Virtual neutrons and miniatoms in low energy nuclear reactions of hydrogen and deuterium

by
Lino Daddi
Retired Earlier Professor
at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy
Abstract
They are considered the roles of miniatoms and virtual neutrons in LENR reactions of hydrogen and deuterium absorbed in solids.
Has highlighted the role of virtual neutrons in restructuring of the nucleus, when the strong force provides the required energy for the virtual neutrons becomes real neutrons.

Some behaviors can be facilitated in hydrogen by alternation of the proton-electron system between the condition of miniatom and the condition of virtual neutron. This alternation could increase range and duration of the compressed system <p/e> to allow the proton to meet with a nucleus of the solid.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.

322 comments to Virtual neutrons and miniatoms in low energy nuclear reactions of hydrogen and deuterium

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    ..he,he,he..CERNy !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Cerny as in dark or black? черный

    -Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    I agree.
    In any case the observation of the astrophysic phenomena has given bases to the theory behind the work we are doing. Together with Prof. Focardi we analyzed some reactions that are foundamental for what now we call the “Rossi Effect”. It will be very interesting when the situation will allow us to disclose the theory we are working upon. Universe is a wonderful and ( relatively) free nuclear laboratory, in which happen and can be measured events that are impossible to be reproduced in a lab, as Cerny as it might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Ing. Rossi, Robert Curto and Readers,

    Dark matter and dark energy may or may not exist. According to recent news (see article below), a recent search for Dark matter has revealed nothing. Excellent detectors, more well-designed experiments and some old-fashioned luck will be needed to gather further, if any, evidence. If dark matter/energy exists, humankind may not be ready to deal nobly with the grand architecture (and the Grand Architect) of the universe, as many do not deal nobly with each other.

    Meanwhile, the 4 or 5 % of the universe made up of ordinary matter seems to have become extraordinarily interesting.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lux-dark-matter-null-result

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    Here is my opinion: NSA is working for the safety of the world against the terrorism. I have nothing in contrary that they control me or anybody, since their work is necessary for the safety of everybody. I am sure they don’t give a damn about the LENR, they have a totally different target, which is protect the world against terrorism. About the ridiculous complaints of espionage against Europe: this is just hypocrisy. In the spy-world everybody spies anybody. When I listen a bitch vindicating her virginity, I have difficulty to get impressed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gian Luca

    To the Readers
    look at this link. Could be interesting!
    http://lenr-cities.com/ecosystem_fr.html

  • Gian Luca

    Dear A.R. & Readers.
    Recently “DataGate” revealed that the NSA and other agencies are interested in our conversation via telephone and web. You do not think that this agency were (are) interested in LENR and in particular for ECAT?

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi and Readers, if you are interested in dark matter, there is a great article in the
    November Issue of Popular Science.
    Goggle:
    Inside the hunt for dark matter.

    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    Fig 5 in the paper your reference does not show the density as measured by the experiment, because the experiment only measures the charge radius and is almost entirely insensitive to neutrons. It shows the CALCULATED density distributions, and is therefore yet another example that conventional calculations can explain 11Be.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 31st, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    1) ——————————————
    Dear Wladimir,
    On top of that, as I explained and you ignored, the 7fm number quoted in the press release is almost certainly an overestimate being based on an extremely simple model (as they state). There is good reason to believe that 7fm is a significant overestimate, and it’s worth noting that all they really measure is how large the proton distribution is, NOT how large the neutron distribution is.
    ————————————————-

    COMMENT;
    You and Dr. Nortershauser are wrong, it is NOT overestimate.
    His paper had been published in 2009.

    The paper ahead had been published after 2010 (see [24] Geppert C et al 2010 to be published)

    Isotope shift measurements in the 2s1/2→2p3/2 transition of Be+ and extraction of the nuclear charge radii for 7,10,11Be
    http://ganymedes.lib.unideb.hu:8080/udpeer/bitstream/2437.2/15162/1/PEER_stage2_10.1088%252F0954-3899%252F37%252F5%252F055107.pdf

    Look at in the Figure 5 the radius 7fm of the halo neutron in 11Be, detected by laser spectroscopy.

    2) ———————————————-
    Finally, you’re using a simple classical argument to explain that the nucleon cant be 7fm from the center of the nucleus, and both Dr. Northershauser and I have explained why that is incorrect.
    ————————————————–

    COMMENT:
    Actually Dr. Northershauser explains NOTHING in his paper so that to justify how a neutron with radius 7fm can be keept in the 11Be

    For instance, there no exist interaction between the halo neutron and the rest of the nucleus 11Be, since they aparted by a distance of 7fm.

    But the nucleus has a nuclear spin. So, the neutron is submitted to a centripetal force, trying to expell it.
    Therefore, as there is no any force trying to keept the halo neutron, it would have to be expelled by the centripetal force.

    And I did not see any reference to the centripetal force in the paper by Dr. Dr. Northershauser

    Actually Dr. Northershauser uses that same stupid method used by Heisenberg, where PHYSICAL FORCES are not considered.
    Heisenberg method is good to explain the existence of ghosts, since they also do not are submitted to physical forces.

    By this phantasmagoric scientific method is possible to explain everything you wish

    3) ———————————————
    You need to understand some quantum mechanics for it to make sense, but it only needs relatively basic quantum mechanics.
    ————————————————

    COMMENT
    Of course.
    Since even elementary laws of physics as the centripetal force is not considered in the calculations.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    JR:
    I understand. Unfortunately, if the comment goes among the thousands we spam every day, I cannot do anything about it. If you do not see published a comment of yours, just mail it from another address, because means that the former address for some reason is not liked by the robot.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JR:
    I have found casually the 2 comments of yours in the spam where our robot has put them erroneously. Luckily they were in the first page of the spam, where I always check if there is something for error. Please check that the address from where you sent them has no connections with advertising, which is usually the case when our robot spams automatically a comment.
    In this case, I saw them in the first spam page and saved them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JR

    sorry for triple-submitting. Recently my posts haven’t been going through, so I’ve been checking after a couple minutes and resubmitting if there didn’t appear in the queue. I guess this time they were hiding somewhere, waiting to be moderated :)

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I said “he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree.”

    You said “No, it is not agree.”

    Your statement is simply incorrect. Here is the paper:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2607.pdf
    Fig 3 shows the measured charge radius for different nuclei along with several calculations. Some of the calculations do better than others, but ALL of them predict a larger charge radius for 11Be than 10Be. I don’t know all the details for some of these calculations, but I know for certain that the GFMC and NCSM calculations are based on conventional physics and conventional nucleon–nucleon interactions. Since these calculations, based on traditional understanding of nucleon interactions, can reproduce the small increase in charge radius, you are absolutely and clearly wrong when you say that conventional calculations can’t reproduce the measurements. They do. Period. Any argument based on the idea that these calculations are inconsistent with the data (in particular a significant increase for 11Be) is wrong.

    On top of that, as I explained and you ignored, the 7fm number quoted in the press release is almost certainly an overestimate being based on an extremely simple model (as they state). There is good reason to believe that 7fm is a significant overestimate, and it’s worth noting that all they really measure is how large the proton distribution is, NOT how large the neutron distribution is. Finally, you’re using a simple classical argument to explain that the nucleon cant be 7fm from the center of the nucleus, and both Dr. Northershauser and I have explained why that is incorrect. You need to understand some quantum mechanics for it to make sense, but it only needs relatively basic quantum mechanics.

    So in summary, there is no mystery here: the data are well understood in terms of conventional nuclear theory. It is certainly true that the calculations involved are very difficult, but they don’t introduce new assumptions or new physics to reproduce the data. They are ab initio calculations, and in some cases, were predictions made before the experiment.

    Looking at the list of references you included, I’m horrified to learn that you don’t even understand what is *meant* by neutron radius. Some of the papers you pointed to talk about the SIZE of the neutron – the average (actually root-mean-square) radius of the distribution of matter inside the neutron. Some of the papers are talking about the size of the distribution of nucleons in nuclei (related to the nuclear radius, not the neutron’s radius). And NONE of them are relevant to the measurement in question and the issue of whether or not it can be understood in terms of conventional calculations (which it can). No one (except you) ever claimed that the neutron “expanded itself to have a radius of 7fm”.

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I said “he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree.”

    You said “No, it is not agree.”

    Your statement is simply incorrect. Here is the paper:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2607.pdf
    Fig 3 shows the measured charge radius for different nuclei along with several calculations. Some of the calculations do better than others, but ALL of them predict a larger charge radius for 11Be than 10Be. I don’t know all the details for some of the calculations, but I know for certain that the GFMC and NCSM calculations are based on conventional physics and conventional nucleon–nucleon interactions. Since these calculations, based on traditional understanding of nucleon interactions, can reproduce the small increase in charge radius, you are absolutely and clearly wrong when you say that conventional calculations can’t reproduce the measurements. They do. Period. Any argument based on the idea that these calculations are inconsistent with the data (in particular a significant increase for 11Be) is wrong.

    On top of that, as I explained and you ignored, the 7fm number quoted in the press release is almost certainly an overestimate being based on an extremely simple model (as they state). There is good reason to believe that 7fm is a significant overestimate, and it’s worth noting that all they really measure is how large the proton distribution is, NOT how large the neutron distribution is. Finally, you’re using a simple classical argument to explain that the nucleon cant be 7fm from the center of the nucleus, and both Dr. Northershauser and I have explained why that is incorrect. You need to understand some quantum mechanics for it to make sense, but it only needs relatively basic quantum mechanics.

    So in summary, there is no mystery here: the data are well understood in terms of conventional nuclear theory. It is certainly true that the calculations involved are very difficult, but they don’t introduce new assumptions or new physics to reproduce the data. They are ab initio calculations, and in some cases, were predictions made before the experiment.

    Looking at the list of references you included, I’m horrified to learn that you don’t even understand what is *meant* by neutron radius. Some of the papers you pointed to talk about the SIZE of the neutron – the average (actually root-mean-square) radius of the distribution of matter inside the neutron. Some of the papers are talking about the size of the distribution of nucleons in nuclei (related to the nuclear radius, not the neutron’s radius). And NONE of them are relevant to the measurement in question and the issue of whether or not it can be understood in terms of conventional calculations (which it can). No one (except you) ever claimed that the neutron “expanded itself to have a radius of 7fm”.

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I said “he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree.”

    You said “No, it is not agree.”

    Your statement is factually incorrect – clearly and obviously:

    Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2607.pdf

    Fig 3 shows the measured charge radius for different nuclei along with several calculations. Some of the calculations do better than others, but ALL of them predict a larger charge radius for 11Be than 10Be. I don’t know exactly what goes into all of these calculations, but I do know for certain that the GFMC and NCSM calculations are based on conventional physics and conventional nucleon–nucleon interactions. Since these calculations, based on traditional understanding of nucleon interactions, can reproduce the small increase in charge radius, you are absolutely and clearly wrong when you say that conventional calculations can’t reproduce the measurements. They do. Period. Any argument based on the idea that these calculations are inconsistent with the data (in particular a significant increase for 11Be) is wrong.

    On top of that, as I explained, the 7fm number quoted in the press release is almost certainly an overestimate being based on an extremely simple model (as they state). There is good reason to believe that 7fm is a significant overestimate, and it’s worth noting that all they really measure is how large the proton distribution is, NOT how large the neutron distribution is. Finally, you’re using a simple classical argument to explain that the nucleon cant be 7fm from the center of the nucleus, and both Dr. Northershauser and I have explained why that is incorrect. You need to understand some quantum mechanics for it to make sense, but it only needs relatively basic quantum mechanics.

    So in summary, there is no mystery here: the data are well understood in terms of conventional nuclear theory. It is certainly true that the calculations involved are very difficult, but they don’t introduce new assumptions or new physics to reproduce the data. They are ab initio calculations, and in some cases, were predictions made before the experiment.

    Looking at the list of references you included, I’m horrified to learn that you don’t even understand what is meant by neutron radius. Some of the papers you pointed to talk about the SIZE of the neutron – the average (actually root-mean-square) radius of the distribution of matter inside the neutron. Some of the papers are talking about the size of the distribution of nucleons in nuclei (related to the nuclear radius, not the neutron’s radius). And NONE of them are relevant to the measurement in question and the issue of whether or not it can be understood in terms of conventional calculations (which it can).

  • Steven N. Karels

    Gaston,

    A few years ago, I asked the same question about Helium being observed. Andrea Rossi’s answer then was no. However, Helium has a high degree of diffusion so I interpret his response to include the possiblity that it may have been generated in small quantities over a long period of time and simply diffused out of the container. Likewise, outside atmospheric Helium could diffuse into the sealed container, thus making the determination that it was produced more difficult. My thoughts…

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hans Persson:
    Nothing is under question, all is under long term third party validation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco Serra:
    As I said, the results will be communicated after the end of the validation tests in course. The difference between the tests in course and the ones done in past are essentially based upon the duration, which means that the reactors are reliable in a long term. It is true that we already made long term tests, but not with a third party. I think it is not scientifically correct to say ” I am optimist”, I prefer to say ” We are measuring”. I sympathize with your anxiety to have good news, and I thank you for this, really. Bu I can say nothing until the end of this validation cycle.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gaston Leforge:
    We cannot give this information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gaston Leforge

    Dear A. Rossi,

    Have you measured Helium production from your E-Cat ?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 30th, 2013 at 6:51 PM

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

    I don’t need to have a discussion with Dr. Nortershauser about whether or not the data can be explained by conventional calculations. He published a paper (the one discussed in that press release) where he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree.
    ————————————

    COMMENT.

    No, it is not agree.

    All the experiments which already had detected the radius of the neutron had never shown that it can expand itself and to have a radius in order of 7fm:

    Neutron charge radius determined from the energy dependence of the neutron transmission of liquid 208Pb and 209Bi
    http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v56/i4/p2229_1

    Measurement of the Neutron Radius of 208Pb Through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2568

    Parity Radius Experiment and Neutron Densities
    http://www.int.washington.edu/talks/WorkShops/int_07_36W/People/Horowitz_C/Horowitz4.pdf

    Nuclear Structure, Neutron Radii,Error Bars, and Correlations
    http://www.jlab.org/conferences/crex/mon_am/JPiekarewiczCREX.pdf

    Neutron’s Spin and Radius
    http://www.gauge-institute.org/wave-particle/NeutronRing.pdf

    On the Radius of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and the Atomic Nucleus
    http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/yue.pdf

    Dear JR,
    if your idea of the scientific method is to consider that theorists can change the current theories every time when an experiment disproves the predictions of the theories, then in this case it is very easy to develop new theories from your viewpoint.

    regards
    wlad

  • Marco Serra

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    you saying that you will share the long-term test results whatever they will be, positive or negative.
    My question is how could them be negative ? There is already a rigorous scientific research stating that eCat works, even if COP is not well clear but certainly >1. So, what kind of negative results are you thinking ?
    Finally, ok nobody knows future but … do you feel optimistic about the POSITIVITY of the results of that test ?

    Best regards
    Marco

  • Hans Persson

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Regarding your ongoing tests you keep saying:
    “Whatever the results, positive or negative, we will share them with the scientific world.”
    This opens up the possibility that the Hot Cat may not be commercially viable. But what about the water based versions of E-Cat that were promised to have a COP of at least six? Is that promise still valid or is it also under question?
    Kind regards, HP

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 30th, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    —————————————
    Dear Wladimir,

    I don’t need to have a discussion with Dr. Nortershauser about whether or not the data can be explained by conventional calculations. He published a paper (the one discussed in that press release) where he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree. And in the press release you linked to, he EXPLAINS WHY it is perfectly OK for the neutron to be further away than your naive expectation
    ————————————————

    COMMENT
    No, the explanation given by Nortershauser is also UNACCEPTABLE from other view point:

    1- In 97% of the decays the 4Be11 becomes 5B10

    2- Therefore that nêutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus becomes a próton

    3- When the nêutron becomes a próton, a Strong Coulomb force starts to repell the próton and the rest of the 5B10 nucleus.

    4- As the próton is in the distance of 7fm of the rest of the 5B10, there is not Strong force between them, capable to win the Coulomb force of repulsion, because the range of Strong force is only 2fm and 3fm.

    5- CONCLUSION: it is IMPOSSIBLE to occur the decay 4Be11 -> 5B10, according to Nortershauser theory.

    7- FINAL CONCLUSION:
    Dr. Nortershauser theory is UNACCEPTABLE, because if it had be correct, the 5B10 would never be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decay.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 30th, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    —————————————–
    Dear Wladimir,

    I don’t need to have a discussion with Dr. Nortershauser about whether or not the data can be explained by conventional calculations. He published a paper (the one discussed in that press release) where he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree.
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:

    You are wrong.

    As said Dr. Nortershauser:
    ——————————————–
    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.
    ——————————————

    However, Dr. Nortershauser had proposed a DESPERATE theory with a strange bizarre property of the nêutron:

    ———————————————-
    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, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.
    ———————————————-

    Such a solution is not according to the classical nuclear physics

    There is not any experimente which proves that the nêutron can expand its size, getting a radius of about 7fm.

    If the nêutrons at low energy had such a bizarre property of expanding themselves, it would be detected by scaterring experiments próton-nêutron.

    Of course it is easy to propose crazy theories so that to explain the exotic light nuclei (mainly when the nuclei defy the classical Nuclear Physics, and therefore the theorists need to look for absurd theories).

    Other question is to accept crazy theories, and to get experimental confirmations for such a crazy theories.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 30th, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    ————————————–
    Dear Wladimir,
    By the way, I also already gave you the answer to your question on di-neutrons, you just refused to acknowledge or accept it.
    ————————————-

    COMMENT:
    any answer given by you or any nuclear physicists is unacceptable, because:

    1- There is not any repulsion force between two nêutrons

    2- Therefore, even a weak force would be able to bind two nêutrons, since there is no repulsion between them.

    3- So, even if the interaction nêutron-nêutron is not so strong as the interaction próton-próton, however the interaction nêutron-nêutron exists, and it would be able to bind two nêutrons, by considering the current Nuclear Physics.

    http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v39/i3/p575_1

    Conclusion:

    Current nuclear models cannot explain why dineutrons do not exist, because Heisenberg explanation via isospin is UNACCEPTABLE, since it is a mere abstract concept, unable to yield any physical force of repulsion capable to separate two nêutrons bound by their interaction nêutron-nêutron.

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I don’t need to have a discussion with Dr. Nortershauser about whether or not the data can be explained by conventional calculations. He published a paper (the one discussed in that press release) where he DIRECTLY COMPARES his data to these calculations and shows that they agree. And in the press release you linked to, he EXPLAINS WHY it is perfectly OK for the neutron to be further away than your naive expectation (it’s a short version of the argument I gave you before, which you so productively summarized as ‘bla-bla-bla’). As I’ve noted before, you have to interpret statements in press releases differently than statement written by scientists in scientific articles.

    I also previously explained why the 7fm number has a large uncertainty (from the measurement) AND is most likely a significant overestimate. In part because it’s a very extracted using a very simple picture where they attribute ALL of the effect to center-of-mass motion, neglecting the fact that as nuclei get heavier, they also tend to get larger. Just using the simple model that R is proportional to A^1/3 gives a 3.2% increase in the radius from A=10 to A=11, while their measurement showed a 4.5% increase, if I remember correctly.

    By the way, I also already gave you the answer to your question on di-neutrons, you just refused to acknowledge or accept it.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Yes, I think LENR can be a source of energy competitive for the production of alternative fuels.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There was a posting on eCat world about using eCat technology to generate synthetic fuels from coal, natural gas, etc. It seems the process requires temperatures in the 350C area so it initially looks like a promising technology. But the history of commercial synthetic fuel generation is littered with broken corporations as the price of oil fluxuates.

    But it might be a possible eCat use. Any opinion on LENR in general as the heat source for synthetic fuel generation?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2013 at 8:28 PM

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

    I’m still waiting for you to explain why a measurement of 11Be which agrees with several modern calculations disproves those calculations
    ======================================================

    COMMENT:
    The best person to answer your question is Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser, of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

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

    He said:
    —————————————————–
    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,

    The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers.
    ——————————————————

    Therefore, dear JR,
    if you think that Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser is wrong, go to tell him that the measurement of 11Be agrees with several modern calculations.

    After all, as he is wrong as you claim, he is wasting his time making experiments with the exotic light nuclei.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2013 at 8:28 PM

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

    I’m still waiting for you to explain how a question about a possible 4% change in the proton charge radius supports your result (which is a factor of 3 off from all measurements), why a measurement of interference in photons which agrees exactly with standard predictions disproves quantum mechanics and requires some odd photon structure, why a measurement of 11Be which agrees with several modern calculations disproves those calculations, why the well-reproduced deuteron binding energy disproves conventional theory, etc….
    ======================================================

    Dear JR.
    And I am waiting you respond the question on the scientific method proposed by Heisenberg.

    There is no repulsion between two neutrons, and as two neutrons have attraction due to the strong force, the dineutron would have to exist in nature.
    But dineutrons do not exist.

    Heisenberg had proposed the concept of isospin, so that to explain why two neutrons do not meet together, and do not form the dineutron.

    However the attraction between two neutrons is a physical force, and therefore only a physical force of repulsion can be able to separate two neutrons bound together by the strong force.

    The isospin proposed by Heisenberg is a mere mathematical concept. The isospin cannot create a physical force of repulsion, capable to separate the two neutrons in the dineutron.

    1- Dont you think that there is a physical cause missing in the Heisenberg’s solution ?

    2- Do you think that such method proposed by Heisenberg (according to which some physical phenomena can be explained by abstract mathematical concepts) is acceptable ?

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    I didn’t respond to your previous two posts because while you provided some new information, the information you provided showed that the measurements couldn’t be done (at least at the time these works examined them). You then *speculated* that it should have been easy to fix the problem or turn some knobs (“change some variables”) to improve things by factors of 10 or 100. But these are simply assertions of your opinions presented as fact, and there’s no point refuting them because they don’t contain any new or useful information.

    By the way, you seem to think that people not replying to specific comments or emails (often within a day or two) represents some acknowledgement that you have proved them wrong. It doesn’t. For what it’s worth, I’m still waiting for you to explain how a question about a possible 4% change in the proton charge radius supports your result (which is a factor of 3 off from all measurements), why a measurement of interference in photons which agrees exactly with standard predictions disproves quantum mechanics and requires some odd photon structure, why a measurement of 11Be which agrees with several modern calculations disproves those calculations, why the well-reproduced deuteron binding energy disproves conventional theory, etc….

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gherardo:
    I sympathize with you, but our policy is not to talk until the tests of validation will have been finished.
    Whatever the results, positive or negative, we will share them with the scientific world.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    probably as many others, I did notice a big change more or less in the last 6 months.
    Before this last period, you were frequently providing interesting peeks on either technology or activities or results.
    I understand you sold your idea/company/whatever, and afterward the news flow dried up. Beside saying that the buyer is performing long term tests, the info flow is about zero.
    Even if I understand your position and the company’s motivations for beeing mum, I wish to share a little discomfort from a long time follower as time goes by and nothing is going public.
    All the best, Gherardo

  • Dear Steven N. Karels,
    Yes, heat rejection would have to go also when parked. But the power level would be much lower than a car engine. How low, it would depend on how good the insulation of the LH2 tank is. Vacuum MLI insulation is the best, I think. Either a fan or a fluid cooling loop going through the chassis would probably be needed.

    Another alternative would be to use ammonia instead of hydrogen as fuel. Liquid ammonia can be stored in about 5 bar pressurised tank and it can be produced from hydrogen and nitrogen by the Haber-Bosch process. In this case, an onboard E-cat wouldn’t be needed at all, just cheap industrial energy to make hydrogen. Although poisonous, NH3 is routinely transported in large amounts by railways and trucks. For some hands-on projects, see http://www.nh3car.com.
    r:/p.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Pekka,

    An interesting alternative. But there are some practical considerations.

    What happens when the vehcle is parked for a long period of time, say at an airport parking lot for a few days/weeks? Does the eCat power unit come on every so often to keep the LH2 liquid? No cooling air rushing by to cool the excess eCat heat. Maybe it overheats?

    Probably many more issues that we have not considered

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen: the very big problem of these declinations is the certification. The idea is intelligent, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Steven N. Karels, Andrea Rossi,
    What about an intermediate solution: liquid hydrogen car, with a small continuously running E-cat which runs a cryocooler which keeps the LH2 in its liquid state. LH2 is safer to store than gaseous hydrogen and needs less tankage mass (indeed, LH2 is routinely transported by trucks on normal roads). LH2 takes somewhat more energy to produce than GH2, but with cheap E-cat produced grid electricity that wouldn’t be an issue.
    r:/pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    It will be a necessity, sooner or later. But not in the short or middle term.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It seems to me that the ideal application for eCat technology is generating a uniform thermal power output. With that assumption, the obvious application is in baseload electrical generation where a plant runs for several months of continuous, constant output conditions.

    One of the least desirable applications would be the automobile application. While some of the driving is long distance and relatively constant power, there are cases where the operation is of short duration and where an onboard eCat might have difficulty activating and shutting down over the user demand time frame. I doubt that people will want their cars “running” while in the garage or parked on a street. So the long term automotice (including trucks) “fuel” of choice seems to be either electric or hydrogen. By long term I mean post fossil fuels.

    For either an electric or a hydrogen based transportation system, I believe eCat could be a valuable energy source mechanism. As mentioned above, electricity generation is well suited to eCat technology. On my previous posting, hydrogen generation on a commercial level should be possible, economical and environmentally friendly using eCat technology or similar LENR technology.

    Whether it is your technology or that of another LENR approach, the use of non-carbon based energy production for electricity and hydrogen productions seems, to me, inevitable.

    Without discussing your particular technology, I invite you to respond on your perspective of non-fossil fuel based energy production as the future of our society.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Interesting declination, to be verified.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered using eCat technology to commercially produce Hydrogen? The approach I suggest is the Sulfur-Ioding (S-I) process. It requires a maximum temperature of 850C. It is a cycle so the Sulfer and Iodine are not consumed, the input is water and the output is Oxygen and Hydrogen. Perhaps a portion of the Hydrogen and Oxygen could be consumed to improve the effective COP?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I cannot give a specific answer to your question, so far. Thank you anyway for your suggestion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I did not ask you to reveal or discuss your theory. My suggestion and request was that when you release your theory and experimental evidence that you consider including the effects of decreasing or increasing the Nickel particle size on eCat performance.

    Furthermore, I suggested addressing such information in your patent applicaiton to protect you from another person or corporation obtaining a patent by adjusting the Nickel particle size.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I agree upon the fact that the article of Prof. Daddi is interesting. As for my theory, I already have answered many times.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    In his reply to me, concerning that paper where he and other physicists had proposed an experimente so that to measure the quadrupole moment for 4Be7 ,Dr. Per Jönsson wrote :

    =====================================================
    From: per.jonsson@mah.se
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com; Michel.Godefroid@ulb.ac.be
    Subject: RE: your paper of 2003 on 7Be quadrupole moment
    Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:38:57 +0000

    Dear Wladimir,

    Thank you for your email. I do not know. I believe that Prof. Godefroid is more updated on this and thus I put him in the conversation. Hope he can give you an answer.

    Best wishes
    Per Jönsson
    ======================================================

    COMMENT:

    I had sent an email to Dr. Godefroid some days ealier such reploy by Dr. Jönsson.

    However,even with the intervention by Dr. Jönsson, Dr. Godefroid did not send me any email

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    An interesting article. I would ask that when you present your theory and experimental results to the public, that you include the reaction rates and characteristics as a function of Nickel particle size. Previous statements suggest you are using micron size Nickel particles. Nanometer sized Nickel particles are now available. We have discussed this before and I recall you acknowledging a difference in performance. It would be great to see a plot, in your public presentation, of nanometer through millimeter diameter Nickel particle performance. I suggest it would help your patent protection to include various sizes of Nickel particles in your process.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Wladimir Guglinski
    October 22nd, 2013 at 8:22 PM
    =======================================================

    Dear JR.
    this is the second paper sent to me as attachment by Dr. Kolata:

    Direct Measurement of the LK Ratio in 7Be Electron Capture
    http://wisp.physics.wisc.edu/xray/publications/2002/2002-PhysRevLett_88_012501.pdf

    In the page 2 it is written:
    —————————————————–
    In our experiment the 7Be was produced with the
    TWINSOL [12] radioactive beam facility at the University of Notre Dame. A 100 particle nA beam of 6Li at 15 MeV was incident on a 2.54 cm long gas cell filled with one atmosphere of 3He, producing 7Be via the 3He6Li, 7Bed reaction. Recoil 7Be ions at a central energy of 8.5 MeV were brought to a focus 5.5 m downstream of the 3He cell by two superconducting solenoids. The 7Be flux and spatial distribution were measured with a position-sensitive silicon surface barrier detector to be 5 x 10^5 per second, uniform to within 50% over a 2.5 cm diameter circle.
    —————————————————–

    Note that in this experiment they had obtained 5×10^5 pps beam of 7Be, by using a beam of 6Li at 15 MeV.

    Thereby, you may realize that in this experiment published in 2002 they obtained a 7Be flux near to 10^6 pps.

    So, it seems that the production of 7Be is acually not a problem, because they can increase the rate by changing some variables. They used a beam of 6Li at 15MeV.

    With stronger beam above 15MeV they would succeed to get a 7Be beam with high-rate in the order of 10^6 or 10^7 pps.

    Regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    I will repeat here the two questions not responded by Mr. JR in the previous paper:

    ======================================================

    Wladimir Guglinski
    October 22nd, 2013 at 7:42 PM

    JR wrote in October 22nd, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    ===================================================
    First, what does this have to do with the article you were quoting (which was about an experiment that tried to make measurements on 7Li but did not succeed)?

    Second, as the expert you contacted told you, there isn’t a machine that can produce the 7Be needed for such a measurement. If they can’t produce enough 7Be to make the measurement, then they can’t make the measurement – nothing strange about that.
    ====================================================

    Dear JR,
    you did not understand.

    The experiment described in Coulomb excitation of the 1/2- state in 7Li is concerning a DIFFERENTM alternative method, which do not depend on the production of a high-rate of 7Be.

    Dr. Kolata did not say “there isn’t a machine that can produce the 7Be needed for such a measurement.”

    He did say nothing about the production of 7Be. You are making confusion with that other sort of experiments which require the production of a high-rate of 7Be.

    Actually Dr. Kolata said:
    —————————————–
    We have not attempted to measure the 7Be quadrupole moment. In principle (but likely not in practice) one might derive this quantity from the reorientation effect in sub-Coulomb scattering from high-Z nuclei, which could be measured here. However, as shown in the attached paper, this would be extremely difficult due to coupling to the breakup channel.
    ——————————————–

    So, it’s very strange that along 40 years they did not try to eliminate the difficulty, so that to measure the quadrupole moment for 7Be.

    The paper sent to me as attachment by Dr. Kolata is here:

    COULOMB EXCITATION OF THE ½- STATE IN 7Li
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972NuPhA.194..193B

    regards
    wlad

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>