Math Lessons – Prof. Sergio Focardi

.

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

.
Introduction
These pages have been given to me from Prof. Sergio Focardi, when I asked him to help me with math to set up my theory.
These pages have been very important to me and I hope will be as much useful to our readers.
This way, Prof. Focardi continues to teach.
.
Andrea Rossi
.
P.S.
The notes are mine. Therefore may be wrong.
.
.
.

187 comments to Math Lessons – Prof. Sergio Focardi

  • Thorbjörn

    1. Are there two long-term tests, one in the USA factory, and another one in a different country?

    2. Will Sweden get a 1MW plant this year?

    Best Regards
    Thorbjörn

  • eernie1

    Joe,
    Don’t let the cranky sourpusses change your mind about the entertainment value of scientific enquiry. For my part, I have spent a good portion of my life seeking knowledge and truth(even being paid for some of the effort)and consider myself highly rewarded by the joy and entertainment I received. My reading time is mostly devoted to those periodicals that attempt to convey information and knowledge and very little to fiction although sometimes it is difficult to make a distinction between the two. I have found that there is humor among even the most serious of investigators. How else can you explain why membrane scientists call one of their branes a P brane? Or why particle physicists call the sub nucleon particle a Quark and the sub particle of a Quark a Preon(pre-nucleon). Lots of other examples if you look for them. Today in my retirement days I never lack for entertainment or ever spend a boring moment because of the wealth of new knowledge emerging from scientists from all sectors of investigation. With respect to the question of God, I find that all arguments for or against its existence boils down to a matter of faith. You either believe or do not believe.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    This is an issue that is dealt with by our specialist of the matter
    Warm Regards
    AR

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There are many level of certification. At some point, you will have the system run by operators who are untrained in the particulars of eCat technology. First comes the large commercial plant operations with dedicated technician support. Next will come OEM applications where eCat is “hidden” in the operation but still it is Industrial in nature. Next may be the Commercial applications where eCat is hidden but is used by local operators. Lastly, will be the home residential users (home heating, wall heaters, etc). Each level will be preceeded by a level in whicbh the technicians/operators are more trained than those in the next level. The statistics and experiences from one level will build the foundation for the next level, much as in a concrete wall. Layer by layer.

    As I see potential applications for eCat I will post them.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    This is a use for which the domestic certification is necessary
    Warm regards
    AR

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I forgot to mention that the Commercial Pizza ovens run at 350C which is a good match for your eCat technology. Yum, Yum, Pizza by eCat!

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered an eCat for Coomercial Pizza ovens? A typical Commercial Pizza Oven runs continuously (12 – 16 hours per day), requires about 6 kWatts of electrical power (natural gas versions are available).

    So in a typical year, assuming an average of 12 hours per day, about 24,000 kWhrs of power are needed. At $0.20 per kWhr, that’s $4,800 in power cost.

    Even assuming a COP of 3, the effective COP (including other electrical devices on the machine) might be 2. That would result in a savings of $2,400 per year. If the eCat addition required an additional $5,000 over the standard unit, its use would pay for the additional cost in two years. There are numerous Commercial Pizza restaurants so this might be a marketplace between the large Commercial Industrial users and the residential users.

  • Hi Joe!
    I do not know because I believe that even today’s science don’t know since they believe that Higgs Boson has a mass of 125GeV. If they believe that it possess a mass, then who gave mass to this particle from the moment it is considered as the mass source (giving mass to particles) in the Universe? I do not have knowledge of modern Quantum Physics and to fill this gap, I created my own version of it which for me it is clearer in regards to understanding the Quantum Phenomena:

    1. Discovery of a new postulate in Quantum Physics: Speed of light reduction with distance.

    2. New Energy-Mass Equivalence that supplements Einstein’s original one and a natural phenomenon that could probably verify this discovery. A direct consequence of this is the control of the gravito-inertial properties of a matter leading to improbable until now applications like invisibility, antigravity, inertia control, teleportation, new Energy sources, e.t.c

    3. Probable experimental verification through a puzzling natural phenomenon as takes place in the outer radiation belt (Relativistic Electrons suddenly vanish during the onset of a geomagnetic storm). Invisibility and antigravitational effects occur above our heads (Van Allen belt) the last millions of years, at least.

    4. Complete Electric Force expression.
    5. Derivation of the Nuclear and Casimir Force.
    6. Universe properties as derived from this theory: Mass, Energy, Age, Temperature, Acceleration without the use of Hubble’s constant.

    7. Quantization of Space-Time as derived from this theory: Quantum Length and Quantum Time and experimental indication by the Integral Project (ESA):
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm

    8. The Universe is an absolute rotating frame with a constant tangential velocity (2189.2 Km/sec) as opposed to what is today believed.
    9. A charged particle has a quadrupole nature: Electric, Magnetic (rotation of charge about its own axis), gravitational (due to its mass), inertial (due to the rotation of its mass).
    10. Explanation of Superconductivity: The complete Electric force between two Electrons (Coulomb force plus Attractive force) gives us the ability to determine the Coulomb barrier.
    11. Quantum Gravity: A charged particle possess besides an electric and a magnetic charge, a gravitational and an inertial charge.
    12. Gravitoelectric and Gravitomagnetic induction: An Electric field or Magnetic field may induce a gravitational acceleration.
    13. Unified Field Force

    Website: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
    Paper: http://ioannisxydous.gr/AQP.pdf

  • Joseph Fine

    Joe,

    In General Relativity, Space-time IS enmeshed with mass (and, therefore, energy as well). Space and time are literally empty without mass and/or energy. The sun, a basketball or a cat(!) needs some space and time to be itself.

    http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/10/quantum-foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

    http://www.nature.com/news/physics-quantum-quest-1.13711

    Space-time-energy-matter (STEM) are not just words.

    And their interrelationships are a worthy topic of science.

    Wonder-full regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Joe,
    I don’t know,I am not God! eh eh

    Mystics regards G G

  • Joe

    Ioannis,

    How would you explain the existence of a particle, such as the Higgs boson, which has a spin angular momentum of zero?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Giovanni,

    What happens after we become god?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    I used the word entertainment in a large sense as in a welcome mental engagement, as opposed to the unwelcome frustration (nuisance, I said) that the physical world gives to some people. Some people have fun in playing dangerously with the physical world. Others, such as scientists, approach it with gravity (no pun intended). But even they must be enjoying it to some degree since they become jubilant when they make a discovery.
    Ideally, science is about finding truth. Realistically, there is no high truth to be found. Science means progress, and progress means endless journey. With that, there can be no stability in any discovered truth. The scientific truth of 5000 years ago is not the scientific truth of 500 years ago, which is not the scientific truth of 50 years ago, which is not the scientific truth of today, which is not the scientific truth of tomorrow.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Joe.
    When we watch an instrument and we see the same thing,we are in an objective situation.
    But,the question is:are we watching the reality as it is really,or it is our idea of the reality?
    We are an evolutionary product of the universe,our matter is organized to give an intelligent and conscious organism and it happens spontaneously with the laws of evolution.
    Life is a prerogative of matter and throug evolution becomes conscious.
    I think that it is the way of the universe to look himself.
    It happens because intelligence and awareness are an evolutionary advantage.
    More an organism is intelligent and consious and more he is able to know himself and the surrounding reality,because they are the same thing,they are made with the same matter,energy and space-time(I aree with Joseph they can’t exist separately).
    We are evolving and I think that this process perhaps will be complete at the end of the times and perhaps “we”will be god. ???
    I don’t know if this question have an answer,but this is very enjoyable,because “Considerate la vostra semenza:
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
    ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza”.

    Dantesque regards G G

  • Peter Forsberg

    Joe,

    It is not fair to scientists to say that they are just like everybody else, just a bit more curious. That science is just entertainment. I think it is to belittle their achievments. Science in my view is something that moves forward to a greater degree of knowledge. Science is about finding the truth. Not just simple puzzle solving, like Thomas Khun put it. I read his book, and I don’t agree with his conclusion. I agree with you that we have subjective, imperfect knowledge of the world. But that is why science exists. The purpose of science is to go beyond our raw and imperfect perceptions.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joe

    Dr Fine,

    The problem with enmeshing space and time with matter and energy is that they would all necessarily have to share a common nature for the sake of intercommunicability. And this is especially true of concepts as fundamental as these which provide the basis for all complex phenomena. With the general acceptance of matter and energy as having a physical nature, space and time would necessarily have a physical nature. But the physical nature of space and time would be indistinguishable from that of matter and energy. Space and time would simply be mimicking matter and energy. It is a useless and therefore unnecessary doubling of causal agents for complex phenomena. Science demands a reduction of causal agents. So giving space and time a physical nature is really unscientific. It is also unscientific in that it can not be falsified. For example, when a measuring rod translates at high speed, there is a reduction in its length. Is the reduction actual, or does the rod maintain its length but in a contracted (physical) space? Also, when a clock translates at high speed, it slows down. Is it just a change in frequency, or does the clock maintain its frequency but in a dilated (physical) time?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    Science is a human activity. And like all human activity, it exists for our survival in the Universe. In a sense, we are orphans in the Universe, with our backs up against the wall of a physical world that is alien to us. Unlike our immediate mental world, the physical world is beyond our direct comprehension. So we grapple with it. For some people, this grappling is a nuisance that they would rather do without. For others, the physical world is a riddle that gives them some entertainment. Scientists are part of this latter group. But everyone does science to some degree in that they need to confront the physical world in a smart way in order to survive another day.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Here are my arguments:

    i)Todays Physics supports that most probably space and particles were created and expanded simultaneously. Could be this valid? The answer is definitely NO. Why? It is very simple. How can you define the term expansion or expansion velocity from the first moments of the creation when there is not present a stationary frame of reference (like space or space-time, whatever)? With other words, an expansion or expansion velocity presupposes the existence of a stationary frame of reference that is used for the definition of the velocity since the velocity itself is always defined through the covered distance against time.

    ii)Supposing for a moment that space (or vacuum or space-time) and particles were created simultaneously then what is the expansion velocity of the particles at the first moments of the creation? The answer again will be zero or undefined since there is not any kind of a stationary frame of reference from the beginning of the creation.

    This actually leads to a very important conclusion that space-time (Aether, vacuum, call it whatever you like) pre-existed as also space-time holds all the laws of physics in its own entity. With other words, space-time is the most fundamental part of the creation since it came first or pre-existed.

    Further conclusions as derived from my work are the followings:
    1.Stable charged particles are associated with an intrinsic spin (spinning motion about their own axis) due to Aether’s (vacuum) tangential velocity

    2.Photons can be only defined through the integration of Aether’s (vacuum) tangential velocity in their entity

    3.Any point of the Universe has the same tangential velocity. This result upgrades the Universe to an absolute rotating frame of reference

    4.The rotation of the vacuum (or Universe) justifies the existence of the oscillation (time, angular velocity, frequency, etc.) definition on quantum level. A vacuum without rotation (VA=0) clearly forbids the existence of matter, photons and consequently the existence of the Universe itself

    5.The vacuum (Aether) is consisted of stationary massless Vortex/Anti-vortex pairs (standing waves) where their rotation is based on Aether’s tangential velocity. The topology of a Vortex or an Anti-vortex is an Archimedean spiral (due to constant tangential velocity)

    Vacuum’s tangential velocity: 2189.2 Km/sec. A tangential velocity on fundamental level justifies the definition motion, time, frequency, angular velocity, e.t.c)

    This blog was created for exchanging information and news mostly but not limited to Cold Fusion, then the key to such kind of technologies is the definition of the Coulomb barrier. The definition of the Coulomb barrier requires knowledge of the complete electric force that acts upon two charge particles. The known Coulomb force is incomplete but valid where the propagation velocity is constant. For example the Coulomb barrier between two electrons is at 2.817E-15m, 255KeV or it is required from each electron to have a minimum velocity 0.745c in the vacuum (inside metals is less). But this can only be calculated when you know the complete electric force expression. The same equation can be used for the calculation of the Coulomb barrier inside Superconductors as I show in detail in my new paper and web site.

    For more details not only on the above, you may visit my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    I would like to add that from the moment fundamental laws of logic were abandoned by Quantum Physics, then certainly nothing can really make sense resulting to more complex theories in favor of the abstract mathematics.

    Kind Regards

    Ioannis Xydous

    Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Joe,

    I asked you this: “What do you believe that the role and purpose of the scientfic field called “physics” should be?”

    You did not reply to that question. You replied to the question: “How do you think that physics should be performed?”

    I share your view on how physics should be performed. But that was NOT what I asked you about.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joe

    Ioannis,

    My contention is that space and time are mental phenomena, and not physical ones. They are no more created or destroyed than are colors or numbers. One might say that frequencies of light (physical phenomenon) have always existed, but that colors (mental phenomena) have not. That multiplicity has too, but that numbers have not. Space is the mind’s projected stage upon which physical activity can be safely observed for our own survival in the Universe. This stage does not have physical substance. And time is the mind’s recognition of change. There is no physical substance that is flowing in time. Proof of all this is that we experience space and time in our ideas, thoughts, dreams, and daydreams. And none of these are physically tangible. Einstein said that time is whatever a clock reads, and space is whatever a measuring rod indicates. But clocks can fail in their mechanism, and rods can warp in the weather. Then we are left with a cacophony of times and spaces. And there is no scientist that would ever accept that.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    Science is about the following:

    1. Measurement: assigning mental objects (numbers) to physical ones (regular phenomena)

    2. Mathematical description: fitting a curve to the data received

    3. Inference: deducing a logical narrative about the evidence received

    4. Hypothesis: expanding the inference so as to allow a further set of measurements to be conducted that would test an adjacent phenomenon (this is how science progresses)

    And, of course, there is the usual error analysis that must be performed in order to validate any inferences that are drawn.

    Note that if we could actually see the physical world as it truly is, we would not need science to try to understand it.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    I never denied the existence of physical objects such as the Moon or even the Universe itself. But perception, which is unique to the mind, plays a role in understanding the physical world. We can never see the physical world as it really is, but only in the way that our mind interprets it. The way that we humans perceive is obviously different from the way that an animal perceives. Even something as simple as the perception of color says that the human mind differs from the animal one. For example, bees will use ultraviolet perception to target the right part of the flower for nectar. They need that for their survival in the Universe. We humans do not. Hence, this is just one more reason why we humans do not perceive ultraviolet. But this is the important lesson here, that we can not even begin to imagine how ultraviolet looks. It is alien to our mind even though we are bombarded with every frequency of light (which is a physical object). From this example, we can infer that different minds, or types of mind, would have different ideas about the Universe even though this physical world provides the exact same stimuli to all entities within it without discrimination.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea, Giovanni, Ioannis, Wlad and Joe

    The idea of continuous creation may be useful. That is, at time t = t0 (“In the beginning”) and now, while you are reading this, there was – and continues to be – an enormous and possibly “constant” (but immeasurable) amount of mass-energy in the universe(s).

    At this point, one may ask “How large is space (or how big is the universe)”?, or “How long is time (or what is the age of the universe)? If space were empty of mass and energy (which it is not), the extent of the universe would be a philosophical or religious question as the size of an empty universe – Space without matter or energy – can not be measured, because there is nothing, or “no thing” to be measured. And no one or no thing to measure it with.

    My idea of continuous creation is that some amount of energy and matter is always being converted into each other, and enormous numbers of virtual particles are created and wink out of existence in a flash (a quantum of time, so to speak) etc. and what we perceive as space and time may be emergent phenomenon. That is there may be a Space and Time at a deeper level than we perceive it, but Matter and Energy are the raw materials, and ordinary Space and Time result.

    But if that were true, how would this matter and energy be distributed in space and evolve over time, if space and time didn’t have actual or independent existence? Space needs to have matter in it or we could not see anything (“any thing”). And if it has matter in it, without energy, we still could not see it, because there would not be a JONP or people to argue these questions.

    I put all of these concepts into a unified system called STEM (or Space-Time-Energy-Matter). Just as you can not have space or time without matter and energy, you can not have matter and energy without space and time. So it is all entangled together somehow.

    I am giving myself a headache, so maybe someone can add to this discussion.

    Sy-STEM-ic regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Hi Joe!

    Very interesting discussion. Let me propose the following challenge about the space-time: If space-time was created simultaneously (instantly) with the massive particles and photons, then Einstein could be correct but not necessary. Please could you or anyone else interested to place his arguments to the following puzzle:
    Could you prove with logical arguments that space-time, massive particles and photons were created simultaneously or not simultaneously?

    I will look forward for your comments and later I will give my point of view.

    Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    Ioannis Xydous

    Switzerland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Three
    Warm regards
    AR

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 30th, 2013 at 11:56 PM
    Wladimir,

    ———————————————-
    1. We are able to create our own mental reality. It is called art.

    2. Perception is a personal phenomenon by its very nature. And perceptions do differ between individual persons. That is why we can have differences of opinion.
    ———————————————–

    So, we go to that old question risen by Einstein:

    – do you think that the moon exists only when we look at to her ?

    In another words:
    if you had be right, dear Joe, then the Universe did not exist before the human kind had appeared in our planet

    regards
    wlad

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    In your work as chief scientist, how many different teams and research projects are you overseeing these days?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Joseph Fine,
    well said !
    We could doubt of everything,but at the end we must think “cogito ergo sum” and being it a consecutio,space-time must exists.
    If it is the singularity that manifests itself to itself,could we think that the singularity of a black hole is the same thing that the singularity of the proto-universe?
    Than,this manifestation (space-time) has only one line, or are infinite (multiverse)?
    If space-time is quantic,could we think that the illusion is not if it exists,but if it becomes (flows?),or every quantum is fixed in its eternity and we have the feeling of flowing because we have ,in every quantum,the “memory” of a sequence of others quantum?
    Maybe God does not play dices with universe,because He flips they an infinite numbers of times?
    Certainly in this reality when we watch an instrument and we see the same thing,is an objective situation,but which is the true firm point of the universe?
    I don’t know it,but I have a feeling.
    When I look at my Dears’ eyes I feel that it is true,it cannot be an illusion and it is over space-time and over my awareness,is it the thing we name love?
    Is it the super-substance of the universe?
    And if God is love,is this God?
    I don’t know,but I know that this feeling is true and exists over the “cogito ergo sum”.
    So,if Cartesio was right and God cannot lie to us,I start from this feeling to trust in the reality.
    So we dedicate ourselves to make the things that gives us the time and the material serenity for investigate the universe and for look ours Dears’ eyes,one of this things is the E-Cat and today I think it is the most important.

    Regards G G

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Joe,

    What do you believe that the role and purpose of the scientfic field called “physics” should be?

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joe

    Peter,

    1. Space and time, like colors and numbers, are not riddles. Therefore, no solution is demanded.

    2. Even if we consider Einstein’s explanation to be metaphoric (pulling something out of a box), a metaphor still implies a resemblance to the principal object. And since, as I have shown, the metaphor (if we accept it as that) fails in following logical principles, casting it as representative of something else does nothing to bolster the veracity of said thing (the physicality of space and time).

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Duke Nukem:
    I do not decide the commercial strategy.
    In the position of chief scientist, I am engaged in the long and rigorous work of R&D and validation of the technology.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joseph Fine:
    Nice!
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    I agree.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Joe,

    Einstein just tried to explain aspects of the theory of relativity by a metaphor. In reality you cannot remove anything from the universe. The universe is as it is. You prove nothing by playing around with this simple methapor. There is no “if space and time could be removed”. They cannot!

    I don’t know how space and time is produced, you don’t know how space and time is produced, no one knows how space and time is produced. When and if anyone knows this, he will receive the Nobel price.

    But one thing is for sure. If anyone solves this riddle it will not be someone who claims that space and time are just mental objects.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea, Joe,

    “Time is nature’s way to keep everything from happening all at once.” – John Archibald Wheeler

    Joseph Fine

  • Duke_Nukem

    Dr Rossi: there are many discussions arount your commercial strategy. Can you say something?

    Regards

    D.N.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    You made your point, I made my point. I cannot continue to repeat the same things.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    I will give an example of how space and time are mental, and not physical, objects.
    Once, Albert Einstein tried to explain the difference between the old paradigm of space and time (classical physics) and the new one (relativity). He said that, in the old paradigm, if we could extract all matter and energy from the Universe, the only things that would remain are space and time. And that, in the new paradigm, if we could likewise extract all matter and energy from the Universe, space and time would follow as a consequence, rather than being left behind, since time and space are physical in nature (space contraction, time dilation) and are therefore intimately bound with matter and energy.
    Since we obviously can not test this thesis, the only way to determine its plausibility is through logical analysis. And here is how the thesis fails in securing the phenomena of space and time as physical, as opposed to mental, objects.
    If space and time could be removed from the Universe along with matter and energy, then an object would be necessary to act as a receptacle from which the four aforementioned items could be removed. There can not logically be an act of removal without a source for the removal being left behind. Otherwise, there would be no act of removal at all but simply one of displacement. And since that receptacle would necessarily occupy space and time in order to exist at all, space and time are never actually removed along with matter and energy in the first place. To believe otherwise would be to create a second set of space and time, necessarily different in nature (physical) from the first (mental), and have them coexist. And since one object can logically only have one nature (lest there be a clash of natures), space and time too can only have one nature. And that nature is, by the logical exercise just performed, mental – not physical.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. We are able to create our own mental reality. It is called art.

    2. Perception is a personal phenomenon by its very nature. And perceptions do differ between individual persons. That is why we can have differences of opinion.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    1- space is measurable objectively, therefore it is objective, whether you measure it in relativistic or in non relativistic situations
    2- time is the space between events, it also is measurable objectively, whether you measure it in relativistic ( Lorentz equations) or non relativistic
    3- numbers are abstractions that represent rigorously objects.
    4- colours are frequencies of photons, and are objective, unless you want to return to the Goethe Theory of colours…
    Said this, obviously any of them has also a subjective declination, but we must always maintain a clear distinction between the subjective concept of an object ( the object “per se”) and the intersubjective concept of the same object ( the object “in se”). It is true that the intersubjectivity is dynamic, evolutive, but it has not to be confused with subjectivity for the fact that it is evolutive. Otherwise we lose the contact with the rigorous, scientific method.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 26th, 2013 at 9:08 PM

    —————————————————-
    Dr Rossi,

    Space and time, like numbers and colors, are mental objects – not physical.
    —————————————————-

    Dear Joe
    if space, time, numbers, and colors had be mental objects without physical reality, then each of us would be able to construct its own mental reality.

    If you had right, my perception of reality would be different of yours.

    Regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    C.Genco:
    Thank you, intersting article.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    C.Genco:
    Honestly, I didn’t perceive anything of the sort.
    Remember that victimism id the mantra of the losers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mr. Rossi,

    We all know that international companies in the field of energy could have a huge interest in slowing down or stopping the development of the ECAT.
    I would not be amazed if some is working on background, leveraging with their infinite means, to keep their profits instead of diving / investing in the ecat technology.
    What is your perception on this subject ?

    Regards
    Callisto Genco

  • Le mando un articolo pubblicato sul sito web del corriere della sera.
    Il suo ecat DEVE diventare realtà.

    Cordialità
    Callisto Genco

    http://www.corriere.it/ambiente/13_settembre_27/ambiente-rapporto-onu-global-warming-colpa-uomo_2c91a908-2789-11e3-94f0-92fd020945d8.shtml

    [1]

    CLIMA: GLOBAL WARMING, LA COLPA È UMANA AL 95%
    IL SEGRETARIO DI STATO USA KERRY: «ENNESIMO CAMPANELLO D’ALLARME: CHI
    NEGA LA SCIENZA O TROVA SCUSE STA GIOCANDO COL FUOCO»
    · Clima [2]
    3 [1]
    ALTRI 3 ARGOMENTI [1]
    La temperatura media globale crescerà in misura compresa tra 0,3 e
    4,8 gradi (°C) entro il 2100 rispetto alla media 1986-2005 e questo
    riscaldamento è dovuto con una sicurezza del 95% a cause umane. Le
    ondate di calore saranno più frequenti e dureranno più a lungo, nelle
    regioni umide pioverà di più e quelle secche diventeranno più aride.
    Sono gli allarmanti dati contenuti nel primo capitolo del rapporto sui
    cambiamenti climatici (AR5) reso noto venerdì a Stoccolma dall’Ipcc
    (Gruppo intergovernativo sui cambiamenti climatici), il cui testo
    completo sarà diffuso lunedì prossimo.
    RIALZO DEI MARI – Rispetto al rapporto precedente del 2007 (AR4)
    viene delimitato con maggiore accuratezza l’aumento del livello dei
    mari, che è dovuto in parte allo scioglimento dei ghiacciai
    continentali e alle calotte glaciali polari, e in parte alla
    dilatazione termica dell’acqua dovuta al riscaldamento stesso.
    L’aumento entro la fine del XXI secolo sarà compreso tra 26 e 82
    centimetri (nel precedente rapporto era di 18-59 cm). La «forchetta»
    dell’aumento del livello marino, così come per quella della
    temperatura, dipende dai quattro scenari identificati nel rapporto: la
    più bassa se si agisce fin da ora in maniera convinta per la riduzione
    delle emissioni dei gas serra, la più alta se non si fa nulla.
    CAUSE UMANE – Nella sintesi di una trentina di pagine del rapporto
    Ipcc, che raggruppa oltre 9 mila studi scientifici multidisciplinari,
    il riscaldamento globale è da attribuire con una sicurezza del 95% a
    cause umane, un incremento rispetto al 2007 quando questa sicurezza
    era di «solo» il 90%, e nettamente maggiore rispetto al rapporto AR3
    del 2001, quando l’influenza umana era stata accertata con una
    sicurezza del 66%.
    REAZIONI – Ban Ki-moon ha ringraziato l’Ipcc per il suo lavoro
    «imparziale», dopo che nel 2010 era stato messo sotto accusa dai
    negazionisti del riscaldamento globale e delle sue cause umane per
    alcuni errori nel rapporto AR4, in particolare sulla velocità dello
    scioglimento dei ghiacciai himalayani. «Questo nuovo rapporto sarà
    essenziale per i governi che lavoreranno per la realizzazione nel 2015
    di un accordo ambizioso e legalmente vincolante sul clima», che andrà
    a sostituire il Protocollo di Kyoto scaduto nel 2012, ha dichiarato il
    segretario generale dell’Onu. A Parigi tra due anni le nazioni che
    fanno parte dell’Onu (110 i governi che hanno trovato una mediazione
    nel rapporto odierno dell’Ipcc) dovrebbero trovare un accordo per
    riuscire a fissare a non più di 2 °C l’aumento delle temperature medie
    globali rispetto all’epoca pre-industriale, oggi questo aumento è di
    0,8 °C. «La verità spiacevole è confermata», hanno sottolineato in un
    comunicato congiunto le più importanti organizzazioni non governative
    ambientaliste e umanitarie tra le quali Wwf, Greenpeace, Oxfam e Amici
    della Terra. «I cambiamenti climatici sono un fatto reale e proseguono
    a velocità allarmante, e sono provocati dalle attività umane, in primo
    luogo dall’utilizzo di combustibili fossili».
    KERRY – Il segretario di Stato americano John Kerry ha sollecitato
    forti azioni di contenimento dell’impatto dell’uomo sull’ambiente,
    dopo aver ricevuto rapporto dell’Ipcc. «Questo è l’ennesimo campanello
    d’allarme: quelli che negano la scienza o trovano scuse all’azione
    stanno giocando col fuoco [3]», ha affermato Kerry, «il costo
    dell’inazione va oltre a ogni altra cosa che qualsiasi essere dotato
    di coscienza o senso comune dovrebbe essere disposto a contemplare».
    UE – «Se il tuo dottore dice che al 95% hai una malattia grave,
    inizieresti subito le cure oppure no?», ha concluso la commissaria
    europea al Clima, Connie Hedegaard.
    Links:
    ——
    [1]
    http://www.corriere.it/ambiente/13_settembre_27/ambiente-rapporto-onu-global-warming-colpa-uomo_2c91a908-2789-11e3-94f0-92fd020945d8.shtml
    [2] http://passaparola.corriere.it/community/notizie/Clima.action
    [3]
    http://www.corriere.it/ambiente/13_settembre_25/clima-ipcc-rapporto-stoccolma-negazionisti-global-warming_a68b1a82-25b8-11e3-baac-128ffcce9856.shtml

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Sorry, my mistake; thank you for the correction.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    I feel honoured that you gave me the title professor, but unfortunately I am not. I am an independent researcher, and my research team´s main field of research is the nature of consciousness.

    Warm Regards

    Peter

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    I repeat: you miss the foundamental distinction between objective and subjective.
    Probably you did not read with attention what Dr. Peter Forsberg and myself have already answered. Science is always in evolution for the combined confrontation between subjects and external objective phenomena, objects, events and eventually between intersubjective replication. The determinism that you cite has nothing to do with Science. Determinist Science should be an oxymoron.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    Once, Earth was immobile.
    Then, it circled the Sun.
    Later, it was an ellipse.
    Now, Earth has a linear trajectory in a curved space.

    Each item above attempts to falsify the preceding one, and to approximate the proceeding one.

    The human mind can judge by this trend that it can never certify truth.
    It can also judge that there exists no ultimate goal.

    It is important to understand that the mind is responsible for translation of physical phenomena. The physical Universe will always be unknown to us. Space and time, like numbers and colors, are mental objects – not physical. An understanding of this will prevent statements such as the fourth item above. Truth can never be attained, but the mind can distinguish between various degrees of falsehood.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Peter,

    It is actually science that resembles religion in that both try to attain something that they believe has been predetermined.
    I am not a predeterminist.

    All the best,
    Joe

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>