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

  • Andrea Rossi

    Anatoly V. Sermyagin:
    I would say 1939 (Enrico Fermi) and 1989.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Anatoliy V. Sermyagin

    Dear Andrea,
    You wrote:
    «No new physics have to be expected from my work, just a better use of the Physics we already have.»
    It is extremely interesting puzzle. While anticipating the time you will be granted of an international patent, and you can publish a theory/design of E-Cat, fearing not the loss of IP, I’d like to get a hint.
    What period the physics/chemistry’s discoveries as basic for your vision of main processes inside the E-Cat belong of:
    1. After 1989
    2. Between 1957 and 1989
    3. 1939-1957
    4. Before 1939

    Best Regards,
    Anatoliy V. Sermyagin

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Andrea
    you spoke twice of Rossi Effect.
    That’s extremely important IMO, I do not ask what it is (maybe you can not answer), but I ask what it refers to.
    The Rossi Effect what it refers to?
    Catalyst?
    Properties of Nickel lattice?
    A kind of collective phenomenon?
    Thanks
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    There are no cospiracies: all we have to do is make good products, and the market will use them. In our work and in the Rossi Effect there is nothing strange or exoteric or anything that can put in crisis the rules of Physics. I work using the well known rules, that we studied very well. No new physics have to be expected from my work, just a better use of the Physics we already have.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear JR. In response to your reply. I shall explain further. I know you are talking about an interesting experiment with regards Wladimir. My problem is in a different category but suffers the same problem with regards a general conspiracy that involves people who actually make critical decisions within these powerful institutions and yes you are correct when you state what I am talking about involves ‘university research councils, technology development’ and by the way industry with their shackles also and no I was not selling anything or asking for funding. I merely wanted to demonstrate. The marketing agent and lawyer were required as an independent that I was informed was a necessity because when dealing with an inventor it becomes too personal and this I understand. But nevertheless the answer was always no with no genuine reason as to why. You say ‘none of that should be necessary if there is a simple and clear experiment that shows an interesting result of the kind that Wladimir described’. I know you do not know what I am talking about specifically but then in the next breath you say its clearly a very different problem. How can it be clear if you do not know?. The problem is the same but a different category. The problem is the none advancement in science due to not being able to demonstrate a technology or set up a research program into not only what Wladimir wants but other people also. It becomes painfully obviouse that there is an ongoing conspiracy to hold back the advancement in scientific understanding but also the e-cat works so what is the problem there, I know Andrea needs certification but why not let the general public know of its existence i.e. something good to read about in the newspapers with regards Andrea being a brilliant scientist and a new source of energy that’s cheaper/cleaner than oil, gas or coal and certainly a lot safer than present day nuclear power, could this also be a conspiracy to keep it secret?. I am now also pleased that Dr. Attila Csolo has mentioned the futuristic level of understanding. It was from this level that we now have radio, television, the aircraft industry and lasers etc. etc.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I confirm that experiment is not possible.
    We are working on different powers, but we give information only of mature products.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Eernie1’s suggest may have merit. Perhaps adding some Nickel and Hydrogen to the next atmospheric nuclear device experiment. Oh yeah, they stopped that many years ago (LOL). I am sure it was just in jest.

    You had mentioned a long time ago about miniature eCat units, in the 1kW thermal output level or lower. Can you discuss anything you all have discovered about eCat thermal output devices small or larger than the nominal 10kW units? For example, is performance (COP, stability) about the same as the 10kW units?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie 1:
    The experiment you suggest is not possible.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    As an old chemist, I have just thought about an experiment that may amuse you and your engineers if they find some free time to fill as you await the results of the long duration ongoing test program. Mix an equal amount of an explosive(TNT, dynamite or gunpowder)into a portion of your powder and ignite it in a nonmetallic container. Monitor the explosion with an Infrared camera and compare it with published energy outputs of the explosive. I would be interested to learn if the high density of free radical electrons created by the explosive would interact in some interesting way with the powder. At worst you may create a new firecracker for the fourth of July.
    Looking forward with great expectancy for the results of the ongoing tests of your device. AS always, best of luck.

  • 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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:26:50 +0200
    >
    > Dear Wladimir,
    >
    > Science does not work this way. If someone were to find a
    > phenomenon, which contradicts our current understanding of
    > physics, he would not be denied by physicist, on the contrary,
    > his result would be embraced. On one condition: the results
    > must be published in peer reviewed journals, in full detail, so
    > that others can reproduce it, to be able to confirm or refute
    > the claim of new physics. The discovery of a new effect or new
    > physics is nonexistent for physicists, until it is published
    > in full detail, in a reproducible way. If the discovery were
    > fundamental, truly revolutionary, published in full detail,
    > and confirmed by others, then I assure you that the discoverer
    > would get the Nobel prize in a very short time, no matter who he
    > is (a physicist, or an outsider). This has happened many times
    > in physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, parity violation –
    > just to name a few). But this has never happened with ezoteric
    > “scientists”, who claim to have built a perpetuum mobile, can make
    > energy out of nothing, etc. They never publish their results in
    > a reproducible way.
    >
    > I am not surprised that the http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdf
    > paper was not published in a peer reviewed journal. First of all,
    > it is complete nonsense from the first letter to the last (it contradicts
    > at least three fundamental laws of Nature). But even if it were such
    > a revolutionary discovery which outlaws not just one, but immediately
    > three pillars of physics, tested by a million times, the author has
    > no idea how science works. What he does is lightyears from a rigorous
    > scientific experiment. He should have read a few papers in those journals
    > where he tried to publish his work, to learn how a scientific experiment
    > looks like, and how one should write about its details, so that others
    > can reproduce it.
    >
    >
    > Best regards, Attila Csoto
    ======================================================

    .

    =======================================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:28:24 -0300

    Dear Dr. Csolo

    The experiment made by Borghi had been published by the American Institute of Physics, in 1993:
    C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.

    Elio Conte and Maria Pieralice had repeated the experiment in 1999 (but they made a different version of the Borghi experiment, and they had obtained the same result: neutrons are formed by the fusion proton+electron at low energy)
    E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron, Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.

    Dr. Santilli had tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several universities of the Europe. He had been banned from all of them.
    That’s why he had performed the experiment in his own laboratory

    In 2000 I tried to repeat the experiment in several universities in Brazil. Dr. Santilli had promissed to supply all the equipments necessary to the experimment.
    All the Brazillian universities rejected to repeat the Borghi experiment in their laboratories.

    By the way, I would like to ask you, dear Dr. Csolo:

    do you consider ezoteric the technology developed by Andrea Rossi ?
    http://ecat.com/
    HIs reactor eCat is in the market, and some customers had already bought it

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

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 17th, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    =======================================================
    Dear Wladimir,

    That’s simply nonsense. If it can be confirmed in a simple and straightforwardly, then lack of university affiliation isn’t going to stop you from convincing people. It will make it more difficult to get people to pay attention and to convince them right away, but if you have an experiment set up that shows the effect and the effect is repeatable, you’d be able to convince a few experts at first, who can check it out, and then more people would start to accept it.

    More globally, you are under the entirely mistaken impression that physicists don’t want to discover new things or find results that contradict our current understanding.
    ======================================================

    Dear Mr. JR
    I know what is your problem. You are mad.

    Andrea Rossi has a successful technology, and he is already selling his eCat.

    However, even selling his eCat, his invention did not convince the scientists yet.
    He had announced his technology 2 years ago, he is selling his eCats, but evey by this way his technology is not announced in the most mainstream journals.

    Pay attention that Rossi’s experiments HAVE BEEN ALREADY SOLD !!!!!!

    And now do you want that an experiment with no any practical use (as the case of Borghi experiment) would convince people ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Andrea Rossi is selling his eCat, but there is not yet a plenty recognition to his technology.
    So, we realize how much hard the conspiracy goes on…

    While, unlike, Borghi experiment cannot be used for a practical use.
    And do you think that would be easy to convince the people with Borghi experimment ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ron:
    Thank you for your kind words.
    About the Sterling: we of the R&D division, that I lead as the chief scientist, did not find any manufacturer with a product really ready for the market. We have found many conceptual proposals, but too far from an industrial application. Anyway, all the known producers of prototypes in the world know that as soon as they will have a product, we will be delighted to buy a model and test it.
    For the moment, this is all, regarding this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ron

    Dr. Rossi, there seem to be a lot of people hoping to help you in finding a Stirling engine which might be compatible with the E-Cat. Without giving away proprietary information, can you give some guidance on the requirements a Stirling engine must meet in order to be compatible? If you could, the search would become more focussed and you might get better suggestions.
    I continue to be amazed at 1) your progress! and 2) your generosity in maintaining this avenue of communication with interested onlookers!
    We look forward to more amazing news and, hopefully soon, ads for your products!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    We know very well the Viessmann system. We tested it.
    It is not fit for the E-Cat. Thank you anyway for your kind information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    A commenter “MK” pointed the following out on e-catworld.com.
    There seems to be a German manufacturer Viesmann.de of Stirling generators that might be interesting for you (http://www.viessmann.de/de/ein-_zweifamilienhaus/produkte/mikro-kwk.html). Unfortunately their website seems to be only in German. In their Technical Data they give for “Vitotwin 300-W” 1 kWel, 5.7 kWth, size 900 x 480 x 480 mm, weight 125 kg. I do not know about the price, but it seems to be intended for the home market and currently runs on natural gas.
    regards, pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    Not me, but our engineers are doing it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We are following the validation program that had been already foreseen after the 120 hour test of the Third Indipendent Party. When our US Partner will consider mature the time, specific informaton will be given, also about the “audience” of the R&D and validation work in course.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I understand why you must be putting the e-cat through a vigorous testing regimen — certainly necessary in any product development process — but could you explain the purpose of further validation at this point?

    If your products work satisfactorily why is further validation necessary? Who is the audience for the validations?

    Many thanks!

    Frank Acland

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    In order for R&D to serve manufacturing, manufacturing must anticipate the next version of the product. If retooling costs of the factory are too great, new designs with reduced manufacturing costs and better performance will never make it into production. Phased improvement solves the problem of perfect being the enemy of good.

    The question is: Are you designing your factory floor with rapid retooling in mind?

    Paul

  • JR

    Dear Eric,

    I’m talking about convincing physicists that there is an interesting experiment that should be looked at. What you’re talking about involves university research councils, technology development, and either ‘selling’ the idea or getting funding to develop it.

    None of that should be necessary if there is a simple and clear experiment that shows an interesting result of the kind that Wladimir described. I don’t know what you’re talking about specifically, but it’s clearly a very different kind of problem.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    I do not understand what you mean. Can you rephrase?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear JR. I have been following your comments between yourself and Wladimir. Firstly let me explain: unless you have personally encountered difficulties when dealing with universities and affilated research councils (National Rcs. and Local Rcs.) you will not have a clue as to how they operate with regards acceptance of new ideas. There is a very strict method of submitting, a specially formatted procedure so as to ‘weed out’ that which they consider destructive or disruptive to the present day accepted understanding of knowledge that they wish to promote.

    My personal experience with regards new technology,embodied in a mechanism with a patent, was at the lower level of introduction, welcomed with enthusiasm. Being able to demonstrate the mechanism and prove the theory I requested permission to do so in the presence of their physicists but from higher levels from where the decisions are made I was always denied without an explanation. These requests were submitted by our lawyer and marketing agent. So yes, ground floor research people are enthusiastic when it comes to new ideas but unfortunately there is a general conspiracy with regards a higher network of individuals who consider certain issues in some way to be destructive and consequently these issues are prevented from being investigated. It is not just research councils and universities but also industry has to be very careful as to what they will or will not accept. Everything relies upon a financial system of support which makes everything fragile and vulnerable to bullies who control the system. Our technology has been described as a ‘destructive technology’ and also as ‘one before its time’. I am guessing (although I see the double ring as a necessity) but I suppose Wladimirs QRT could be termed a ‘destructive theory’ if it is able to even partially destroy QT. So as I have stated JR without actually experiencing a reaction from these institutions regarding the submitting of new ideas or technologies it really is not possible for anyone to form any sensible opinion regarding policy as to how they pick and choose that which they consider none destructive and that which they consider is. Also I can add that the technology we have today was investigated into with a desire to make hovercrafts more practical, I was informed this by an inside reasearch person who said he was on the team in the late sixties early seventies but it never came to anything. Maybe, even if it had it would have been buried. Who knows, but I can tell you now they do not want this technology today. Hope this fills a few people in with how the various established sectors operate and the present difficulties the private sector has to encounter to get any form of recognision Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Herb Gillis

    Does anyone know if quantum models exist on how the Hydrogen atom behaves in a “box”, and then used it to calculate how the ground state radius of the electron orbital (the 1S orbital) changes as the dimensions of the “box” get very small?
    Is there a point where the calculated 1S radius of the H atom gets smaller than it would be for a “free” H atom?
    Is there a point where the 1S radius collapses?
    I’m not a quantum chemist, but it seems to me that this simple model might be useful in estimating [from fundamental quantum principles] how H atoms behave in tight spaces. This could give some insights on how the H atoms behave when forced into a metal lattice (the “box”) of known dimensions. Also; to estimate what happens when there is more than one H atom in the spaces within the lattice.
    Do we necessarily need to model the details of the confining lattice (ie. its chemical composition) to get useful predictions?
    Regards; HRG.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    Your business model allows you to replace models in the field with lower cost / more efficient revisions with the same external form factor every six months. What is your anticipated retooling time for new revisions?

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    R&D and validation is very expensive. Preparation of the factory and manufacturing issues are very expensive too. The effort is strong in both sectors. Leadership in this competition between R&D and manufacturing is not a number, but it is an integral whose area is limited by the projections of the time whose values are put on the x axis, the projections of the function of x, which is the money invested, and the segment of time considered ( the interval ab of the x axis where the projections of time pass through to reach the function).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    At this time, who has the higher burn rate ($), R&D or manufacturing?

    V/R,

    Paul

  • Eugenio Mieli

    Dear Steven N Karels,

    Rossi is right to say that the reaction of Ni-H is intrinsically too slow to cause an explosion.

    However, I fear that your worry has been overtaken by events of the last twenty years: it is likely that a military uses of LENR is real for some time now and is based on the use of the  e-m pulse generated by the reaction LENR, to reach the fission of the non-enriched uranium. A clever way to get small nuclear explosions considerably below the critical mass and without having to make the costly process of uranium enrichment (typical of reactions triggered by slow neutrons).

    These weapons are called “Generation IV nuclear devices” and probably have already been used as tactical weapons. There is a book in Italian, written also by physicist Emilio Del Giudice (close collaborator of Giuliano Preparata), “The secret of the three bullets”, that fully describes what I’m saying. Moreover, there is a strong suspicion that since 2010, North Korea came into possession of these weapons: this fact is documented by the work of a Swedish researcher, Geoff Brumfiel, the document is called “Studio Korea”.

    But, despite all, these things perhaps are in our favor and the very fact that we’re talking about, means that the time is ripe for a peaceful use of LENR.

    Eugenio Mieli

  • Andrea Rossi

    Damiano:
    The sales of the domestic E-Cat will start after the following conditions will be satisfied:
    1- the safety certification is obtained: the certification process is still in course, and such certification will not be granted until enough statistics will be available from the industrial plants. To certify the safety of appliances that will not be operated by certified operators is all but easy.
    2- the IP protection has to be assessed: all the clowns around that are saying they have the technology, will be able to substitute their mock up ( and their unsustainable theories) with our E-Cats, slightly modified, and really compete with us when they will be able to buy for small amounts an E-Cat.
    3- to avoid the point 2 we must be able and ready to manufacture million of pieces per month, to have prices enough low to forbid the foes to compete.
    The points 2 and 3 can be assessed only after the point 1 is completed, therefore is impossible, now, to give dates. Therefore, all the persons that have made pre-orders must wait patiently. Pre orders are not binding, they just assure a position in the waiting list from when the domestic E-Cats will be for sale.
    Said this, I must also repeat that the E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and validation and the results- positive, negative or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Damiano

    Dear Rossi

    I am one of the early few that wanted the “home E-Cat”, I was just wondering if there is an idea of when the product will be available.

    Thanks, Damiano

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    That’s simply nonsense. If it can be confirmed in a simple and straightforwardly, then lack of university affiliation isn’t going to stop you from convincing people. It will make it more difficult to get people to pay attention and to convince them right away, but if you have an experiment set up that shows the effect and the effect is repeatable, you’d be able to convince a few experts at first, who can check it out, and then more people would start to accept it.

    More globally, you are under the entirely mistaken impression that physicists don’t want to discover new things or find results that contradict our current understanding. But those are exactly the kind of exciting and ground breaking results that researchers are always hoping for. Of course people will be skeptical of things which contradict our current understanding, but that means that they critically evaluate the experiments and suggest improved tests if need be. It doesn’t mean that they just pretend the result never happened. If there are reasons to believe that there may be problems with the experiment and the researchers (or others) are unable to reproduce it, then people will tend to dismiss the result. But it’s because there are concerns which the people involved can’t address.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    The Rossi Effect is intrinsecally too slow to be used for that kind of things.
    Warm regards
    AR

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    My greatest fear for eCat technology is that a way will be found to weaponize it. Not just put it in a pressure cooker and generate heat until the container explodes.

    My greatest fear would be finding that a truly nuclear type explosion would result from using a purified or enriched Nickel isotope (i.e., weapons-grade) or a replacement for Hydrogen and a geometry that would cause a reaction like U-235 in a nuclear weapon detonation. Or some other combination of possible events or controls that could cause a very rapid increase in energy output before the constitient parts melt or are destroyed.

    For now, I will continue to believe this is not possible. But someone will eventually make the claim and you (AR) must be able to address it.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Scientists do not fear contradictory evidence.
    Scientists fear contradictory evidence produced by what they consider to be amateurs.
    Scientists consider them to be insolent and not knowing their proper place in society.
    If a team of one hundred PhD researchers from accredited universities worked together at CERN to accomplish what Borghi or others had achieved independently, they would be hailing their achievement as the advent of a new age. Only these modern-day priests are allowed to commune with the gods. Anyone else who tries is a despicable heretic.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Herb Gillis

    I would like to add to Steve Karels’ suggestion of 8/16 regarding He-3.
    In addition to He-3 it might be instructive to look at other “neutron poor” nuclei which fragment to He4 or liberate much energy when they absorb a neutron. These include B-10 (or natural boron, which contains significant amounts of B-10) and Li-6 (or natural lithium, which contains Li-6). It could be very useful to see if mixing or alloying these isotopes with the nickel charge used in the Ecat increases the energy output. AR once said he observed neutrons in an LENR experiment. Even if there are not neutrons per-se generated in LENR there may be things that behave like neutrons (ie. hydrogen atoms which have been “compressed” to small dimensions by the tight confinement within the metallic lattice, etc.). I think that lithium-6, boron-10, and other neutron poor nuclei will be a lot cheaper and easier to get than He3. Moreover; Li-6 and B-10 have been proposed as possible fuels for aneutronic hot fusion. Perhaps we can use the LENR technology of the Ecat to develop a more practical (ie. low temperature, solid state) way of exploiting these energy sources (in addition to whatever is going on with Ni + H)? In any case, these experiments would be relatively easy to do.
    Anyone agree??
    Regards; HRG.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 16th, 2013 at 7:46 PM
    Dear Wladimir,

    If you had someone willing to provide all of the equipment necessary to perform the experiment, why did you need a university at which to do it?

    COMMENT

    Dear Mr. JR
    If I had done the Borghi experiment by myself, would you accept its results????

    Of course not

    Santilli had made the confirmation of the Don Borghi experiment outside an university.
    Do you trust in the results of his experiment?

    Of course not.

    An experiment is considered seriously only if it is made in an university, and published in a peer review journal

    But the universities and peer review journals do not accept experiments which defy the current theories.

    This is just the strategy of the conspiracy

    Experiments are taken seriously only if they are made in universities.

    But universities refuse to repeat experiments which deny current theories.

    Then the strategy of the conspiracy is obvious: it’s impossible to perform an experiment so that to prove that current theories are wrong, in a way to be considered seriously by the scientific community

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    If you had someone willing to provide all of the equipment necessary to perform the experiment, why did you need a university at which to do it?

    It’s hardly signs of a conspiracy when someone stops asking your emails. Especially when you’re email people that you don’t know, ask them questions about the field they are experts in and then tell them that they’re wrong about everything, and make all sorts of statements that are obvious nonsense (questioning whether 7Li and 7Be are mirror nuclei, suggesting that people would have measure the quadrupole moments of nuclei which, by definition, have no quadrupole moment, etc….).

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    OTHER CONFIRMANTION OF BORGHI EXPERIMENT

    The Borghi experiment had been also confirmed by Elio Conte and Maria Pieralice in 1999.

    But they had made a different version of the experiment.

    So , their experiment is a strong evidence corroborating the result obtained by Don Borghi, because two different versions of the experiment had obtained the same result: the formation of a neutron from proton+electron at low energy.

    E. Conte, M. Pieralice, An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron, Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Thank you,
    Intriguing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. JR

    I think that it is an evidence of conspiracy also because Dr. Attila Csolo had stopped to send me any reply, after my last email to him, telling him about the Borghi experiment.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 15th, 2013 at 4:44 PM
    Dear Wladimir,

    ======================================================
    At the same time, you claim that the Borghi measurement from the 1960s is clearly important, and yet something which could be done 50 years ago hasn’t been confirmed yet. The link you provided is to a paper which says right up front that the results can only be considered preliminary because of the novel approach used, so even the people who made the measurement don’t claim that this is definitive evidence.

    If it’s “impossible” (according to you) that no one has measured the quadrupole moment of 7Be in the last 15 years, isn’t it far, far harder to believe that something that *was* possible to measure over 50 years ago hasn’t been confirmed?
    =======================================================

    RESPONSE
    I think that it is evidence of conspiracy because Santilli tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several universities worldwide, and he had been banned from all of them.

    I think that it is evidence of copspiracy because in 2000 I tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several universities of Brazil (with the help of Dr. Santilli, who told me that he would supply all the apparatuses), and all the universities refused to repeat the experiment

    I think that it is evicence of conspiracy because in 2002 I had a discussion with the Nobel Laureate G. t’Hooft on the experiment, and he had claimed that “Borghi experiment is a fraud”, in spite of he never had tried to repeat the experiment, and he refused to read the paper (which I offered to send him). After my offer, he never spoke to me again.

    I think that is evidence of conspiracy because Andrea Rossi uses the same radio frequency used by Borghi so that to stimulate the reactions in his exeriment, and there is also a conspiracy against his e-Cat, since we know that the meanstream media and the universities do not share to people the existence of Rossi’s successful technology

    regards
    wlad

  • Steven N. Karels

    K.D.

    I am just drawing the words that AR says to their natural logical conclusion. The clarification I received was the six month change-out time was six operating months. This is an important understanding.

    Obviously, AR and his people are refining the design and what comes out of this effort will be a final production item that will be an improvement over what he has now. But the basic physics should be the same.

    As long as AR is willing to share information, there are those of us who will gleam those statements to look for hidden gems of knowledge and understanding.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Borghi experiment

    C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I have found that there are sources of Helium-3 commercially available. Helium-3 is a possible future fusion fuel (third generation, aneutronic) and is found in large quantities on the moon.

    It might be possible that introduction of a small amount of Helium-3 into an eCat could augment the energy production. If so, when lunar colonization takes place, eCats could be useful in extracting energy
    from Helium-3. It would also be an interesting experiment.

    Unless there is a substantial benefit, relying on Helium-3 from the moon is not practical. Although there are thoughts about mining it and shipping it to the earth becuase of its energy potential.

    My thoughts were that if the eCat Nickel environment is such that Hydrogen can fuse, perhaps Helium-3 could also fuse.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I did not answer that it is possible now, I answered I think can be possible: but to make it possible a new design is necessary. Ar the moment it is not so. In any case, it is true that when we say 6 months, we mean 6 operative months.
    Thank you for the rephrasing, now I understood.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Please allow me to clarify. You were asked if an eCat could be constructed such that the reactors could be automatically rotated in place of spent ones to effectively extend the operational lifetime of an eCat unit before a maintenance cycle was required. For example, if the eCat reactor has a lifetime of 6 months, then a system with four such reactors could be sequentially switched in so that the time between maintenance periods would be two years. You said, I think, that it was possible.

    If this is correct, then we can conclude that the 6 month lifetime of a reactor was only based on operating time or total energy extracted from the reactor and not a calendar lifetime, for example, a storage lifetime limitation.

    I am not saying this is your current or future design. I only point out the logical conclusion from your statement.

  • KD

    Mr. Steven N Karels:
    You are caching Mr.Rossi by words. The answer to Mr. Giles question, that it is possible doesn’t mean he is doing that way.
    Let’s wait until he develops the E-Cat tested to be ready for mass production.
    That is what I think Mr.Rossi is doing. I am looking at this issue from the point of former machine builder and assembler.
    To build something, it needs some time. If not months, then years, so there will not be some design problems.
    Look how costly is to recall thousands of cars, because there was some problems in design.
    I am curious to and waiting to be sure the promises of Mr.Rossi are real.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I do not understand your question. What do you mean “revolving reactors”? I never used this definition. The rest of the question is not clear to me, sorry.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Toussaint:
    I am not able to respond to specific questions regarding the phases of tests and validation in course. Additonal information will be provided when practicable.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    What is the point of contacting experts on specific experiments or topics and posting detailed email exchanges with them when all you’re going to do is tell them that they’re wrong when they give you an answer you don’t like?

    I’m also curious why you think that the lack of measurements on 7Be is evidence for conspiracy when you still have no idea how these measurements are performed. It’s spin and magnetic moment, which are pretty basic properties, have only been known for 15 years, if what you say is correct. A measurement of Q(b) is likely to be much more difficult.

    At the same time, you claim that the Borghi measurement from the 1960s is clearly important, and yet something which could be done 50 years ago hasn’t been confirmed yet. The link you provided is to a paper which says right up front that the results can only be considered preliminary because of the novel approach used, so even the people who made the measurement don’t claim that this is definitive evidence.

    If it’s “impossible” (according to you) that no one has measured the quadrupole moment of 7Be in the last 15 years, isn’t it far, far harder to believe that something that *was* possible to measure over 50 years ago hasn’t been confirmed?

    Also, I see no sign of a paper by Borghi in the American Journal of Physics; can you provide a reference?

  • Toussaint

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Has the 6 months test of the HOTCAT has already started ?

    Thank you

    Regards

    Toussaint

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>