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
.
David Linebarger:
This is a commercial issue that will pertain the commercial branch of our concern; anyway, I think is premature.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Greg Daigle,
Thank you for your reaction and the interesting links, that summarize very good the present state of research concerning ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.
Especially what is written about the work of CERN physicist Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, cauth my eye:
And maybe I first have to study Hajdukovic’s work more deeply, but my first reaction was that I hope that the probability of the occurance of succesive big bangs is not too high, based on his theory? (Or in other words: if the Universe follows his theory, will it be stable enough? Or will it suffer from too much succesive big bangs? Sorry in advance if this reaction was premature, but it was my first reaction when reading his work…)
And as I also had an interest in theosofy in the past, I would like to put the attention of the readers of this blog to the fact that they also referred to the existence of ‘dark matter’, but they did it already – much earlier than the world of science 😉 – in 1881-1882, in a letter of Mahatma K.H. to A.O. Hume: 😉
And as a ‘spin-off’, I now also know what the ‘primary matter’ of the alchemists was: it was not ‘Mercury’, but they also referred to this ‘dark matter’… 😉
Kind Regards,
Ir. Daniel De Caluwé, Belgium.
Dear Andrea;
thanks for your response(s).
Dark matter, as a concept or real, if it pulls the universe, then it is possible to put a generator on it and let it power our economy.
But study it well before….
Understanding it this way, is sort of relief. Tapping in dark or unknown energy sources, did not sound very safe to me. We and mostly our children will pay the intrests of the cheap fossil fuel era, that was once assumed cheap or for free. And “dark” or “black” carbon, is.
Just a remaining worry about how negative “negative” could be. As a way of precaution, my family started the vegetables. I take for granted that E-cat wil put some (6 ?) leverage on existing renewables for heating purposes. If it is better, we’ll see next year. If God permits.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Hi Andrea Rossi, I love your work. I think it would be a good idea for you to come out with memorabilia, you know collectibles for people to buy. I’m thinking calenders, cups, t-shirts. I think if you did a limited edition of these memorabilia. That more people would buy it, especially because it would be a limited edition of a piece of history when most of the world either thought it was a hoax, or knew nothing about. Also if it’s from you it would be worth even more. It would be even more valuable. You can make a limited edition to get people to buy it, and then when your products are accepted by mainstream science all around the world you can stop your limited editions. Thus ensuring that your real followers from the beginning, and believed in you and LENR in general would have something special that the world will never get. OK that sounds selfish, and egotistical maybe, but I think you and us deserve it. wink
If your too busy, you may be able to just task someone else to do it and pay them.
Peace, and thanks a for for believing in something from the beginning in the possibilities of nature, as I have too.
Dr. Rossi, I believe there are two E-Cat validation tests underway, possibly three, will all the resulting validation information be consolidated together into one single report, or will information be released as each individual validation is finished?
As in a restaurant, will the dishes be brought to the table as the chef finishes each creation, or will all the food be brought to the table only after everything is finished?
JR wrote in November 5th, 2013 at 12:29 AM
—————————————
Dear Wladimir,
You continue to claim, without providing a reason, that…
—————————————
COMMENT:
Dear JR,
here is the proof that excited 18Ar36 with i= 2 has magnetic moment zero:
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/ntem.html#eq:cmmuee
Look at the Fig. 14.41, which compares the experimental data with the values of magnetic moments calculated theoretically.
In the botton of the Fig. 14.41 at the right side there is a small squre showing the values for μA/2Z.
For 18Ar36 we have: A/2Z = 36/(2×18) = 1.
But looking at the region of Z= 18 , you see that there is a black square, which value corresponds to zero.
So, for 18Ar36 we have μA/2Z = 0x1 = 0, which means that the experimental value of magnetic moment for 18Ar36 is μ = 0.
Bellow the Fig. 14.41 it is written:
Big deviations occur only near magic numbers
20Ca40 is a magic number, and 18Ar36 is near to 20Ca40.
As we realize, from current nuclear models is IMPOSSIBLE to get the value zero for magnetic moment for excited 18Ar36 with spin i=2.
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 5th, 2013 at 12:29 AM
————————————-
Dear Wladimir,
It is certainly true that there are many more examples where the magnetic moment is measured and the quadrupole moment isn’t, but there are over a dozen cases where Q(b) is measured and mu is not, and more where both are measured, but Q(b) is measured to greater precision.
————————————-
COMMENT
Dear JR,
again you did not understand the point.
In my latest comment here I had shown that ALL THE EXCITED NUCLEI with Z=pair, N=pair, and i= 2 had their magnetic moment measured, except the following ones:
excited 6C12
excited 14Si32
excited 18Ar36
All the other excited nuclei had their magnetic moments measured.
AND THERE IS NOT ANY REASONABLE REASON TO JUSTIFY WHY THE excited 6C12, 14Si32, and 18Ar36 with i=2 had not their magnetic moment measured along more than 40 years.
Their quadrupole moment had been measured.
Excited 6C12:
i= 2 , Q= +0,06 ….. 1983
Excited 14Si36:
i=2 , Q= -0,16 or -0,13 …. 1982
Excited 18Ar36:
i-2 , Q= +0,11 …. 1971 … half-life: 0,28ps
The quadrupole moment Q for 18Ar36 had been measured in 1971.
And along 44 years nobody tried to measure its magnetic moment ??????
Only a man who believes in the Santa Claus can believe that nobody had never measured it.
However, as I said, I will publish a paper named The Mystery of Magnetic Moments for Excited 12C , 32Si , 36Ar, and will submit it Rossi’s JNP.
Of course the paper will not be of your interest, dear JR, because you have blind adherence to current nuclear models.
But I suppose it will be of the interest of those ones with impartial view on fundamental questions in Nuclear PHysics.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Is this the Ragone diagram you stand by?
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04-1024×624.png
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Wolf:
Pretty good question. As an experimentalist and Galileian method alumnus, I stand by the Ragone diagram.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Mr Rossi,
can you comment if the “Rossi-Effect” is really a “nuclear” effect or something different?
Thanks for sharing what you are allowed to!
Wolf
Marco Serra:
Thank you for your attention, I sympathize with you. I do not know when we will publish, because it does not depend on me, but surely within 2014. I dare to foresee before August/September.
But this is not an engagement.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
We all know that a long-term test on eCat is running. Can you tell us when will it be completed ? I mean the data collection phase, because data analysis time is probably hard to predict.
Please excuse my impatience but I read this Journal every morning in the hope for good news. I’m a bit anxious about the increasing global warming because I trust zero the human beings to cut theirself comfort in order to reduce CO2 emissions. ECat is to me the only hope we have.
I pray God for you and your work
Warm regard
Marco
Dear Wladimir,
You continue to claim, without providing a reason, that it is *always* very much easier to measure the magnetic moment than the quadrupole moment. While you now make the claim in bold font, that isn’t a better argument then when you used a normal font.
It is certainly true that there are many more examples where the magnetic moment is measured and the quadrupole moment isn’t, but there are over a dozen cases where Q(b) is measured and mu is not, and more where both are measured, but Q(b) is measured to greater precision. You still have no argument as to why lack of measurement means that mu=0 other than the fact that you don’t know why it hasn’t been measured.
I’ve suggested reasons why it might be possible to measure one not the other, but they are simply speculation. But the truth is that I don’t know why there are excited states of 12C, 32Si, and 36Ar which have Q(b) measurements and not mu, and neither do you. I (and you) also don’t know why the same is true for 96Ru, 157Gd, 174Yb, 179W, 201Hg, 231Pa, etc…. But your lack of understanding isn’t sufficient reason to just decide that mu=0 in all these cases. There is simply no evidence that this is the case. In addition, as I and others have told you, if someone had measured it and found it to be consistent with zero, they would have published the result and it would appear in the table.
I have no problem with speculating about the idea that they may be small, or with you and others trying to develop a non-traditional model of nuclear structure. But I do have a problem when you try to support your model with patently false claims about existing experimental measurements. I also have problems when you lie repeatedly about the inability of traditional models to explain things which they explain extremely well. When you do this, you give a bad reputation to people who are actually interested in understanding these questions rather than just selling books or standing on their soapbox or whatever it is you’re trying to do.
JR wrote in November 4th, 2013 at 9:12 AM
——————————————
Dear Wladimir,
Since you don’t provide an argument to refute, there isn’t anything for me to do other than pointing out, yet again, that there is still no indication of any kind that these things have been measured, and you don’t just get to assign a value of zero to anything that hasn’t been measured. That’s just idiotic.
——————————————
COMMENT
What you claim makes no sense.
The quadrupole moment (which is very harder to be measured than the magnetic moment), had been measured for the excited 6C12:
Q= +0,06
But the magnetic moment ( which is very easier to be measured had not been yet measured for excited 6C12 ? ? ?
Let us see the nuclear table:
================================================
6C9 :
μ= 1,3914 ……. beta-NMR …. 1995
μ= 1,396 ……. beta-NMR …. 1998
6C11 :
μ= -0,694 ……. AB, R …. 1970
Excited 6C12 :
i = 2 , Q = +0,06
μ= ??????? ……. not quoted
6C13 :
μ= +0,70241 ……. N …. 1954
excited 6C13 :
μ= 1,40 ……. RIV/D …. 1981
Excited 6C14 :
μ= 0,82 ……. RIV/D …. 1974
6C15 :
μ= 1,720 ……. beta-NMR …. 2002
μ= 1,32 ……. beta-NMR …. 1988
Excited 6C15 :
μ= 1,76 ……. RIV/D …. 1980
μ= 1,76 ……. IPAC …. 1975
6C17 :
μ= 0,758 ……. beta-NMR …. 2002
========================================
So, we realize that :
magnetic moment for 6C9 had been measured in 1995 and 1998
magnetic moment for 6C15 had been measured in 2002 and 1988
magnetic moment for excited 6C15 had been measured in 1980 and 1975
Well, as the experimentalists had measured the magnetic moment for 6C9 two times, and the magnetic moment for 6C14 four times, this question is very intriguimg:
why the experimentalists had NEVER tried to measure the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 ? ? ? ?
=====================================================
Other EXCITED nuclei with nuclear spin i = 2, having pair number of protons and pair number of nêutrons, like the excited 6C12:
====================================================
Excited 7N14 :
μ= 1,32 ……. RIV/D …. 1978
Excited 8O18 :
μ= -0,57 ……. RIV/D …. 1976
Excited 8O20 :
μ= 0,70 ……. RIV/D …. 1980
μ= – 0,78 ……. IMPAC …. 1976
Excited 10Ne20 :
μ= +1,08 ……. RIV/D, R …. 1975 and 1978
Excited 10Ne22 :
μ= +0,65 ……. RIV/D …. 1977
Excited 12Mg24 :
μ= +1,02 ……. RIV/D …. 1975
Excited 12Mg26 :
μ= +1,03 ……. TF …. 1981
Excited 14Si28 :
μ= +1,1 ……. IMPAC …. 1975
Excited 14Si30 :
μ= +0,8 ……. IMPAC , R…. 1978
—————————————————-
Excited 14Si32 :
Ex= 1941 , μ= not quoted in nuclear tables
—————————————————-
Excited 16S32 :
μ= +0,9 ……. TF…. 1979
Excited 16S34 :
μ= +1,0 ……. IMPAC…. 1979
—————————————————-
Excited 18Ar36 :
Ex= 1970 , μ= not quoted in nuclear tables
—————————————————-
Excited 18Ar40 :
μ= -02 ……. TF…. 1992
Excited 20Ca42 :
μ= +0,08 ……. TF… 2003
Excited 20Ca44 :
μ= +0,24 ……. TF… 2003
μ= +0,34 ……. TF… 2003
μ= +0,6 ……. TFL, RIV/D… 1979
Excited 20Ca46 :
μ= -0,4 ……. TF… 2003
Excited 22Ti44 :
μ= +1,0 ……. TF… 2003
Excited 22Ti46 :
μ= +0,99 ……. TF… 2000
Excited 22Ti48 :
μ= +0,78 ……. TF… 2000
μ= +0,9 ……. TF… 1981
Excited 22Ti50 :
μ= +2,89 ……. TF… 2000
Excited 24Cr50 :
μ= +1,24 ……. TF… 2000
μ= +1,3 ……. TF… 1994
μ= +1,2 ……. IMPAC… 1977
μ= +0,9 ……. TF… 1987
Excited 24Cr52 :
μ= +2,41 ……. TF… 2000
μ= +3,0 ……. TF… 1987
μ= +3,2 ……. TF… 1987
Excited 24Cr54 :
μ= +1,68 ……. TF… 2001
μ= +1,1 ……. IMPAC… 1977
μ= +1,1 ……. TF… 1987
Excited 26Fe54 :
μ= +2,10 ……. TF… 2000
μ= +2,1 ……. TF… 1992
μ= +3,4 ……. TF… 1977
μ= +2,2 ……. IMPAC… 1977
μ= +2,9 ……. TF… 1974
Excited 26Fe56 :
μ= +1,22 ……. IMPAC, IPAC, R… 1977
Excited 26Fe58 :
μ= +0,9 ……. TF… 1977
μ= +0,9 ……. TF … 1969
Excited 28Ni58 :
μ= +0,076 ……. TF… 2001
μ= -0,1 ……. TF… 1978
Excited 28Ni60 :
μ= +0,32 ……. TF… 2001
μ= +0,2 ……. TF… 1978
Excited 28Ni62 :
μ= +0,33 ……. TF… 2001
μ= +0,68 ……. TF… 1988
μ= +0,3 ……. TF… 1979
Excited 28Ni64 :
μ= +0,37 ……. TF… 2001
μ= +0,9 ……. TF… 1978
Excited 30Zn62 :
μ= +0,7 ……. TF… 2002
Excited 30Zn64 :
μ= +0,89 ……. TF… 2002
μ= +0,9 ……. IMPAC… 1979
Excited 30Zn66 :
μ= +0,8 ……. TF… 2002
μ= +0,9 ……. IMPAC… 1979
Excited 30Zn68 :
μ= +0,87 ……. TF… 2002
μ= +0,9 ……. IMPAC… 1979
Excited 30Zn70 :
μ= +0,76 ……. TF… 2002
μ= +0,6 ……. IMPAC… 1979
Excited 32Ge70 :
μ= +0,94 ……. TF… 1984
μ= +0,8 ……. IMPAC… 1977
μ= +0,7 ……. TF… 1987
μ= +0,9 ……. IMPAC , R… 1977
Excited 32Ge72 :
μ= +0,8 ……. TF… 1984
μ= +0,74 ……. TF… 1987
μ= +0,7 ……. IMPAC , R… 1977
Excited 32Ge74 :
μ= +0,87 ……. TF… 1984
μ= +0,7 ……. TF… 1987
μ= +0,7 ……. IMPAC , R… 1977
Excited 32Ge76 :
μ= +0,84 ……. TF… 1984
μ= +0,67 ……. TF… 1987
μ= +0,56 ……. IMPAC , R… 1977
Excited 34Se74 :
μ= +0,86 ……. TF… 1998
Excited 34Se76 :
Ex= 559…. μ= 0,81 ……. TF… 1998
Ex= 559….μ= +0,8 ……. IMPAC… 1969
Ex= 559….μ= +0,8 ……. TPAC… 1967
Ex= 1216…. μ= +0,70 ……. TF… 1998
Excited 34Se78 :
μ= +0,77 ……. TF… 1998
μ= +0,8 ……. IMPAC… 1969
Excited 34Se80 :
Ex= 666….μ= 0,87 ……. TF… 1998
Ex= 666…..μ= +0,8 ……. IMPAC… 1969
Ex= 1449…..μ= 0,7 ……. TF… 1998
Excited 34Se82 :
μ= +0,99 ……. TF… 1998
μ= +0,9 ……. IMPAC… 1969
Excited 36Kr76 :
μ= +0,7 ……. TF… 2004
Excited 36Kr78 :
Ex = 455 ….. μ= +0,86 ……. TF… 2004
Ex = 1148 ….. μ= +1,1 ……. TF… 2001
Excited 36Kr80 :
μ= +0,76 ……. TF… 2001
Excited 36Kr82 :
μ= +0,8 ……. TF… 2001
Excited 36Kr84 :
μ= +0,53 ……. TF… 2001
Excited 36Kr86 :
μ= +0,22 ……. TF… 2001
Dear Mr. JR
as you may realize, all the EXCITED nuclei with Z=pair, N= pair, with nuclear spin i=2 had been measured, all they have mangetic moment different from zero, all they are quoted in nuclear talbles, except the following nuclei:
Excited 6C12
Excite 14Si32
Excited 18Ar36
And the question is why ????
I have good reasons to believe that excited 6C12, 14Si32, and 18Ar36 have magnetic moment ZERO, in spite of they have nuclear spin i=2.
The reason why the excited 6C12 has null magnetic moment is shown in the sequence of the figures 26, 27, 28, and 29 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
The structures of the nuclei 6C12, 14Si32, and 18Ar36 are very similar, as follows:
=> 6C12 has four deuterons captured by a central 2He4
=> 14Si32 has four nêutrons captured a the central 2He4 (the 2He4 is situated between two complete hexagonal floors formed by deuterons).
-> 18Ar36 has four deuterons captured by a central 2He4 > (the 2He4 is situated between two complete hexagonal floors formed by deuterons).
I will write a paper so that to show it, and submit for publication in Rossi’s JNP.
Regards
wlad
Greg Daigle:
As a matter of fact, the Rossi Effect theory has been also inspired from astophysic reactions, but has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy. Thank you for your interesting insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Interesting conversation.
There are tenuous possibilities of connecting the “Rossi Effect” to a cosmological model without dark energy or dark matter, though it requires citing theories that are still very nascent and experiments still requiring replication. Having said that, here is one way that the connections could be made through the means of symmetry breaking:
1. Brian Ahern from Ames National Labs, as reported in E-Cat World, states “I am announcing the nanonickel breakthrough at the New Energy Symposium in NYC on Wednesday. I am saying the energy is real, repeatable and of useful output. I will also state that it is not of nuclear origin. I will say that it is a manifestation of asymmetric magnetism.” He refers to anomalous heat production and the asymmetric magnetism mentioned requires, by its nature, symmetry breaking.
2. Tying symmetry breaking to gravity,Droescher and Hauser have suggested that a phase transition (magnetically induced through a polarization of the quantum vacuum or critically low cryogenic temperatures) followed by symmetry breaking (parity violation) can result in extreme attractive and repulsive gravitomagnetic potentials. Their theory posits that electromagnetic fields can be converted into gravitomagnetic fields (requiring two new fundamental forces) resulting in fields orders of magnitude stronger than the fields predicted by GR and are considered to be spin 1 fields. They go on to say that these gravitomagnetic potentials have been experimentally produced in experiments by Martin Tajmar (despite erroneous reports that his results were recanted) and could be responsible for dark matter and dark energy, respectively.
3. Supporting the notion of cosmological outcomes of bipolar gravitation, a study a study by CERN physicist Draga Slavkov Hajdukovic suggested that dark matter may be an “illusion” caused by the quantum vacuum if gravitational dipoles are produced through asymmetry. He demonstrates the credibility of this idea by showing that the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum can explain four cosmological observations usually attributed to dark matter by use of Modified Newtonian Dynmics (MOND). More recently, McGaugh and Milgrom have reported that MOND is a better predictor of the velocity dispersions of dwarf satellite galaxies of Andromeda without use of dark matter, than the standard model of cosmology which employs dark matter.
Needless to say, the “dots” exist (though faint) and much remains to connect them.
Daniel De Caluwè:
Very interesting, thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
You wrote: How do you think can be explained the pull that makes the Universe constantly expand ? I share your scepticism about theories until experimentalists do give evidence of them.
My reaction: i) With the Hubble telescope, and using supernovae as reference, and also based on measurements of the red-shift (doppler effect) of far away (also in past time) systems, scientists (astronomers) found something very strange: In the first six to seven billion years (rough estimate) of the universe, the universe expanded with decelerating pace, this means that the expansion slowed down during the first six to seven billion years. But this is normal, and due to gravity. So, based on this first period (roughly the first 6 to 7 billion years of the Universe), everything looked like as if there would come a contraction after the period of expansion, and this due to gravity. But something very strange happened: instead of starting to contract or slow down further, suddenly (after 6 to 7 billion years), the expansion of the Universe did not slow down anymore, but started to expand with an ever accelerating pace, and for this change (steered by the ether?) there still is no explanation. So ‘dark energy’ was introduced, and ‘lambda’ (= Einsteins’ cosmological ‘constant’ is not constant anymore, but became time-dependent… (so far about ‘dark energy’)
ii) And a second problem is that astronomers also need the concept of ‘dark matter’ to explain the movement of many (most if not all) galaxies, where they have to introduce extra ‘dark mass’ to explain why these galaxies stay together. With the visible mass they measure, most (if not all) galaxies would fall apart and loose stars, but they are not ejected, but kept together (in the galaxy) by ‘dark mass’.
Both i) and ii) indicate that there’s something strange with gravity, isn’t it? It appears to be not constant (~M*m/r²) but variable, as if un unseen hand manipulates it, so that galaxies remain together, why they normally would fall apart, and that the expansion of the Universe did not slow down further (after the first 6 to 7 billion years), but suddenly started to expand with an ever accelerating pace.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Dr Peter Forsberg:
Thank you, very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John L:
Not really: 5 Sigma do not cover measurement mistakes or time induced deteriorations. Only a long run can provide irrefutable statistics. Still, the results could be positive or negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wladimir,
You don’t have an argument for me to refute. You claim that there are measurements giving a zero magnetic moment for the excited state of 12C, but you haven’t actually identified them, you just assume they must exist. Then you assert that it must be an easy measurement but provide no information of any kind to support that beyond the fact that other things have been measured for that state. But if you look through the tables, there are several cases where some quantities are measured but not others. There are lots of possible reasons for that, but I don’t know why it hasn’t been measured in this case, and neither do you.
Since you don’t provide an argument to refute, there isn’t anything for me to do other than pointing out, yet again, that there is still no indication of any kind that these things have been measured, and you don’t just get to assign a value of zero to anything that hasn’t been measured. That’s just idiotic.
Hi Andrea,
At”5 sigma” is definitely a declaration of a discovery. The world can’t wait to see your theory and evidence.
Dear Andrea,
Here are some reading suggestions:
http://www.amazon.com/Electric-Universe-Wallace-Thornhill-Talbott/dp/0977285138/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1383570382&sr=8-7&keywords=David+Talbot
http://www.amazon.com/The-Electric-Sky-Donald-Scott/dp/0977285111/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383570082&sr=8-1&keywords=znidarsic
I don’t believe in (and also don’t understand) everything written in these books, but I definitely think that they are onto something important.
Regards
Peter
Adelheid J. Bohm:
Wishing the best to you also, the theory behind our effect I think has reached an acceptable level of experimental confirmation ( should we adopt the sigma evaluation, we are around 5); we are still working very hard, though, on the validation and R&D regarding the LENR we are dealing with. I can’t wait to publish the theory, as you can understand, but I can’t, for obvious IP related industrial issues. When such issues will be resolved we will publish all the results, even if negative. About the legacy of the pioneers: nothing in common, but the dream and the hope it is true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Greg Leonard:
To put in discussion the value of c is quite audacious. It is like to take off the keystone from an arc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Peter Forsberg:
Thank you: very, very interesting approach. Can you suggest some book related to what you wrote ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
In mainstream physics the universe is said to be electro magnetically neutral on cosmological scales. The reason being that the field from a bar magnet bends back on itself and so the field that is produced only has very local effects. Gravity on the other hand is extremely much weaker than magnetic forces but the effect of gravity is not local. So physics tried to explain cosmological events by gravity alone. But galaxies do not behave well. They do not follow the law of gravity, so some inventions were needed: Ultra massive black holes at their center and dark matter sprinkled around where needed. The problem with these is that they are purely theoretical constructs, and have not been verified with empirical evidence.
The empirical evidence of redshift implies that there is a doppler shift of light waves and that this in turn implies a Big Bang. But the Big Bang was also not well behaved. The universe did not look like it was supposed to, so a period of “inflation” had to be invented to explain that the universe is homogenous and isotropic. So, the doppler shift interpretation of redshift is in my mind not a settled issue. But there is more, the expansion of the universe was also not well behaved. It has been found that the expansion accelerates. Now yet an invention is needed: dark energy to push matter appart. Where will these dark inventions end (black hole, dark matter, dark energy, inflation way back when)? Notice that they are all dark, i.e. invisible. That is very convenient is it not? It means that it will not be possible to falsify these inventions easily. Notice that this is the behavior of pseudoscience.
What is missing then? Well, the universe is clearly not electro magnetically neutral. In the universe there exists free plasma, and this plasma flows like rivers, if you like, in many directions. And when you have a flowing plasma, then you have a current. And when you have a current, then you have electro magnetism. And plasmas are not well behaved like bar magnets. This is something that the researchers at ITER are bitterly aware of. They cannot control the plasma. So this dynamic electro magnetism at cosmological level will then clearly influence matter (including the plasma flows). We will have attractive forces, and repulsive forces. Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, ultra massive black holes and inflation are theoretical constructs that maybe are not needed at all if we start taking the electro magnetic force into account.
And on the sub atomic level very interesting things also happens when you study electro magnetism. I am certain that very important lessons are to be learned in the study of super conductors and bose einstein condensates. These entities are not well understood by science. In general the scientific field of electricity has yet secrets to give I think. Lightning and ball lightning are also very interesting phenomena not well understood by science and have to be studied more (as was done by Tesla).
Best Regards
Peter
Dear AR and Koen Vandevalle
I am no Astrophysicist, but I query the underlying assumptions for proposing dark matter and dark energy as the reasons for the observed astronomical data.
It seems to me that the assumption of the value for c to be constant in time and space is flawed.
We know that the speed of light varies with the material being traversed – otherwise my spectacles would not work.
We already know that space is not empty, and then to introduce dark matter without questioning its effect on the speed of light is a little unfortunate.
regards,
Greg Leonard
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Wishing you all the best, I am asking you about theory.. is it ready for internal use? Cold Fusion/LENR is such a terrible mystery and it was so from the start (I was in the Kindergarten then but I have read about a lot)
How much had you inherited from the founders, how much has remained from the initial Fleischmann Pons Effekt in your personal Theory, beyond the great dream of Energy?
Thank you for any answer.
Adelheid
JR wrote in November 3rd, 2013 at 7:41 PM
————————————–
Dear Wladimir,
Yes, you’ve caught me. My apologies for my role in the worldwide conspiracy over the last several decades to intentionally not measure things, which you assure me are trivial to measure, for the sole purpose of making it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. It was wrong, and I’m sorry.
————————————
COMMENT:
Dear Mr. JR,
of course irony is the best answer, since you cannot explain the obvious:
================
No excited 6C12:
spin = 0
magnetic moment = 0
The no-excited 6C12 is not quoted in nuclear tables
===========================================
=============
Excited 6C12:
spin = 2
magnetic moment = 0
half-life: 45 fs
=============
================
No excited 6C14:
spin = 0
magnetic moment = 0
The no-excited 6C14 is not quoted in nuclear tables
============================================
=============
Excited 6C14:
spin = 3
magnetic moment = 0,82
half-live: 67 ps
======================
So, the magnetic moment of excited 6C14 had been measured, while excited 6C12 not
………………………………………..
Can you give me a good reason why the magentic momment of the excited 6C12 had not been measured yet?
………………………………………..
Have I to remember you that to measure the magnetic moment is not a task so hard as in case of quadrupole moment ?
Dear JR,
I can speak with irony, because I am proving that YOUR argument makes no sense.
Unlike, you cannot use irony, because YOU are proving that YOUR argument makes no sense.
Unless you are using your irony against yourself.
regards
wlad
Dear Wladimir,
Yes, you’ve caught me. My apologies for my role in the worldwide conspiracy over the last several decades to intentionally not measure things, which you assure me are trivial to measure, for the sole purpose of making it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. It was wrong, and I’m sorry.
Dear Mr. JR.
I finally understood why the experimentalists decided do not measure the magnetic moment of the excited 6C12.
Now I understand why the experimentalist who had measured the nuclear properties of the excited 6C12 had decided do not measure its the magnetic moment.
Of course he thought:
“I had measured the spin of excited 6C12, and I got 1-2. I also had measured its quadrupole moment, and I got Q= +0,06. But I will not measure its magnetic moment,although it is very easier to measure the magnetic moment instead of to measure the quadrupole moment. But in spite of it is easier to measure the magnetic moment, I will not measure it, because I want to supply an argument for Mr. JR. in his discusion with Guglinski. Without having a measurement for the magnetic moment of excited 6C12, Mr. JR. will win the discussion. “
Hummm… it seems to be a good reason to justify why the magnetic moment of excited 6C12 had never been measured yet…
regards
wlad
Koen Vandevalle:
To make the Universe expand is necessary a force, based on the rules estabilished by the Creator. Dark Matter is supposed to supply the mass necessary to emit the gravitons to pull toward the expansion direction the galaxies and all what is inside. But this is a theory, and no evidence to make it safe has still be found ( as far as I know).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JR wrote in November 2nd, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Dear Wladimir,
As is often the case, this is a question that has already been asked and answered multiple times. The table does not have an entry for the magnetic moment of the 12C state. That does NOT mean that it’s value is zero, just that it hasn’t been measured. At least half a dozen people, including the author of the table, has told you that. Since you clearly have no interest in understanding what’s going on, I’m going to stop trying to educate you.
COMMENT
You are wrong.
Look:
No excited 6C12:
spin = 0
magnetic moment = 0
The no-excited 6C12 is not quoted in nuclear tables
Excited 6C12:
spin = 2
magnetic moment = 0
half-life: 45 fs
No excited 6C14:
spin = 0
magnetic moment = 0
The no-excited 6C14 is not quoted in nuclear tables
Excited 6C14:
spin = 3
magnetic moment = 0,82
half-live: 67 ps
So, the magnetic moment of excited 6C14 had been measured.
Can you give me a good reason why the magentic momment of the excited 6C12 had not been measured?
Have I to remember you that to measure the magnetic moment is not a task so hard as in case of quadrupole moment ?
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 2nd, 2013 at 8:15 PM
——————————–
Dear Wladimir,
As usual, when you get an answer that you don’t understand, you mock it rather than trying to follow up and understand more, and then change the subject to another random question.
———————————-
COMMENT
Sorry, Mr JR,
but what you said is very funny:
…………………………….
Also, centripital force is just a name given to a force that leads to a circular orbit; it’s not a new or different force
……………………………..
As you cannot justify why the centripetal force is missing in the calculation of the halo neutron of the 11Be isotope, you use a sutberfuge so that to deviate our attention.
Everybody knows what is the centripetal force. The students learn it in school.
It is funny to hear you explaining to us something that everybody knows, with the aim of deviating the attention from the actual point: the missing of the centripetal force in the calculation of the halo neutron in 11Be.
The dodgy uses this technique to change the subject when he has no arguments.
regards
wlad
Andrea:
Every creator needs a dustbin.
Without the expansion of the universe, life as well as many other creations, cannot exist.
How it works ? I am not smart enough. Sorry.
Dr Peter Forsberg:
Interesting point, maybe you are right: can you elaborate it ? How do you think can be explained the pull that makes the Universe constantly expand ? I share your scepticism about theories until experimentalists do give evidence of them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear professor Lino Daddi,
Interesting theory, wondering how to test your theory, what are the most important evidence(s), do you suggest that we should search for in an Ni-H system in order to support your theory – the virtual particle? How would you find the existence of the V.P. ?
John L.
For the record:
I don’t believe in dark matter, dark energy or the big bang. These theoretical constructs are contrieved to “protect the spheres” so to say. I think what is missing from physics is the implications of the electro magnetic on nuclear and astronomical scale.
Regards
Peter
Dear Wladimir,
As usual, when you get an answer that you don’t understand, you mock it rather than trying to follow up and understand more, and then change the subject to another random question. As is often the case, this is a question that has already been asked and answered multiple times. The table does not have an entry for the magnetic moment of the 12C state. That does NOT mean that it’s value is zero, just that it hasn’t been measured. At least half a dozen people, including the author of the table, has told you that. Since you clearly have no interest in understanding what’s going on, I’m going to stop trying to educate you.
Dear Mr. JR
as you are not able to understand that Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method is not able to give physical causes as explanation for some phenomena, let’s us change the way of our discussion.
Instead of to consider the aggregation of nuclei (which requires forces, and Heisenberg method sometimes do not consider some physical forces), let us speak about the magnetic moment (because there is no need to consider forces)
NEW DISCUSSION ————————-
The excited 6C12 has the following nuclear properties:
nuclear spin = 2
magnetic moment = 0
quadrupole moment = +0,06 b
http://faculty.missouri.edu/~glaserr/8160f09/STONE_Tables.pdf
Please show us any paper where the magnetic moment zero for the excited 6C12 is calculated theoretically
The paper has to exhibit a calculation so that to show that it is possible to have a magnetic moment zero and nuclear spin 2, according to current nuclear models.
————————————-
regards
wlad
JR wrote in November 2nd, 2013 at 8:58 AM
1) ——————————–
Dear Wladimir,
All of the things you worry about ARE explained. The short answer is “quantum mechanics”.
———————————
COMMENT
No, they arent.
Now we underastand your problem, dear JR.
Your problem is because you think that Heisenberg method is able to explain the phenomena.
But you did not explain to us what is the physical force which repels two neutrons, so that to avoid the formation of the dineutron, where the two neutrons would be bound via strong nuclear force.
2) —————————–
I’ve given you somewhat more detailed versions, but you just ignore them so I’m not going to keep repeating them. As usual, you’re confusing ‘I (WG) don’t understand it’ with ‘no one can explain it’.
——————————–
COMMENT
You cannot give any more detailed version where physical causes explain the halo neutron of 11Be, because in all current nuclear models are missing some physical causes, since all the nuclear models are developed according to Heinsenberg phantasmagoric scientific method.
3) ——————————
Also, centripital force is just a name given to a force that leads to a circular orbit;
———————————
COMMENT
ha ha ha,
I supposed that the nucleons are submitted to a circular orbit within the nuclei, because they have nuclear spin.
But now I realize that I was wrong. According to you, the nuclei have not nuclear spin
Sorry my wrong supposal ha ha ha
4) ——————–
it’s not a new or different force, and the calculations include all of the known and relevant forces.
————————
COMMENT
Then show me where the centripetal force is considered in Dr. Nortershauser paper.
As a neutron with orbit 7fm has not any sort of interaction with the rest of the 11Be nucleus, then of course the centripetal force is relevant, just because it is the unique force acctuating in the halo neutron , trying to expell it.
The centripetal force is Fc= w^2.R , and so in the halo neutron it is 3,5 stronger than in the nucleons of the central core.
regards
wlad
Enrico Billi:
Thank you for your interesting information and good luck!
Lavolale, Lavolale!
A.R.
Dr. Joseph Fine,
thank you for the great link. While it is true that after 30 years
of looking, many people have given up hope of finding dark matter.
However many Scientist are still looking.
As a layman my money is on the Large Hadron Collider, LHC
It will try to create dark matter, they will not be able to see it, but they will be
able to prove they have created it.
I don’t understand this, but I think they will send protons around a 17 mile circle
at the speed of light, in opposite directions, then crash them into one another,
It has been at half power, it is getting an upgrade.
In 2015 the LHC will restart at full power.
Robert Curto
Dear Rossi,
recently our company is selling more and more ADVANCE variac for 500w and 1kw because our customers, mainly private people, are interested in replication of electrolysis experients like those made by you and Focardi.
We recently start to sell ADVANCE KS hybrid inverter-UPS (http://www.vectronenergy.it/it/prodotti/advance/energia/inverter-ibrido-ks/) and couple with grid, grid-connected solar systems and micro-cogeneration systems like Viessmann Vitotwin 300 (http://www.viessmann.it/it/casa_mono-bifamiliare/topinfos/La_microcogenerazione_domestica_di_Viessmann__Vitotwin_300.html). We hope to couple our devices with energy storage with your hot-cat or domestic-ecat.
Hope we can have good news in future.
Lavolale lavolale
Enrico Billi
Dear Wladimir,
All of the things you worry about ARE explained. The short answer is “quantum mechanics”. I’ve given you somewhat more detailed versions, but you just ignore them so I’m not going to keep repeating them. As usual, you’re confusing ‘I (WG) don’t understand it’ with ‘no one can explain it’.
Also, centripital force is just a name given to a force that leads to a circular orbit; it’s not a new or different force, and the calculations include all of the known and relevant forces.
Gian Luca:
We are focused on our work and giving small if any attention to all the other connected issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear A.R.
…..but…..if is true that LENR can change the world order then maybe I’m interested in the “Rossi’s effect”. Do not you think?
JR wrote in November 1st, 2013 at 7:34 AM
———————————–
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.
———————————-
COMMENT
Oh, my God,
I cant believe you are not able to understand the point, dear JR.
The physicists are using experimental data togheter with nuclear models, so that to obtain the distribution of density of nucleons.
However the nuclear models ARE NOT ABLE to explain WHY the halo neutron takes that position.
Earlier the discovery of gravity by Newton, Kepler was able to calculate the elliptical orbits of the planets, thanks to the collection of data by Tycho Brahe.
However Kepler was not able to explain why the planets had that sort of elliptical orbits.
The explanation was given later by Newton, when he showed by differential calculation that gravity causes the elliptical orbits obtained by Kepler.
Therefore, Newton had discovered the physical cause responsible for the elliptical orbits of the planets. They do not take that sort of orbits thanks to phantasmagoric reasons.
The same happens today.
The current nuclear models are not able to explain why the neutron can have that orbit with radius 7fm, because in that distance the neutron has not any sort of attraction with the nuclear core of the 11Be.
Also, I note that you did not comment the fact that Dr. Nortershauser did consider the centripetal force in his paper.
After all, with that distance of 7fm from the cluster in 7Be, the neutron is not submitted to any force of attraction with the central cluster. And therefore the neutron has to be expelled by the centripetal force.
The centripetal force is not considered in the Classical Nuclear Physics because it is considered that protons and neutrons are separated by maximum distances of 2fm within the nuclei. By considering the distance of 2fm, the centripetal force can be neglected face to the strong nuclear force.
However in the distance of 7fm the centripetal force cannot be neglected, because the strong force does not actuate in such larger distance.
regards
wlad