenon precedes the other. They occur simultaneously.
    ——————————————————–

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in July 29th, 2013 at 3:52 PM
    ——————————————————–
    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.
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Joe
    I share the opinion of Daniel.
    It is a question of intuition, logic, and judgment.

    I have exhausted my arguments.
    So, you can keep your viewpoint, I give up.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe, Daniel De Caluwé, Steven N Karels, and Erik

    I made a sequence of figures so that to show clearly how the multiples of 6C12 in the structure of light nuclei contribute for the null magnetic moment µ =0 of excited nuclei with spin i=2.

    In order to have i=2 and has µ =0 , the excited nuclei have to have the following structure:
    ———————————————————–
    1- Pair number of complete hexagonal floors
    2- One 6C12 in their structure beyond the pair number of complete hexagonal floors
    ———————————————————–

    ——————————————–
    6C12 – zero complete hexagonal floor
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    4438 …… 2 …….. ????
    It has pair (zero) number of complete hexagonal floors
    That’s why it has µ =0
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1098296_151025005094492_1033635707_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    8O16 – one complete hexagonal floor
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    6130 … 3 …….. +1,67

    There is no 6C12 in its structure
    That` why it has µ= +1,67
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/46458_151025055094487_857178262_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    10Ne20 – one complete hexagonal floor + 2 deuterons
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1634 …… 2 …….. +1,08
    Odd number of hexagonal floors
    There is no 6C12 in its structure
    That` why it has µ= +1,08
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/1013699_151025111761148_528668018_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    12Mg24 – one complete hexagonal floor + 6C12
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1369 …… 2 …….. +1,02
    The structure of 12Mg24 has odd number of hexagonal floors
    That` why it has µ= +1,02
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/968881_151025158427810_960725224_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    14Si28 – two complete hexagonal floors
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1779 …… 2 …….. +1,1
    It has not the 6C12 in its structure.
    That`s why it has µ= +1,1

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/998748_151025251761134_22653595_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    16S32 – two complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1779 …… 2 …….. +0,9
    It has not the 6C12 in its structure.
    That`s why it has µ= +0,9
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/533688_151025341761125_146223561_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    18Ar36 – two complete hexagonal floors + 6C12
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1970 …… 2 …….. ????
    Note that 18AR36 is similar to 6C12, because:
    • It has pair number of hexagonal floors
    • The structure of 18Ar36 is perflectly symmetric
    That`s why excited 18Ar36 has µ= 0 ,as also happens with 6C12.
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/264502_151025458427780_191838296_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    20Ca40 – three complete hexagonal floors
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    3737 …… 3 …….. +1,6
    • Odd number of hexagonal floors
    • There is no 6C12 in its structure.

    That`s why it has µ= +1,6
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/1009806_151025655094427_1552401132_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    22Ti44 – three complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
    Not quoted in Stone’s nuclear table
    • Odd number of hexagonal floors
    • There is no 6C12 in its structure.
    So it cannot have µ= 0
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/45593_151025728427753_565915500_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    24Cr50 – three complete hexagonal floor + 6C12 + 2n
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    783 ……. 2 …….. +1,24
    Odd number of hexagonal floors
    That` why it has µ= +1,24
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/1098370_151025775094415_1875904703_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    26Fe52 – four complete hexagonal floors
    Not quoted in Stone table
    There is no 6C12 in its structure
    So it cannot have µ= 0
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/59551_151025918427734_69595936_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    26Fe54 – four complete hexagonal floors + 2 neutrons
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    1408 …… 2 …….. +2,1
    There is no 6C12 in its structure
    That`s why it has µ= +2,1
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/45619_151025991761060_1447107323_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    28Ni56 – four complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
    Not quoted in Stone table.
    There is no 6C12 in its structure
    So it cannot have µ= 0
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/539582_151026065094386_2012557097_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    30Zn60 – four complete hexagonal floors + 6C12
    Unfortunatelly it is not quoted in Stone table.
    It has PERFECT SYMMETRY + 6C12
    By considering the sequence of multiples 6C12 with perfect symmetry, the excited 30Zn60 must have 1=2 and µ= 0 , as the excited 6C12 and 18Ar36.
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/548898_151026108427715_115439261_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    ——————————————–
    30Zn62 – four complete hexagonal floors + 6C12 + 2n
    Ex …….. i …….. µ
    954 …… 2 …….. +0,7
    The two neutrons broke the symmetry of the pair number of hexagonal floors
    That`s why excited 30Zn62 has µ= +0,7
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/581700_151026201761039_1513458539_n.jpg
    ——————————————–

    Regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Harold:
    I asked them an offer, no answer received, yet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ian Walker:
    We asked them an offer, no answer received so far. Obviously, your help is welcome.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ian Walker

    Dear Mr Rossi

    I assumed those who posted would be able to get you to commercial suppliers Stirling engine suppliers, so did not post earlier.
    Here is one:
    http://www.greenspec.co.uk/micro-chp.php

    If you want more I can get you them, I have some skills in finding things.

    Kind Regards Walker

  • Joe

    Steven,

    Cause and effect are important aspects of our understanding of the world around us. It is based on our biology with its inherent limitations to all things macroscopic. When we witness one domino falling, we can rightly expect a cascade of them in short order. What we do not see, obviously, is the system of equations operating at all levels of reality to render a reality that is specific to our nature. These equations do not suffer cause and effect. They keep churning in on themselves. You would be hard pressed to distinguish an input variable from an output one. And the concept of time would not help you either since, for an equation, time is just another variable that is no more important than any other.

    As far as the strong interaction is concerned, it is as mysterious as the other three (weak, gravitational, electromagnetic). Although interconnections have been discovered, their true nature will always elude us. The strong interaction is especially complex due to the presence of a phenomenon called color charge. This charge consists of three colors (not real colors, of course): red, green, and blue.
    Their complex interplay must always sum to the color white for stability to exist within a meson (two-quark entity) or baryon (three-quark entity). This includes the use of anti-color charges (anti-red, anti-green, anti-blue) as well. Compare this to the electric charge of the electromagnetic interaction which is single and has an anti-charge that is single as well.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Harold

    Dear Andrea,

    The company Green turbine (The Netherlands) has been mentioned here a few times already.

    Now this company http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/news.php claims to have electric generators (compact steam turbine) at 1.2kW for sale (off the shelf) and probably their 2.5 kW version as well.
    Their 15 kW version seems to be under development/testing but could be ready this year in August/September, according to their March 2013 newsletter.
    They have a large machine company backing them up as a licensee this is SMO (Belgium).

    Are you in any contact with this company Green turbine or otherwise SMO?

    Kind regards,
    Harold

  • Joe

    eernie1,

    I would like to say that strange quarks are just part of the ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ of Nature, but they literally are not.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    If you want to have a discussion based on questions you actually asked or answers I actually gave, I’ll be here.

    If you just want to make up long list of questions you didn’t ask and answers I didn’t give, you don’t really need my input.

  • JR

    Dear eernie1,

    No, they are formed mainly by up and down quarks of nature.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sammy M:
    I arrived to the conclusion that does not exist any Sterling Engine mature for an application to the E-Cat. We received many proposals regarding concepts, prototypes to be developed: we need a product off the shelf.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • SammyM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    About a month ago you wrote,
    “Please send your proposals for Sterling Engines to be coupled with the E-Cats (power 5 kW and 10 kW). The best offers will be bought for testing.”

    So are you still looking or did you find a good candidate?

    Regards,
    SammyM

  • eernie1

    Dear JR Joe and Wladimir, Do you think that nucleons are formed by a strange Quark of nature?

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. I never said that mass defect precedes force of attraction. I said that neither phenomenon precedes the other. They occur simultaneously. If either one preceded the other, that would imply that a period of time should exist where the first phenomenon had no effect upon the second. Such a scenario would imply a lack of causal relationship between the two, which contradicts your view.

    2.Mass defect is a legitimate answer, even if it is not the complete answer. Like JR already stated, the real culprit for the instability of 4Be8 might not be found in 4Be8 itself but in its relationship to 2He4. 2He4 might be the most stable grouping of nucleons possible, so 4 neutrons and 4 protons might just prefer to form two 2He4’s than one 4Be8. (This does not mean that QRT is wrong on this matter but that standard physics does provide a plausible explanation for the instability of 4Be8.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • eric ashworth

    Wladimir,

    Thanks for the comment, could not agree more. Discussions as such are enlightning. You mention mass defect, something I have never heard of but I gather you are relating to the interaction of two particle masses that interact and change mass due to their interaction, one positive and one negative. The cause of such an interaction would be the sensing of each with regards an opposite force brought about by two unequal volumes of which each contain six quarks. The greater the opposite force the greater the interaction and mass defect. The subject of mass defect, if I understand it, is related to gravity or I should say values of. I shall work on this and put my thoughts forward. Regards Eric Ashworth

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>