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

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    4Be7 conspiracy ?

    Dear JR
    as I said, there is not conspiracy in the measurement of the quadrupole moment Q for 4Be7.

    As the experimentalists had measured Q=0, byt they expect a value near to Q- +0,07 barns, of course they interpreted that something wrong happened with the experiment, that’s why they decided do not report the result, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have Q near to zero for 4Be7, according to the current nuclear models.
    ————————————————-
    So, this is the reason why the result has never been reported yet.

    However,
    as the importance of Q for 4Be7 had been rised for theoretical physics, if the physicists like Dr. Attila Csolo, Dr Stone, and others, will continue claiming that it had never been measured yet, instead of to investigate seriously such question, then of course we will detect here a conspiracy, yes.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 16th, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    ——————————————
    Dear Wladimir,

    1- As I have said before, I’m not an expert on these particular techniques.
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:
    But Dr. Stone knows them very well. And if he had knowledge of any reasonable reason why 4Be7 could not be measured by atomic beam, he certainly would tell me why.

    Unlike, you (who says that is not an expert in these techniques) try to justify why 4Be7 was not measured by using as argument your ignorance on the subject.

    —————————————-
    2- What I do know is that is generally easier to make a beam with a stable isotope than a radioactive ones
    —————————————-

    COMMENT:
    Of course, because a radioactive isotope often have short half-life, some of them in order of fraction of seconds.

    However it is not the case of 4Be7, because its half-life is 53 days.

    ———————————————
    3- and it’s almost always easier to make isotopes with more neutron than protons rather than with less neutrons.
    —————————————

    COMMENT

    1- 6C11 has 6 protons and 5 neutrons

    2- 4Be7 has 4 protons and 3 neutrons

    3- So, they both have one excess proton

    4- 4Be7 has half-life 53 days

    5- 6C11 has half-life 20,4 min (shorter than 4Be7)

    6- The radius of 4Be7 and 6C11 is practically the same

    7- Q of 6C11 was measured by atomic beam

    8- The experiments measured Q= 0,032 for 6C11

    8- Therefore, if your argument had sustenance, it would be impossible to measure Q= 0,032 for 6C11

    ———————————————–
    4- finally insisting that there must be a conspiracy not to measure them.
    ———————————————-

    COMMENT
    I did not say there is a conspiracy. I only said that Q for 4Be7 had already been measured, and the experiments detected a value near to zero. As the experimentalist expect a value near to Q- +0,07 barns, of course they interpreted that something wrong happened with the experiment, that’s why they decided do not report the result.
    After all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have Q near to zero for 4Be7, according to the current nuclear models
    ————————————————-
    So, this is the reason why the result has never been reported.
    ————————————————-

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    As I have said before, I’m not an expert on these particular techniques. What I do know is that is generally easier to make a beam with a stable isotope than a radioactive ones, and it’s almost always easier to make isotopes with more neutron than protons rather than with less neutrons. But I can’t tell you exactly why it hasn’t been measured. You *assert* that it is an easy measurement, but you haven’t actually supported this assertion with any details about how the measurements are done, how the beams are produced, etc…. We have all explained to you that these measurements have not been performed, and you have denied this repeatedly, finally insisting that there must be a conspiracy not to measure them. Yet based on what you’ve posted, you’ve never actually investigated the question of whether or not this is an easy measurement to perform.

    A ‘fake name’ doesn’t make it any easier or harder to write nonsense here. However, I recommend it for anyone who wants to engage in discussion with you without ending up on your mailing list for physics spam. More importantly, I generally consider the argument (with physics details, references as appropriate, etc…) much more important than the source of that argument. Would you dismiss a correct and well presented argument if I’m a nobody in the physics world? Would you accept an incorrect argument if I’m a Nobel prize winning physics? I assume not, in which case, my name isn’t terribly important. If you are focused more on who you’re speaking to and not what they are saying, then I’d say that you’re the one working against true scientific discovery. Though given your record of seeking out experts and then dismissing what they say out of hand, I don’t think you’re taking expertise into account.

    Anyway, if you want to have a discussion that focuses on the physics questions, I’m happy to participate. However, as noted before, this particular topic is not something I can speak to in as much detail as some of the other topics we’ve discussed.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    It will not depend on me. Surely will give the results of the validation tests we are making internally.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I am sorry — #2 was not a clear question. I mean, will the purpose of the conference be to announce the results of the test only, or maybe broader — e.g. to announce new business relationship with the partner, or launch a product, service, etc.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- what is your purpose when you ask me updating?
    3- possibly
    Warm regards
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You have mentioned at some point there will be a press conference.

    1. Will this be held when you publish the results of your long-term testing?

    2. What will be the purpose of this conference?

    3. Will your theory be presented at this conference?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 15th, 2013 at 8:07 PM

    Dear Wladimir,

    The fact that people stop replying to you isn’t a question of a conspiracy. It’s because you ask them questions, they give you simple, straightforward answers, and then you ignore what they say and tell them that they’re wrong about everything. Of course they stop responding after a while.
    ————————-

    REPLY:

    Of course… rsss , dear JR

    Then please give us the answer for the following:

    =====================================================
    1- The experiments had measuered Q= +0,0529 barns for 4Be9, by using atomic beam

    2- 4Be9 and 4Be7 have practically the same radius

    3- 4Be9 is stable and 4Be7 has time life of 53 days, and therefore the quadrupole of both them can be measured by the atomic beam

    4- 4Be7 has A=7 and 4Be9 has A=9, and therefore both them have A=odd

    5- Dr. Csolo had calculated that 4Be7 must have Q=+0,07

    6- Then why the experiments had measured Q=+0,05 for 4Be9 and they cannot measure Q near to +0,07 for 4Be7 ????????????????????????
    ———————————————-

    Please tell us why, because Dr. Csolo and Dr. Stone did not succeed to give us any satisfactory reason.

    Perhaps you know about nuclear tables more than Dr. Stone.

    regards
    wlad

    ——————–
    PS: Dear JR,
    it is easy to come here to say nonsenses having your identity hidden by a fake name.

    However I would like you respond the question using your real name, because if you say again the nonsenses that you like to use we will know who is the author of the stupid things you are saying.

    Otherwise, if you do not use your real name, we will conclude that you are one of the conspirators who are working against the true scientific discovery.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 15th, 2013 at 8:07 PM

    Dear Wladimir,

    Most of your discussion of current theory is incorrect, for the same reasons pointed out when you made all of these arguments last time. Your interpretation of just about all of the experiments (the ones I know the details of) is also still incorrect, as before.
    =================================

    COMMENT:

    rss… of course, dear Jr

    However, please explain to us the following:
    ————————————————-
    1- 4Be9 and 4Be7 have practically the same radius

    2- The quadrupole moment of both them can be measured by the atomic beam, because 4Be9 is stable and 4Be7 has time life of 53 days.

    3- The experiments obtained Q(b)= +0,0529 barns for 4Be9, by using the atomic beam

    4- 4Be7 has A=7 and 4Be9 has A=9 (therefore both them have A=0dd).

    5- According to the calculation of Dr. CSolo, 4Be7 must have Q(b) near to +0,07 barns

    6- Then why the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 cannot be measured ??????

    7- As the experiments with atomic beam detected Q(b)= +0,05 for 4Be9, why they cannot detect Q(b) near to +0,07 for 4Be7 ????????????????????

    ————————————————

    Please explain it to us, since Dr. Attila Csolo and Dr. Stone did not succeed to explain it.

    Perhaps you know more about nuclear tables than Dr. Stone rsss

    regards
    wlad
    ———————————————
    PS: dear JR, it is easy to come here to write nonsenses hidden under a fake name, because when you write stupid things nobody knows who is the autohr of the nonsenses.

    However, I would like you respond the questions with your real name, so that we may know who is the author of the arguments.

    Otherwise I will conclude that you are one among the conspirators against the true scientific discovery rssss…
    … and this is the reason why you cannot unclose your name…

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    Most of your discussion of current theory is incorrect, for the same reasons pointed out when you made all of these arguments last time. Your interpretation of just about all of the experiments (the ones I know the details of) is also still incorrect, as before.

    The fact that people stop replying to you isn’t a question of a conspiracy. It’s because you ask them questions, they give you simple, straightforward answers, and then you ignore what they say and tell them that they’re wrong about everything. Of course they stop responding after a while.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ===================================================
    CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE TRUE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
    ===================================================

    In 1935 Yukawa proposed a modelo of nêutron formed by próton+meson. So, he predicted the existence of a particle named meson, with mass 100MeV. In 1937 a meson with mass 140MeV was detected by an experiment, and in 1949 Yukawa received the Nobel Prize.

    Today we know that Yukawa’ theory is wrong, because the nêutron is not formed by próton+meson. Besides, later several mesons with different masses were detected. The masses are 135MeV, 140MeV, 494MeV, 498MeV, 549MeV, 958MeV.

    So, Yukawa’s theory was wrong, and he did not predict the existence of the meson. The prediction had been actually a coincidence, and the experiment in 1937 had detected a meson because there are several mesons existing in the Nature.

    After this undue Nobel Prize, the best would be if the physicists became themselves more cautious regarding the award of the Nobel Prize. Nevertheless, now in October 2013 the same happened. Peter Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize thanks to his prediction of the Higgs bóson.

    As happened in the case of the meson, other bósons can exist in Nature, and so the boson detected in the LHC in 2012 can be another coincidence, and the Higgs boson has nothing to do with the mass of the particles.

    It is opportune to remember that Higgs theory was working together with the Suppersymetry and the string theory. The symmetric particles predicted in Susy were not detected in the LHC, and the experiments already have discarded the possibility of their existence. So, Susy is definitively wrong, and therefore the best would be if the theorists would be more cautious in giving the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs.

    However, it seems that the Nobel Prize given to Peter Higgs is actually a strategy of the scientific community so that to deviate the attention of the world to the failure of the experiments made in the LHC.
    Actually it seems that such attempt belongs to a conspiracy with the aim of trying to stop the advancement of the Theoretical Physics, since to recognize that Higgs theory is wrong requires to change some principles of the current Modern Physics and to look for a New Physics with fundamental principles different of those considered in the Standard Model.

    By considering the development of Theoretical Physics along the 20th Century, we find some very strange mysteries suggesting that the scientific community is not interested to discover what is the true working of the Nature.

    However, the conspiracy against the true scientific discovery is not led by scientists. It comes from some clubs formed by many rich powerful men led by the families Rothschild and Rockefeller, and under the order of the clubs are all the Presidents of the most important countries as USA, Russia, England, France, Italy, etc, and the FMI, the G8, the OTAN, all the most important universities of the world and all governmental institutions of research, and they dictate what can be or not divulged in mainstream newspapers and television. They are members of clubs known as the Chatham House, the institute Tavistock, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), and the Bilderberg Club.

    The aim of those clubs is to stop the advancement of world economy. Therefore, any new cheap source of energy is not wellcome.

    ========================================================
    1 – Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments
    ========================================================

    In 1993 the American Institute of Physics published the Borghi experiment. In 1999 the Infinite Energy magazine published the Conte-Pieralice experiment. Both them describe experiments which prove that the nêutron is formed by próton+electron.

    Although Borghi experiment had been published in an important peer-review journal, the experiment was never repeated in any university or governmental institute of the world. And in spite of the two experiment overthrow the current foundations of Physics, the scientific community ignore them purposely, and the media do not talk about them.

    In 2002 I had suited in Law two Brazilian universities, so that to oblige them to repeat the Borghi experiment. The Brazillian Constitution prescribes that the universities of the country have to support and stimulate the advancement of the science. Therefore my lawsuit had a strong judicial embasement. However the two judges decided to betray the Brazillian Constitution, and they did not order to the two universities to repeat the Borghi experiment.

    Along some years Santilli tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several important universities of the Europe. He was banned from all of them.
    Recently Santilli repeated the Borghi experiment in the laboratory of his Institute for Basic Research, and confirmed the results obtained by Don Borghi published in 1993.

    So, the mystery: why does the scientific community continues ignoring purposely the two experiments? After all, if the scientific community accepts that the nêutron is formed by próton+electron, this imply in the need of replacing all the foundations of Physics, and then we would not need even the experiments made in the LHC so that to point out that the current foundations of the Standard Physics are wrong.

    The two experiments are neglected and refused by the scientific community not because they require a New Physics, but because they open a New Era for the scientific discovery. In the Conte-Pieralice experiment the cathode was melted by an anomalous heat (the energy of the radioactive source which emits the electrons against the cathode is not enough to cause its melting). Thereby, the two experiments supply a new theoretical background for the development of a New Theory so that to support a new technology capable to get cheap energy.

    And cheap energy is not of the interest of the clubs that are controlling the world economy. That’s why the two experiments are rejected by the scientific community.

    ========================================================
    2 – How Magnetic moments are calculated in Nuclear Physics
    ========================================================

    The text ahead is concerning the research on the exotic behavior of the light nuclei, developed in the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz:

    =======================================================
    By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics.

    The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the halo neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the outermost proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5 femtometers. “This is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo character of this isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is thus much farther from the other nucleons than would be permissible according to the effective range of strong nuclear forces in the classical model,” explains Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers.
    The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances,

    http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php ==================

    Ahead we discuss this point: is it viable to get a satisfactory understanding on the nuclear exotic properties of the light nuclei from the way that Dr Wilfried Nörtershäuser is trying ?

    ===============================
    MAGNETIC MOMENTS IN THE ATOM
    ===============================

    In the atom, the negative charged electrons gyrate about the nucleus, formed by positive charged prótons and nêutrons.

    So, in the atom the negative charged electrons gyrate in well-defined orbits s, p, d, f, g , because they are submitted to a Coulomb attraction by the central positive charged nucleus.

    In another words, in the atom the electrons gyrate in well-defined orbits because there is a central potential which obliges the electrons to take those defined orbits.

    Therefore the motion of the electrons in the orbits of the atom produces magnetic moments with values very well-defined, because the orbits are very well-defined.

    ==================================
    MAGNETIC MOMENTS IN THE NUCLEUS
    ==================================

    In the case of the nucleus, there is not a central potential. The nêutrons do not have charge. While the prótons have positive charge, and so they have to move within an enviroment with positive charge.

    There is no way to have well-defined orbits for the prótons and nêutrons within the nucleus.

    Suppose that we consider a nuclear model with a central cluster, and some prótons and nêutrons gyrating about the cluster. As both the cluster and the prótons have positive charge, the prótons and nêutrons will not move about the cluster along well-defined orbits, as happens in the case of the atom, where the electrons move in well-defined orbits.

    So, according to the prevailing nuclear models of Nuclear Physics, the prótons and nêutrons have to move chaotically about a central cluster, in the case of considering a nuclear model with a central cluster.

    However, in Nuclear Physics the magnetic moments are calculated by considering that prótons and nêutrons move in well-defined orbits.
    How do explain such a paradox ?

    Response:
    ———
    It is not explained in Nuclear Physics.
    The nuclear theorists simply consider that prótons and nêutrons move in well-defined orbits within the nuclei, however they do not explain what is the CAUSE which put those particles in a well-defined orbits.

    So, in the case of the calculation of nuclear magnetic moments in Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists use that old criterium inaugurated by Heisenberg, when he had proposed the concept of Isospin: to explain a physical phenomenon by ignoring the physical cause responsible for the phenomenon.

    Why are the physicists keeping the esoteric method proposed by Heisenberg ? We have now strong evidences showing that from such method is impossible to discover the true structure of the nucleus. Then why do the nuclear theorists insist to keep the method?

    Probably because the aim of the clubs interested in stoping the world economy growth are not interested in a new scientific method of research capable to decipher the true structure of the nucleus. After all, such a new method can lead to new cheap sources of energy.
    Then of course it is most advantageous to keep the inefficient esoteric Heisenberg method, so that to keep the scientific discovery in the same level of ineficiency of the present days.

    =====================================
    HEISENBERG’S ESOTERIC CRITERION
    =====================================

    Heisenberg proposed the concepto of Isospin in order to explain why two nêutrons do not meet together so that to form a dineutron, since there is not any repulsion between two nêutrons, while there is a strong attraction between them due to the strong nuclear force. As the two nêutrons in the dineutron would be glued by a strong FORCE of attraction, only a strong FORCE of repulsion would be able to separate them, so that to avoid them to form the dineutron. But the Isospin is merely a mathematical concept. And a mathematical concept cannot create a force of repulsion, so that to avoid the formation of the dineutron. Therefore Heisenberg had proposed a mathematical description, however his mathematical solution has not physical sustenance.
    =====================================

    Such esoteric solution proposed by Heisenberg is often used in current Theoretical Physics, because as some models are wrong (they do not consider some physical mechanisms which actuate in the existing models of the Nature) , then the solution used by the theorists is to consider the same sort of esoteric used by Heisenberg.

    And here a very intriguing paradox happens:
    ========================================================

    1- As we realize, the Standard Nuclear Physics had been developed through an esoteric criterium, because some physical causes are missing in the nuclear models proposed along the years.
    Therefore, the current Standard Nuclear Physics is an esoteric theory.

    2- Suppose you propose a new theory introducing physical mechanisms, in order to eliminate the esoteric character introduced by Heisenberg in the development of the Modern Theoretical Physics. If you do it, the theorists will claim that your theory is esoteric.
    ========================================================

    So, the nuclear theorists are not interested to eliminate the esotheric feature in Nuclear Physics. Incomprehensibly, they hope to eliminate the deficiency of the nuclear models and try to explain the puzzles that involve the behavior of light nuclei by keeping the esoteric Heisenberg method, simply believing that if they ignore physical mechanisms existing in the real models of the Nature they will succeed in their attempt.. And this is the way from which they expect to get a deep understanding the puzzles of light nuclei.

    ========================================================
    INFLUENCE OF NUCLEAR SPIN IN THE NUCLEAR MAGNETIC MOMENT
    ========================================================

    The Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe had estimated that the nuclear spin contributes for about 10% in the total nuclear magnetic momento of a nucleus.

    For instance, consider the 3Li6, and suppose that it has the following structure:

    1- A central cluster formed by 2 protons and 2 neutrons, with magnetic moment μ= 0 nuclear spin i=0.

    2- A deuteron with μ = +0,852 moving about the central cluster

    3- So, considering 10% of 0,852, the total magnetic moment of 3Li6 would be:
    μ = +0,852 – 0,0852 = +0,7768 ,
    while the experimental value is μ = +0,822

    Therefore the Bethe estimation is reasonable.

    ========================
    PUZZLE OF EXCITED 6C12
    ========================

    The excited nucleus 6C12 has nuclear spin i=2, magnetic moment μ = 0 , and quadrupole moment Q(b) = +0,06 barns.

    It’s IMPOSSIBLE (by considering any nuclear model which works from the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics) to get from calculation the null magnetic moment μ= 0 of the excited 6C12.

    Take for instance the lattice model, considered by some physicists the best model for explaining several nuclear properties of many nuclei. In the Page 41 , Fig. 29-A (of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in Andre Rossi blog JNP) it is shown what is the magnetic moment which we have to expect from the lattice model.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    According to the lattice model, the excited 6C12 would have to have a magnetic moment in order of μ= -7,652. Even considering the 10% due to the influence of the nuclear spin, it is impossible to get μ = 0 , as detected by experiments.
    There is not any combination of the prótons and nêutrons in the excited 6C12 from which we can get μ = 0 and i=2 by considering any nuclear model of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    In the paper Stability of Light nuclei published in the Rossi’s blog it is shown how the excited 6C12 can have μ = 0 and i=2 , as explained in the sequence of figures: Fig. 5, Fig. 26 , Fig, 27, Fig. 28, Fig. 29.

    The explanation why the excited 6C12 has μ = 0 requires a model which works with physical laws, as proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory. It is impossible to explain it by considering any of the nuclear models developed from the isoteric method proposed by Heisenberg, which sometimes do not work through physical laws.

    Of course the new nuclear model proposed in my QRT cannot be of the interest of those who try to stop de advancement of the science, since its investigation can bring a complete understanding of the true structure of the nuclei.

    =============================================
    3- The mystery of the 4Be7 quadrupole moment
    =============================================

    I had published in Andrea Rossi’s JNP blog a series of emails exchanged between me , Dr. Attila Csolo, and N. J. Stone (editor of nuclear tables published by Clarendon Laboratory of Oxford Physics). The emails are in the comments of the article Radioactivity Physics Fundamentals.

    Dr. Csolo developed along 20 years a theoretical work so that to support the theory which tries to explain the reactions occuring in the Sun. One the fundamental premises of his work is to consider that 4Be7 needs to have a quadrupole moment Q(b) in order of +0,07 barns.

    But the nuclear tables do not quote the Q(b) of 4Be7, and along our discussion I defended the hypothesis that it has null quadrupole moment ( because according to my nuclear model it must have Q(b) near to zero, as shown in the 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 quadrupole moment Q(b) very near to zero for 4Be7 imply in the following:

    1- The failure of the work developed by Dr. Attila Csolo along more than 20 years.

    2- The failure of the theory which explains the nuclear reactions in the Sun so that to explain the emission of neutrinos detected by experiments.

    3- The failure of all the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because from any nuclear model based on the isoteric method of Heisenberg it is IMPOSSIBLE to get by calculation the null Q(b)=0 for the 4Be7.

    Along our discussion Dr. Csolo used the argument that Q(b) for 4Be7 is not quoted in nuclear tables because it is hard to measure it. So, according to his opinion, in spite of 4Be7 has Q(b) near to +0,07 banrs as calculated in his theory, however it was never measured, and that’s why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.

    Then after a long discussion I decided to send an email to Dr. N. J. Stone. In his second email he wrote the following:
    ===================================================
    From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
    Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:37:54 +0000

    Hi, Quadrupole moments are particularly hard to measure in light nuclei since they are small and so produce small energy splittings which require very high resolution. The 9Be Q was measured by atomic beam which has the highest resolution. Laser spectroscopy would probably not be good enough.
    ===================================================

    But Stone’s explanation, instead of to reinforce the opinion defended by Dr. Csolo (that Q(b) for 4Be7 was never measured yet), actually it reinforces my opinion that it had been already measured, and the experiments had obtained Q(b) very near to zero, because if we compare 4Be7 and 4Be9 we have:

    1- The radius of 4Be7 is approximatelly the same of the 4Be9

    2- 4Be9 is stable, and 4Be7 has a time life of 53 days

    3- Therefore, as 4Be9 had been measured by atomic beam and the experiments had obtained Q=+0,0529, thereby if 4Be7 had Q(b) in the order of +0,07 (as calculated by Dr. Csolo) then the experiments would have to have detected something between +0,05 and +0,08, and the value would have to be quoted in the nuclear tables.

    In his last email Dr. Stone wrote to me:
    =======================================================
    From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
    Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000

    Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.
    =======================================================

    I sent him the following reply:
    =======================================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk; csoto@matrix.elte.hu
    Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
    Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:58:07 -0300

    Dear Dr. Stone
    Suppose that an experimentalist had measured the Q for 7Be, and the experiment had detected nothing.

    Would the experimentalist report the value Q= 0 ?

    4Be7 has A= 7 (odd), and therefore it cannot have Q= 0 , by considering the current nuclear models.
    Then , instead of to report the value Q= 0, probably the experimentalist would rather interpret the value zero due to some imperfection of the measurement.
    And from such interpretation he decided do not report the result.

    After all, as 9Be and 7Be have practically the same radius, I cant see any reasonable explanation so that to justify why 9Be had been measured and 7Be had not.
    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ======================================================

    Dr. Attila Csolo and Dr. Stone stopped to send me any additional reply.

    From the facts exposed here, it is obvious that Q(b) of 4Be7 had already been measured, and the experiments had obtained a value near to zero (and this is the reason why Q(b) of 4Be7 is not quoted in nuclear tables, because the experimentalists expect to measure a value very different from zero, and because they do succeed to measure a value different of zero therefore they suppose that something wrong had happened during the measurement, and they decide do not report it).

    Of course it is hard for Dr. Csolo to accept that his work developed along 20 years is wrong, if he recognize that Q(b) of 4Be7 has already been measured, and the experiments had detected a value near to zero. So he prefers to keep his illusion and to suppose that it had never been measured yet.

    But what about the scientific community?

    Wilfried Nörtershäuser is the leader of a crew in the Universita Mainz trying to solve the puzzles of the exotic behavior of light nuclei, by keeping the esoteric Heisenberg method. It is just the way he is trying to explain the halo nêutron of 4Be11, which has a nêutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus. For instance, he is trying this desperate solution: “Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.”

    However, in the case of μ= 0 for the excited 6C12 and Q(b) near to zero for the 4Be7 it is impossible to explain their values even by considering any desperate solution supported by the nuclear models developed according to the esoteric Heisenberg method.

    Therefore the conclusion of any sensible person would have to be: There is need to abandon the Heisenberg’s esoteric method, otherwise it will be impossible to solve the puzzles of the light nuclei.

    Then why the nuclear physicists do not accept this evident fact?

    An interesting and intriguing question indeed…

    ==============================
    4- The mystery of the aether
    ==============================

    In 1905 Einstein had his Special Relativity published, where he proposed that the space is empty. In 1919 his theory was tested during an eclipse, and confirmed the value of light deviation predicted in his theory.

    At once Einstein became a superstar like Madonna , Brad Pitt and the soccer player Pelé. That never happened in the history of the science: a physicist to be a superstar, with his face emblazoned in the most important newspapers around the world.

    Einstein and other who analised his life had supposed that his fame would be due to his charisma similar to that possessed by the superstars. However the true was different of what everybody had supposed. He had been transformed in a superstar because he had eliminated definitively from the face of our planet the hypothesis of the aether.

    Nikola Tesla had developed his work supported in the hypothesis of the aether, from which is possible to extract any quantity of energy we want. It was his aim to develop a technology so that to supply free energy for the world. And obviously such a dream was not of the interest of the powerful owners of the world. He never succeed to make his dream a reality, and Einstein contributed for the end of Tesla’s dream. The aether was definitively banned from Physics in 1919.

    Paradoxically, after 1916 Einstein tried to bring back the concept of the aether to Physics again, by proposing a kind of aether different of that luminiferous aether conceived in the age of Maxwell, because Einstein arrived to the conclusion that the aether is indispensable for his General Theory of Relativity. But of course even Einstein never did succeed to bring back the aether to Physics again, because the aether was not of the interest of the owners of the energy in the planet, because the aether is a promise of free energy for everybody.

    The strategy is clear: from the consideration of empty space proposed by Einstein in 1905, it is impossible to explain the excess anomalous heat which occurs in some experiments, as for instance cold fusion, because there is no way to explain that excess energy, and therefore there is a violation of the energy-mass conservation. So, from the consideration of an empty space it is theoretically impossible to occur cold fusion and other phenomena with excess heat. By this way the scientific community rejected along 20 years the Fleischamann-Pons experiment, claiming that the excess heat was resulted from errors in the calorimeters, etc. After all, the excess heat was impossible to occur, because it violates the energy-mass conservation.

    Unlike, if we consider the aether it is theoretically possible to explain where the excess energy comes from. And the scientific community loses its main argument against cold fusion: the energy-mass violation, which they use together with the hypothesis of empty space.

    In 2011 an experiment showed that light can be created directly from the space. This imply that the space cannot be empty, it implies that the space is filled by an aether, and such aether has a structure. So, the experiment demonstrate that the aether exists, and we would have to expect that all the important newspapers worldwide as The Guardian, Le Monde, The New York Times, Pravda, Der Spiegel, etc., should display in their first page, with big letters, the following spectacular news:

    =======================================================
    Einstein was wrong. The space is not empty. The aether exists, and it was detected by an experiment
    =======================================================

    But no important newspaper published a story like this. And the reason is obvious: the aether had been banned definitively by Einstein, and it cannot come back.

    In my Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, is proposed the structure of the aether: it is constituted by particles and antiparticles. As consequence of the experiment published in 2011, the physicists Marcel Urban, François Couchot, Xavier Sarazin, and Arache Djannati-Atai , had developed a theory where they propose the same structure of the aether: formed by particles and antiparticles. The plagiarism was published in the 2013 in the European Physical Journal:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    So, perhaps one can suppose: “Then finally the aether will come back again to Physics”.

    Of course not. The paper published in the European Physical Journal will be neglected and forgotten by the scientific community, as happened with the Borghi experiment. It seems there is no way to bring back the aether to Physics again, because it is dangerous for the owners of the energy in the planet.

    My friend Claudio Nassif developed along 20 years his theory named Special Symmetric Relativity-SSR, a new version of the Einstein’s relativity. Nassif’s theory is based on the assumption of the existence of the aether. He already published some papers in the most important peer review journals, as for instance the International Journal of Modern Physics D. Recently he was invited to pronounce a lecture in Germany, where he spoke about his theory.
    Along the years Nassif had the dream to have his theory recognized by the scientific community, and as he is the successor of Einstein, he would have also become a superstar, having his name shinning in the most important newspapers of the world.

    But probably Nassif’s theory will never be recognized by the scientific community, because it is based on the hipothesis of the aether’s existence. His SSR is dangerous for the masters of the energy in the planet.

    This is the way the Physics is going ahead.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Thank you for your insight and for your constant attention. Of course, I cannot comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    First of all, I do not expect you to comment on the following. It is provided to you so that may be able to gauge where the interested parties are in solving the eCat mystery. Perhaps, you could use this as an estimate of where the interested scientific community is at? I consider myself an “average” interested party. So there are obviously “smarter” people out there who may have a better understanding or guess on how eCats function.

    The current scenario out on the web as to how eCats function appears to be the Heavy Electron theory. These Heavy Electrons are obtained by the introduction of a catalyst (e.g., Potassium Carbonate or similar material) with Nickel particles in a Hydrogen atmosphere during the mixture preparation phase. The temperature of the mixture is raised above 200degC and “cooks” for some time. Some Potassium and some Hydrogen are also adsorbed into the Nickel matrix.

    During eCat operation, higher pressure Hydrogen is added and the prepared material is first heated and then subjected to acoustic vibrations. When the mixture “ignites”, external heating can be removed or reduced as long as the vibrations continue. A sophisticated control system, based on the temperature and the level or frequency of the “vibrations”, maintains the eCat operation.

    There are some indications that only one or two of the Nickel isotopes may actually react in the eCat operation. These would be consumed by the nuclear fire leaving the other Nickel isotopes for re-claiming and for use in non-eCat applications (e.g., metal alloys). My “guess” is that 64Ni is the primary reactant and possibly 62Ni is a secondary reactant. It is also possible the “catalyst” is either consumed or “poisoned”, necessitating the fuel re-cycling every six months or so.

    The assumed nuclear reactions are primarily Hydrogen-to-Hydrogen, ultimately yielding Helium which probably escapes the containment unit because of its high level of diffusion. Less significant effects are Nickel + Hydrogen -> Copper.

    The ideal use of eCat technology appears to be steady state thermal power output applications. These would include baseload electricity generation, aluminum smelting electricity production, heating for oil shale extraction where a constant amount of thermal energy is required for long periods of time (e.g., months).

    I still believe in my “vision” that you will have internally demonstrated self-sufficient electricity generation by the end of 2013 and will have an independent third-party validation report by the end of 2014.

    I submit this to stimulate discussion. The above is only a “guess” based on what I have seen on the Web and what has been discussed herein. Alternative “guesses” are welcome.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ron:
    Nice comment. I will think about your proposal.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Peter,

    Gerard ‘t Hooft states, “That free will is actually embedded in the complexity of the atoms in their brains. The world is so complex that nobody can predict what their decision will be, but nevertheless, whatever their decisions will be, they will be a consequence of the laws of nature.” But if the world is too complex to make predictions about decisions, it should be as equally too complex to even learn how the decision-making process of Nature works since the predictions of decisions must necessarily be tested against the decisions themselves. In other words, if the decision-making process COULD be correlated to the predictions of those decisions, ‘t Hooft’s hypothesis would fail obviously since, if decision-making could be understood, so could predictions be known. If it were not too complex for the former, then it should equally be not too complex for the latter. And since he puts a cleavage between the two, he also breaks their correlation which then actually and obviously goes against his own hypothesis of making one of them the consequence of the other. So his hypothesis is self-contradicting and therefore not falsifiable. And being unfalsifiable, it is also unscientific.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Ron

    Dr. Rossi, to judge by the comments I read here, your readers are getting restless. You can’t satisfy them with information right now, at least not much, so why not put them to work? Give them a challenge, a problem to solve for you. Your challenge would be to ask a question which doesn’t give anything away, our challenge would be to find out something useful for you. What do you think? Do you have something you want to “crowd-source?” Put a thousand minds to work!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    No comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Angrea Rossi,

    Any comment on Gordon Gocherty Primer on LENR?

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/lenr-101-by-gordon-docherty/

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Dott Rossi:

    eh eh eh !!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Let’s hope it’s not a Pheasant.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Honor to the Phoenix.

  • John L

    “Necessary fly. Or die”. To be, or not to be
    I like that attitude

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Just advise your daughters to eat vegetables, anyway. Good for their health.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    From the popular song ‘Volare’,

    “Volare ho ho
    cantare ho ho hoho,
    nel blu dipinto di blu,
    felice di stare lassù,
    e volavo volavo
    felice più in alto del sole”

    To fly ho ho
    To sing ho ho hoho
    In the blue, painted blue (sky)
    (I’m) Happy to stay up there,
    And I flew and flew
    Happy, higher than the sun…

    As you know, do not fly too close to the sun!

    So, have a pleasant journey. And happy landings.

    — Joseph Fine

    Read more at http://lyricstranslate.com/en/nel-blu-dipinto-di-blu-blue-painted- blue.html#kWAkH7jadCEYtevb.99

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    You repeatedly mentioned: “positive or negative”, concerning the possible outcome of the R&D.
    As a privileged person, I know there is no “if” or “maybe” in E-Cat, so it is difficult to understand what you mean with “negative”.
    Since your team is also working on a theoretical model, a negative result could mean that it is theoretically impossible to have high COP and stability at the same time with cheap Nickel powder (or equivalents).
    With ‘high’ COP I mean: a COP that makes it pointless to consider any other energy source, like once oil was.
    What can I advise to my daughters ? To learn how to grow vegetables, and prepare for a low-profile (consumption) life, or can they prepare, If they choose so, for a high-end civilized world with services and technology ?
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    1- the operation is interrupted anytime R&D reasons require it
    2- yes, more than one, but not necessarily for 24 hours, because all the data are recorded.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Soft landings are impossible. Necessary fly. Or die.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    We all hope you have a “soft landing”.

  • Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Among the e-cat units now in operation with customers:

    Are they in continuous operation, except for times when maintenance is required?

    When a unit is in continuous operation, is it continuously monitored by a person in the same room?

    Best regards,

    Bob

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    As I said, any specific answer before the end of this validation and R&D period should be premature and vain.
    The meeting regarding theoretical issues has been positive, though. But I hope I will not pass through the experience of a guy that jumps from the 30th floor of a house hoping to fly, arrives at the height of the third floor and says:” so far, so good”.
    Better wait for the conclusion of the validation process, then we will give all the necessary information, good or bad as it may be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Will the R&D you are currently carrying out confirm or disprove the validity of your theory?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    It has been made and I am convinced that the theory behind the effect is valid, but now it has to be passed through the process of validation and R&D that we have in course.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    the October’s summit is confirmed?
    (regarding the “sustainability” of the theory).
    Thanks,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    I cannot give information regarding the charges.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I repeat: I have not enough knowledge to answer. By the way, the compression in that system is not induced by the X rays, but from the recoil generated by the explosion of the target.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The NIF uses multiple IR lasers (over 100) with various amplification units, converts the IR to UV and strikes a target that produces X-rays which instantly compress and heat the target pellet.

    Conceptually, you could provide an encapsulated pellet with Hydrogen, Nickel nanopowder and your special catalyst and they could try an experiment? This assumes they would be receptive to experimenting with a non-traditional approach, which I guess that they would no. It also assumes you could and would be willing to prepare such a pellet.

    If it worked very well, it might open a new business line – pellet generation.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    Do you have scientists working to devise a method of creating a powder that cannot exceed a specified temperature? For example, the powder reaches 1000C and then a material mixed in starts to reduce the rate of nuclear reactions. Such a powder could reduce the input power needed to control the reaction rate.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I have not enough information to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I see from the news that the US NIF was able to achieve near ignition using a number of lasers and a pellet of Deuterium. Could you speculate on whether a pellet of Hydrogen enclosed in a Nickel covering and subjected to the same experiment might achieve ignition?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    That does not depend on me, but in any case no press conferences will be made before the end of the rigorous program of R&D and validation that is in course.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Here we are in the fourth quarter of 2013. Do you expect a publication release or a press conference this year or 2014?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Fabio82:
    Sorry, I cannot give this information. A press conference will be made in due time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jackie:
    Yes, we are making a rigorous work that will give us important answers we will share with you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Very interesting, thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    I realize that this post will be disturbing to some people but this is what I believe is the future of physics:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/10/07/does-some-deeper-level-of-physics-underlie-quantum-mechanics-an-interview-with-nobelist-gerard-t-hooft/

    When the simple rules that create the vast complexity that we know as the universe have been found, in essence, the search is over. There will be no more paradigm shifts after that.

    As I stated before, I am hopeful that this will happen in the coming few decades. The enabler for finding these simple rules is the now commonplace research instrument known as the Von Neuman architecture computer. Every budding physicist can afford a very fast computer. The computer is in its core discrete and is very well suited for modeling these discrete theories. This means that many different theories can be tested in parallel all over the world.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Fabio82

    Dear Andrea, I know you can’t give any information about your partner but should be possible for you making a comparison with another company in terms of importance?
    Good work!
    Fabio

  • jackie

    Mr. Rossi, understanding that you can give no more updates about progress without permission, may I ask you are you feeling fairly happy about your working life at the moment.
    Best wishes.

  • Joe

    eernie1,

    No harm done. I could have elaborated my point to Peter a little further initially.

    As far as God is concerned, in a previous comment, I stated that there is no high truth to be found in science. And since God would be the highest truth, God would be the very last thing that we would find by way of science. But since science is an endless journey of progress without end, it would only be logical that we would never find God by way of science. Therefore, we could only know God in an a-scientific way.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thorbjoern:
    1- I cannot give this information
    2- I am not allowed to disclose commercial programs, either in negative or positive statements
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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>