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

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 7th, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    ==========================================
    Wladimir,
    Your description has the 2He4 orbiting as far from the z-axis as the proton and deuteron are at their greatest distance from the xy-plane. Where is the origin of the radius R in your calculations of the forces involved?
    ==========================================

    Dear Joe,
    first of all, you have to understand that the figure showing the 4Be7 in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei is not in real scale.
    It is only an artistic picture of the structure of the 4B7.

    Besides, I had not calculated electric quadrupole moments in that paper, because some parameters are missing. For instance, I dont know what is the contribution of the shake due to the unbalance.

    I am making calculation of quadrupole moments in my next paper Stability of Light Nuclei- Parto Two, where I try to calculate some parameters.

    I start up from the excited 6C12, because it has Q(b)=+0,06, while its structure is perfectly symmetric regarding to the three axis x, y, z.
    Therefore the excited 6C12 do not shake, and therefore the position of the deuterons has larger coordinate z than the coordinates x and y.
    I had calculated how much z is larger.

    In sequence I had taken the nucleus 8O17, so that to calculate the contribution of one neutron for the shake due to the unbalance (by applying the z coordinate obtained from 6C12).

    With these two initial parameters I can apply them for the calculation of Q(b) of other isotopes which have:
    a) excess of one neutron, as for instance 6C13
    b) nuclei with no excess of neutrons, but that have shak due to their assymtric structure, as 5B10.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:00:35 -0300

    No,
    dear Dr. Attila.
    Light nuclei with Z=pair and A= pair , like 8O16, 10Ne20, etc, have not Q(b)=0, because they are non-spherical, as shown in the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    So, as they are non-spherical, they have not a spherical distrubution of charges.

    However, as they have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, there is no way to align them along an external magnetic field in the experiments. So, their statistical behavior is like if they had Q(b)=0, but actually they have not Q(b)=0.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Reply by Dr. Attila Csolo

    ========================================
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:07:21 +0200

    Dear Wladimir,

    No. In such a case, they would give Q=0+-0.1 mb, or whatever the accuracy of the measurement is. Trust me, there have been no such experiment. The quadrupole moment of Li7, the mirror nucleus, is known.
    It is around -40 mb, in good agreement with theoretical predictions, that give roughly -60 mb for Be7.

    Best regads, Attila Csoto
    ======================================

    ======================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:58:26 -0300

    Dear Dr. Attila

    in such a case several isotopes like 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc., would give Q = 0+-0.1mb, or whatever the accuracy of the measurement is.

    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ======================================

    ======================================
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 07:02:26 +0200

    They are exactly zero, of course.
    ======================================

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Any communication will be made by the Department of our USA Partner that deals with the press, not from me. Obviously the Journal of Nuclear Physics will remain an important source of information, when any information will be considered fit to be diffused.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Now you are the chief scientist of your USA partner, should we expect important announcements regarding the E-Cat to be found here on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, or directly from the company you have partnered with?

    Many thanks!

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    The 3rd world war will never be fought, I think, and this is true paradoxically thanks to the most terrible arm ever invented.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    If the 3th world war could be fought for the control of oil,water and food,the E-Cat should avoid it.
    So,Mr Rossi, the E-Cat should be recognized for 2 things:
    1)For physics
    2)For peace.

    Regards G G

  • Andrea Rossi

    Chris:
    Right.
    About the other comment, that you asked not to publish ( and therefore we did not publish, to respect your request): you can email to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    to explain.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Chris

    Mr Rossi,

    please consider that not only a nuclear bomb can cause an EMP, but also solar flares… which is likely to happen – sometimes!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Chris:
    This is a very interesting point. As a matter of fact, we have protected the outside of the E-Cat from any kind of radiation emitted by the reactor, but we did not think about the eventuality of EMP directed toward the plant, specifically in case of nuclear attack.
    We have to think about this interesting issue, hoping that it will never happen…but, nevertheless, you are right: we have to think about anything, even if remotely possible… I hope and think impossible at all: if not so, the E-Cat will be not much of use anyway, since the 4th world war will be fought by throwing stones.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Chris

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    is the E-Cat shielded against EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulse) so that
    power production would still be available in case of an attack via EMP
    or an attack with a nuclear bomb?

    Thanks for answering! And sorry, if it was asked before… couldnt find anything, though.

    Christian

  • Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia et Al.:
    We never comment the operations of any of our competitors.
    All the comments reporting the names of our competitors ( any of them) are spammed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Fabio 82:
    Sorry, no photos at all will be anymore released to the public until we will decide to present the working plants.
    The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential. It will take an unforeseeable amount of time before we will make public any precise information regarding the E-Cat under scrutiny in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Your description has the 2He4 orbiting as far from the z-axis as the proton and deuteron are at their greatest distance from the xy-plane. Where is the origin of the radius R in your calculations of the forces involved?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Fabio82

    Dear Andrea, should be possible to see a photo from the inside of the new factory?
    Good summer work!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    The E-Cat is undergoing in the USA a long process, involving many changes as the technology moves forward.
    This process will continue as long as needed before any specific information is given.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 6th, 2013 at 12:19 AM
    ——————————————————————————
    Wladimir,
    In QRT, the model for 4Be7 is severe. The central 2He4 is practically orbiting along with the proton and deuteron due to its extreme “shake”. My question is, why should a displacement of 2He4 due to an imbalance of masses exist at all since such an imbalance could only exist within the paradigm of macroscopic gravity with its inverse-square relation, and never within the paradigm of gravitational fluxes n(o) with its lack of any potential centre of mass.
    ——————————————————————————-

    Dear Joe
    see Fig. 37 page 48 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    The nucleus 4Be7 has a spin about the z-axis which crosses the center of the central 2He4.
    If had no unbalance of masses regarding the z-axis, it would be fixed in the space, and the 4Be7 would have positive Q(b)> 0 .

    But the unbalance of masses yields an oscillation of the z-axis with a spread of positive charge along the x-axis direction, because the central 2He4 has an oscillation along the x-axis direction.

    Such oscillation of the 4Be7 with spread of positive charge along the x-axis contributes for a negative Q(b)< 0 , in order that the total Q(b) becomes very near to zero.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ===========================
    The puzzles of the 4Be7 continue
    ===========================

    In the paper The 7Be(p, γ)8B cross section and the properties of 7Be , published in 2008, the authors write :
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9408001.pdf

    PAGE 2:
    ——————————————————-
    Despite extensive experimental efforts, the 7Be(p, γ)8B cross section is still the most uncertain nuclear input to the standard solar model [1,3], due to a significant spread among the values of S17 deduced from the various experiments (direct capture [4]: S17 = 18 − 28eV•b and Coulomb break-up [5]: S17 = 16.7 ± 3.5 eV•b).

    Theoretical estimates also vary (S17 = 16 − 30 eV•b) [6], making these predictions rather unreliable
    ——————————————————

    PAGE 6
    ——————————————————
    If it turns out that the S factor is considerably lower than our present value, then the present three-cluster approach is inappropriate and physics beyond our model (larger eight-body model space, improved effective interaction) has to be invoked.
    ——————————————————

    PAGE 6:
    ——————————————————-
    We also note that a precise measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment or radius could test the self-consistency of our conclusions.
    ——————————————————-

    Dr. Attila Csoto, one of the authors of the paper, had sent me the following reply, concerning the measurement of the quadruople moment of the 4Be7:
    ——————————————————-
    Dear Wladimir,

    No, it has not been measured yet. The charge radius of Be7 was measured a few years ago.

    Best ragards, Attila Csoto
    ——————————————————-

    Ahead is the sequence of emails exchanged between me and Dr Attila Csoto

    ————————————————————
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:54:24 -0300

    Dear Dr Attila
    I dont understand.
    Why, along 15 years, did not the experiments succeed to measure the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7 ?
    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ————————————————————–

    —————————————————————
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 09:25:13 +0200

    Dear Wladimir,
    It is not that they did not succeed. They did not perform any experiment aimed at measuring this quantity. There are a lot of isotopes, with a lot of measurable quantities, many of them have never been attempted to be measured.
    Why are you interested in Be7?
    Best regards, Attila Csoto
    ———————————————————————

    ———————————————————————
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:14:40 -0300

    Dear Dr. Attila
    You and Dr. Karlheinz Langanke have emphasized in many papers the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7.

    In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need John Bahcall explains the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.
    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf

    In the paper he says:
    A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38) ”.
    38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)

    Therefore, as it is very important to know the experimental value of the quadrupole moment of the 7Be for the understanding of the nuclear fusion reactions in the interior of the sun, I dont understand why the experimental physicists have neglected to undertake the measuremnt of the 7Be quatrupole moment.

    I supposse they would have to give priority to measure it , because the advancement of our understanding of the stars nuclear reactions depends on the the measurement of the quadrupole moment of 7Be.
    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ——————————————————————

    ——————————————————————-
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:23:12 +0200

    Dear Wladimir,
    There are thousands of measurable physical quantities, which have never been measured, although some people might think they would be important to know. I guess that the experimentalists simply don’t find it that interesting to measure the quadrupole moment of Be7.
    Or there is a technical problem, that I am not aware of (Be7 is radioactive, but that alone should not be a big problem).
    Time will come though, when someone will do the measurement. As it happend, for example, with the charge radius. We are pretty sure, that Q(Be7) has a large negative value.
    Best regads, Attila Csoto
    ——————————————————————-

    ——————————————————————–
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:14:16 -0300

    Dear Dr. Attila
    I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole momet very near to zero, and this is the reason why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
    So, I suspect that the experimentalists had already measured its quadrupole moment. But as it is very close to zero, the experiments cannot supply any value.
    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ————————————————————————

    ————————————————————————-
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:53:19 +0200

    Dear Wladimir,
    This is definitely not the case. A measured value, however small it is, would have been published and quoted (see case of the very small Li6 quadrupole moment).
    Best regards, Attila Csoto
    ——————————————————————————

    ——————————————————————————-
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:29:22 -0300

    Dear Dr. Attila
    I know the value of the 3Li6 quadrupole moment.

    I mean to say that I suspect that 4Be7 has a quadrupole moment very very close to zero, not able to be detected by the accuraccy of the experiments

    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ——————————————————————————-

    ===========================
    So, the mystery continues
    ===========================

    Of course the physicists are trying to find a result far away from zero for the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7.

    However, it seems the results of the experiments persist in giving a result very near to zero, and so the physicists consider that the experiments did not succeed to get the real value of the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7, because they believe to be impossible for 4Be7 to have Q(b) very close to zero.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Any update on the system installed in the USA?

    1. Is it still operating?
    2. Any issues?
    3. Has anyone outside the company observed it?

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In QRT, the model for 4Be7 is severe. The central 2He4 is practically orbiting along with the proton and deuteron due to its extreme “shake”. My question is, why should a displacement of 2He4 due to an imbalance of masses exist at all since such an imbalance could only exist within the paradigm of macroscopic gravity with its inverse-square relation, and never within the paradigm of gravitational fluxes n(o) with its lack of any potential centre of mass.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Daniel,

    Humans have the concept of cause and effect because humans sense time as a linear course of events. One event occurs before another. And if these events are close enough in time and space, and if they seem to appear together regularly, humans ascribe the concept of cause and effect to them. This is fair from a biologic perspective where humans inhabit a sphere of reality with its own set of limitations. But in the timeless world of equations, there can exist no cause and effect. Time would be a factor that is no different from any other factor involved in the equations that describe physical phenomena.

    The concept of action/reaction falls between the concepts of cause/effect and simultaneity. It speaks to both human perception and mathematical reality. And this is what causes confusion. It is a weak state of affairs to describe a physical phenomenon by using a sequence of equations (implying temporality) rather than a single equation (implying a-temporality). This is the goal of science after all.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    I have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other Scientists who have oparticipated in evaluating it so far.
    As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing and validating that technology to determine its potential and its uses.
    I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    At a personal level, as I said, I am gratified that you and others continue to be interested in what we are doing related to the technoloogy. We need to be allowed to the opportunity for further assessment, testing and validation. While the process continues, I will not be able to respond to specific questions about where we are or exact timing.
    Thank you for your continued interest and support.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    Once again, you focused on a minor point (whether or not 3H has a value quoted) and totally neglect the issues of relevance. Therefore, I continue to assume that you have no reason to believe that it has been measured. In fact, you have provided additional information from an expert in the field confirming that it has not been measured. Therefore, I hope that you will finally admit that there no support of any kind for your predicted value of Q(b) being nearly zero for 7Be (just as I admit that there is no experimental evidence supporting the larger values calculated by theory).

    By the way, you are also (and still) wrong when you say that the table does not quote zero because “the authors cannot assure that they are really zero.” It’s true that they never list zero as an exact value with no uncertainty unless it’s zero by definition. But as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there are entries that give only upper limits for the magnetic moment or quadrupole moments or measurements that are consistent with zero when they made a measurement which did not clearly show a non-zero value. So it’s pointless for you to keep insisting that they don’t quote values when there are published results that are found to be zero. That is demonstrably false.

    On a side note (since it’s not terribly relevant), while they quote zero for Q(b) in 3H, there is no uncertainty, and so that is most likely a theoretical value. Numbers on random web pages that don’t provide explanation or references for values like this aren’t terribly useful.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppehhofer:
    The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ======================================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:28:02 -0300

    Dear Dr. Attila Csoto

    In the paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section published in 1998 the value calculated for the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7 is between -6fm^2 and -7fm^2 .
    http://cds.cern.ch/record/344733/files/9802003.pdf

    In the page 5 of the paper it is written:

    ——————————————-
    We note again that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of our calculations.
    For the complete 4He+3He+p model calculation the simultaneous reproduction of the indicators predict Q7 to be in the range −(5:5−6:0) e fm2. However, this value is smaller than the one (Q7= −6:9 e fm2[9]) obtained if we chose the cluster size parameters such to reproduce the quadrupole moment of the analog nucleus 7Li. Does this already point to the necessity of a further enlargement of the model space beyond the 4He + 3He + p three-cluster model which would then also efect our results obtained for 7Be, e.g., change the 7Be quadrupole moment ?
    ——————————————-

    I would like to know if along the 15 years after the publication the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 has been measured and the value is situated near to -6fm^2 or -7fm^2.

    Regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ======================================================

    ======================================================
    From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: Re: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:26:07 +0200

    Dear Wladimir,

    No, it has not been measured yet. The charge radius of Be7 was measured a few years ago.

    Best ragards, Attila Csoto
    ======================================================

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 5th, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    ——————————————————-
    I don’t know how these are typically made, but there’s absolutely no reason to expect that these measurements can be performed equally well on all nuclei. Several light nuclei don’t have Q(b) values listed: 3H, 3He, 7Be, 11Be, 14C, 15C, 17C…. That’s no reason to assume that they are all extremely small.
    ——————————————————

    Isotope: 3H

    Spin: 1/2
    Natural abunance: —
    Magnetogyric ratio (rad/T s): 28.535 x 10^7
    Relative receptivity: 1.21
    Magnetic Moment 5.1596
    Quadrupole moment Q/m(2) 0
    Resonance frequency 106.663 MHz

    http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/NMRpt/H.html

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 5th, 2013 at 2:47 AM

    1-
    ================================================
    The lack of quoted null results in the tables would not be suspicious if there existed quoted results that were openly declared to be anomalous.
    ================================================

    COMMENT 1
    Joe,
    the authors of the nuclear tables do not quote some results as ZERO (when the experiments do not detect values) because the authors cannot assure that they are really zero.
    ——————————————-
    Perhaps they are near to zero, but not zero
    ——————————————-

    COMMENT 2
    Joe,
    there is no such a thing as anomalous

    Anomalous would be something which do not fit to the current theories.
    ——————————————————
    So,if the theory cannot be fit to the experimental data, the problem is not with the result of the experiments. The problem is actually with the theory.

    Therefore any anomalous result means that the theory is wrong ( it does not mean that the result is ”anomalous”).

    The theorists use to INTERPRET as anomalous any result that cannot be fit to their theories.
    ——————————————————

    2-
    ================================================
    Then the missing results might not necessarily be null but just not yet achieved for whatever reason.
    ================================================

    COMMENT
    Not in the case of the NON-EXCITED4Be7

    As it has A=7 , i = 3/2 , µ = -1,398 , its Q(b) must be very far away of zero, by considering the current nuclear models.
    Therefore the Q(b) of the 4Be7 must be measured and the result must be very far away of zero, and it must be quoted in the nuclear tables.
    ——————————————————-
    As the Q(b) of the 4Be7 is not quoted in the nuclear tables, it means that the measurements have detected a result very close to zero.
    ——————————————————-

    3-
    ================================================
    My question therefore is, do the authors of the tables anywhere state the existence of anomalous results?
    ================================================

    COMMENT
    As I already had explained, there is not such a thing as anomalous

    Anomalous results are of the interest of the theorists only.

    Nuclear tables are made by experimental physicists. They do not worry about what the theory predicts.
    They simply do the measurements, and put the results in the nuclear tables.

    If the result does not fit to the theories, the problem is of the theorists.

    ——————————————————–
    The experimental physicist has not the word ”anomalous” in his dictionary.
    ——————————————————–

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Wladimir said: “the blank spaces are concerning the experiments which do not detect values.”

    This is incorrect. They correspond to nuclei where measurements have not been made. As I pointed out earlier, there are some cases where the value is consistent with zero, but the table still gives a value and uncertainty for these measurements. So these are cases where there are no reported measurements, not cases where experiments were performed and found zero. If that were the case, they would quote a result (or an upper limit) based on the experiment.

    Wladimir: “If 4Be7 had Q(b) far away from zero , it would have to be measured, along 15 years.

    Dont you think so ???????”

    No. That’s not a reasonable assumption to make if you don’t know how these measurements are performed. Such measurements often require making transitions to other nuclei or excited states in the same nucleus. 7Be has more protons than neutrons, which is unusual for a light nucleus, and even the ground state is not stable. One or both of these facts may mean that it is unusually difficult or even impossible to measure the quadrupole moment using standard techniques if they require a transition to a state that doesn’t exist.

    I don’t know how these are typically made, but there’s absolutely no reason to expect that these measurements can be performed equally well on all nuclei. Several light nuclei don’t have Q(b) values listed: 3H, 3He, 7Be, 11Be, 14C, 15C, 17C…. That’s no reason to assume that they are all extremely small.

  • Dear Joe,

    To make it clear even more scientifically, I have to add to my previous comment, this:

    Reaction force equals action force (in value, but with opposite directions), so what is the cause and what is the effect?

    Answer: The action is the cause, because without action there would be no reaction, and the reaction is dependent of the action, also in value (the reaction force equals the action force in value, so if I smash with a greater force on the table (to understate my statement 😉 ), the reaction force on my hand also will be greater, so also the value of the reaction force is dependent on the value of the action force, but the opposite is not true, because I can increase my action force very easily, but the reaction force, that is dependent of it, just has to follow with an equal value!)

    So it’s not because the value of the reaction is equal to the action that there’s no cause and no effect! Mathematically they are equal (and maybe simultaneously) (but with opposite directions), but this doesn’t mean that we can’t derive a cause and en effect!

  • Joe wrote: 2. I have already stated that the concept of cause and effect can be used to describe a sequence of events that we can witness (for example, falling dominoes). But the physical laws behind the sequence are not themselves sequential. Action and reaction occur simultaneously. Therefore, force and acceleration occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other. This contradicts your statement that force is the cause and acceleration is the effect. You stated that this would be true even if the two of them were simultaneous. That is just simply illogical. This is why mass defect and force of attraction occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other.

    My answer: Dear Joe, I often appreciate your contributions, but sorry, here your point is wrong and illogical! Because even when they work simultaneously, without action there’s no reaction! So action is the cause and reaction is the consequence/effect! If I smash my hand upon the table, I feel pain, because, yes, the table gives an equal and opposite reaction to my hand that smashes, and because of the reaction my hand is stopped abrubtly, so I feel the reaction of the table, but it is very clear to everyone that smashing the table is the cause, and the reaction force on my hand is the consequence/effect, even when they appear simultaneously! And it is not because the math is thus that the reaction force equals the action force in value (but they do have opposite directions), that there’s no cause and no effect! The action is the cause, and the reaction is the effect/consequence! (It’s not because the action force and the reaction force are equal in value and opposite in direction, that there’s no cause and no effect, because it’s easy to understand that the action force is the cause and the reaction force the effect!) And this is the difference between a purely mathematical approach and a physical approach, where in the latter, we know and understand that the action is the cause and the reaction the effect/consequence.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    The lack of quoted null results in the tables would not be suspicious if there existed quoted results that were openly declared to be anomalous. Then the missing results might not necessarily be null but just not yet achieved for whatever reason. My question therefore is, do the authors of the tables anywhere state the existence of anomalous results?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 4th, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    ——————————————————–
    Wladimir,

    1. In the tables that you have studied, have you calculated that all the blank spaces represent potentially embarrassing results for the standard nuclear model? If not all, then how many, in percentage and in absolute number? Do the tables give reasons for the blanks? Do you believe that a legitimate explanation can exist for the lack of positive results for the electric quadrupole moment of 4Be7 and other nuclei in the tables? Are there positive results, mentioned in the tables, that the authors declare to be anomalous?
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Joe
    the blank spaces are concerning the experiments which do not detect values.

    In general blank spaces are referring to NON-EXCITED nuclei with Z=pair and A=pair.

    For instance, are not quoted in nuclear tables the NON-EXCITED nuclei with Z=pair, A= pair, because they have:
    null magnetic moment
    null nuclear spin
    null electric quadrupole moment

    2He4
    4Be8
    6C12
    8O16
    10Ne20
    etc
    etc

    But it’s not the case of 4Be7, because it has:

    A=7
    i = 3/2
    µ = -1,398

    So, if 4Be7 has Q(b) far away from zero (as required by current nuclear models) then there is not any reasonable reason why its Q(b) is no quoted in nuclear tables.

    Besides, as the measurement of Q(b) of 4Be7 is very important for the theoretical Nuclear Physics , as well emphasized by the authors of the paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section published in 1998, then it is a very intriguing puzzle why its Q(b) had not been measured yet.

    If 4Be7 had Q(b) far away from zero , it would have to be measured, along 15 years.

    Dont you think so ???????

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In the tables that you have studied, have you calculated that all the blank spaces represent potentially embarrassing results for the standard nuclear model? If not all, then how many, in percentage and in absolute number? Do the tables give reasons for the blanks? Do you believe that a legitimate explanation can exist for the lack of positive results for the electric quadrupole moment of 4Be7 and other nuclei in the tables? Are there positive results, mentioned in the tables, that the authors declare to be anomalous?

    2. I have already stated that the concept of cause and effect can be used to describe a sequence of events that we can witness (for example, falling dominoes). But the physical laws behind the sequence are not themselves sequential. Action and reaction occur simultaneously. Therefore, force and acceleration occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other. This contradicts your statement that force is the cause and acceleration is the effect. You stated that this would be true even if the two of them were simultaneous. That is just simply illogical. This is why mass defect and force of attraction occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I’m sorry, was there something unreasonable about that simple question? You’re arguing that it’s unreasonable that they haven’t measured the quadrupole moment of 7Be by now, so it seems relevant to know what is involved in these measurements.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 4th, 2013 at 2:18 AM

    ——————————————————–
    Wladimir,
    1. 4Be7 has an excess proton. I once asked you if QRT allowed for stable isotopes with excess protons, and you answered no. Do you consider the half-life of 53 days for 4Be7 as indicating a lack of stability in 4Be7?
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Joe
    the stability of the 4Be7 has not connection with its quadrupole moment.

    We cannot arrive to a conclusion about the puzzle of 4Be7 if you deviate the subject.

    Let’s remember the puzzle:

    1- In the paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section, published in 1998, the authors say:

    ——————————————————-
    We note again that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of our calculations.
    ——————————————————-

    2- So, we realize the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment of 4Be7.

    3- But along 15 years the physicists did not succeed to measure the quadrupole moment of the 4Be7, so that to get a value far away of zero.

    Dear Joe, consider the following:

    1-
    suppose that 4Be7 had a quadrupole moment far away of zero, as required by the current nuclear models.

    2-
    do you think to be possible that 4Be7 has quadrupole moment far away of zero, but the physicists did not measure it ????, in spite of they know that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of the current nuclear models ????????

    Please repond the question

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 4th, 2013 at 2:18 AM

    ——————————————————-
    2. I never said that acceleration is a cause; and the force, an effect. I said that F=ma does not imply any cause and effect. And as such, force and acceleration are to be understood as occurring simultaneously.
    ——————————————————–

    COMMENT
    However, the turbine produces a flux of gases along a direction, which produces a force in the contrary direction. The force applies an acceleration in the spacecraft.
    Therefore the force is the cause, and the acceleration is the effect, no matter if they are simultaneous.

    So, we have:

    1- We can explain the appearance of the acceleration as consequence of the force, according to Newton’s law.

    2-But I cannot explain the apperance of the force as consequence of the acceleration of the spacecraft.

    3- Because the force is caused by the turbine,

    4- The force is not caused by the acceleration of the spacecraft

    ——————————————————
    Therefore, the force is the cause, and the acceleration of the spacecraft is the effect
    ——————————————————

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. 4Be7 has an excess proton. I once asked you if QRT allowed for stable isotopes with excess protons, and you answered no. Do you consider the half-life of 53 days for 4Be7 as indicating a lack of stability in 4Be7?

    2. I never said that acceleration is a cause; and the force, an effect. I said that F=ma does not imply any cause and effect. And as such, force and acceleration are to be understood as occurring simultaneously. The nature and number of forces and accelerations involved is independent of this fact. That is why mass defect is neither an effect nor a cause of the force of attraction between particles; it is simply an accompanying phenomenon.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 3rd, 2013 at 3:09 PM
    ——————————————————-
    Dear Wladimir,
    If I understand correctly, you claim that the quadrupole moment of 7Be is nearly zero, and that conventional models say it must be large. I’m not sure if that last part is true, but it certainly appears that way based on the calculations you mentioned.

    But as you note, it hasn’t been measured. So experiment can’t tell us which is correct.

    You *imply* that the fact that it hasn’t been measured means that it must be small, but if it was measured and a small value was obtained (or even just an upper limit), it would most likely have been published.

    Do you know how these measurements are performed. I don’t know off the top of my head how these are done, but it might be that there are simple reasons why these measurements are more difficult than similar measurements on other nuclei. So if you know how they are done and whether or not 7Be poses special difficulties, that would be useful.

    Without that, all we have are two predictions and no data to say which is correct.
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Mr. Jr.

    I am not interested in your opinion

    Go to the James Randi blog and tell your opinion to guys who share your opinions.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Thank you, have a nice Summer yourself. We are working, though, and August will be tough.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    If I understand correctly, you claim that the quadrupole moment of 7Be is nearly zero, and that conventional models say it must be large. I’m not sure if that last part is true, but it certainly appears that way based on the calculations you mentioned.

    But as you note, it hasn’t been measured. So experiment can’t tell us which is correct.

    You *imply* that the fact that it hasn’t been measured means that it must be small, but if it was measured and a small value was obtained (or even just an upper limit), it would most likely have been published.

    Do you know how these measurements are performed. I don’t know off the top of my head how these are done, but it might be that there are simple reasons why these measurements are more difficult than similar measurements on other nuclei. So if you know how they are done and whether or not 7Be poses special difficulties, that would be useful.

    Without that, all we have are two predictions and no data to say which is correct.

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    have a nice summer, either on the beaches or working with refreshing air conditioning and a load of Ferrarelle!
    Gherardo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Michael Schneider:
    Interesting: as an additional suggestion for Summer reading, let me add “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” of Prof. Norman Cook ( Last edition 2010, Springer): is a gold mine.
    Buyable by Amazon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    I repeat: E-Cat is still in a phase of research and development, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 1st, 2013 at 12:18 AM
    ————————————————————————————————————–Wladimir,
    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 …
    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Dear Joe,
    There is other very interesting puzzle already commented here, concerning the quadrupole moment of 4Be7, and I would like to bring it again to discussion.
    .

    .

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THE PUZZLE OF 4Be7 QUADRUPOLE MOMENT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    1-
    In Nuclear Physics, the quantity of protons is Z, the quantity of neutrons is N, and A=Z+N .

    2-
    4Be7 has 7 nucleons (A=7). Therefore, according to the current Nuclear Physics, 4Be7 cannot have a spherical distribution of charges.

    3-
    4Be7 has nuclear spin i=3/2 and magnetic moment = -1,398

    4-
    Therefore according to current Nuclear Physics 4Be7 CANNOT HAVE Q(b)= 0( null quadrupole electric moment)

    5-
    Also, according to current nuclear models, 4Be7 CANNOT HAVE Q(b) near to zero.

    6-
    The theoretical value of Q(b) of 4Be7 had been calculated in two papers. They are:

    ————————————————————————————————–
    6.a) Large-basis shell-model calculations for p-shell nuclei
    http://cds.cern.ch/record/351635/files/9804014.pdf
    ———————–
    Theoretical value :
    Q(b) = -4.631 fm^2
    ———————
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    6.b) Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section
    http://cds.cern.ch/record/344733/files/9802003.pdf
    ———————-
    Theoretical value :
    Q(b) = between -6 fm^2 and -7 fm^2
    ——————–
    —————————————————————————————-

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    .

    .
    So, dear Joe,
    you may realize easily that from current nuclear models 4Be7 have to have Q(b) between -4,6 fm^2 and -7 fm^2, as calculated theoretically in the two papers quoted above. AND THEREFORE 4Be7 CANNOT HAVE Q(b) NEAR TO ZERO, according to the current nuclear models.

    ——————————————–
    Then now let us face the series of puzzles ahead
    ——————————————–
    .

    .
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PUZZLE 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    4Be7 CANNOT have quadrupole moment Q(b) near to zero, according to current nuclear models.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PUZZLE 2 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    The experiments did not detect yet any value far away from zero for the Q(b) of 4Be7
    It is not quoted in the Stone’s nuclear table
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PUZZLE 3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    The paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section had been published in 1998, and the authors say:
    PAGE 2:
    ——————————————
    In Ref. [9] we have shown that the zero-energy cross section of the 7Be(p; γ)8B reaction scales linearly with the, unfortunately yet unknown, quadrupole moment of 7Be.
    ——————————————
    PAGE 5:
    ——————————————-
    We note again that a measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would place some additional constraints on the consistency of our calculations.
    For the complete 4He+3He+p model calculation the simultaneous reproduction of the indicators predict Q7 to be in the range −(5:5−6:0) e fm2. However, this value is smaller than the one (Q7= −6:9 e fm2[9]) obtained if we chose the cluster size parameters such to reproduce the quadrupole moment of the analog nucleus 7Li. Does this already point to the necessity of a further enlargement of the model space beyond the 4He + 3He + p three-cluster model which would then also efect our results obtained for 7Be, e.g., change the 7Be quadrupole moment ?
    ——————————————-
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PUZZLE 4 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Therefore the authors of the paper emphasize that the measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment is very important for the theoretical Nuclear Physics
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^PUZZLE 5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    However, after 15 years (between 1998 and 2013), the physicists did not succeed to measure yet a quadrupole moment of 4Be7 with value far away of zero.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    .

    .
    So, the questions:
    ————————————————————————————————-
    1- Is it reasonable to consider that 4Be7 has a quadrupole moment with value between -4,6 fm^2 and -7 fm^2 , but the experiments did not succeed to detect it along 15 years ??????????????

    2- Or is it most reasonable to consider that 4Be7 actually has Q(b) near to zero ?
    And this is the reason why the experiments cannot detect the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 with value far away from zero.

    3- And therefore the current nuclear models are wrong, because from them it is impossible to calculate the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 near to zero.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    .

    .

    Dear Joe,
    I would like to emphasize again that according to my nuclear model the 4Be7 has a quadrupole moment near to zero, as shown in the Figure 37 page 48 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in Rossi`s blog, where it is written:
    ———————————————————————————————–
    The experiments do not detect the electric quadrupole moment of 4Be7 because it is very small, near to zero, because…
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
    —————————————————————————————-

    And I would like you tell us your opinion:
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Do you think, dear Joe,
    that it is reasonable to suppose that 4Be7 has Q(b) between -4,6 and -7, but along 15 years, the experiments did not succeed to measure it ???????????? (in spite of the community of physicists is aware on the importance of its measurement, as emphasized by the authors of the paper Effects of 8B size on the low-energy 7Be(p; γ)8B cross section published in 1998).
    —————————————————————————————————

    Tell us, Joe,
    do you think is it reasonable ?

    Regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in August 2nd, 2013 at 6:21 PM

    ——————————————————
    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.
    ——————————————————-

    COMMENT 1
    Suppose that the acceleration of the spacecraft can be the cause, as you assume.

    Then according to your idea the acceleration of the spacecraft produces the flux of gases within the turbine.

    However this no true, because the spacecraft can be accelerated with the turbine off (under the action of gravity).

    Your argument is absurd, because:

    1- The flux of gases is produced within the turbine

    2 The flux of gases produce a force

    3- The force (cause) produce acceleration (effect)

    COOMENT 2
    Your argument imply that differential equations do not make sense.
    Because in the differential equations a little change in the force (along a very short time) imply in a little change in the velocity.

    regards
    wlad

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    it’s been 2 months since your statement about “big surprises” coming soon..
    Other than that the 1 MW plant should be about 2 months of operating hours so far.
    Please could you give us any significant updates? This months of silence worry me up a bit.
    Thank your for your attention
    Neri B.

  • Michael Schneider

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I hope you are well. A certain restraint from your part is probably rather a sign of progress…
    I invite you and the readers off this blog to read this book during this northern hemisphere summer month : http://www.amazon.com/Longitude-Genius-Greatest-Scientific-Problem/dp/080271529X
    It made me think very much off our common interest.
    Sizzeling regards,
    Michael

  • Andrea Rossi

    Roger:
    Maybe in future will be useful.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Roger

    Have you considered using a Brayton/Ericsson engine instead of a Sterling engine? Proepower has some prototypes, but may not have any production models yet. http://www.proepowersystems.com/Engine.htm

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>