Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory

.
by
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada
E-mails: stoyans@cse.yorku.ca – sarg137@yahoo.com


.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract

Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier.

The current theoretical understanding based on high temperature fusion does not offer an explanation for the cold fusion or LENR.

The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures of the atomic nuclei.

For explanation of the nuclear energy, a hypothesis of a field micro-curvature around the superdense nucleus is suggested.

The new theoretical approach in the analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier.

A possibility of another cold fusion reaction is predicted due to some similarity between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.

262 comments to Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory

  • orsobubu

    About the theoretical understanding of cold fusion: great, now with Guglinski stright attacking Sarg the battle is getting more interesting and I hope it lasts much longer, for years at least, and as representative of the readers of JNP, I hope it opens soon the missing direct confrontation between Sarg and JR (which I hope will reveal his true identity), so that the overview on the battlefield is complete. We are also looking for more blood with the descent of Rossi itself in the coming months, after the publication of his new interpretation of the ECAT experimental results. Expect more arrows in the back too because I’m developing an unconventional theory that tentatively is called the anarchist nucleon.

    (Joking, I really love all of this)

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    We’re near Winter solstice in the northern Hemisphere.
    The evolotions in our economy and ecology both need something equivalent.

    There has been a lot of comment on the difference between prototyping and mass production.
    I wonder which ultra rich philantropist would invest in the mass production of an electric version of the space-shuttle -or any other single purpose device- and put it on the shelves, if the manufacturer of the batteries that would fit in it does not.

    There will be reasons for that. This has happened many times before. So be it. Time will tell if the decision was right. My time may be over by then.
    It does not make me sad neither. It is just this that makes me play from time to time with my children, and teach them things of life, even while inbetween a lot of work waits on my desk.

    The visible outside of systems often reflects the principles of the less visible inside. As the motion of stars reflects the motion of the particles in the matter. What happens outside the nucleus, could happen inside the nucleus. I think that what happens in E-cat, now also happened with E-cat.

    I can imagine that to convince non-scientist-but-very-financial-decision-makers of your US partner, from time to time some experimental result could be usefull and fun at the same time. As a kind of team-building, which is very important in organisations.

    So have you, for some purpose other than developing a commercial, safe, certified product, done some experimenting that produces a net electricity output, even under unsafe or temporary conditions ? For those who could pick-up this item, I do not mean an intention to ever build such a device for commercial reasons. Building one could deliver the necessary proof that it should never be built for commercial reasons. All A-B-C weapons had to be built and used once to convince the world that they must be kept secret and in a safe and stable place. Individual consumers should not all fly individual jet-planes. We should not 3D-print all the weaponry we can dream of.

    Is there a world energy equivalent of the winter solstice upcoming ?

    Thank you,
    Koen

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. JR

    along the years several nuclear theorists awarded the Nobel Prize.

    Here they are:

    Enrico Fermi – 1938
    Otto Stern – 1943
    Isidor Isaac Rabi – 1944
    Hideki Yukawa – 1949
    Cecil Frank Powell – 1950
    John Douglas Cockcroft – 1951
    Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton – 1951
    Felix Bloch – 1952
    Edward Purcell – 1952
    Robert Hofstadter – 1961
    Lev Davidovich Landau – 1962
    Eugene Paul Wigner – 1963
    Maria Goeppert-Mayer – 1963
    Nicolay Gennadiyevich Basov – 1963
    Richard Phillips Feynman – 1965
    Julian Schwinger – 1965
    Sin-Itiro Tomonaga – 1965
    Hans Albrecht Bethe – 1967
    Murray Gell-Mann – 1969
    Aage Bohr – 1975
    Ben Roy Mottelson – 1975
    Leo James Rainwater – 1975
    Sheldon Lee Glashow – 1978
    Abdus Salam – 1978
    Steven Weinberg – 1978
    James Watson Cronin – 1980
    Val Logsdon Fitch – 1980
    Carlo Rubbia – 1984
    Simon van der Meer – 1984
    Leon Max Lederman – 1988
    Melvin Schwartz – 1988
    Jack -Steinberger – 1988
    Henry Way Kendall – 1990
    Richard E. Taylor – 1990
    Bertram Brockhouse – 1994
    Martin Lewis Perl – 1995
    Frederick Reines – 1995
    Gerard ‘t Hooft – 1999
    Martinus J. G. Veltman – 1999
    Anthony James Leggett – 2003
    David Gross – 2003
    Hugh David Politzer – 2003
    Frank Wilczek – 2003

    In spite of Edward Teller did not award the Nobel Prize, we also can consider him, because he is the father of the nuclear bomb, and Heisenberg was his teacher of theoretical physics.

    Dear Mr. JR,
    please show me at least one among them who had predicted that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.

    If you cannot point out at least one, however you may see the prediction of the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N here in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory:

    page 137:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-68035300-1386379280.jpg

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Stoyan Sarg wrote in December 13th, 2013 at 10:59 AM

    Reply to: Wladimir Guglinski

    1) ==================================

    Your conclusion that I “don’t understand several basic but key concepts” is based only on the fact that my theory challenges the conventional theory.
    =====================================

    COMMENT:
    Where did I say such a thing ????
    Obviously I could not say it, since my theory also challenges the conventional theory.

    2) ==================================
    My BSM-SG models of atoms are completely original. They don’t show simply the z-axis of nuclear symmetry. They provide a clear classical explanation of many other thinks, such as:
    ======================================

    COMMENT
    Please put here a link showing a copy of the page (or pages) of your book where you propose clearly the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei, as I did.

    To claim that the existence of the z-axis can be “inferred” from your nuclear model is not acceptable.

    From a new nuclear model many new nuclear properties can be inferred. However, the author must point out them before they be detected by experiments, so that to claim that he had predicted them.

    3) =========================================
    I have a strong credibility as a scientist with over 80 scientific publications in more than one language and a few scientific books during my 37 year work, so the blame of Dr. Guglinski on my knowledge does not rely on facts.
    ============================================

    Strong credibility with over 80 scientific publications in more than one language and a few scientific books during 37 years are not a guarantee that your theory is correct.

    What decides if a theory is correct is its confirmation by experiments.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 13th, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    Wladimir,

    50 years ago, it was not possible to perform precise, first-principle calculations of the binding energy. Now it is. Hans Bethe wasn’t ignorant of nuclear theory, but it was somewhat less advanced 50 years ago. I don’t know why you have such a hard time grasping the concept that we learn things as time goes on.

    The fact that modern ab initio calculations of 8Be show that it isn’t bound (and the 2H is, since you also think that is impossible to describe) IS the clear and direct demonstration that it is well explained by conventional nuclear theory. I don’t know what more you could possibly want.

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

    COMMENT

    Of course from the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method it is possible to explain everything you wish, as for instance why two neutrons do not form the dineutron.

    Because, as the Heisenberb’s phantasmagoric method does not consider the physical causes of some nuclear phenomena, it is easy to replace the physical causes by abstract mathematical concepts, as Heisenberg did.

    However the new experiments published in the last 5 years are showing that from such Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method there is no way to discover the true structure of the nuclei.

    Along 60 years the nuclear theorists believed that even-even nuclei with Z=N are spherical.
    Look the structure of 8O16 proposed by Martin Freer in 2009:
    Fig 1:
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

    If the experiments in 2011 had not showed that those nuclei have non-spherical shape, the nuclear theorists would be believing that those nuclei have spherical shape until the present days, because from the current nuclear models developed from the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method those nuclei must have spherical shape.

    And if the experiments published in 2011 had not detected the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, the journal Nature would NEVER published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    Dear Mr. JR,
    you as many nuclear theorists have not the necessary intuition to understand some fundamental questions in Nuclear Physics, because all you have learnt in the universities to consider the nuclear questions from the viewpoint of the phantasmagoric Heisenberg method.

    regards
    wlad

  • Reply to Harold:

    The cold fusion is incomparable with most devices or technologies mentioned by Harold. All they (with exception of not developed thorium reactor) convert energy from some source and if the access to that source is restricted their output is zero. Cold fusion takes energy directly from nuclear forces. The source is the same as the energy source of the nuclear reactors in nuclear plants, but the advantages are enormous (even over the mentioned thorium rector): small size and portability, no radioactive waste, no harmful radioactivity, no expensive maintenance and no danger of nuclear proliferation. This is a new technological breakthrough, waited too long due to the skepticism planted in the minds of some influential theorists. They are confident that they know the final true and sharply react to any challenge of the status quo. However, the race is started and it cannot be stopped. In this sense, we must acknowledge the achievement of Andrea Rossi, the late Prof. Focardi and their predecessors who worked in this field. One ancient Greek proverb says: “When the facts speak, the Gods are silent”.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Franco:
    We did not find any of such companies able to offer a generator at a competitive price and with the industrial structure necessary to manufacture thousands ( let alone millions) of items. As I always said, we are not interested to participate and finance the development of a start up in that field, but we are interested only to buy products already industrialized, at prices that must be competitive with the classic generators. We did not find any so far and obviously we did not buy prototypes at unsustainable prices, in view of an industrial application, coherently with what I have already said.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Franco

    Dear dr. Rossi.

    about Green Turbine You wrote:
    … at unsustainable prices/kW. So far.

    I believe but, like any products, the price depends strongly from quantity.
    If we are speaking of 100 units or 100 millions of unit, the price changes a lot for sure.

    Apart from the price issue, did You tested a Green Turbine coupled with an E/H-Cat?
    Did it work properly to produce enough electrical energy?

    Best Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Franco:
    The proposals we received so far are real, but not ready for the market, just prototypes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Franco:
    It is not true “nothing convrete”, it is true nothing industrially ready for the market, so far. The offers we received are for prototypes not ready to be bought for commercial and/or technological reasons. We have seen many interesting things, but at unsustainable prices/kW. So far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Franco

    Robert Curto wrote:
    Dr. Rossi and Readers, you may want to click on,
    Green Turbine, on Google.

    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    USA

    It seems to me that people spoke a lot of the same subject like a broken disk.
    From years on JoNP a lot of comments on Green Turbine:

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=6#comment-779800

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=2#comment-754852

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=2#comment-753752

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=2#comment-752455

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785&cpage=3#comment-634090

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-551320

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-551599

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-550629

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-549634


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-548107

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-548101

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=1#comment-543112

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=66#comment-444617

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=608&cpage=1#comment-198017

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=8#comment-58050

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=8#comment-58116

    but nothing of really concrete.

    I suggest that it’s better for all Readers to change argument with something else.

    Best Regards

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    50 years ago, it was not possible to perform precise, first-principle calculations of the binding energy. Now it is. Hans Bethe wasn’t ignorant of nuclear theory, but it was somewhat less advanced 50 years ago. I don’t know why you have such a hard time grasping the concept that we learn things as time goes on.

    The fact that modern ab initio calculations of 8Be show that it isn’t bound (and the 2H is, since you also think that is impossible to describe) IS the clear and direct demonstration that it is well explained by conventional nuclear theory. I don’t know what more you could possibly want.

  • Reply to: Wladimir Guglinski

    Your conclusion that I “don’t understand several basic but key concepts” is based only on the fact that my theory challenges the conventional theory. But it is challenged also by the experimental facts of nuclear transmutations and the results of 33 year research on cold fusion. Now it is challenged by the undeniable progress in this field achieved firstly in the E-cat reactor with the inheritance of the Italian research in the past 33 years. My BSM-SG models of atoms are completely original. They don’t show simply the z-axis of nuclear symmetry. They provide a clear classical explanation of many other thinks, such as: chemical valences (oxidation number), the accurate match to the shape of the Periodic table, the Pauli exclusion principle, the Hunds rule, the nuclear magnetic resonance, the angular directions of the chemical bonds and why some isotopes are unstable (radioactive) and others not. One very important and distinguishable feature of the BSM-SG models is that they deal with dimensions, while not contradicting the existance of the energy levels. Quantum mechanical (QM) models deals only with energy levels, ignoring the dimensions because going to a deep trouble. For this reason the QM models were incapable to predict the nuclear transmutations and the cold fusion. They are mathematical models suitable only for calculation of spectral features and interactions by energy levels, but they are not real physical models. Another adopted problem for QM models is the wrong interpretation of the scattering experiments assuming that the nucleus is spherical. With this assumption the data interpretation leads to an extremely small spherical nucleus, while the real nucleus has a manifold structure, where the Coulomb field is spread around much larger volume. More information about this (not discussed in my article in this journal) is presented in my recent talk at the Nanotek-3 International conference (Las Vegas, Dec 2013), where I was an invited speaker and a co-chair of a section. My slides are available in:
    http://www.slideshare.net/stoyansarg/stoyan-sargnanotek3post
    I have a strong credibility as a scientist with over 80 scientific publications in more than one language and a few scientific books during my 37 year work, so the blame of Dr. Guglinski on my knowledge does not rely on facts.
    The use of the BSM-SG models leads clearly to the following conclusions about the main nuclear processes in the E-cat reactor:
    1. The nuclear process of Ni + H leads to a fusion of the proton to the nickel nucleus converted it to a copper or a fusion of two protons to the Ni nucleus leading to a zinc without emission of neutrons.
    2. The isotopes of Ni62 and Ni64 are most suitable for an optimal energy output and avoidance of unstable radioactive isotopes.

    Dr. Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev

  • Joe

    Stoyan Sarg,

    1. If SG is able to modify Coulomb in the near-field, this would imply that SG is stronger than Coulomb in that range. If that is true, how does Coulomb eventually succeed in overcoming SG and unfold a free neutron in 12 minutes?

    2. If SG can not maintain a finite near-field Coulomb for a neutron in motion,
    a) why is a Coulomb far-field for a neutron in motion not detected?
    b) why does a neutron in motion not revert to being a proton immediately rather than waiting 12 minutes?

    3. If a neutron unfolds in 12 minutes because its self-repulsive near-field Coulomb is stronger than its self-attractive SG, how can a deuteron find stability as a balance of these very same forces between proton and neutron since the repulsive is stronger than the attractive?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 12th, 2013 at 6:13 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    When I said your knowledge of “modern” nuclear physics was poor, I was referring to traditional/conventional nuclear theory.
    ===============================================

    Dear Mr. JR,

    I have the proud to have (together with the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe) a limited and poor understanding of “modern” nuclear physics.

    Because I understand, like Hans Bethe understood 50 years ago, that from the principles of the “modern” nuclea physics is impossible to explain the instability of the 4Be8.

    Unlike, you, with your rich and deep understanding of “modern” nuclear physics, had explained the instability of the 4Be8 with one of the most spectacular solutions in the history of Modern Physics: by using the inversion of causality, by alleging that the instability of 4Be8 is easily explained via the calculation of its binding energy.

    So, I and Hans Bethe are very proud of our ignorance in “modern” nuclear physics.
    We prefer to continue to be ignorant, instead of to commit some murders of the Nuclear Physics, as you do.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Errata:
    Dr. Eugene Mallove suggested to me to put my papers ina book form in 2004.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Stoyan Sarg wrote in December 12th, 2013 at 6:33 PM

    Reply to Wladimir Guglinski

    My prediction about the Z axis of the nuclei is quite evidenta from my article in http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205052 (May 2002). It was cited also in the Harward data base
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:physics/0205052
    In 2002 I archived my whole theory in the National Library of Canada and obtained a catalog record: Class no QC794.6*; Deway: 530.14/2 21of it.
    At the same time I archived also the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures for all stable elements with 1<Z<105. LC Class: QC794.6*; Deway: 530.14/2 21
    The publication of my theory as a book (612 pages)was in 2006 ISBN: 9781412083874
    So my discovery precedes yours by a number of years.
    =====================================================

    COMMENT

    Dear Stovan Sarg

    1- I wrote the most of my papers between 1993 and 1999, and submitted them to many journals of Physics via air-mail. I have their Transfer of Copyright.
    In 1994 Dr. Eugene Mallove suggested to me to put my papers in a book form, and to publish it.

    2- I did never worry about to publish my papers in the internet, because the internet is a proof of nothing, since any author can make reviews in the papers, by changing them.
    So, after the publication of an experiment, the author can access his paper in the internet, and to fit his theory to that experimental result.

    3- So, because I dont trust in the internet, that’s why I had published my theory in a book form (2006, the same year of your book… rsss… a very interesting coincidence…).

    4- Please shows us here the quite evident predictions of the z-axis in your work, as I did in my two papers Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics and Beta Decay, as anyone can see in the pages shown here:

    Page 125:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-55963400-1386630468.jpg

    Page 126:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-62323200-1386630497.jpg

    Page 127:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-16190500-1386630517.jpg

    Page 129:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-94656200-1386630535.jpg

    Page 130:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-14648900-1386630563.jpg

    Page 131:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-01914100-1386630596.jpg

    Page 132:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-37519700-1386630629.jpg

    Page 133,
    where it is written:
    The distributino about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-52178100-1386630652.jpg

    CONCLUSIONS in the paper “BETA-DECAY”:

    Page 160:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-89477100-1386630681.jpg

    Page 161:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-05384200-1386630698.jpg

    regards
    wlad

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi and Readers, you may want to click on,
    Green Turbine, on Google.

    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    USA

  • Reply to Joe’s questions:

    1. In my theory the Supergavitational forces (SG) are in a close range up to the size of the Bohr radius (this by way solves the problem with the practically finite boundary of the atom, which cannot be defined in the Bohr planetary model). These SG forces are most fundamental in the physical vacuum and they modify the Coulomb forces only at near field, so they make the near Coulomb field to appear as distributed over the shape of the proton.
    2. It is well known that the neutron has a magnetic moment like the proton and electron. This is unexplainable enigma in Modern physics but it is an experimentally measured fact and you can find its value in any particle data base. When the neutron is in motion the SG forces cannot hold the locked e-field of the neutron and it creates a magnetic field.
    3. At close distances the SG forces are attractive (in fact they play a role of nuclear forces). The neutron is held over the proton saddle due to the balance between the attractive SG forces and repulsive near field forces of the proton and neutron. I calculated for the first time the binding energy between the proton and neutron in deuteron and the result is quite close to the experimentally measured one.

  • Reply to Wladimir Guglinski

    My prediction about the Z axis of the nuclei is quite evident from my article in http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205052 (May 2002). It was cited also in the Harward data base
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:physics/0205052
    In 2002 I archived my whole theory in the National Library of Canada and obtained a catalog record: Class no QC794.6*; Deway: 530.14/2 21of it.
    At the same time I archived also the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures for all stable elements with 1<Z<105. LC Class: QC794.6*; Deway: 530.14/2 21
    The publication of my theory as a book (612 pages)was in 2006 ISBN: 9781412083874
    So my discovery precedes yours by a number of years.

  • JR

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    When I said your knowledge of “modern” nuclear physics was poor, I was referring to traditional/conventional nuclear theory. I grant you that you are the world’s expert on the theory that you have invented. But you’re constantly ‘proving’ that conventional theory is wrong simply because you don’t understand several basic but key concepts.

    Since neither of the ‘predictions’ you claim from 2006 would have come as a surprise to anyone at the time, I have trouble seeing them as very significant. The importance of clustering and non-spherical structures in nuclei has been around for decades (although there may be some confusion due to the fact that people sometimes mean somewhat different things by ‘spherical structure’ in this case). The existence of a special ‘z-axis’ has also long been known, and the idea of studying the octupole moment of nuclei (at least 50 years old) wouldn’t have made any sense without this idea. Maybe you mean something different, but then I don’t see how the 224Ra octupole moment (“pear shape”) supports your “z-axis”.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 12th, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    Wladimir,

    As for the question of 224Ra, I’ve already commented on the physics of that. But let me repeat, for about the 10th time, that I’m not claiming that the current theory are perfect. I’m claiming that *your* understanding of modern nuclear physics is so limited that every single instance of a ‘problem’ you’ve have identified in conventional theory is really a problem in your understanding of the experiment or the theory.
    =============================================

    COMMENT:

    And so we have an ironic paradox here born from the deep understanding of Mr. JR:

    ===> with my bad “limited” understanding of nuclear physics I had predicted correctly two nuclear properties of nuclei, published in my book in 2006:

    —————————————————-
    1) The non-spherical shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N.
    Unlike, the nuclear theorists did not discover it along 60 years. And they realized it only after the detection by EXPERIMENTS in 2011.
    If the experiments had not detected the non-spherical shapes, the nuclear theorists, like Martin Freer, would be believing until today that those nuclei have spherical shape.
    Look the prediction of the spherical shape of the 8O16 made by Martin Freer in 2009:
    Figure 1:
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

    2) The x-axis within the nuclei had been predicted by me, as I have shown in the sequence of pages of my paper Critique to the models of Nuclear Physics, posted here yesterday.
    So, I had discovered the existence of the z-axis

    Unlike, the nuclear theorists are now thinking about the existence of the z-axis because one experiment had detected the pear shape of Ra224.
    So, they did NOT discover it, they only had been led to the conclusion of its existence suggested by one experiment
    —————————————————–

    .
    .
    .

    ===> Unlike, the nuclear theorists, with their deep understanding of Nuclear Physics, did not succeed to predict those two properties of the nuclei.

    .

    Dear Mr. JR,
    your understanding of what is “limited” and what is “deep” is very funny.

    ha ha ha

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    He said that they needed to know the TF factor for carbon in iron, which is not relevant for the measurement in Mg. There’s no lying and no conspiracy, just the fact that you don’t understand how these measurements are performed and don’t bother to educate yourself on them before making wild accusations.

    As for the question of 224Ra, I’ve already commented on the physics of that. But let me repeat, for about the 10th time, that I’m not claiming that the current theory are perfect. I’m claiming that *your* understanding of modern nuclear physics is so limited that every single instance of a ‘problem’ you’ve have identified in conventional theory is really a problem in your understanding of the experiment or the theory.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Harold:
    At the moment, we are focused exclusively upon our work. All the external considerations are irrilevant.
    If better technologies will be developed, our technology will become obsolete. That’s all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Harold

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Are you and your US partners not afraid that your R&D test results will come too late or take too long?
    I mean this especially when these results would be negative. If this happens you can be easily surpassed by any other new “clean” energy sources, like for example mass produced cheap and efficient solar cells or mass produced working fuel cells or the new thermionic generators or even an advanced working Thorium reactor.
    To compete with (only?) negative results after you extensive R&D will become very harsh and the E-Cat could end up in the row of enigmatic alternative energy sources.

    Kind regards,
    Harold

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. JR

    Concerning the z-axis within the nuclei, it is written in the page 133 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006:
    —————————————————-
    1. The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics
    —————————————————-
    See oage 133:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-52178100-1386630652.jpg

    In May-2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (protons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis:
    http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

    However from the current nuclear models an even-even nucleus as 224Ra cannot be pear shaped.

    That’s why some theorists are thinking about the existence of a 5th force. Because as there is no way to justify the existence of the z-axis by considering the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method applied to Nuclear Theory, they are trying to justify the different distribution of protons and neutrons about the z-axis by considering a new physical cause within the nuclei, missing in the current nuclear models.
    So, they are supposing that such physical cause perhaps is the 5th force.

    Dear Mr. JR,
    as you claim that there is nothing wrong with the Standard Nuclear Physics, and therefore nothing is missing in the current nuclear models, then why the existence of the z-axis had not been predicted in Nuclear Physics before 2013 ???

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Mystery: why Dr. Speidel is lying ?

    In my first email to Dr. Speidel I said:

    ===================================================
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: speidel@iskp.uni-bonn.de
    Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
    Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 07:35:51 -0200

    Dear Dr. K. H. Speidel

    Dr. Andrew Stuchbery told me that in 1980 you had measured the magnetic moment for the excited 12C with spin 2.

    However the value is not quoted in the nuclear tables.

    May you tell me why ?

    Regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ===================================================

    So, note that in my email I had referred to the year of 1980.

    But in his last email he replied:
    ===================================================
    We couldn’t determine the g factor because the TF was not known at that time.
    ===================================================

    However the excited 24Mg(+4) had its magnetic moment measured by the method TF in 1983 !!! , giving a result 1,6.

    Therefore it is not true that the TF was not known at that time.

    So, why are the physicists lying ?

    What mystery is involving the measurement of the magnetic moment for excited 12C(+2) ?

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    I’m sure he does understand his experiment very well, and he did tell you why they couldn’t do what you wanted (albeit without providing much detail). You don’t understand the experiment very well and so his explanation wasn’t clear to you. But the fact that you didn’t understand what he was saying doesn’t imply that he is wrong.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 10th, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    Wladimir,

    The fact that you don’t understand the experimental techniques involved in these measurements doesn’t really count as either a mystery or a threat to traditional nuclear theory.
    ===================================================

    COMMENT

    And as Dr. Speidel understands very well the experimental techniques involved in these measurements he could give us a REASONABLE justification why excited 12C(+2) (with half-life 60fs) had not its magnetic moment measured, while excited 24Mg(+4) with half-life 38fs had its magnetic moment measured, giving a result 1,6.

    But he did not give.

    And so I see here a mystery.

    Because you dont understand what is a mystery doesnt count as the mystery should be solved.

    A mystery is something for which nobody gives a reasonable or satisfactory explanation.

    Up to now I did not see any reasonable explanation, and so the mystery goes on…

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Stoyan Sarg,

    I thank you for responding.

    I would like to ask further,

    1. How does any amount or type of folding of a charged torus eliminate the far-field influence of its electric field, restricting what should otherwise be an infinite-range field to a finite near-field?

    2. If a finite-range electric field does exist for a neutron, how can its motion create a magnetic field which is infinite in range?

    3. If, in the deuteron, the near-field of the neutron is distant from the near-field of the proton, then only the far-field of the proton would be responsible for keeping the neutron in place and helping the neutron’s supergravitational force in keeping the neutron folded. But the far-field of the proton could only have this influence on the neutron if the neutron would actually possess a far-field which would interact with the far-field of the proton. (In physics, matter interacts with matter at a distance only by way of their fields.) And since, in BSM-SG, such a field does not exist, how could a proton influence a neutron (or vice versa) outside their near-fields, thereby maintaining the stability of the deuteron?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    The fact that you don’t understand the experimental techniques involved in these measurements doesn’t really count as either a mystery or a threat to traditional nuclear theory.

    It also sounds like he’s saying that they can extract the g-factor now, based on the data they took at the time (and better knowledge of the TF), and that it agrees with the theoretical predictions (within the 20% uncertainties on the predictions). However, his statement isn’t entirely clear on this point.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    … and the mystery of magnetic moment for excited 6C12 has no end…

    In his last email sent to me Dr. Speidel tried to justify why excited 6C12 had not its magnetic moment measured yet:

    ———————————————-
    Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:28:11 +0100
    From: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

    Of course a measurement would be valuable. I do think that the theoretical value is quite reliable. We couldn’t determine the g factor because the TF was not known at that time. From our present knowledge our TF of carbon in iron is quite reliable, hence it confirms within a 20% experimental error the theoretical g value as well.
    I hope you agree with that.

    With my best regards,
    K.-H. Speidel
    ———————————————–

    However he did not succeed in his attempt of giving a satisfactory reason.
    And I sent him a reply, where I tell that I cannot see a reasonable justification:

    ———————————————
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
    Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
    Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:21:27 -0200

    Dear Dr. Speidel
    but the excited 24Mg(4+) has half-life 38fs and had its magnetic moment measured in 1983.

    So, I dont understand why the excited 12C(2+), with half-life of about 60fs, has not the magnetic moment measured yet, since the excited 12C plays an important role in the nuclear reactions in the sun.

    regards
    Wlad
    ——————————————-

    Dr. Speidel did not reply to my email. So, it seems he recognizes that there is not a reasonable justification.

    And therefore the mystery continues…

    And it seems there is no interest of the physicists to get an end for the mystery.

    Perhaps they are afraid the current nuclear models are threatened by the end of the mystery.

  • The BSM-SG (Basic structures of matter – supergravitation unified theory) was first electronically archived in 2001, published as a book in 2005 (612 pages) and the first peer reviewed article in Physics Essays (2003) is available in
    http://vixra.org/abs/1104.0051)
    The shape of proton, according to BSM-SG is a twisted torus as the figure 8 and it creates a charge as its fine twisted structure modulates the surrounding physical vacuum. The neutron is a double folded torus and this kind of modulation is locked in the near field, but when in motion the locked charge still creates a magnetic field.
    In the far field the proton electrical field is detectable as a point charge but in a near field it is distributed over its shape of figure 8. Therefore the near field of the neutron when it is over the central point of the proton (this is the deuteron) is more distant from the spatially distributed near field of the proton. This keeps the neutron in this place, but it has a freedom to vibrate (giant resonance) and rotate in two opposite directions in respect to the proton twisting. When rotating the neutron creates a magnetic field, which is behind the nuclear magnetic spin (that involves also the orbital spin orientation of the electron).

    Stoyan Sarg

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Missed z-axis in current nuclear models

    According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei must have two sort of shapes:

    A- Spherical shape – when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N.

    B- Elispoidal shape – when Z << N .

    But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped.
    Then, how to justify it? After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape.

    In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei.
    Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link:
    http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

    A NEW HYPOTHESIS: THE EXISTENCE OF A 5th FORCE IN NATURE:

    In order to explain the pear shape of Ra224, some theorists are now even supposing the existence of a 5th force in nature, which actuation is different for protons and neutrons, and by this way they expect to explain why protons and neutrons have different distribution in even-even nuclei.

    ——————————————
    On the existence of the z-axis by considering physical causes (missing in the current nuclear models):——————————————

    In the paper No. 10 of the book Quantum Ring Theory ( entitled CRITIQUE TO THE MODELS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS ) it is shown that the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei is suggested by four different nuclear properties of the nuclei.

    They are:

    1st nuclear property – Null nuclear spin for even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    2nd nuclear property – Null magnetic moment for even-even nuclei with Z=N

    3rd nuclear property – Emission of alpha particles by uranium nucleus U238 with null angular moment

    4th nuclear property – Incompatibility between current Nuclear Theory and the electric quadrupole moment of some nuclei

    In the paper No. 13, entitled BETA-DECAY, it is shown that the existence of the z-axis is also suggested by a fifth nuclear property:

    5th nuclear property – the preferential emission of the electron in the Wu’s experiment: the beta-decay of 27Co60 (WRONGLY interpreted by the nuclear theorists as a violation of the parity in the beta-decay).

    Therefore, according to Quantum Ring Theory, there are five different nuclear phenomena suggesting the existence of the z-axis within the nuclei.

    And now in the beggining of 2013 the experiment published in the journal Nature points out the need to consider a 6th nuclear property suggesting the existence of the z-axis:

    6th nuclear property – the pear shaped nucleus Ra224.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    As we see, the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method had introduced many serious inconsistences in the Nuclear Physics, as the conclusion that the Nature has preference by the left direction (the direction of the electron in the Wu’s experiment), the violation of the parity in the beta-decay, and the time reversion (a wrong interpretation by Christenson in 1964, when he and collaborators analysed the decay of the mesons K).

    In the paper entitled A New Model of the Neutron published in Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that a model of nêutron formed by próton+electron does not violate the conservation of parity, as the nuclear physicists believed along the whole 20th Century, because when the electron loses its helical trajectory (due to its partnership with the próton within the structure of the nêutron) the electron loses its spin 1/2. Such mechanism of the spin lost within the nêutron is also responsible for a wrong interpretation by the nuclear theorists, because they believed that the parity is violated in in the beta-decay.

    In the page 92 of the book Quantum Ring Theory it is written:

    As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is (seemingly) violated they transferred the problem for the parity. Instead of: “the addition of spins is violated in the beta-decay”, they say: “the parity is not kept in the beta-decay”.

    The five nuclear phenomena which suggest the existence of the z-axis are described between the pages 125 and 131 of the paper Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics, and between the pages 158 and 161 of the paper Beta-Decay, and they are exhibited ahead:

    Page 125:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-55963400-1386630468.jpg

    Page 126:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-62323200-1386630497.jpg

    Page 127:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-16190500-1386630517.jpg

    Page 129:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-94656200-1386630535.jpg

    Page 130:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-14648900-1386630563.jpg

    Page 131:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-01914100-1386630596.jpg

    Page 132:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-37519700-1386630629.jpg

    Page 133:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-52178100-1386630652.jpg

    CONCLUSIONS in the paper “BETA-DECAY”:

    Page 160:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-89477100-1386630681.jpg

    Page 161:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-05384200-1386630698.jpg

  • Silvio Caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    You wrote:
    “I am teaching all I can to the persons that in the next future will have to make better than I did.”
    This is the best news I have ever read here!
    This is what should happen to all innovative and revolutionary ideas: share them with people that can understand them and work on them.
    This is the best warranty for mankind’s benefit.
    Thanks

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Yes, I am teaching all I can to the persons that in the next future will have to make better than I did. I am discovering that I like teaching.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Please edit your comment, probably written from an I phone.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Silvio Caggia wrote in December 5th, 2013 at 6:37 PM

    Wow! Stoyan Sarg and Vladimir Guglinski, my preferred alternative phisical theories, in the same place!
    I appreciate your ideas very much… But they are two different ones… Only one at most can be right! :-) can both you put in evidence common point of force and differences and say why one should be better than other?
    Thanks in advance
    =================================

    COMMENT:

    Silvio,
    let the experiments decide what ia rhw better

    regards
    wlad

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    As Chief Scientist, in addition to R&D on the E-Cat, do you have any kind of training program for those who work with you?

    Many thanks!

    Frank

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    Thanks for the correction od the typo. I passed it on to the editor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Concerning the article published on the JoNP by Stoyan Sarg:
    Sienna is not “Sienna” but it’s
    Siena.
    Thanks
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Silvio Caggia

    Wow! Stoyan Sarg and Vladimir Guglinski, my preferred alternative phisical theories, in the same place!
    I appreciate your ideas very much… But they are two different ones… Only one at most can be right! :-) can both you put in evidence common point of force and differences and say why one should be better than other?
    Thanks in advance

  • Andrea Rossi

    Malcom Lear:
    We did not receive an offer for an industrialized product, yet. If we will receive an offer for a product ready for the market, which means with acceptable price/kW, we will buy one item and test it. We have received offers for similar issues, but they were prototypes with unacceptable prices, upon which more research and development was necessary. We are not interested to be involved in this R&D, so far, because we are focused on our E-Cats, therefore we will apply to our E-Cats the existing well consolidated technologies. If new technologies will arrive in the market, well tested, certified, consolidated and competitive with the existing $/kW prices, we will be delighted to buy units and test them in our laboratories.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hi Allan,
    I alerted Andrea to the possibility some 2 years back and made Cyclone aware of the research made by Rossi and Focardi, but unfortunately nothing came of it. Hopefully this time we can see some dialog open up. On the face of it, it seems a match made in heaven.

  • Could be a great solution for E-Cat to electricity.

    Nuclear Engineer joins Cyclone to pursue LENR applications – Award-winning, external heat engine company from Florida has added LENR heavyweight, Professor Yeong E. Kim from Purdue University to their technical consulting and advisory team to help them evaluate the viability of LENR technology as an application for their heat-to-electricity engine. (PESN; December 4, 2013)

    See also http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cyclone_Power_Technologies_Inc

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    THE AUTHOR OF ” THEORETICAL FEASIBILITY OF COLD FUSION ACCORDING TO THE BSM- SUPERGRAVITATION UNIFIED THEORY” IS KINDLY REQUESTED TO ANSWER.
    JoNP

  • Andrea Rossi

    Herb Gillis:
    As you know, I never give information, in positive or in negative, to questions regarding the process inside the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Herb Gillis

    Dr. Rossi:
    Have you ever tried the Cr + H reaction system (as predicted in this paper)? Have you seen evidence that the prediction may be correct?
    Kind Regards; HRG.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Andrea,

    With “revolution” I meant something different than the existing concepts.

    Just thinking about an H-loaded nano Ni-grain that moves very fast with a (warm) flow of H2 through a magnetic (oscillating) field, and “ignites” the grains and heats the flow.

    I wonder if it could fly fast enough to ignite. An internally heated flow is as good as internal combustion device.

    Since you have the lab-stuff and funding you need…. I don’t.

    The guys I ever proposed to co-operate(but were not interested), a biomass burning, electricity production companey are today…..virtually bankrupt. The former president of the company is now our minister of economy, is in big trouble for that.

    We’re in trouble. Deeeeeeeeeep trouble.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Joe

    Concerning the article published today on the JoNP:

    1. How is it possible for a neutron with a local positive field to even approach a proton, let alone to form a deuteron with it?

    2. Even if the neutron should find itself already stationed at the saddle point of the proton, how could it possibly remain there since the electric field of the proton is denser at its saddle point and would therefore aid the electrical self-repulsive force of the neutron itself in its own unfolding over and against the attempt by the supergravitational force of the neutron to keep the neutron folded?

    All the best,
    Joe

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>