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
.
Kevmo:
If we will receive an offer for an industrialized product, we will consider it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Mr. Rossi:
Infinia Corporation would probably be the closest you could get to off-the-shelf consolidated technologies.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_cycle_engine
Starting in 1986, Infinia Corporation began developing both highly reliable pulsed free-piston Stirling engines, and thermoacoustic coolers using related technology. The published design uses flexural bearings and hermetically sealed Helium gas cycles, to achieve tested reliabilities exceeding 20 years. As of 2010, the corporation had amassed more than 30 patents, and developed a number of commercial products for both combined heat and power, and solar power.[45]
best regards
Kevin O’Malley
Frank Acland:
1- we must make a careful due diligence upon the Customers
2- I am not the commercial startegist : I am only the chief scientist.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mentioned recently that “sooner or later reverse engineering will be made and competition will be born”. Given the nature of the e-cat this sounds like a realistic expectation.
1. How is this realization affecting your preparations to go to market?
2. Should we expect a cautious launch on a small scale, or are you seeking for proliferation as wide as possible?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Kevmo:
We are not interested to this kind of proposal. We want a product ready for the market, I would say “off the shelf”. Otherwise, we prefer consolidated technologies. Thank you anyway for your information, maybe some of our Readers is interested.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Mr. Rossi:
There is a huge opportunity in Stirling Cycle Engines.
Infinia Corporation, which was the leader in this technology, recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That means their assets and patents can be obtained very inexpensively.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infinia-corporation-implements-voluntary-chapter-11-petition-seeks-offers-225236832.html
If you find this information helpful, please consider hiring me.
best regards,
Kevin O’Malley
Dear Dott Rossi,
I report to you this kind of Stirling engine:
http://www.energoclub.it/doceboCms/page/447/Termoacustica.html .
http://fisicaondemusica.unimore.it/Termoacustica.html
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motore_termoacustico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyYvqLB6Joo
Regards G G
Nchauvin:
Please send an offer for one unit. We will test it.
Warm regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
We met last year in September at a congress in Zürich. I was there with Sterling Allan.
We discussed shortly about a Stirling generator developed by a partner of us in Asia. Now this Stirling generator is ready for mass production (30K units/year) with a very interesting manufacturing cost.
We would like to know if you are still interested in a test to combine this Stirling generator with a Hot Cat prototype to produce the electricity consumed by the Hot Cat.
Then the system could produce hot water (output from the cooling system of the Stirling generator) at very low cost.
We can even imagine that more electricity can be produced by the
Stirling generator than consumed by the Hot Cat.
This Stirling generator is a free piston Stirling engine combined with a linear alternator that can directly produce 220V at 50Hz. The output electrical power is 800W with a conversion efficiency of over 30% when the input temperature is about 480°C.
As you can see, the specifications are well suited to work in combination with a Hot Cat prototype.
A 1.2 kW version is now also in development.
More detailed will follow by email.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Nicolas Chauvin
John L:
This technology can be very useful. We are studying it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
You are considering 3D printing because this method can enhance the performance of the E-Cat as intricate parts are precisely done layer by layer (COP?). Also it is much more difficult to reverse engineer 3D printed parts to the exact specs/level of performance.
KD:
That’s classic, well known tech, that can be made also by robots.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Herb Gills:
Sorry, I cannot give information about this issue, either in positive or in negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
I realize that you would not be able to disclose any particulars, but perhaps you can give some indication as to whether a liquid-phase LENR device might be possible?
We know that LENR requires a metal lattice. But could the lattice be of colloidal dimensions? If so; it would stand to reason that a colloidal dispersion of nickel particles in a liquid (such as a high boiling organic liquid, a molten salt, or even a liquid metal that melts lower than nickel) could produce the LENR heating phenomenon in the presence of hydrogen.
There are many ways known of making metal clusters and colloids, including nickel. If a liquid (pumpable) LENR-active dispersion could be developed it would obviously open up a much wider range of applications, and might further improve safety. Do you know of any reasons why this would not be possible?
Kind Regards; HRG.
Mr. Rossi
Long time ago I worked at building vacuum furnaces to bake small and of complicated shape parts from powdered metals.
Such parts are very expensive to machining it, but can be punch on presses in mass production.
I wonder if this technology can be used to make some parts for E-cats?
Giovanni Guerrini:
He,he,he…yes, I have an Italian heart, as well as the millions of Italians that had to migrate in the USA and gave their important contribution to the development of this Great Nation: the best example? Enrico Fermi.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dott Rossi,
I am sure you will made a Rolls Royce that will run like a Ferrari,because it has an Italian heart !
Regards G G
Frank Acland:
We are for now brainstorming about 3D Printing tech. We are studying the case history of Rolls Royce turbines to analyze the possibility of application per analogy to the E-Cat industrial production, obviously limited to specific particulars, like for example particulars of the reactors modules, which can be assimilated to the particulars of a turbine. At the moment we cannot talk about particulars, but if we want to compete with the low cost geopolitic areas and maintain the production in the USA we have to explore all the possible systems to cheap down the production costs. Sooner or later reverse engineering will be made and competition will be born: we must be prepared to the incoming competition.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir and JR,
It is a good thing to be passionate about a subject you believe in. Obviously, both of you are passionate about your theories/beliefs.
It is not acceptable to call each other names in response to the other’s responses. This is a matter of self-control. Besides, it weakens your argument as seen by the rest of us.
I have found, though my own faults and lack of discipline, that immediately responding to my opponent’s “jab” leads to bad results. This applies to both emails and to postings here. Besides, “revenge is a dish best served cold”. (LOL)
Looking as dispassionately as I can, JR is not so much defending the establishment’s theory as questioning the logic of some of Wladimir’s statements, although the subject is outside of my own technical area. Wladimir’s inputs appartently are an attempt to disprove the current theory by finding a single case that disproves that theory using data that is missing and inferring a certain result from the missing data. A fool’s errand.
Wladimir – I suggest you take your theory and regressively apply all the known data with actual results and see if it produces equivalent results. Demonstration that current nuclear theory is incorrect or incomplete does not necessarily prove that your theory is correct or better.
I do not believe that JR intentionally tells mis-truths, therefore I do not consider him a lier. A lier, by definition, requires the intent to speak un-truths.
Bottomline – as my mother use to tell me when I was a child 60 years ago – “Play nice boys”.
Dear Andrea,
Very interesting that you are considering 3D printing of your products.
1. What would be the advantage of 3D printing technology over conventional methods for you?
2. Can the models of E-Cat reactors you have designed be 3D printed with currently available technology?
3. Do you see any disadvantages with 3D printing?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Thomas Florek:
Very funny, thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sterling Allan:
Here is my prophecy: I will work for 14 hours per day for the rest of my life.
Good luck and warm regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
You read our thoughts: yesterday in the meeting room of the US factory of our US Partner we talked about the 3D Printing application for the manufacturing of our reactors. Our model is the work done by Rolls Royce to manufacture their turbines.
Your comment sounds smart.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(CNSNews.com) – The world’s first 3D printed metal firearm, “a classic 1911 design,” has been successfully fired more than 600 times, according to Solid Concepts, a California-based 3D printing company.
See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/world-s-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-successfully-fires-600-rounds
What about 3D Printers for future “printing” of E-Cats? Production costs would be much lower than using robotized factories…Or not?
Kind Regards
Italo R.
I have edited a short segment where Andrea Rossi talks about the process of playing drums. This is from the conversation that I had earlier this year.
http://vimeo.com/79463509
The collection of other interviews can be found here:
http://vimeo.com/channels/555978
Wladimir, I don’t know if these experiments are interesting for you (probably not, even if they explore particle moments, electrons, symmetry and so on), nevertheless the articles describe the disruptive effect of unexpected experimental evidence over a scientific community thrieving for decades on exclusively theoretical deductions generally accepted by the majority:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/electron-shape-measurement-new-physics-theories_n_4254285.html?utm_hp_ref=science
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-
physics-seek-new-idea
I’ve posted a story that includes a section about the Alphabetics prophecy regarding Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat.
http://pesn.com/2013/11/14/9602386_Why-Im-Destined-to-Become-the-Richest-Man-in-the-World–for-Good/#Rossi
I also addressed this prophecy in my lecture at the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Boulder on October 10, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_izw6bseCY
In it, I point out that word definition 260 in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament has embedded in it, and surrounding it, several words that tie into the work Rossi is doing, including:
Rossii – name of the inventor
Water – is heated by his LENR process; and the process involves hydrogen, which is usually extracted from water.
Celsius – heat, temperature, LENR process
join together – fusion (actually, its probably transmutation)
the west – Rossi moved from Italy to Florida to do this work
latter time, the future – now
What is even more interesting about this is that there are 260 chapters in the New Testament, and word 260 in the NT lexicon also means “together”.
So here, in the middle of a cool hit on this (join together = in the spirit of Ezekiel 37: the sticks of Judah and Joseph shall be joined together to become one in hand) is embedded a prophecy about Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat.
This fits strongly with the premise that the emergence of free energy technologies has a very strong prophetic destiny — on a level of significance paralleling the founding of the U.S. as a free nation.
Bear in mind that Gesenius lexicon was first published in 1847 — a good 150 years prior to Rossi’s emergence on our radar, yet there in that word definition are those words indicated above.
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 7th, 2013 at 4:53 AM
————————————————–
Wladimir and JR,
An interestng dialog and exchange. And mostly very polite — my compliments to both of you.
—————————————————
Dear Steven
sorry for your disappointment in the end of the discussion, but it is impossible to have a polite dialog with a person who uses a dishonest way of argumentation.
In general, when a physicist like Mr. JR (which mission is to protect the current theories) has a good comprehension of the fundamental questions in Physics, he avoids to discuss about the matter, because he knows that it is impossible to defend the current theories, because he has a good comprehension of their failures.
So, as that physicists knows that he would lose the discussion, because he knows that it is impossible to prove that current theories are correct, he avoids the discussion, in order to avoid just the contrary he wishes: to prove that current theories are incorrect.
But Mr. JR has not a good comprehension on fundamental Physics.
I noted his superficial understanding when in the beggining of our discussion he tried to explain the instability of the 4Be8 by using the inversion of the causality: he took the effect as it should be the cause. We cannot explain the unstability of 4Be8 from the calculation of its binding energy.
If that had sense, the Nobel Laureate Hans Bette would not undertake the effort so that to explain why 4Be8 is not stable (he would have used the same solution used by Mr. JR)
That misunderstanding on the impossibility to explain the unstability of the 4Be8 pointed out to me that Mr. JR has many lacks in this comprehension on some fundamental questions in Physics.
And just because Mr. JR does not have a deep understanding on the fundamental questions in Physics, is the reason why he is sure that current theories explain everything well.
Because as he is unable to understand some causes of the fails in the current theories, he is unable to understand why they are are unacceptable.
regards
wlad
To de readers of the JoNP
Mr. JR had used several dishonest arguments in his discussion with me.
However, as the readers do not have scientific knowledge enough to understand when his arguments were dishonest, he did not worry about to recognize his dishonesty when I had pointed out them several times in the discussion.
Then why had Mr. JR recognized his last dishonesty ? ( when he said):
————————————————–
Wladimir,
I did not lie and I did not change my version. You pointed out that I misread something, I acknowledged my mistake and corrected my misstatement. This is generally considered a good thing to do in a scientific discussion.
————————————————–
The reason is easily to be understood:
because in his last dishonesty I have showed to the readers his dishonest way of argumentation in a way easy to be understood by everybody.
So , Mr. JR could not bamboozle again the readers by using with a dishonest argument (as he used to do along our discussion), and then he had no other choice unless to confess his mistake (a proposital mistake used by he, so that to convince the readers that 12C had not its magnetic moment measured).
As he had been unmasked by me in a way easily to be understood by the readers, he decided to recognize his (unconfessable proposital) mistake.
I hope the readers may understand that it is an inglorious task to have a scientific discussion with such a dishonest person.
regards
wlad
Jed Rothwell:
Hi, Jed: welcome back!
I agree with all you wrote.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JR wrote in November 13th, 2013 at 12:41 PM
———————————————-
Wladimir,
I did not lie and I did not change my version. You pointed out that I misread something, I acknowledged my mistake and corrected my misstatement. This is generally considered a good thing to do in a scientific discussion.
———————————————–
COMMENT
No,
you changed your version not because your are honest, as you now is suggesting.
You changed your version because I had proved that your original version was ridiculous, when I pointed out that :
————————————————-
After all, if Dr. Stuchbery had not be sure that they had made the experiments, he would not say There was some dispute with Speidel et al.
Only two crazy men can have a dispute for NOTHING (if they had not measured the excited 12C, they would be disputing for NOTHING).
As there was a DISPUTE, then of course that Dybdal and Speidel had a dispute about SOMETHING (the measurement)
————————————————
With your original version you tried to convince the readers that excited 12C had never its magnetic moment measured.
But as I showed that your original version was ridiculous, you had no choice: you changed your version, otherwise the readers would realize that you do not use honest arguments.
You changed your version not because of a question of honesty, you changed it because of a question of FEAR: your fear of the readers to realize that you do not use honesty in your way of argumentation.
Honesty and fear have different use.
Honesty is a good (and indispensable) thing to do in a scientific discussion.
Fear(of to be unmasked) is good to be used for those ones who do not use honesty in a scientific discussion.
regards
wlad
I think it very sensible to concentrate on commercial and industrial applications first, and then move to the residential market. Industrial users will be better at installation and maintenance.
We all hope that the e-cat will be safe. We hope that it will be safer than conventional fossil fuel and electrically powered devices. But you can never be sure of how safe equipment is until you manufacture and field test a large number of devices. Look at the problems with batteries in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and the recent battery fires with Tesla automobiles.
There were problems with the computer controls in the Prius many years after mass production began.
It is better to put the first few hundred thousand e-cats in the hands of factory engineers and other professionals who understand how to deal with potential problems, and how to keep an eye on cutting-edge high tech equipment.
I also think this market segment will be more profitable than the residential market.
I doubt that anyone would purchase a unit and then stage a fake accident, but that is possible. It is less likely to happen in a factory where inspections and record keeping are more formal, and where many people will see the equipment and work with it.
Luca:
The E-Cat is not a common appliance, well known and widely diffused, and contains a “black box” that cannot be disclosed, so far. This is the substantial difference between a common appliance, like a microwave oven, and the E-Cat regarding the safety certification for domestic utilization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carissimo A.R.
Rispetto a quanto riposto ad Hank Mills mi pare che lo stesso rischio
Potrebbe correrlo chi, avendo acceso un stufetta elettrica, se la porta sotto la doccia
O chi si compra un litro di gasolio e un kg di nitrato d’ammonio e poi si confeziona
Un bel pacchetto di ANFO.
Non è forse meglio dire che si tratta di una strategia commerciale dettata da cause di
“forza Maggiore”?
Un caro saluto a lei e tutto il suo STAFF
(Mi scuso per non aver tradotto in inglese ma Google avrebbe fatto perdere
Il senso delle frasi)
Wladimir,
I did not lie and I did not change my version. You pointed out that I misread something, I acknowledged my mistake and corrected my misstatement. This is generally considered a good thing to do in a scientific discussion.
Hank Mills:
Safety certification is necessary and must be made by a major certification company. Laws regarding safety are basically and deonthologically the same in all the world. The E-Cat poses relevant problems in domestic applications, where not qualified Customers can use it. We should be exposed to enormous risks, also for voluntary sabotages.
Can you imagine what our enemies could do in a “friendly” apartment with an E-Cat they could buy for 1,000 $ in a shop ? This is why, realistically, domestic application cannot be a priority. It is a matter of good sense. It is not a matter of product failure to get a certification, it is a matter of a situation that makes impossible to get a certification in these conditions. Safety remains an absolute priority, wherever we put the E-Cats in the world.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am saddened to hear that the home or domestic E-Cat is no longer a priority. In my opinion, the decentralization of the power grid needs to take place as soon as possible. The E-Cat technology would be ideal for this especially after the direct conversion to electricity is developed. However, even a heat producing unit would be of tremendous value at this time. You may or may not be aware that wood burning stoves are being banned by the overbearing and over zealous Environmental Protection Agency. Instead of simply providing a better and more economical alternative, they are prohibiting the sale of a technology that has been used for centuries to provide heat for homes. Here is a link that will tell you more:
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/10/02/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves/
I think the E-Cat would be an ideal replacement that would have the advantages of not producing any pollution or needing any conventional fuel. Someone living off the grid or in a frigid area could use an E-Cat for months at a time, on a single charge, and never have to go out and look for wood again. Perhaps your partner company could contact Environmental Protection Agency and suggest the widespread utilization of your technology as a replacement for the burning of wood.
If there is no possibility of getting a home unit approved in the United States, I hope that you will investigate other areas of the world that would welcome such a technology. As far as I’m concerned, nations that don’t embrace the benefits and advantages of your technology, in all forms, do not deserve it. The areas of the world that attempt to prevent the commercialization of your technology with excessive regulatory burdens should not reap the benefits.
As the Bible says, don’t cast your pearls among swine. In this case, your technology is the most beautiful and useful pearl on the planet.
Frank Acland:
We have first to complete our validation and R&D work on the Hot Cat, before what you say, but the retrofitting of existing power station is an extremely interesting application to think about.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the clarifications.
You mention that the hot cat now has safety certification.
Are you working towards having existing power stations able to generate electricity by retrofitting with hot cats as the power source?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
First attempt trying to deceive the readers:
———————————————-
JR
November 12th, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Wladimir,
He told you that he *thought* that they had been *attempted*
———————————————-
Caught in a lie, JR changed his version:
———————————————-
JR
November 12th, 2013 at 8:24 PM
Wladimir,
Looking at the email, I agree that the “I think” was referring to the year.
———————————————-
Dears readers of the JoNP:
The fake JR is actually Dr. John Arrington of the Argonne National Laboratory.
He uses a fake name because by this way he can say lies, and he can use stupid and dishonest arguments, since nobody knows who is the author of them.
He hides his identity because he does not want the people to know that he is author of so many nonsenses.
By using the fake JR he is free of feeling shame to be the author of so many lies, mainly because his lies have been unmasked by me.
Sincerely, I am not interested to discuss with a person who uses a fake name with the aim to feel himself free for saying lies, since an anonimous can say any lie he wishes, because he dont worry to defend any reputation.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
You don’t need to get all touchy and abusive. Looking at the email, I agree that the “I think” was referring to the year. But that still leaves you with no information beyond the fact that a measurement was attempted. As you say, there was some dispute about the attempted measurement, but we don’t know what it was.
It’s also silly to pretend that half-life is the only possible relevant parameter. You need to know what reaction was being measured, what the cross sections are, how easy it is to produce the necessary beams, etc…. Even ignoring all of those differences, there is only an extremely marginal measurement for 24Mg: 1.6+/-1.2 nm. So it’s simply crazy to assume that the fact that a marginal measurement exists for one nucleus means that all other nuclei with equal or longer half life must be easier to measure.
JR wrote in November 12th, 2013 at 3:58 PM
1) ————————————–
Wladimir,
-Dr. Stuchbery did not tell you that the measurement of mu for the 2+ excited state of 12C had been measured. He told you that he *thought* that they had been *attempted*
——————————————-
COMMENT:
Prof. Andrew Stuchbery wrote:
———————————————–
The first 2+ state of 12C is very short lived. This makes measurements very difficult. In principle the g factor could be measured relative to 13C by the transient field method. Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think. There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall. These are tough experiments.
——————————————–
Dear JR,
you are pathetic.
He said “I think” not concerning the measurements.
He said “I think” concerning the year: around 1980
After all, if Dr. Stuchbery had not be sure that they had made the experiments, he would not say There was some dispute with Speidel et al.
Only two crazy men can have a dispute for NOTHING (if they had not measured the excited 12C, they would be disputing for NOTHING).
As there was a DISPUTE, then of course that Dybdal and Speidel had a dispute about SOMETHING (the measurement)
2) ———————————————
(though he implies that there were problems with the attempt). Those aren’t the same thing
————————————————
COMMENT:
As I already had pointed out, the allegedproblems make no sense, because:
1- The half-life of excited 6C12 with spin 2 is 45fs
2- The half-life of excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 is 38fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured in 1983 by the method TF, giving the value +1,6.
If the alleged “problems” were real, the magnetic moment +1,6 of the excited 12Mg24 would never be measured too, and it would not be quoted in the nuclear tables.
Mainly because the magnetic moment for the excited 12Mg24 is not important
Unlike, in the case of the magnetic for the excited 6C12, it is crucial for the understanding of the Hoyle state in the explanation of the formation of 6C12 by nuclear reactions within the Sun.
So, dear JR, according to you the physicists are very dumb, because they had measured the excited 12Mg24, which is not important, while they neglected to measure the excited 6C12, which is crucial for the understanding of the nuclear reactions within the Sun.
Do you really believe the physicists are stupid as you are suggesting, dear JR ?????????
Your main problem, dear JR, is to believe that you are very smart, and all the other people are too dumb.
I am tired of your lies, dear JR.
I will ignore any of your next post here.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
1- No, the validation and R&D long- term- activity have different purposes: for us, as manufacturers, the purpose is to make good products, for the third indipendent party is to confirm the validation made for a week, verifying in a long term which are the consequences. Obviously, the Ragone number, after a 6 months period, will give more clear indications.
2- Unfortunately, no. This is an issue totally indipendent from what we can do and is very difficult any forecast
3- Priorities are the products we can do and sell.
Thanks to you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Is the current long-term validation for the purpose of getting safety certification for the hot cat?
2. Will the hot cat validation help with safety certification for domestic e-cat systems?
3. Is the domestic e-cat still a priority for your team?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wladimir Guglinski:
Please do not address anymore ” To the Readers of the Rossi’s JoNP”: this is NOT the “Rossi’s JoNP”, this is the Journal of Nuclear Physics blog. The fact that I am for now the moderator of it, does not mean it is mine. It is of all the persons that read it, write in it articles, write comments etc. This Journal has been founded by Prof. Sergio Focardi and me, and we always have been delighted to share the JoNP with all our Readers and Authors of articles and comments, like you. You know perfectly that you publish here all you want, as anyone else, without any limitation. We only spam the stupidities and the falsities, but always publish comments, even negative for me, but generated by candor.
Conclusion: I would be delighted should you write “our JoNP” from now on.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Duke Nukem:
Safety is an absolute priority. An E-Cat cannot be put for sale if it has not been certified for the safety. This is the reason for which the domestic E-Cat cannot be put for sale. To sell a product that has not been certified for the safety is a risk that no serious manufacturer can accept. The sole products that have been certified for the safety, so far, are the 1 MW low temperature E-Cat and the Hot Cat reactor, whose validation is still in course and will continue probably until the first quarter of the year 2014 before the results of the validation tests will be communicated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
-The fact that you added new incorrect arguments doesn’t mean that you aren’t also repeating the same old incorrect arguments.
-Similarly, you did take statements from the press release and present them as definitive conclusions of the scientific paper. The fact that you also included some statements that did come from the authors does not change that fact.
-Dr. Stuchbery did not tell you that the measurement of mu for the 2+ excited state of 12C had been measured. He told you that he *thought* that they had been *attempted* (though he implies that there were problems with the attempt). Those aren’t the same thing
-The magnetic moment is defined relative to the spin direction of the nucleus. A spin-zero nucleus cannot have a magnetic moment, by definition, no matter how symmetric or asymmetric its internal structure might be. You’re also wrong about that configuration not allowing for cancellation, but that’s a less fundamental error than arguing that conventional physics gives a non-zero value for something which is zero by definition.
-As I have said repeatedly, I never claimed that conventional theory was perfect or that it could explain everything. I’ve pointed out that there are many things which it cannot calculate reliably enough to test one way or the other. The fact that something isn’t fully understood yet doesn’t mean that it contradicts our understanding. It means that we can’t yet know for certain if it is or is not compatible with our current picture.
-Whether or not the Hoyle can be calculated from first principles has absolutely no bearing on the 2+ state. The Hoyle state is NOT the 2+ state that you’re discussing.
-The statement that “nuclear theorists have not yet uncovered the nature of this state from first principles” is a ‘historical’ context presented in the abstract. The rest of the paper is meant to demonstrate that it is now well understood from first principles.
I am quite willing to be convinced by your arguments, if they have any substance or merit to them. So far, you have provided a mix of arguments which have no substance and arguments which are based on incorrect assertions of fact. I may well die before you provide an argument worthy of acceptance, but that has more to do with you than with me.
To the readers of Rossi’s JNP:
Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser proposed a structure for 4Be12 so that to explain the experimental result obtained in the laboratories of the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research.
And as I had shown here, his proposal makes no sense, because he proposed an assymmetric structure. And a nucleus 4Be12 with assymetric structure cannot yield a magnetic moment zero.
We actually would have to be astonished with such stupid proposal by Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser.
He is trying to explain a new experimental finding, but forgetting other properties of the nucleus 4Be12, already detected by experiments.
But it is not my proposal here to speak about the stupid solution proposed by Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser.
My proposal here is to speak about Mr. JR.
There are two sort of scientists:
1- Those who undertake the development of the science, rejecting an old paradigm disproved by new experimental findings.
2- Those whose mission is to protect the current theories and the paradigm from which they had been developed.
Mr. JR belongs to the second class of scientist.
For instance, he claimed that he had given satisfactory explanation for the halo neutron in the 11Be nucleus.
He lied.
He did not give satisfactory explanation.
But now all you may realize that he is lying. I had shown here several proofs that excited 12C had its magnetic moment measured.
But even face to the proofs, Mr. JR continues to support his lies.
The new experiment published by Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser shows clearly that the structure of 4Be12 cannot be explained by the current models.
The structure proposed by Dr. Nortershäuser is absurd, and anyone can realize it easily.
However, even face to so evidences, Mr. JR continues trying to convince the readers with his lies.
Let’s forgive him.
His mission is to defend the current theories, even when they are disproved by experiments.
We have to respect his mission.
Let him preaching in the wilderness
regards
wlad
To the readers of Rossi’s JNP
I asked to Andrea Rossi to cancell the submission of my paper On the Mystery of the magnetic moment for excited 12C, 32Si , 36Ar, because I made wrong assumptions concerning the nucleus 36Ar.
However, as I have shown here, supported by the links of two scientific papers, and the reply by Prof. Andrew Stuchbery (telling that the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12 had already been measuered), the excited 6C12 with spin 2 has indeed magnetic moment zero, because it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
And as it was alreday been measured, the only explanation for its missing in the nuclear tables is the fact that it has indeed magnetic moment zero, and that’s why it was NOT reported by the experimentalists for the editors of nuclear tables.
In the end of my paper On the Mystery of the magnetic moment for excited 12C, 32Si , 36Ar I had written some words concerning the fact that current nuclear models cannot explain some properties of the light nuclei.
So, concerning the excited 12C with spin 2, the words writen in my paper continue to be valid..
And as I explain in the end of my article, the existence of the excited 12C with spin 2 and magnetic moment zero requires a new paradig in Nuclear Physics.
That’s why I put ahead the end of my paper:
================================================
5. Final verdict on a theory
How to get a final verdict on a theory, so that to give a final answer for the following questions:
a) The theory is correct
or
b) The theory is wrong
Today there is a tendency to consider that a scientific theory is the overlap between successes and failures. For instance, the Standard Model was able to get fantastic predictions, as for instance on the existence of the bosons W and Z, calculated with fantastic accuracy, confirmed by experiments which detected their existence with the physical quantity predicted in the theory.
So, nowadays the scientists use to think that a theory cannot be rejected if sometimes some new experiments give results which disproves the theory. They prefer to think that the way of developing a theory is just to go making corrections in the theory, so that to adapt it to the new experimental findings, introducing the necessary corrections. This is the way from which today the scientists use to consider the Standard Model as a successful theory.
But such interpretation on the meaning of the experiments which defy a theory is correct only partially, because we have to consider the question from the following viewpoints:
1) Experiments with quantitative results which disprove the theory. In this case we can, yes, to consider that the theory can be improved by suitable corrections, because it is possible that something is missing in the equations.
2) Experiments with qualitative results which disprove the theory. We may call them qualitative experiments. In this case it means that something is wrong in the principles from which the theory had been developed, In other words, some of the principles of the theory are incompatible with that qualitative result, and this imply that it is impossible to get that experimental result from the models of the theory. And therefore there is need to find a new theory, working with new principles compatible with that qualitative result.
So, when the physicists try to keep theories unable to explain qualitative experiments, this means that those scientists actually show that they forgot the lessons of the history of the Theoretical Physics development. Let us remember the lessons given to us.
7.1. The Bohr corpuscular theory on the atom
An author proposes a new theory when he tries to explain a new phenomenon not explained yet, or wrongly explained by a theory surpassed by new experimental findings. The author develops this new theory by following the steps ahead:
1- He analyses the phenomenon, so that to indentify what are the physical causes responsible for the phenomenon
2- He imagines a physical model capable to yield the phenomenon
3- He establishes the laws and principles from which the physical model works
4- He describes the laws by equations
Bohr used this procedure when he faced the enigma of the Balmer series of hydrogen spectrum. Bohr started by considering that light should be produced by an interaction within the structure of the matter. He supposed the structure of matter as an atom where a corpuscular electron moves about a proton, and proposed that light is produced when the electron jumps between orbits of different radii. He proposed the laws of that physical model, and the equations.
If we analyse the corpuscular Bohr’s model from the quantitative viewpoint, by considering the spectacular successes of the model, we have to consider that his theory is correct. For instance, from his model we get by calculation the Rydberg constant, which is doubtless one of the most spectacular successes of Theoretical Physics.
But a new experimental finding put the Bohr’s theory in trouble: the fine structures are incompatible with a corpuscular modelo of atom. And here is of interest to consider the powerful word “impossible”. It is impossible the existence of the fine structures by considering a corpuscular model. That’s why the physicists arrived to the conclusion that his model was wrong.
So, although the quantitative successes of Bohr’s corpuscular model were suggesting that his theory was correct, the final verdict on his theory came from a qualitative unsuccess. Then, as his model was wrong, there was need to look for a new model, compatible with the fine structures, and that’s why Schroedinger undertook the challange of finding a new theory based on principles compatible with the fine structures, and he proposed a model of atom based on the duality wave-particle proposed by de Broglie.
This is the power of the qualitative experiments. They decide if a theory is correct, or wrong. And therefore they stablish the need of changing the current paradigm
7.2. The birth of a new paradigm
A qualitative experiment which disproves a prevailing theory requires to change the paradigm from which the theory had been developed, because the old paradigm is incompatible with the result of the qualitative experiment. There is need to find a new paradigm compatible with it . No matter how many quantitative successes had been obtained from that theory, and how much spectacular they are, the verdict of the qualitative experiment is definitive: a new theory, based on new principles, is required.
The same had happened years earlier when Michelson and Morley showed that light propagation is not compatible with the luminiferous aether of the 19th Century. Michelson-Morley had been a qualitative experiment. When they performed their experiment, they did the following question to the Nature: is there a luminiferous aether filling the space? The answer given by the experiment would have to be only YES or NO. The answer would not be given by quantitative numbers.
The Nature had responded NO to their inquisition: the luminiferous aether does not exist. And as in that age the current paradigm was to consider the space filled by an aether, the result of that qualitative experiment required to change the paradigm, and that’s why Einstein developed his Special Relativity, proposing that the space is empty.
7.3. Is there need a new theory on the nucleus?
The fine structures (qualitative experimental finding) gave a final verdict against the Bohr corpuscular model of the atom. And taking such lesson given by the History of Science, we cannot avoid the question: is there some qualitative experimental finding giving us a final verdict against the current nuclear models?
Here we have analysed the null magnetic moments of excited nuclei with nuclear spin 2, and we have to consider it from what we have learnt from the History of the Physics: we are facing a situation similar to that faced by scientists in other ages, when qualitative experiments were disproving the prevailing theories of their time, and showed to those scientists that they were in front of the need of looking for a new paradigm.
The green points in the Fig. 14.41 represent the nuclei where the equations established from the current nuclear models for the calculation of the magnetic moment get quantitative results agree to the experimental results. Those green points can be compared with the quantitative spectacular successes of the Bohr corpuscular model. And as the History of Science had taught us, in spite of his spectacular quantitative successes, his theory was wrong: it was disproved by qualitative experiments, the existence of fine structures, incompatible with a corpuscular model of atom.
The black points in the Fig. 14.41 represent the excited nuclei with spin i=2 and magnetic moment zero. The existence of those nuclei is incompatible with the principles of the current nuclear models. Using the word “impossible”, we can say that it is impossible to have spin i=2 and magnetic moment zero by considering the current nuclear models. What the black points in the Fig. 14.41 represent for the current nuclear models must be compared with the fine structures accounted d for the corpuscular Bohr’s model. The black points in the Fig. 14.41 give the final verdict against the nuclear models: a new paradigm is required, there is need a new nuclear model.
8. Conclusions
The impossibility to get via theoretical calculations the magnetic moments zero for excited 6C12, 14Si32, and 18Ar36 taking in consideration all the current nuclear models imply that there is something very wrrong with all those models.
Here we have shown that it is impossible to obtain =0 for nuclei with nuclear spin i=2 if we do not consider the flux n(o) proposed in the nuclear model of the Quantum Ring Theory. Therefore the nuclear theorists have to realize that to consider the flux n(o) is the unique viable solution so that to solve such puzzle.
From any other solution which do not consider the flux n(o) it is impossible to get =0 for excited nuclei with i=2.
Then we realize that the existence of the excited nuclei 12C , 32Si and 36Ar with i=2,=0 requires a new nuclear model, in which the nucleons are captured by a flux n(o) generated by a central 2He4. Without to consider the flux n(o) it is impossible to eliminate such inadmissible failure in Nuclear Physics.
The magnetic moment zero for excited nuclei with nuclear spin i= 2 requires a new paradigm for the Nuclear Physics, based on a nuclear model where the nucleons are captured by a flux n(o). Like the fine structures required a new paradigm for the atom, based on a wave-particle duality model.
================================================
JR wrote in November 12th, 2013 at 8:59 AM
1) ——————————————-
Wladimir,
I’m saddened to see that you appear to have learned nothing from this incident, as you go immediately back to repeating the same arguments you’ve made before, including ones that you’ve just admitted were wrong.
———————————————
COMMENT:
the same arguments??????????????????????
Wow !!!!!!
I had additioned:
1) The paper Ab Initio Calculation of the Hoyle State
http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192501.pdf
where the authors say:
nuclear theorists have not yet uncovered the nature of this state from first principles
So, as you claim that nothing is wrong with current nuclear models, their opinion is different of yours
They also say:
It would be very interesting to understand which fundamental parameters in nature control this fine-tuning.
And so, by their opinion (different of yours) from the current principles of Nuclear Physics there is no way to explain the excited 12C with spin 2.
2) The paper Viewpoint: The carbon challenge
where the author says:
“The Hoyle state lies 7.6 million electronvolts higher in energy than the ground state, but it has the same total angular momentum (J=0) and parity (positive). The fact that the two states share the same quantum numbers, but very different spatial configurations”
So, it’s the pfoof that 12C in the ground state and excited 12C with spin 2 have the same magnetic moment zero
I additioned the reply by Prof. Andrew Stuchbery, which is the proof that magnetic moment of 12 had been measured:
“Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think. There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall.”.
However,
dear Jr,
as I already said before, you will never accept any proof I give, because you have blind adherence current nuclear models.
2) ——————————————-
1) You take the argument that you insisted was proof that 36Ar had mu=0 even though you found no such measurements and so had to fabricate their existence, as you admitted. Having found out you were wrong about 36Ar, you now use the exact same arguments to insist that these are proof that the 2+ excited state of 12C must also be zero, even though you’ve just demonstrated that those arguments are wrong.
———————————————
COMMENT:
No, you are wrong.
As I have shown above, I had additioned several proofs that the magnetic moment for excited 12C had been already measured
You actually are using dishonestly my mistake on 36Ar, so that to try to confuse people.
As I have shown above, the case of 12C is different, as the several PROOFS exhibited by me are showing.
3) ———————————————
2) You’re still taking statements and quotes from PR writeups of experiments, written by science writers who do not know the details of the experiment, and pretending that these are conclusive statements about the experiment and/or quotes from the researchers.
————————————————
COMMENT:
Viewpoint: The carbon challenge
Morten Hjorth-Jensen, Department of Physics and Center of Mathematics for Applications, University of Oslo, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
Is Morten Hjorth-Jensen a science writer ???????????????
WOW !!!
Ab Initio Calculation of the Hoyle State
Evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner3,
1 -Institut fu¨r Theoretische Physik II, Ruhr-Universita¨t Bochum, D-44870 Bochum, Germany
2- Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA
3- Helmholtz-Institut fu¨r Strahlen- und Kernphysik and Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics,
Are they science writers ???????????????????????????
WOW !!!!!!!!
And Prof. Andrew Stuchbery (who sent the email telling me that magnetic moment for excited 12C had already been measuered), who works in the Department of Nuclear Physics, Australian National University , is he also a science writer ????????????????????????????
WOW !!!!!!!!
4) —————————————-==
3) You once again take charge radius measurements which agree with conventional calculations and use them to “prove” that those calculations must be wrong. This is simply stupid.
——————————————–
COMMENT:
And what radius have I to consider ?
Have I reject the radius obtained in the experiment, and to consider the radius existing into your brain ??????
5) ———————————————-
4) You grab new, random examples of why nuclear theory must be wrong, without providing anything resembling a coherent argument. For example, your “argument” against the proposed structure of 12Be is based entirely on the fact that you *still don’t understand what a magnetic moment is*.
————————————————
COMMENT:
WOW !!!!!!
then you have to show us any theory in which an assymetric structure (as that proposed by Dr. Dr. Wilfried Nortershäuser) is able to produce a total nuclear magnetic moment zero.
6) ——————————————
I don’t have the time or inclination to explain all of the errors in your several new nonsensical arguments, given that you will dismiss any and all statements questioning your conclusions.
——————————————–
COMMENT
Of course you have no time, because my arguments are based on FACTS, and there is only one to disprove them: you will be obliged to use dishonest arguments, and everybody will realize that you are a scientist unable to accept new experimental findings disproving the current nuclear models
7) ——————————————–
If someone else is interested in knowing what’s wrong with any of these arguments, I’m happy to provide that information. But since Wladimir has shown himself to be both uninterested in the truth and fundamentally dishonest in his arguments, I see no point in trying to educate him further.
————————————————
COMMENT:
Of course, if anybody has interest to be bamblozled by you, I wish you a good luck
By myself, I prefer to be loyal to the scientific method, accepting the results of the new experiments which are proving wrong the current nuclear models.
As I said, dear JR,
you will die believing in the current nuclear models as you probably believe in the Santa Claus.
I wish you have a happy death (many years in the future, of course).
regards
wlad