.
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‾μν =ημρ 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
.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You state that a charge will last 6 months.
That is about 4320 hours of operation.
An incandescescent light bulb lasts about 1000 hours. A halogen light bulb lasts 2000 hours.
It would be interesting to see the materials after 6 months of intensive glowing in contact with hydrogen and steam.
Since you are the chief-scientist on the Rossi-Effect, it means that knowledge has been transferred to a team. How long do you foresee that your presence and active contribution remains necessary for the fast developement of the E-Cats (I hope the name still remains the same) ?
Supposed that the grown-up cats can start to mieuw without their daddy, do you plan to do other things than R&D ? E.g. semimars, speeches, perhaps write some books. A man with your state of duty might have something to share, and will probably find a very attentive audience that needs also some inspiration for difficult times that are coming. I’m sure you can inspire people.
Best Regards,
Koen
Steven N. Karels:
I never said that there is no theoretical limit on increasing the size of the E-Cat. I said exactly the contrary. Probably there has been a misunderstanding.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JDM:
It is anyway opportune a check of the charge.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Do inactive ECat modules have a shelf life or can they be stored indefinitely until needed?
Best regards.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since you posted that there is no theoretical limit on increasing the size of the eCat and its power grows as the cube of the linear dimension, should you not consider a very large sized eCat for baseline electric power generation?
For powering a 1 GW electric generation powerplant, you would need about 2.5 GW (thermal) assuming an overall conversion efficiency of 40%. Running with 1MW eCat units will require at least 2,500 1MW eCat units, a rather large number to maintain. An increase in size (power) of a factor of 10 or 100 would reduce the number of units accordingly. You would still need a sufficient number for maintenance work and control (start-up, reducing power, etc.) but I would guess the appropriate number might be 100 units of 25 MW each. There may be other mechanical reasons (i.e., heat management) that might modify the optimal number. Something to consider after your successful independent testing is reported.
John L.:
It can last 6 months, to change the charge.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- no
2- to the third
3- impossible to foresee.
4- will remain 6 months
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You stated that smaller eCat reactors are theoretically possible.
1. Is there a theoretical limit on how large or massive a single eCat reactor might be?
2. As an eCat dimensions grow linearly, one might expect the thermal output to grow as the area (the square) or possibly as the volume (the cube). How do you would expect its growth in power as a function of dimensional increase?
3. Would you expect a radically different geometric configuration for very large sized eCat reactors (e.g., spherical, donut)?
4. Would a larger eCat reactor increase the reported six month fueling cycle period or are there other reasons for a six month fuel maintenance cycle?
Andrea,
Has the hotcat under test been purposely designed to stop in late March? Or it can run significantly longer, should those professors decide to do so.
John L
Steven N. Karels:
In the article of the Third Indipendent Party published on Arxive ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 ) the effect is described. To explain you the reason of this I should explain how the charge works and so far it is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for the useful information. We are making a strong research concerning the new materials to allow higher temperatures.
About your questions:
1- No, the situation is much more complicated. Surely the equations for the stability at higher temperatures are much more complex.
2- This is a problem of industrialization: theoretically small modules are possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have referenced in the past that the eCat’s internal temperature actually decreases when the control is applied. This seems counter-intuitive. Can you clarify?
Dear Andrea,
Professor Michel Barsoum (Drexel University) has recently published a reference on the subject of Max-Phase Materials.
Since Max-Phase materials have useful high temperature properties, you may find this information
helpful for new designs.
” This is the first comprehensive book on MAX Phases, from both an experimental and a theoretical viewpoint, which covers elastic, electrical, thermal, chemical and mechanical properties in different temperature regimes, concluding with a treatment of MAX phase composites and potential as well as current applications.
By bringing together, in a unified, self-contained manner, all the information on MAX phases hitherto only found scattered in the journal literature, this one-stop resource offers researchers and developers alike an insight into these fascinating materials.”
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527330119.html
http://max.materials.drexel.edu/the-max-phases-book/
1. If the reactors/E-Cats are more stable when operated at lower temperatures e.g. 100-300 degrees C) vs. 700-900 degrees C, does that mean they can be kept in self-sustain mode a greater percent of the time (i.e. at low temperatures)?
2. Is there any minimum size for an E-Cat (or e-kit), such that you could build using many small modules? In other words, could a 10 kW system be made up of 20 – 500 Watt systems, instead of 2 5-kW systems? I don’t know if this would enhance stability, but it would probably have different applications.
Max regards,
Joseph Fine
Frank Acland:
With Industrial Heat we are making an important work of R&D, validation and industrialization. We are a strong team. The impact of the partnership has been and is extremely productive. About the results, I prefer to wait the results of the R&D and validation work in course. In Industrial Heat I am the chief scientist and as such I can talk about the results only after the validation in course will have been consolidated, based upon long term rigorous measurements.
The results could be positive, as we have reason to hope, but also negative. We have still a lot of work to do, and we are making a lot of work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
It’s interesting that you are partnering with a company in the very high tech environment of Research Triangle in North Carolina. What impact does the location of Industrial Heat, and the contacts the company has, provide you with regards to scientific and engineering resources?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wladimir,
Even if the neutrino and antineutrino were massless, they would still need energy given to them by the p + e system in order to be formed and to propagate. This means that whether it is neutron creation or neutron decay, energy will always be leaving the p + e system. But since each of the neutron and H atom have a fixed energy associated with them, a constant leak of energy from the p + e system as it fluctuates between neutron and H atom states is logically not allowed. Energy may be allowed to leave, but energy must be allowed to enter as well in order to maintain the equilibrium of fixed energies. And energy that enters must necessarily be in the form of either a neutrino or an antineutrino that exists in the environment.
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in February 11th, 2014 at 11:09 PM
Wladimir,
A neutrino and an antineutrino have the same mass, therefore they must be created using the same energy.
But the energy of p + e before neutron decay is different from after. And this difference is the energy of the neutrino or antineutrino. So it would only be logical that in only one of the two events a neutrino or antineutrino would be created. In the opposite event, the opposite particle should rather be absorbed from the environment and destroyed in order to provide energy to p + e.
————————————————
COMMENT
No, Joe,
the energy involved in the creation of neutrinos and antineutrinos actually influences their velocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed
There are no antineutrinos existing in the space, so that to be absorbed from the enviroment,as you suppose.
The antineutrino is created in the instant when the electron gets again its helical trajectory.
There is no need big energy for creating an antineutrino, since its mass is near to zero. By using the Einstein’s equation E= mc^2 you may realize it.
There is need only a small energy, so that to agglutinate the particles of the aether, in order to create the antineutrino.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
A neutrino and an antineutrino have the same mass, therefore they must be created using the same energy.
But the energy of p + e before neutron decay is different from after. And this difference is the energy of the neutrino or antineutrino. So it would only be logical that in only one of the two events a neutrino or antineutrino would be created. In the opposite event, the opposite particle should rather be absorbed from the environment and destroyed in order to provide energy to p + e.
All the best,
Joe
Joe,
there is a puzzle in the experiment made by Pamela Mosier-Boss.
By considering that a neutron is emitted after the fusion of two deuterons, the neutron would have to be emitted with the maximum energy of 2,5MeV, which is the binding energy of the deuteron.
However in her experiment there are neutrons emitted with 10 MeV.
In that interpretation proposed by me in the article published in Peswiki, I supposed the following:
1- The fusion of two deuterons produce a tritium with emission of one proton with energy 2,5MeV.
2- As the proton has positive charge, it is captured by the negativelly charged electrosphere of the Pd atom.
3- Due to attraction with negative electrons in the electrosphere of the Pd atom, the proton is accelerated, changing its energy from 2,5MeV to about 6,0MeV.
This is shown in the Figure 9. See the trajectory of the proton shown as red arrow:
Figure 9:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig9-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif
4- There is a collision between the proton and one electron of the electrosphere of the Pd atom, and they form a neutron (see the Fig. 9).
5- As the electron had a helical trajectory moving in the Pd electrosphere, and it loses its helical trajectory when it is captured by the proton, an energy of about 3,5MeV of the helical trajectory is transferred to the neutron.
6- As the proton had an energy of about 6,0MeV, and it gets more 3,5MeV, and because the neutron has not attraction with the electrons of the Pd atom, it leaves the electrosphere with an energy of about 9,5MeV, as detected in Mosier-Boss experiment.
.
The energy of the helical trajectory of the electrons depends on the level in which they move within the electrosphere of the Pd atom.
So, the most inner is the level where the proton has collision with electrons in the Pd atom, higher is the energy of the neutron produced in the collision.
If the proton has not collision with any electron, it leaves the electrosphere of the Pd atom with the same energy 2,5MeV, because after having an acceleration while it is entering into the electrosphere, however it is decelerated when it starts to move leaving out the electrosphere, and it leaves out the electrosphere with the same energy 2,5MeV with which it had entered there.
.
As you may realize, it seems to be impossible to explain the Mosier-Boss experiment without to consider the energy of the helical trajectory.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 11th, 2014 at 4:08 AM
Wladimir,
When the neutron decays, it results in a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.
In QRT, this is explained as the orbiting electron losing its classical trajectory about the proton and gaining a helical trajectory. From this results the creation of the antineutrino.
But in QRT, when a neutron is created from the helical trajectory of an electron transforming into a classical trajectory about a proton, an antineutrino is still created even though the process is the reverse of the decay.
How can this be?
————————————————–
COMMENT
In the neutron decay it is created an antineutrino
In the fusion p+e -> neutron it is created a neutrino.
In both cases the antineutrino or the neutrino are created because the total angular momentum must be conserved.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
When the neutron decays, it results in a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.
In QRT, this is explained as the orbiting electron losing its classical trajectory about the proton and gaining a helical trajectory. From this results the creation of the antineutrino.
But in QRT, when a neutron is created from the helical trajectory of an electron transforming into a classical trajectory about a proton, an antineutrino is still created even though the process is the reverse of the decay.
How can this be?
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in February 9th, 2014 at 2:59 PM
Wladimir,
In QRT, does the energy that is necessary to create a neutrino come from the energy released when the helical trajectory transforms into the classical trajectory?
———————————————–
Joe,
I speak about the energy of the helical trajectory in the article How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment, published in Peswiki in 2009:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
.
See bellow the Figure 9, where it is written about a proton moving into the electrosphere of the Pd atom, initially with energy 2,5MeV :
————————————————–
Along its trajectory in the electrosphere of Pd atom, the direction of its motion is deviated several times by the proximity of some electron that passes near to it. In such accelerated trajectory the proton can increase its energy from 2,5MeV to about 6MeV.
Finally the proton captures an electron, and they form a neutron. The electron loses its zitterbewegung, and the zbw energy is transmitted to the neutron, which now has a total energy of about 6 + 3,5 = 9,5 MeV.
The energy of zitterbewegung depends on the level where the electron is moving. In the deepest levels the zbw energy is greater.
The direction of the neutron’s motion depends upon the direction of the electron during the collision proton-electron (and also the position of the electron in its helical trajectory in the electrosphere of the Pd atom).
————————————————-
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
I must repeat that until the validation and R&D work is not completed will be pending any chance of positive or negative results. Besides, I think that the concept of COP in LENR is outdated. COP is used for heat pumps, air conditioners, co-generators, tri-generators et similia and the concept is different. I think it should be more proper to talk in terms of “ratio between energy produced and energy consumed” : is a more mathematical and rigorous concept.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’m glad to hear you have substantially increased the power density of the hot cat. Can you say if its efficiency (in terms of COP) has increased substantially also?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Mark Saker:
1- It bears any resemblance
2- confidential
3- we have substantially increased the density of power, but I cannot be specific until the R&D and validation work is not completed and its results ( positive or negative) published
4- I do not understand the question
5- see #3
6- this does not depend on me. Maybe ( MAYBE) a month, plus the paper preparation and publication time
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
1- The validation is in course, when it will finish does not depend on me, but I think at least all March will be taken to finish the measurements, while the publication will take its time. Sorry to disappoint you, but these issues do not depend from us.
2- Yes, we have an important work in progress for what concerns the production of electric power. What I can say now is that the Carnot Cycle is the most immediate solution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you are doing well.
I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the status of the long-term third party test that has been occurring. Has it been completed? Is there any timeline yet for publication?
I was also curious if there has been any progress related to electricity generation. Is that something that you are still working on internally or is the focus more on having a stable heat source that another party might try to integrate into an electricity generator?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Dear Andrea,
A few questions to please an eager mind!
1. Does the newest 1MW prototype bear any resemblance to previous designs or is it a far departure.
2. What is the size of the 1MW product and what shape is the unit as a whole
3. Are you looking at larger scale devices and if so what are the sizes in output and physical size.
4. Are there still restrictions that the electricity/heat needed to ignite and control the device cannot be taken from the output of the device or have you found a way around this?
5. How much would a 200MW device weigh? I’ve been looking at the VASIMR requirements for a 39day trip to Mars (I know it is a long way off but I can dream!)
6. How long till the extended test is finished? Is there a specific date when they will finish the tests and then just have to write the paper?
Many Thanks
Mark
Joe,
Between 2008 and 2013 several new experiments with the light have been published, and the results are inspiring new theorists, suggesting new ideas about the photon.
The engineer Oreste Caroppo proposed a model of photon with helical trajectory, like the mine:
http://caroppophotonmodel.blogspot.com.br/
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 9th, 2014 at 2:59 PM
Wladimir,
In QRT, does the energy that is necessary to create a neutrino come from the energy released when the helical trajectory transforms into the classical trajectory?
————————————————
COMMENT
Probably yes, but only a portion of the energy of the helical trajectory.
The other portion of the helical trajectory energy is transfered to the electron (it gets a velocity 92% of the light speed, moving about the proton).
regards
wlad
JR wrote in February 9th, 2014 at 12:54 PM
Wladimir,
So are you saying that the decay of the neutron doesn’t conserve energy in your theory?
————————————————
COMMENT
Energy-mass is always conserved.
Energy may come from the aether, which is not considered in current theories (and that’s why academic theorist consider that there is not conservation of energy-mass).
In Conte-Pieralice experiment the fusion proton+electron produces the neutron, and an anomalous heat is created ( the aluminium cathode is melted, a result not expected by Conte before to make the experiment ).
When an electron in the electrosphere of the atom jumps between two levels, a photon is created from extraction of particles and antiparticles of the aether (the particles agglutinate thanks to the excitation of the atom, and they form the photon).
The same happens when the neutron decays. Particles and antiparticles of the aether are agglutinated, and they form the positron and the electrton which compose the structure of the antineutrino.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
In QRT, does the energy that is necessary to create a neutrino come from the energy released when the helical trajectory transforms into the classical trajectory?
All the best,
Joe
Wladimir,
So are you saying that the decay of the neutron doesn’t conserve energy in your theory?
Joe wrote in February 8th, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Wladimir,
1. You say that mass is due to the interaction of EM fields between particles, and that this is the reason for the very small mass of the neutrino which has a null electric field. But the neutron which also has a null electric field has a significant mass.
===============================================
COMMENT
The mass of the particles is actually due to the interaction of their gravito flux n(o).
The photon is massless because the it is perfectly symmetric .
Look what is written in the article How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion occurrence in Rossi-Focardi experiment, here in JoNP:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/How%20repulsive%20gravity%20contributes%20for%20cold%20fusion%20occurrence.pdf
———————————————–
The photon also has repulsive gravity into its structure. The photon of QRT is formed by one particle and one antiparticle (they move with helical trajectory).
Fig. 5 shows why there is need a repulsive gravity into photon’s structure. The particle and the antiparticle have attraction. As they move in contrary direction along their helical trajectory, they should collide, and vanish one each other. However, the particle of the
photon attracts particles G(-), and the antiparticle attracts particles G(+), then the repulsion between G(+) and G(-) avoid the collision between the particle and the antiparticle.
————————————————-
Therefore, it seems that the mass of the particles is due to the repulsive gravito particles G(+) and G(-).
If their interaction with the aether cancel each other effect, the particle has null mass.
The neutrino has a structure similar to the photon, however, however the interaction of gravito particles G(+) and G(-) with the aether does not cancel entirelly each other, because the electron gyrates about the positron in a different way of that which occurs in the photon.
In the case of the neutron, the electron gyrates about the proton, and their flux n(o) have the same direction, and therefore the interaction due to the particles G(+) is added to the interaction due to the particles G(-).
================================================
How does QRT explain this, especially since the neutron and the neutrino are similar in QRT in that each has the electron orbiting classically about the proton and positron respectively, with the electron having lost its 1/2 spin in the QRT phenomenon of spin fusion, resulting in a spin 1/2 particle in each case?
===============================================
COMMENT
As explained before, the neutrino is not similar to the neutron.
The neutrino is similar to the photon.
==================================================
2. In QRT, what is the mechanism that decides that an electron and a positron will form a neutrino rather than annihilate each other and form gamma photons?
==================================================
COMMENT
In the instant when it is created the neutrino, due to dynamical condictions the gravito particles G(+) and G(-) avoid the positron and the electron to be annihilated.
The same happens with the photon (see Fig. 5 in the paper mentioned above).
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/How%20repulsive%20gravity%20contributes%20for%20cold%20fusion%20occurrence.pdf
regards
wlad
JR wrote in February 8th, 2014 at 5:47 PM
Wladimir said: “So, the decay of the neutron is:
————————-
p + e -> p + e + e + e+
————————-
All the laws are kept, since the creation of an electron “e” and a positron “e+” does not violate any law.”
What about energy conservation?
———————————————
COMMENT
And what about energy consevation in cold fusion ?
from where comes the anomalous heat ?
Wladimir,
1. You say that mass is due to the interaction of EM fields between particles, and that this is the reason for the very small mass of the neutrino which has a null electric field. But the neutron which also has a null electric field has a significant mass. How does QRT explain this, especially since the neutron and the neutrino are similar in QRT in that each has the electron orbiting classically about the proton and positron respectively, with the electron having lost its 1/2 spin in the QRT phenomenon of spin fusion, resulting in a spin 1/2 particle in each case?
2. In QRT, what is the mechanism that decides that an electron and a positron will form a neutrino rather than annihilate each other and form gamma photons?
All the best,
Joe
Wladimir said: “So, the decay of the neutron is:
————————-
p + e -> p + e + e + e+
————————-
All the laws are kept, since the creation of an electron “e” and a positron “e+” does not violate any law.”
What about energy conservation?
Mr. Eernie1 wrote in February 7th, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Dear Wlad,
You say your theory allows the non-conservation of Lepton spin parity then you launch into an elaborate explanation on how the existence of the various neutrinos in nucleon reactions maintain spin parity as explained by Andrea and I. What am I missing? Thank you for your efforts.
———————————————
COMMENT
Dear Eernie1
My theory does not allow any sort of violation.
The violation happens by considering the current theories, since they do not consider the helical trajectory, and the phenomenon spin-fusion which occurs when the leptons lose their helical trajectory (they lose their spin 1/2).
In Quantum Ring Theory the neutrinos are formed by positron-electron, and it moves with helical trajectory
There are several sort of neutrinos, depending on the relative motion between the positron and the electron (either the electron can gyrate about the positron or the positron can gyrate about the electron, and such relative their motion also can have different features regarding their helical trajectory, in clockwise direction or counter clockwise direction).
When the electron gyrates about the positron, it loses its spin due to the spin-fusion phenomenon, and so the spin of the neutrino is 1/2.
The mass of the neutrino is very small because the electromagnetic fields of the positron and electron cancell each other, and therefore the neutrino does not interact with the electromagnetic fields of other particles (the interaction is very weak, near to zero).
So, let us consider the neutron’s decay:
n -> p + e + u’
The structure of the neutron is n= p + e , where the electron e has spin zero, due to the spin-fusion phenomenon.
When the neutron decays, an antineutrino u’ is created.
The structure of the antineutrino is u’ = e + e+ , where e+ is the positron.
So, the decay of the neutron is:
————————-
p + e -> p + e + e + e+
————————-
All the laws are kept, since the creation of an electron “e” and a positron “e+” does not violate any law.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi wrote in February 1st, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Eernie1:
Electrons do not decay and leptons are conserved. Besides, the mass of neutrinos, even if it is not zero, is evanescent to the point to be unmeasurable.
Said this, make your equations.
————————————————
COMMENT
Lepton Number:
————————————————
Violations of the lepton number conservation laws
In the Standard Model, leptonic family numbers (LF numbers) would be preserved if neutrinos were massless. Since neutrino oscillations have been observed, neutrinos do have a tiny nonzero mass and conservation laws for LF numbers are therefore only approximate. This means the conservation laws are violated, although because of the smallness of the neutrino mass they still hold to a very large degree for interactions containing charged leptons.
———————————————–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number
It is hard to me to believe that Nature works with approximate laws.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 7th, 2014 at 5:43 PM
Wladimir,
If two electrons were placed diametrically opposite to each other within the classical orbit about the central proton, each electron would be shielded from the negative electric field of the other electron by the intervening positive electric field of the proton.
———————————————–
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
if you put the second electron in that exact place, perhaps your theory can work.
However the neutron gyrates, and it seems very hard for the neutron to capture a second electron in that previledged place, avoiding repulsion with the first one.
regards
wlad
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for the information.
Our work is going on…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
I respect your opinion, but must confirm that since the mathematical equations I am able to make do not allow any electron capture without breaking the lepton conservation law, I maintain my position.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wlad, What I meant to say was you were using electric quadrupole and magnetic moment values to prove or enhance the explanation of your theory of internal nuclear mechanisms. I understood that the strong force was mainly there to keep the protons in the nucleus from repulsing each other because of their positive charges. Does Sarg’s geometrical constructs of the nucleons enhance, contradict or not have any bearing on your theory? You say your theory allows the non-conservation of Lepton spin parity then you launch into an elaborate explanation on how the existence of the various neutrinos in nucleon reactions maintain spin parity as explained by Andrea and I. What am I missing? Thank you for your efforts.
Wladimir Guglinski
February 6th, 2014 at 6:36 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote in January 31st, 2014 at 8:19 PM
———————————————-
Eernie1:
Make the equations and you will discover that the lepton conservation law is not respected. ” Electron capture” has never been really observed for this reason: it is a sort of an Arab Phoenix. All the theories based on this effect are groundless. This is my opinion. Ready to change it if experimental evidence of electron capture will be produced.
Warm regards,
A.R.
———————————————-
COMMENT
So, Dear Andrea,
I suppose that in your opinion there is need a New Physics, based on some new principles missing in the curent theories.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi,
I forgot to mention Carbyne, which is a 1-dimensional Carbon material. It is simply (or not so simply) a string or “chain” of Carbon atoms. ( There may be many others, but they haven’t been discovered.)
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-carbon-champion-theorists-atom-thick-carbyne.html#inlRlv
It’s almost March or April. Hope you have a positive result.
Joseph Fine
Wladimir,
If two electrons were placed diametrically opposite to each other within the classical orbit about the central proton, each electron would be shielded from the negative electric field of the other electron by the intervening positive electric field of the proton.
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in February 7th, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Wladimir,
In QRT, if an electron can couple to one the quarks of the proton to form a neutron, why do we not see more electrons or antielectrons coupling to the remaining quarks of the proton to form new types of particles?
———————————————-
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
in that short distance between two electrons ( proton’s radius = 0,8fm ) the Coulomb repulsion between the electrons would be very strong
regards
wlad
Wlad, some time ago you wrote about your work on a series of new papers to be published soon. Are you in some secret arrangement with Andrea Rossi to make us wait much longer with your results? heheheee 🙂
Wladimir,
In QRT, if an electron can couple to one the quarks of the proton to form a neutron, why do we not see more electrons or antielectrons coupling to the remaining quarks of the proton to form new types of particles?
All the best,
Joe
I forgot to mention:
concerning the publication of my first paper A NEW MODEL OF THE NEUTRON in the Vol 4, No. 4 of the Journal of New Energy, the number 4 is the lucky number in my life.
I was born in 4 August 1950, with 4kg, at 4pm, in the room No. 4 of the hospital.
My father used to told it me as a quaint coincidence.
However my father did not use to consider another coincidence, which I have discovered today:
The hospital, named Santa Casa de Misericordia de Goiânia, was situated in the Street 4 :
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Casa_de_Miseric%C3%B3rdia_de_Goi%C3%A2nia
My parents landed in Brazil comming from Europe in the day 4 August 1949, exactly one year before my birth.
I was baptized in 4 July 1951.
regards
wlad