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

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Does your R&D effort still focus on low temperature E-Cat systems for heat and hot water, or are you now only concentrating on the hot cat for electricity production?

    Many thanks!

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Interesting and throughly insights.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mauro:
    I am very sorry, but, as you know, I cannot give information in positive or in negative regarding what happens inside the E-Cat. I am not delighted to continue to say this, but I prefer a sincere answer instead of giving false information.
    Thank you anyway for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mauro

    Hi Andrea,

    in the paper of Stoyan Sarg there is a statement that Cr could support LENR similarly to Ni (I mean in relation to your way of inducing it)

    Please do you have a comment on this? In your experiements did you find this property for Cr or other elements?

    If confirmed, for Cr and other elements, that could be another element of proof for sustaining Stoyan Sarg theory.

    By the way Tungsten (W), which is two rows below Cr in the periodic table, is used as electrode in plasma electrolitic cells showing anomalous energy production.

    Mauro

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    When I think about the E-Cat, I cannot seem to get over the fact it is almost an ideal LENR technology. For example, it produces very high temperatures, utilizes ordinary nickel instead of expensive isotopes, utilizes light hydrogen instead of more expensive deuterium, produces no nuclear waste, can reach very high temperatures, and can operate with an unlimited COP. The only drawback seems to be that at very high temperatures it tends to run away unless large amounts of heat are used to stabilize the reactor. As chief scientist, I hope that this is one issue you’re trying to address. If you can determine a method of operating the reactor with little or no input power while maintaining stability, this technology will be almost beyond belief.

    One thing I often do is consider ideas about how to stabilize the reactor core. Because I’m not a physicist and also do not have access to information about the reactor core, these are nothing more than wild guesses. However, since it seems that it will be a little while before more information is released, I figured I would post my thoughts. Here are a few of my ideas.

    1 – Alter the internal geometry of the reactor core. For example, if there are waves of some type propagating up and down the tube that continually enhance the reactions, why not install wave breakers. Basically you could have the tube segmented like the inside of the silencer of a pistol.

    2 – Instead of coating the walls of the reactor with nickel powder, why not have hundreds or thousands of individual nickel islands surrounded by barriers that could prevent the islands from over stimulating each other?

    3 – Test varius additives mixed in with the nickel powder. For example, maybe you could find an additive that at a certain temperature would absorb hydrogen, release nitrogen, or do something to reduce the rate of reactions.

    4 – Perhaps if magnetic fields are involved in the reaction, you could use an electromagnet to scatter the domains of the nickel.

    5 – Could you slide something into the center of the reactor core that would slow down the rate of nuclear reactions? For example, at the end of the cylinder you could have a long rod that could be inserted when the nuclear reactions grow too intense. Maybe it could absorb hydrogen or electromagnetic radiation.

    These are just random ideas. I’ll be looking forward to when you can tell us more about how you are trying to reduce the heat needed to control the reactions.

  • Andrea Rossi

    John L:
    Thank you for the information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • John L

    Andrea,

    That Haloglass is way better than conventional molten salt. Even with a modest COP, there is possible method to build up temperature in the storage tank overtime, reaching the ideal condition for Carnot cycle. Thermal fluctuation is much tolerated in such system.
    Regards. John L

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Sarg:
    Again, I have no reason at all to stop your comments, and your next comments will be welcome. If you do not find published a comment of yours, please advise me:
    info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    We will try to understand what happened.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski, Dr Sarg:
    I have not stopped any comment of you! If you did not find your comment published is because the robot has automatically spammed it; the reason for which some comment is spammed by the robot is that arrives from addresses that are considered erroneously as advertising, or maybe they contain links that are considered advertising; please send again your comments from another address; usually your comments arrived correctly and have been published, therefore I suppose you have changed address or maybe the server was temporarily down. Please send again your comments, I will surely publish them, if we receive them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: sto.sarg@gmail.com
    Subject: RE: My replies are stopped by moderator
    Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:33:10 -0200

    Dear Dr. Sarg
    I dont believe your replies are stopped by the moderator.
    Sure they are stoped by the robot of the blog. Perhaps you sent the replies from another computer not used before.

    I have posted your reply in the blog now, and I hope it will be visible after the moderation approval

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Something in the internet connection had distorted the reply by Stoyan Sarg.

    Here is his reply to my question:

    ====================================================
    My reply:

    In Fig. 2 only some selected atomic nuclei are shown. The elongated shape is evident even in He and then in some elements with Z>2. They are shown in the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures and the BSM-SG Periodic Table. In the Atlas, however, I use some different symbols for drawing clarity: digit 8 only in the polar axis where He always resides, arrow – for the proton and a short line – for the neutron (in the sectional view through the polar axis). For any element shown in the Atlas a sectional view like the elements in Fig. 2 can be easily made. Later in some publications, like this in the General Science Journal (see link below), I showed the sectional view of the nuclei for the two rows of the Periodic table: Li to Ne and Na to Ar. (Fig. 7).

    See article in: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4805

    Since the moderator stops my replies, there is no reason you to put your further questions in the JoNP forum.

    Stoyan sarg

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 23:17:19 -0500
    Subject: My replies are stopped by moderator
    From: sto.sarg@gmail.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Dear Mr. Gudlinski,

    My further replies in JoNP forum are stopped by the moderator and I cannot post my reply to you and to Joe’s comment.

    In your comment from December 15, You say:

    “From Fig. 2 we see that the nuclear overall shape
    for elements with 18<Z<86 have not spherical but elongated shape."

    However recent experiments published in 2011 have shown that elongated (non-spherical) shape starts up with Z2. They are shown in the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures and the BSM-SG Periodic Table. In the Atlas, however, I use some different symbols for drawing clarity: digit 8 only in the polar axis where He always resides, arrow – for the proton and a short line – for the neutron (in the sectional view through the polar axis). For any element shown in the Atlas a sectional view like the elements in Fig. 2 can be easily made. Later in some publications, like this in the General Science Journal (see link below), I showed the sectional view of the nuclei for the two rows of the Periodic table: Li to Ne and Na to Ar. (Fig. 7).

    See article in: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4805

    Since the moderator stops my replies, there is no reason you to put your further questions in the JoNP forum.

    Stoyan sarg

  • Andrea Rossi

    Herb Gillis:
    Thank you and wishes of Merry Christmas to you too.
    If the results of the tests will be disappointing, we have to work more to make them positive. But it is too soon to talk of this, we are working with a positive expectation on the so called “Rossi Effect”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Herb Gillis

    Dr. Rossi:
    First let me wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
    I realize you cannot go into great detail. However; I am hoping you can give some indication as to what will happen if the results of your long-term validation studies are not quite promising enough for industrialization? It is already clear that there is an important new energy source. But suppose the testing results cannot justify investment in manufacturing plants (due to unresolved problems of some kind). Will the Rossi effect simply be buried and forgotten? Or will you find a way to publish the details so that others can build on your work and have a go at solving the remaining problems and developing it to the point where it can be commercialized? Is there a “Plan-B”.
    Kind regards; HRG.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The industrialization decisions and investments policy will not be made by me, I will give suggestions from my position of chief scientist.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you, precious as usual.
    Thermal regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    Merry Christmas to you and your team and a very happy, healthy and productive new year to all.

    Here is an update to Halonics nitrate, chloride and oxide* Heat Transfer Fluid products.

    * (Haloglass TM)

    http://www.halotechnics.com/products/

    This may help bring in a warm and productive new year!

    Thermal regards,

    Joseph Fine :)

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Will your decision on how to industrialize be based on how your announcements are received by the outside world?

    If your validation and R&D reports are positive, and well supported by third party evidence, I expect you will get a lot of attention, and investment offers.

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Thank you and best wishes to you.
    Wishes are all we can give so far, the loooong period is necessary for a final, decisive long term validation after which will be decided which kind of investments and which kind of industrialization will have to be set up, if the results will be positive. We have studied different industrialization strategies, but the choice ( if any) will be made after the current process of validation and R&D. All I can say is that substantial progress has been achieved in the last 4 months.
    Decisively within 2014 we will have a consistent response.
    Thank you again for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi, Team and Readers,
    best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a rentlessly scientific 2014!

    BTW, Dott.Rossi, here everybody is expecting some Christmas present after a loooong silence. Could you check with the partner if there is anything you could give for Christmas?

    All the best, Gherardo

  • Andrea Rossi

    THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS WISHES TO ALL THE READERS MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A 2014 WITH A HIGH DENSITY OF HAPPY MOMENTS
    THE BOARD OF ADVISERS OF THE JoNP
    AND
    ANDREA ROSSI

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Thank you for this precious memory regarding Prof. Sergio Focardi.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Dott Rossi,
    a tribute to your friend Prof Sergio Focardi,it was a congress in Cesena Italy in 1994…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkF9DXEamdo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUsDKur6c0g
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5QNbMpD_aQ

    Regards G G

  • Andrea Rossi

    Erwin Hergenroether:
    The team is complex, because we have specialists for different fields, so many persons contribute to the work; combining scientists, engineers and workers 16 persons are working for the R&D and the validation in progress, so far, for the E-Cats.
    We are testing modules and plants.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hand Joachim Mueller:
    Thank you,
    Merry Christmas and a successful 2014 to you and to all the Readers of the JoNP
    Andrea Rossi

  • Erwin Hergenröther

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    I have a question in regard to your reply to Mr Curiosone.

    How many people work in your team, especially how many scientists and engineers?

    Then a question in regard to the long term tests. Do you test only single moduls or did you arrive at the stage, where you test small plants?

  • Hans-Joachim Müller

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I wish you a Merry Christmas,a good and successful year 2014 and the protection and the blessing of God. I hope that production and use of E-Cat devices will start in 2014.

    Hans-Joachim Müller

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andre Rossi and readers of the JoNP

    Concerning the plagiarism committed by the journal Nature in the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, I did not suit in law the journal Nature because the editor of the journal could allege that it was actually a coincidence, because the authors did not read my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    But in my email to the Editor of Nature I did the following warning:
    =================================================
    Dear Editor-in-Chief,
    I would like my comment be published in the next issue of the journal Nature, so that to eliminate the plagiarism.

    Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    =================================================

    .

    And the Senior Editor Dr. Karen Howell acknowledged receipt of my warning, replying:
    ==================================================
    From: Nature@nature.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    CC: pnj@bauuinstitute.com
    Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
    Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:04:03 +0000

    Dear Dr Guglinski,
    Thank you for your comment regarding the manuscript entitled “How atomic nuclei cluster” by Ebran et al, and the accompanying News and Views article. Regretfully, we are unable to offer to publish it; however, you are welcome to make use of our online commenting facility. Please go to the original article on our website and enter your message in the box provided beneath it.

    Thank you again for writing to us.
    Yours sincerely
    Dr Karen Howell
    Senior Editor
    ==================================================

    .

    So, if in the future the journal Nature will publish another argument similar to some argument already published in my book, the editor-in-chief cannot allege again a “coincidence”.

    Therefore, in order to avoid a plagiarism, the editor-in-chief must warn the authors so that to quote my book in the references.

    In the case the paper is published without the quote to my book, the journal will be committing a plagiarism, suitable to be suited in law.

    And I suppose I can count with the JoNP so that exhibit as a proof that the editor-in-chief was warned.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    A lot. We made a very hard work, I would say about 10,000 hours of man hours work, made by scientists, engineers and workers. I am understanding what does mean to play in the Majors. When I need something that exists I get it in hours, if not minutes, when I need something that does not exist we invent it and make it in days, if not hours. I never have worked so well in my life, honestly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curiosone

    Dr Rossi:
    How much have changed the E-Cats in these last months thanks to the R&D in the USA?
    Walter Gentili

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Yes, but in any case specific situations can still have to be analysed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for your reply. Just for clarification — do you mean in your response that centralized power generation is more efficient in towns (e.g. one power station for the whole town?)

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Both.
    There are different specific situations, we have to make distinction upon. More distributed power generation is more efficient, for example, in towns. Generation isles are more efficient in smaller and insulated locations, just to give an example, but the general situation is very complex, it is not possible a “tranchant” opinion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Many people advocate for more distributed power generation, where smaller generators produce power close to where it is used. This has many advantages, including reliability (e.g. in storms, natural disasters), efficiency (reduction of costs andlosses from long distance transmission), flexibility, independence, etc.

    Is this an area that you and your partners are planning for?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg

    In the page 5 of your paper it is written:

    “From Fig. 2 we see that the nuclear overall shape
    for elements with 18<Z<86 have not spherical but elongated shape."

    However recent experiments published in 2011 have shown that elongated (non-spherical) shape starts up with Z<18.

    See the structure for 10Ne20 in the Fig. 1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.

    And for the record, I never called anyone an idiot.
    ================================================

    COMMENT:
    And for the record, you dont call them directly idiots.
    You suggest them to be idiots
    .

    As you are suggesting to be idiot also the Senior Editor Dr Karen Howell of the journal Nature.

    And let me explain why.

    I sent an email to the Senior Editor of the journal Nature, telling her about the plagiarism committed in the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, and I told that the argument used by Martin Freer is the same argument proposed in the page 137 of my book.

    And I had finished my email as follows:
    =================================================
    Dear Editor-in-Chief,
    I would like my comment be published in the next issue of the journal Nature, so that to eliminate the plagiarism.

    Also, I recommend that, before to publish new papers regarding any new model of the nucleus, the editors of Nature should suggest to the authors to read my book, in order to avoid future plagiarisms.

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    =================================================

    So,Dear Mr. Jr,
    think about the following:
    if the nucleus shown in the Fig. 1 of the paper published by Nature had a spherical shape, as you claim, then Karen Howell would simply reply the following:

    You are wrong, Guglinski. The nucleus 10Ne20 in the
    Fig. 1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster is NOT non-spherical as you suppose. Actually it is spherical, and this is the reason why it has null quadrupole moment

    But instead of refuting my accusation of plagiarism, Karen Howell actually recognized the plagiarism, and offered me the chance to post a comment in the journal.
    Look at her reply:

    ==================================================
    From: Nature@nature.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    CC: pnj@bauuinstitute.com
    Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
    Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:04:03 +0000

    Dear Dr Guglinski,
    Thank you for your comment regarding the manuscript entitled “How atomic nuclei cluster” by Ebran et al, and the accompanying News and Views article. Regretfully, we are unable to offer to publish it; however, you are welcome to make use of our online commenting facility. Please go to the original article on our website and enter your message in the box provided beneath it.

    Thank you again for writing to us.
    Yours sincerely
    Dr Karen Howell
    Senior Editor
    ==================================================

    So, Dear Mr. JR,
    again you are suggesting one more person to be idiot. And now you suggest to be idiot just the Senior Editor of the journal Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal of the world.

    I guess there is something wrong with you, Mr. JR.
    You already had suggested to be idiots:
    1- the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe
    2- the nuclear physicist Martin Freer
    3- and now the Senior Editor Karen Howell of the journal Nature.

    And then I start to think: who will be your next victim ?

    regards
    wlad

  • Joseph J

    Dear Andrea

    A steam motor for 2000$
    Mike Brown 2-Cylinder Steam Engine
    http://www.montanasteampower.com/product/mike-brown-2-cylinder-steam-engine/

    Best regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.
    =================================================

    No, you did not understand the argument used by Martin Freer.

    If the 10Ne20 shown in the Fig.1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster should be spherical as you claim, Martin Freer would not reply by using that argument he sent to me.

    If 10Ne20 should be spherical in the Figure 1, as you claim, Martin Freer would simply reply saying:

    You are wrong, Guglinski. The nucleus 10Ne20 in the paper How atomic nuclei cluster is spherical, and therefore that’s why it has null quadrupole moment

    Sorry, Mr. JR,
    your understanding of Nuclear Physics is very poor.
    Go back to scholl.

    regard
    wlad

  • Joe

    Stoyan Sarg,

    You claim to have received a “document” from CIPO concerning BSM, but is this document an actual patent? (The Patent Act provides, “No patent shall be granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.” An example taken from Wikipedia teaches that, while Newton’s law of universal gravitation may not be patentable, a patent may be granted for the practical application of the theory, such as an improved gravity pump. Therefore, Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory could not be considered an invention for the purpose of patentability.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.

    And for the record, I never called anyone an idiot.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg

    Don Borghi experiment and Conte-Pieralice experiment have shown that the neutron is composed by proton+electron.

    A neutron with structure n=p+e fits to the distribution of charge detected by experiments.

    See Figure 10 in the page 50 of my paper Anomalous mass of the neutron, where we see the charge distribution of the proton and the charge distribution of the neutron:

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    From the Fig. 10, we realize that the charge of the neutron is:

    a) positive between 0 and 0,25fm

    b) negative between 0,25fm and 1,5fm

    But I cant see how to conciliate such distribution of charge in the neutron with the structure of the neutron proposed in the Figure 1 of your paper.

    How do explain it ?

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 14th, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    1) ==========================================
    I think that most nuclear physicists would disagree with the idea that there is no physical picture of what’s going on in low energy nuclear physics.
    ==============================================

    COMMENT:
    Go to tell it to the Nobel Laureate Jacob Bronowski

    2) ============================================
    Also, these nuclei are spherically symmetric, in the conventional meaning of that phrase, because they are spin zero and one typically talks about non-spherical structures relative to the spin axis.
    ================================================

    COMMENT
    Dear JR,
    your ignorance in Nuclear Physics is impressive.

    Spin zero does not require spherically symmetric shape.

    What requires spherically symmetric shape is electric quadrupole moment.

    3) ==============================================
    The type of non-spherical structure you’re talking about has a specific and different meaning, but the nucleus is still spherically symmetric in the traditional sense.
    =================================================

    COMMENT

    Dear JR
    your problem is that you like to call idiots everybody. First you suggested to be idiot the Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe, because he did not use the stupid argument used by you, so that to explain why 4Be8 instability can be explained by its binding energy.

    Now you are suggesting to be idiot the nuclear theorist Martin Freer.

    I sent an email to Martin Freer, telling that the non-spherical nucleus 10Ne20 shown in the paper How atomic nuclei cluster could not have null electric quadrupole moment:
    Figure 1:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    If the structure of 10Ne20 should be spherically symmetric, as you claim, then Martin Freer would reply to me the same argument used by you, saying that the null quadrupole moment for 10Ne20 is due to its spherical shape.

    Unless you are blind, or your eyes cannot see a difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid, you have to see in the Figure 1 of the Nature’s paper that 10Ne20 has a non-sherical shape.

    That’s why Martin Freer sent a reply, where he used the same argument proposed in the page 137 of my book, so that to justify whay 10Ne20 has null quadrupole moment, in spite it has non-spherical shape.

    Here is my email to Martin Freer:
    ————————————————–
    Dear Martin Freer
    With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical, and therefore 10Ne20 could not have null electric quadrupole momentum (detected in experiments concerning nuclear data)
    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
    ————————————————–

    And here is his reply:
    —————————————————
    Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100
    From: M.Freer@bham.ac.uk
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: Re: ?spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together

    The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
    Martin
    —————————————————

    The argument is the same used in the page 137 of my book:
    page 137:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-68035300-1386379280.jpg

    So, dear Mr Jr
    I suggest you to go tell to Dr. Martin Freer that he is an idiot. because he did not use the argument used by you.

    4) ==============================================
    So ‘non-spherical’ means to different things when you say that conventional theory requires spherical symmetry and when you say that the clustering structure shown in the paper you cite yields non-spherical components.
    =================================================

    COMMENT

    Dear JR
    go back to elementary school to learn what is a sphere. It is a waste of time to discuss with a person who does not know the difference between a spherical and a non-spherical shape.

    It seems somethimes you pretend to be an idiot, so that to bambozzle people with your nonsenses.

    Dear JR
    I would like you leave me in peace.

    regards
    wlad

  • Reply to Wladimir Guglinski:

    My BSM-SG theory and my models of atomic nuclei are completely different from yours. I don’t understand why you are so concerned. In my atomic models I don’t use a notation Z axis (to not confuse with the Z-number). I define a “polar axis of symmetry” (see Fig. 1a in my article) using this notation in all my papers and books. In most graphical views of my atomic models I orient this axis vertically. But the polar axis is a small part of the nuclear features that I described in my theory. For this reason, when I published my theory firstly on-line in 2001, I published also an Appendix called Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures (for elements from Hydrogen to Lawrencium) as a separate material, which I later included in a few of my books and cited in my articles.
    In 2001 I submitted my BSM theory to the Canadian Office of Intellectual Property with a claim for discovery of new models of atoms. I received a document in 2001, but to be surer, in 2002 I archived the full electronic version of the theory and the Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures in the AMICUS data base of the National Library of Canada, where it obtained and international catalog reference number. Once done, the dated electronic version cannot be changed, so it serves as a legal proof of the date of my intellectual property. The deposited electronic versions are publicly accessible as I show below.

    Open: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/amicus/index-e.html

    Click on: Search Amicus
    Against Title put: Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures
    Submit
    At the listed names chose the searched title and click on it. The Following record will open.
    ————————————————————————-

    AMICUS No. 27106037
    Monograph

    NLC COPIES: NLC Electronic –

    NAME(S):*Sarg, S
    TITLE(S): Atlas of atomic nuclear structures [electronic
    resource] / S. Sarg
    PUBLISHER: [Toronto] : S. Sarg, c2001.

    E-LOCATIONS: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/stoyan_sarg/atlas_
    of_atomic_nuclear/index.htm
    http://www.helical-structures.org/ANS_download_table.htm
    NOTES: Title from title screen (viewed June 11, 2002).
    Archived by the National Library of Canada.
    Type of computer file: HTML with PDF files.
    Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0 required to view PDF files.
    NUMBERS: Canadiana: 2002007655X
    ISBN: 0973051515
    CLASSIFICATION: LC Class no.: QC794.6*
    Dewey: 530.14/2 21

    SUBJECTS: Unified field theories
    To access the Atlas, click on E-LOCATION: link
    An introduction page with a table will open. To download the whole atlas, Under File columns of the table click on: Atlas_ANS.pdf
    To put one additional proof about the intellectual property on my atomic models I applied and obtained a US patent D439,198 S, (March 20, 2001), where I showed a mockup of some nuclear structures, but used a name “Composition of twisted springs” At the first page, the upper part of the mockup is the atomic nucleus of argon.
    The 2001 edition of the whole theory is accessible in a similar way in the AMICUS data base if putting a title: Basic Structures of Matter.
    In the same place in 2002 I archived also the title: New Vision About a Controllable Fusion Reaction D+D->He with efficient energy yield.
    All these archives have assign ISBN number like books.
    In May 2002, I published the first scientific article about my theory in the official physical archive operated by Cornell University http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205052

  • JR

    …and I dont “confront” Sarg because he’s discussing his theory without making what I consider to be obviously false or misleading statements. Rest assured that I will speak up if he starts claiming that recent measurements show that the sky is green, or that we don’t understand why there’s a difference between “up” and “down”, or that there’s a vast conspiracy by scientists to avoid learning anything new as it might tarnish the reputation of our beloved nobel prize winners, or should he start accusing anyone who points out errors he makes of betraying the scientific method.

    p.s. Sarg – the comment about not understanding basic but key concepts was something I was saying about Wladimir, not something he was saying about you.

  • JR

    I think that most nuclear physicists would disagree with the idea that there is no physical picture of what’s going on in low energy nuclear physics.

    Whether or not a nobel prize winner said something is not the way one establishes truth, it focuses on the people and not the physics questions. Also, these nuclei are spherically symmetric, in the conventional meaning of that phrase, because they are spin zero and one typically talks about non-spherical structures relative to the spin axis. The type of non-spherical structure you’re talking about has a specific and different meaning, but the nucleus is still spherically symmetric in the traditional sense. So ‘non-spherical’ means to different things when you say that conventional theory requires spherical symmetry and when you say that the clustering structure shown in the paper you cite yields non-spherical components.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in December 14th, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    1) ========================================
    About the theoretical understanding of cold fusion: great, now with Guglinski stright attacking Sarg the battle is getting more interesting and I hope…
    ===========================================

    COMMENT
    Dear orsobubu
    I am not attacking Sarg.
    I preffer to let the upcoming experiments to show what nuclear model is correct.

    It can be the model proposed either by Sarg, or by any other theorists, or the model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    Let us leave the verdict for the experiments.

    2) ===========================================
    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.
    ==============================================

    COMMENT

    Dear orsobubu
    I wish you’re right.
    I hope Mr. JR go to have confrontation with Sarg, and he forget me.

    Because I am tired of the misunderstandings of Mr. JR, and his inconditional love to the phantasmagoric Heisenberg method…

    …he he he … (doing a plagiarism of Rossi’ laugh).

    The true identity of Mr. JR is Dr. John Arrington, of the Argonne National Laboratory.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in December 14th, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    1) ===============================================
    Well, at least we agree that conventional theory does a good job of explaining most observed phenomena, and that it seems fantastic and incomprehensible to you.
    ===================================================

    COMMENT
    Dear JR
    again you prove that you did not understand the point.

    Conventional theory is NOT incomprehensible to me.
    I understand it very well.
    However I cannot accept a theory which does not work with physical causes.

    As Heisenberg said:
    “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

    So, Heinsenberg’ scientific method investigates nature by considering phantasmagoric causes (abstract mathematical concepts).

    Many REAL physical causes are missing in the conventional theory, because the method of questioning the nature used by Heisenberg is not able to give answers for the question: what are the TRUE physical structures used by the nature ????

    —————————————————
    Heisenberg’s method is satisfactory for the development of technology.
    But it fails for the discovery of the true structure of the matter.
    —————————————————

    As said ironically Jacob Bronowski:
    “One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that this aim is unattainable

    You, dear Mr. Jr,
    if you are happy to believe that nature can work with phantasmagoric causes, then continue being happy. Conventional theory is the right theory for you.

    .

    2) ==============================================
    However, based on the dictionary definition of the word, I would say that “phantasmagoric” applied much more correctly to QRT, though I’ll admit to not being an expert on it.
    ===============================================

    COMMENT

    No, you are wrong.
    In Quantum Ring Theory the phenomena are explained by PHYSICAL CAUSES.

    And Quantum Ring Theory shows that the physics in the 20th Century had failled to get an exact picture of the material world because the physics of the 20th Century had been developed from the phantasmagoric method inaugurated by Heisenberg.

    That’s why Quantum Ring Theory predicted correctly that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, as shown in page 137 of the book:
    page 137:
    http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-102616-0-68035300-1386379280.jpg

    And because conventional theory uses the phantasmagoric Heisenberg method, that’s why along 60 years the nuclear theorists did not discover that even-even nuclei with Z=N are non-spherical.

    .

    But I note that you did not reply to my question, dear Mr. JR:

    Who, among the several nuclear theorist laureated by the Nobel Prize, had discovered that even-even nuclei with Z=N is non-spherical?

    Please point out one among them:

    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

    I am waiting your reply.

    regards
    wlad

  • JR

    Wladimir said: “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.”

    Well, at least we agree that conventional theory does a good job of explaining most observed phenomena, and that it seems fantastic and incomprehensible to you. However, based on the dictionary definition of the word, I would say that “phantasmagoric” applied much more correctly to QRT, though I’ll admit to not being an expert on it.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    We’ll see.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    orsobubu:
    I supposed your theory should be based on the exotic particle named “entrist boson” ( he,he,he…)
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

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