Do Dark Gravity Theories Predict Opera Superluminal Neutrinos and LENR Phenomena?

.
by
F Henry-Couannier
Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille
July 1, 2012

.

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
We investigate whether Dark Gravity theories (DG) with two conjugate metrics gμν and g‾μνμρ ηνλ gˆρλ  where ημρ is supposed to be a background non dynamical and flat metric or an auxiliary field, actually predicted the occurrence of apparently superluminal propagations (from our metric side gμν point of view) such as the one recently reported by the Opera experiment. We find that indeed such theories could predict the order of magnitude of the superluminal velocity and even explain the apparent conflict with the SN1987 normal neutrino speeds provided the neutrinos are able to oscillate between the two conjugate metrics while propagating in a dense medium. We then explain the theoretical motivations and explore all possible phenomenological consequences of the field discontinuities naturally expected in some Dark Gravity theories. Since the Opera result was not confirmed, these discontinuities do not actually allow a propagation of neutrinos oscillating between the two conjugate metrics.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.

309 comments to Do Dark Gravity Theories Predict Opera Superluminal Neutrinos and LENR Phenomena?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    For your nominal 10kW eCat units – can you reliably initiate, control and sustain a full power output for at least 99% of your units? In other words, if I were to randomly select a 10kW eCat unit, would it perform as specified.

    I am trying to understand how mature and consistent your current eCats are.

  • luca

    Carissimo A.R.
    from what I managed to read so far about hydrino and Blacklight Power, there seems to be scientific evidence of what Mills & C. they say.
    we all believe in something that would be better (god, shiba, budha ……) but maybe in the composition of scientific theories is better not to mention it.
    He said Margherita Hack: The idea of ​​an impersonal God will be more acceptable to the reason, but it’s still a loophole to explain what science can not yet explain. ”
    This applies to both LENR for hydrino.
    Do not you think?
    (Google transaltion)

  • orsobubu

    Martin, Rossi’s answer is right, from the point of view of capital; in the capitalist production system nobody dares to freely share something that has value. But we must distinguish, in this case, thet we’re referring to the exchange value. The expression of the general form of value of a human product takes the form of money – then again converted into capital – as soon as it appears on the market as a commodity: it depends on which social relationships men find themselves in a certain epoch, regardless of their will, when they work. In another model of society where men have learned to recognize and exchange their products as repositories of user value, things would be very different. In the words of Marx: “The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production.” To conquer these new forms of production, you will need to go through a revolution, of course. Tribute must be paid to the Rossi’s intelligence when he cites Lenin, even if I would add that the historic attempt to give substance to the transition was locked out in an extremely violent way by world bourgeoisie coalesced against the Bolsheviks, in the course of two world wars and various civil wars. The example of the bird is interesting but, fortunately, the nature of human production and property relationships is social and it evolves over time, otherwise we’d still be here ravaging at the level of cavemen. If Rossi’s and other researchers invention will lead to something great, this will be their contribution to the social evolution of the species, rather than its technical and economic development.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Sorry for the redundant question, this is the first time my posts have made it onto the site, for some reason?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Waiting breathlessly for you answer to LilyLover’s question. (:

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The R&D and validation work in course is necessary to improve our science, to improve our theoretical interpretation of the so called Rossi Effect, to verify the positivity of the same effect in order to decide and define the Investments ( if any) necessary for the industrialization in large and international scale.
    Hundreds of million dollars cannot be invested without a precise and validated background. As I said, joking: we are not here to sharpen the tips of the skyscrapers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Is the long-term hot cat testing currently underway important to you mainly for a) external publicity purposes, or for b) your own internal research purposes? If b), can you explain why the R&D validation work is so important for your team?

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    I support the Red Sox.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lilyover:
    F.: the Enterprise, in which I have the honour to work in collaboration with a wonderful Team, will continue to work to make our technology as useful as possible, and this evolution will have an exponential development after the end of the R&D validation in course, whose results will be published on a peer reviewed magazine. I hope the results will be positive, but my duty as a scientist is to say that until the work is not finished, the possibility of negative results must be considered not impossible.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Martin:
    It easy to share something that is worth nothing. It is impossible to share IP which has substantial worth with competitors. The rest is just hypocrisy disguised by fake humanitarism, aiming to get IP ( Intellectual Property) without making all the work, fatigue and investments made by others. Medicine would have made no progress at all should not the Intellectual Property of the medicines be granted to the industries that paid all the necessary R&D and validation for the drugs they invented. In the energy field the situation is the same, as well as in all the important fields of R&D. In the recent history we had a paradigmatic evidence of what I said: the communism; along the communist phylosophy ( the so called Marxism) everything had to be put in common and everybody had to produce sharing his capacities and skills with all the others, while the results of the global work had to be shared between all the men along their necessities: everybody had to work along his skills, everybody had to consume along his necessities…we all have seen what this phylosophy has produced after Lenin has given substance to it. Let’s not make confusion between humanitarism and greed. Last Sunday I was walking along the shore of Miami Beach and I observed an interesting scene: a gull was continuing to fly low on the surface of the sea, looking for food, while other gulls were seat on the beach looking at him; after a while he grasped a fish with his beak, but immediately all the other gulls got flying around him, attacking him to steal the fish, and, after a while, they succeeded, leaving him without the prey he had worked for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Do you support or not support the existance of Heavy Electrons, as described in Mizuno’s paper?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Luca:
    Never found evidence of it. Obviously your question should be modified as follows, to be professionally correct: ” Did you ever found evidence of hydrinos?”
    I believe in God, not in theories. Theories must be validated by experimental evidence. As far as I know, no evidence has been born for hydrinos, so far. About the future, I do not have a cristal ball.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Luca

    Sera AR
    Why not??

  • Martin

    Dear Andrea,

    Today I watched an interesting interview with Mike Mckubre (sri internationale) and Stirling Allen. In his opinion is lenr much too big and important and there for all players in the field Should work together. What is your opinion about this vision.

    Best regards,

    Martin

  • LilyLover

    Dear Dr. Andrea,
    In the light of Tesla vs Edison, after 10 years, what do you think is a most likely fate? :
    A. The Enterprise will successfully marginalize you.
    B. The Enterprise will allow you a small share of your success and make you richer than Carlos Slim.
    C. The Enterprise will allow you a bigger share of your success and make you richer than Rothschild family?
    D. You’ll dismantle The Enterprise that punished Tesla by buying out Chase.
    E. You’ll modify The Enterprise to make the World a more moral place.

    After picking your best answer, what’s the next best answer that you will pick?
    Please feel free to modify/elaborate the answer if you are in a good mood.
    Thank you. & Love you.
    `LilyLover

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sammy M, Canada:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • SammyM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Do you believe in hydrinos?

    1- Yes
    2- No
    3- Don’t know
    4- You can’t comment on this at this time

    Kind regards,
    SammyM
    Canada

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.
    We are working very hard to merit the enthusiasm of persons like you. We are making a hard work of R&D and validation and we will publish the results after such work will have been completed, whatever the results, positive or negative, as I always said. Until then, my duty as a scientist is to say that no specific answer can be given to questions regarding if the results will be positive or negative. All I can say is that the work based upon the so called Rossi Effect is carried on with scientific rigor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • John L

    Mark
    With a right chemical catalyst, hot cat can dissociate water into H+ and Oxygen ions at about 1000C. You then use the SOFC to convert the fuel into current at 60% electrical efficiency. Or ammonia can be produced as a fuel alternatively.

  • orsobubu

    Bertus, I share your passion for more advanced aerospace propulsion than chemical one… I remember when as a child I was looking for news on encyclopedias on the plasma engine, the solar sail, the nuclear engine, the antimatter engine, the photon engine… eheheheh… I worked on the development of the International Space Station (aka Freedom once, then Alpha, than ISS) and I can assure you that you will not see anything of the things we hope… I know that NASA is investigating LENR too, but the minimum safety requirements for any object to bring in orbit are so stringent and times so dilated that onboard Ecat experimentation is a dream much wilder and farther than automotive applications. Not to mention an autonomous interstellar LENR spacecraft, an enterprise so difficult and expensive that I think is at least a century or farther in the future, in the most favorable hypotesis. Icarus Interstellar mission is a dream for the year 2100, for example. But the real problem is that the current economic and productive system cannot allocate adequate resources to projects of this kind which, moreover, would certainly lack popular support. Some other planetary robots, some orbital station or an hotel could be build it in the end, but sufficient private capitals needed for more ambitious undertakings can not be found and been justified by a ralistic profit. Think also to the disastrous impact of first serious accidents in orbit. I want you to remember that, given the impossibility of transferring millions of workers in space, the robots, by themselves, in a free market regime, do not produce surplus value; I think for example to automated factories or extraterrestrial mines. If we talk about spatial subsidized economy, monopolistic or protectionist instead, this hypothesis is even more dangerous, because historically it is the bearer of very dangerous crisis (actually, Apollo gargantuan missions were economically feasible exclusively in the imperialistic fight context between USA and USSR). And with regard to the militarization of space in particular, I believe that this will be its likely fate if we’ll not succeed in making the transition to a more advanced economic system than capitalism. And at that point, goodbye to any peaceful development of outer space and exploration of other worlds. Paradoxically, it is committing to this social transition here on Earth, that you can be more helpful for the achievement of your interstellar dreams.

  • Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi, you often write about results positive or negative. The word “negative” isn’t clear for me, because we all know that the “Rossi Effect” is real.
    So I think that the word “negative” must only to be applied to actual developments tending to increase the functionality of your apparatuses…Is it true?
    Thank you
    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bertus Wonkel:
    Interesting issue. Honestly, I am not able to answer, an experiment could be interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bertus Wonkel

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I am sure my question has came up before but figured you might be in a better position to answer now since you know more about how the process works. I was wondering if the e-cat would work in space?
    I know this has not been tested yet but can you think of any reason why it could not? For instance, is gravity needed to sustain the Nuclear Active Environment? Could you please give it some thought.
    I hope to see the first robotic interstellar travel in my life time, maybe an advanced version of the e-cat could do it. Would you be willing, after all the testing ect., to donate one to the International Space Station so they can test it out a.s.a.p. My time on this planet is limited so speed is of vital importance. Thanks a lot.

    Bertus

  • Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS, IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    TODAY A BLOGGER INFORMED ME ABOUT THIS FRAUDOLENT WEBSITE:
    http://WWW.ECATSCHWEITZ.COM
    THEY WRITE THAT THEY CAN SELL OUR 1 MW PLANTS AND THAT THEY ARE OUR LICENSEES.
    WE DO NOT ABSOLUTELY KNOW WHO THEY ARE, I NEVER SPOKE OR WROTE WITH THEM, I DO NOT AT ALL KNOW THEM AND THEY HAVE NEVER SIGNED WITH US ANY KIND OF CONTRACT. WHAT THEY WRITE IN THEIR WEBSITE IS FALSE AND IS A FRAUD. THEY ARE FRAUDOLENTLY USING OUR TRADE MARK, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF AUTHORIZATION.PLEASE DO NOT DEAL WITH THEM TO BUY ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS, DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY SUM OF MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE A FRAUD.
    IN GENERAL: TO BE SURE YOU ARE DEALING WITH AN AUTHORIZED LICENSEE OF US, YOU CAN CONTACT ANYTIME
    INFO@LEONARDOCORP1996.COM
    AND WE WILL CONFIRM OR NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSAL YOU RECEIVED.
    WE ALREADY HAVE PASSED THIS ISSUE ON TO OUR ATTORNEYS.
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION
    p.s.
    WE EVENTUALLY ANALYSED MORE CAREFULLY THE WEBSITE AND HAVE SEEN THAT ITS CONTACT REFERS TO A FORMER LICENSEE OF US, WHOSE LICENSE IS TERMINATED. THE LICENSEE HAS COMMUNICATED US ON JANUARY 13 THAT THIS ALL IS A MISTAKE, THE WEBSITE WAS OLD AND THAT HE WILL CANCEL IT FROM THE INTERNET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE APPRECIATE HIS REACTION AND CONSIDER CLOSED THE ISSUE.
    A.R.

  • Stan Lippmann

    Mark,
    Bluegen looks like a great product, quiet,60% electrical conversion efficiency. The Qnergy G5 seems to be much less efficient, so for burning gas, the Bluegen looks better. The sterling engine is useful when you have an external source of heat, like an ECAT. NASA’s Mod2 60 kW engine claimed efficiency close to Blugens, so sterling engines can be quite efficient too. Here’s a video of the Qnergy CEO explaining his business plan. He says he’s in the process of certification, needs to raise $20 million to go into production. But there must be some money in the company, they recently bought Infinia’s assets out of bankruptcy for $20 million.

    http://www.stockboard.com/blog/view.php?entryId=63711

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Not yet. We are continuing our R&D and validation work and we will pass to the coupling with turbines when we will have consolidated positive results at the end of this R&D and validation stage. Remember that the results could also be negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in January 11th, 2014 at 8:58 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Sorry, I cannot be involved in this issue, with all respect for your sincere passion.

    ———————————————-

    No problem, dear Andrea.
    The judge can request the IP of the computer of the Mr. JR via judicial order.

    I forgot to mention that the law suit against the Argonne National Laboratory will be because of misrepresentations

    regards
    wlad

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I hope all is going well with the R&D and long-term testing.

    Have you done any testing of the hot cat with turbines to generate electricity?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    From my experience, I would say no for what concerns biological transmutations, ball lightning and so forth. I do not know geo-fusion enough to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Sorry, I cannot be involved in this issue, with all respect for your sincere passion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I decided to suit in Law the journals Nature and European Physical Journal by plagiarism of my QRT, because I had warned the two editors of the plagiarism commited by their journals, and I had asked to them to quote my theory in the papers, and they did not attend my request.
    So they are colluding with plagiarism, and that’s why I decided to suit the two journals in law.

    I also decided to suit in law the Argonne National Laboratory, and I explain the reason ahead.
    Along several years I had discussion with physicists in many foruns of physics, and they used to call me crackpot, charlatan, and they claimed that my theory is pseudoscientific, as you may realize by looking at some reviews in the site Amazon.com:
    ======================================================
    Not even a theory March 2, 2009

    By Daniel Lopes
    This book is a great example of pseudoscience.
    ======================================================
    .
    ======================================================
    It is not a scientific book March 2, 2009

    By C. A. Bonin
    In other words, this is not a scientific book
    ======================================================
    http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948

    However now, after the two plagiarisms by the Nature and the EPJ they use to be silent (after all, a serious journal would never do a plagiarism of a theory without scientific merit).

    Unfortunatelly Mr. JR (here in this blog) tried to suggest that I am an idiot, as we realize from his latest two comments:
    ======================================================
    JR
    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.
    ======================================================
    .

    ======================================================
    JR
    December 14th, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    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.
    ====================================================

    So, we have the following situation:

    1- The experiments had detected that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.

    2- By considering the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists used along 60 years to consider that light even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape.

    3- That’s why the journal Nature had published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where we see in the Figure 1 the non-spherical shape of the nucleus 10Ne20:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    4- However, Mr. JR continues insisting that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, as we see in his comment of December 15th.

    As I already said in this blog, I suspect that Mr. JR is a fake name of Dr. John Arrington, a researcher of the Argonne National Laboratory.

    So, dear Andrea Rossi,
    I would like you help me, in order to identify the IP of the computer used by Mr. JR, in order to discover if it realy comes from the Argonne National Laboratory.

    I would say that I very much regret this decision. However I hope you and the readers of the JoNP may understand my frustration.
    Because:

    1- Along 20 years I was hearing the physicists calling me charlatan, crackpot, and claiming that my theory is pseudoscientific.

    2- Now, when finally the experiments are corroborating my QRT , and two the most important journals of Physics had published plagiarisms of my theory in 2012 and 2013, I would like the physicists would recognize the merit of my work.

    3- However, instead of to accept scientific facts detected by experiments, unlike Mr. JR actually continues trying to suggest to everybody that I am a charlatan, and he uses a dishonest way of argumentation, by rejecting the results of the experiments which detected the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, and suggesting to be idiots the autors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster and also the editor of the journal Nature, suggesting that they did not understand the results of the experiments (also suggesting that I did not understand), because he insists to claim that those light nuclei have actually spherical shape.

    So, I hope you and the readers may undersand my reasons and why I decided to suit in Law the Argonne National Laboratory.

    Regards
    wlad

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    During the last century, partially even before Fleischmann-Pons, a number of approaches have been made to explain certain natural phenomena by low energy nuclear reactions. One could remind theories of biological transmutations, geo-fusion, or ball lightning. Would you consider it likely — against the background of your intensive research — that LENR, of whatever kind, are a common phenomenon in nature?

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  • Mark

    Dear Stan Lippmann,

    I’m thinking to install a Bluegen unit in my home and it would cost about $8000.0. How much would it cost to install the 5KWe/18kWth G5 engine? Can you discuss more about sterling engine’s advantages/disadvantages over SOFC fuel cell technologies? Both can run on natural gas.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3jiZPEDmyk

    Regards,

    Mark

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone (Walter Gentili):
    “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in Physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion” (Albert Einstein).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Stan Lippmann:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N.Karels:
    Yes, big turbines are more efficient than small turbines, as far as I know, but also consider that I am not an expert of turbines. Surely some reader is more expert than I am in this matter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    For electrical power generation, we know two important factors in the overall efficiency of the electrical generation process. First, the Carnot efficiency defined by the highest and lowest temperatures of your working fluid (e.g., water/steam). Second, the turbine efficiency. Large modern turbines can have efficiencies in excess of 70%. Multiplying these two together yields the effective efficiency the unit can work at.

    My question – without revealing any protected information, can you discuss how the turbine efficiency changes with turbine size? Specifically, is a turbine rated for 1 GW power output more efficient than one rated at 1 MW or 10 kW?

    My questions are leading to whether it makes more sense to have a single, very large power production plant or are distributed, small output plants justified?

    Note in these general questions, the heat source could be nuclear, coal or eCat technology.

  • Stan Lippmann

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    FYI Qnergy claims on their website that their 5KWe/18kWth G5 engine is “commericially available”

    “http://www.qnergy.com/g5-stirling-engine

    Stan in Jinan

  • Curiosone

    Dear Dr Rossi,
    Do you miss Prof. Sergio Focardi?
    Walter

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    I am spamming all the hundreds of comments we receive regarding the US Partner issue, whatever the source, whatever the link attached, whatever the text. As a consequence of a precise NDA that I have signed, I am forbidden to give any information , in positive or in negative, regarding the name or whatever concerning our US Partner. All the things that have been diffusely published in this period on the matter are totally strange to my work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    At the moment I am in a position that forbids me to answer to your questions.
    We are making a R&D and validation work that is still in course and whose results could be positive but also negative. I am not able to give specific answers upon issues that are in the making. As soon as we will have consolidated results, such results will be published on a scientific peer reviewed magazine, with the negative or positive results we will have obtained.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    At some point your company will venture forth in releasing a commercial eCat and probably under the endorsement/authorization of a country.
    1. Do you foresee that country exercising restrictions on who can obtain eCat technology?
    I am thinking of how the U.S. restricts nuclear technology to certain countries.
    2. Do you envision the base Country establishing a technology center to train its technical people on eCat technology and therefore become a center of excellence for eCat technology?
    3. If eCat technology turns out to be as promising as it seems, do you see that country becoming an economic power partly because of your technology?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    JoNP is a journal of nuclear physics, and it is normal that the language of the papers is the language of Physics. Obviously, the blog is another thing, where not necessarily discussions are made in rigorous language.
    About the suggestion of the 3D, is a good suggestion, we will see what we can do. In this moment we have other priorities, anyway.
    I am not involved in the commercial strategy of our US Partner. I am exclusively focused on the scientific issues and on the ongoing tests for the R&D and validation activity.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Dear JoNP,
    Some of the papers on JoNP are difficult to understand for ordinary people like me.
    I try to do the best I can to understand, but text and formulas and analysis are often unaccessible without preliminary knowledge.
    This could be one of the reasons why not so many discussions and questions are on-topic of the newly presented documents.
    Does your knowledgs, budget and contract allow you to produce a 3D dynamic visualisation of the theory behind the reactions and the particles that are involved with LENR ?
    Sooner or later, this technology will have to be presented by some mainstream media, and journalists tend to copy what is available. Also teachers – as you have become one – can use 3D.

    Anyway, I’m gratefull that you did make a real device and not only wrote a book about some theory.

    Maybe two last questions (for now): does your US partner inform you about his intentions and actions to proliferate E-Cat technology ? Are you comfortable with that ?

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    Thank you for your study.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    One of the great unsolved problems in physics is the existence of fermions in the form of families. Why do fermions appear in generations? Can more than just three generations of fermion exist? And how do these fermions establish their unique masses?

    In the following paper, a thesis is laid out to perhaps provide an answer to these questions.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_rhNc9hA61_UGN3bnZxSnBzYkk/edit?usp=sharing

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the READERS of the JoNP:
    Today has been published on our Journal the paper “Do dark gravity theories predict superluminal neutrinos and LENR phenomena?” by Dr F.Henry Couannier, Centre des physique des particulate de Marseille.
    JoNP

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated “Within several months I will make a publication, wherein all the issues that will not affect the IP will be touched. This will be after the completion of the third indipendent party validation”

    Taking you literally, I would guess the third party independent report will be published by April 2014 and your report will be released by July. My guess for 2014.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Thank you,
    A.R.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, Words of Wisdom
    “First they ignore you’
    then they ridicule you
    then they fight you
    then you win.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

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>