by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(I-SERVE)
Hyderabad-35, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Introduction
Now as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were the first that leads galaxy growth. The implication is that the black holes started growing first. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes format their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms. This is a fundamental confirmation of N. Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of “different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size”.
This clearly suggests that: galaxy constitutes a central black hole; the central black hole grows first; Star and galaxy growth goes parallel or later to the central black holes growth. The fundamental questions are: If “black hole” is the result of a collapsing star, how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its center? Where does the central black hole comes from? How the galaxy center will grow like a black hole? How its event horizon exists with growing? If these are the observed and believed facts — not only for the author — this is a big problem for the whole science community to be understood.
Any how, the important point to be noted here is that “due to some unknown reason galactic central black holes are growing”! This is the key point for the beginning of the proposed expanding or growing cosmic black hole! See this latest published reference for the “black hole universe”. In our daily life generally it is observed that any animal or fruit or human beings (from birth to death) grows with closed boundaries (irregular shapes also can have a closed boundary). An apple grows like an apple. An elephant grows like an elephant. A plant grows like a plant. A human grows like a human. Through out their lifetime they won’t change their respective identities. These are observed facts. From these observed facts it can be suggested that “growth” or “expansion” can be possible with a closed boundary. By any reason if the closed boundary is opened it leads to “destruction” rather than “growth or expansion”. Thinking that nature loves symmetry, in a heuristic approach in this paper author assumes that“ through out its lifetime universe is a black hole”. Even though it is growing, at any time it is having an event horizon with a closed boundary and thus it retains her identity as a black hole forever. Note that universe is an independent body. It may have its own set of laws. At any time if universe maintains a closed boundary to have its size minimum at that time it must follow “strong gravity” at that time.
If universe is having no black hole structure any massive body(which is bound to the universe) may not show a black hole structure. That is black hole structure may be a subset of cosmic structure. This idea may be given a chance.
Rotation is a universal phenomenon. We know that black holes are having rotation and are not stationary. Recent observations indicates that black holes are spinning close to speed of light.
In this paper author made an attempt to give an outline of “expanding and light speed rotating black hole universe” that follows strong gravity from its birth to end of expansion.
Stephen Hawking in his famous book A Brief History of Time, in Chapter 3 which is entitled The Expanding Universe, says: “Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in which ever direction we look, and that this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found… We have no scientific evidence for, or against, the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe”.
From this statement it is very clear and can be suggested that, the possibility for a “closed universe” and a “flat universe” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of a “closed universe”.
Clearly speaking, from Hubble’s observations and interpretations in 1929, the possibility of “galaxy receding” and “galaxy revolution” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of “rotating universe”.
.
.
Dear Andrea,
some time ago you stated that the Third Party Test would end approximately on late MArch.
Since we are now on 27th could you please tell us more or less when do you expect this test to end? One week? One month?
Thank you very much
Neri B.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
sorry for bothering you again, but I would like to make clear why I think you should at least consider the supercritical turbine Toshiba is building together with its partners.
My guess is that it is not feasible to substitute a significant part of the chemical energy source of a gas turbine (or jet engine) that uses air as vector, with a solid-state source as the LENR sources. This because:
– the solid state source can exchange energy only through radiation and convection from its surfaces,
– at high temperatures convection can generate only a limited flux (compared to radiation), and I guess the associated pressure drop for a significant energy contribution from convection would be too much for a turbine (I haven’t done the numbers, but …).
– air absorbs radiation only through the steam and carbon dioxide present in it; therefore H-Cats can contribute to heat up the fluid (air) through radiation only after a significant quantity of kerosene and oxygen have reacted in it.
Combustion on the other hand produces chemical heat in the gas DIRECTLY and needs very limited space.
For making the “solid state (LENR) – convection” source comparable to the combustion source you probably need a large and winding (possibly external) combustion chamber. So in any case, for good results, the modifications to the turbine would be major. Other people in this blog already stressed the difficulty in changing anything inside an existing turbine, even for the builder itself. If your target is however to somehow increase the efficiency of jet engines (for propulsion), my arguments are clearly not valid …
Back to electrical energy:
Even combined cycle systems have so called “emissions” that the promise of LENR should (and will) be capable of eliminating.
The new supercritical CO2 system instead:
– uses high pressure CO2 (+H2O if there is combustion (O2 + CH4)), which is an IR absorbing gas, that can efficiently extract energy from the H-Cats through radiation.
– uses an EXTERNAL high-pressure, oxy-fuel combustor; therefore adding another power source is WAY easier than for a gas turbine (or jet engine). Another plus is that it would probably allow for some convection (turbulent flow on large surfaces) to help in the heat exchange as well.
– has NO emissions,
– needs low capital, therefore it is better for new plants,
– is very simple in its essence despite an efficiency of 58.9% LHV (for gas): has a single small turbine with an external combustor; therefore it requires engineering efforts on a single heat exchanger system (and not two as in the combined cycle systems).
– is NOW in development, therefore it is much more opened to major modifications for a LENR source than any other well established technology.
By adding an array of H-Cats to the combustor, in steady conditions:
– there would possibly be no CO2 excess (apart from the circulating fluid),
– the air compressors of the cryogenic air separation plant could be stopped requiring no additional energy.
Best Regards and
Gooooood Luck
Andrea Calaon
Mark:
…plus the heat recovered in case of co-generation and tri-generation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea
Typically gas turbine electrical efficiency is 40 to 60 percent, when combined Hotcat and gas turbine, how much fuel percentage you would be able to save for the customers of such systems.
Mark
Wladimir,
1. In QRT, all the fields within a nucleus are of the same type: Sp. It is irrelevant that Sp < Sn. The classical laws involving Coulomb force and magnetic moments apply to Sp as much as Sn. Therefore, the magnetic moment of the free proton would be drawn to the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 if the latter were greater than the magnetic moment of one of its constituent neutrons. The free proton would not interact with a neutron. The free proton would head to the 2He4 and destroy it, either directly from the proton's last point of orbit, or indirectly by traveling along the z axis. There would be neither 5B11 formed, nor 3Li7 + 2He4, unless there were some sort of very quick reconfiguration of the constituent nucleons which has never been witnessed.
2. I repeat what I wrote earlier. In QRT, if the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 were not only greater than the magnetic moment of a neutron but also had the same sign as the magnetic moment of the free proton, the free proton would be repelled by the nucleus. The position of the constituent nucleons would be irrelevant. And even more irrelevant would be the topic of the point of capture of the nucleons since the free proton is already part of the nucleus.
All the best,
Joe
Hank Mills:
Improvements are a permanent necessity, whatever the status of the art. We have an enormous work to do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
As an outsider looking in, the E-Cat looks like a virtually ideal heat source for a traditional steam turbine. The high temperatures, low cost of fuel, lack of waste (particulate, carbon, or nuclear), power density (10KW from something the size of a soda bottle), and simple design make it seem ready right now for the use in steam generators. If the E-Cat is not yet quite ready for use in such generators, that currently produce the vast majority of electrical power in the world, what other aspects of the E-Cat need improvement?
The only possible three areas of improvement that I could imagine as being plausible are:
A – Start up and shut down time needing to be reduced. However, with virtually free nickel and hydrogen, it would not matter too much if a reactor was allowed to stay on even when not required. The wasted fuel cost would be pennies.
B – Corrosion and hydrogen resistance of the reactor and heat exchanger.However, this is well known standard engineering and material science. It should be a quickly resolved issue.
C – COP or power in verses out. Since the E-Cat can already have an infite COP at high power for extended periods of time, I don’t see this as a huge issue. Of couse if a method of bringing down the temperature of the reactor and reducing the rate of nuclear reactions without having to apply heat can be discovered, it would make designing every system easier.
Are any of the above reasons why the E-Cat is not ready for use -in a world without regulatory requirements – today? If not, in what ways does the tech need to improve?
Thank you.
Frank Acland:
We are pursuing all the possible lines of development. The b) point is the more immediate.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
a) Is your team still pursing the use of Hot Cats for electricity generation using steam turbines?
or
b) Is your team focusing on co- and tri- generation plants as the path to commercial viability?
or
c) Both?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Achi:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
marcomic:
Thank you for your suggestions. Obviously, efficiency changes in co-generation or tri-generation applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Rossi. This really gives us an idea of all the effort and time that is going on behind the scenes.
– Achi
Ian Walker:
We are analyzing all the possibilities.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
While using the Brayton cycle to create thrust; is it via a turbine that you hope to establish a stable and efficient electricity generation result. Or are you also considering it in a Ramjet system.
Kind Regards Ian Walker
Hallo Mr.Rossi
With reference to your answer of the 23rd of March, 2014:
Curiosone ( Walter Gentili):
We are organizing tests with an industry specialized in Jet engines. I strongly believe in this application.
Gas Turbines (yes, same working principle as jet engines) are nowadays normally used for electricity production.
GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi and Alstom (just to cite the most important players) are able to offer turn-key cogeneration plants (based on a Gas-turbine plus a Steam-turbine) for electricity production with electric efficiency up to 60%.
The basic idea of these plants is using the hot-gas discharged by the Gas-Turbine to heat the steam-generator.
The conversion of a jet-engine to electricity production is not an easy task and requires relevant hardware modifications.
Among the above-mentioned companies, I think that only GE has some “aero-derivative” models in the price list
(I think it is the LM series). Pratt & Witney should have some ones also.
Please, pay attention that a big Gas-turbine alone normally hardly reaches an efficiency over 40%.
Small aero-derivative gas-turbines could be not able to reach an efficiency over 25%.
Propellers for helicopters could be as low as 20%.
This means that you would need a COP of 3 just to start to be competitive with the industrial plants.
If you are serious about the “jet” application, I strongly suggest you to contact any of big players.
Achi:
Very difficult to answer. We produced many E-Cats, each of them has been tested for months… I should take out all the data sheet of any of them and make the sum…I have no time to do this now.
But considet hundreds of E-Cats each of one having made a minimum of 1,000 hours.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
you have also to remember that in 3% of the decays the 5B11 is not formed.
In 3% of the decays occurs the desintegration of 5B11:
4Be11 -> 3Li7 + 2He4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium
So, it seems that in 3% of the decays the proton enters within the newborn 5B11, and its structure is broken, forming 3Li7 and 2He4
regards
wlad
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I was hoping, if it was possible, can you give an estimated number of hours of operation that all your e-cat units have been in operation, starting from back in 2010? This number doesn’t have to be exact, I was just wondering how long they’ve been running or do you take them out of commission right after you build a newer better model?
Thank you,
Achi
Giuliano Bettini:
“25 years ago, press conference at University of Utah”…
Your comment merits a more articulated answer than my former one. That conference has generated one positive consequence and one negative. The positive one is that it inspired and factually gave the start to the research in a new field of Physics. The negative one is that it originated a negative bias due to a lack of experimental work that made at least premature basic statements. As a matter of fact, the work of F&P has nothing to do with what we are doing today. Totally abandoned has been the electrolysis and the use of deuterium oxyde, totally different the source of the effect. At least, for what concerns my Team’s work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in March 23rd, 2014 at 8:28 PM
Wladimir,
1. In QRT, are the proton and neutron of a deuteron bound together by the nuclear force?
——————————————-
COMMENT
Experiments show that there are no deuterons with spin zero. Only deuterons with spin i= 1 are stable.
This means that the spin influences the interaction proton-neutorn.
According to QRT, proton and neutron in the structure of the deuteron interact via strong spin-interaction.
The mechanism of the interaction proton-proton is shown in the Figure 2 of the page 207 in my book Quantum Ring Theory, and it is similar to the interaction proton-neutron.
.
2. In QRT, would not the magnetic moment of the free proton be drawn to the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 if the latter were GREATER than the magnetic moment of one of its constituent neutrons?
COMMENT
The magnetic field of 5B11 has no influence in the interactions of protons, neutrons, and deuterons within the nuclei, because the magnetic moment of 5B11 is due to its secondary field Sn(5B11).
When protons, neutrons, and deuterons enter within a nucleus, the secondary field is perfurated, and so it has not influence anymore on the particles.
Within the nucleus 5B11, protons, neutrons, and deuterons are under influence of the principal field Sp(5B11).
Even if the principal field Sp(5B11) has a weak attraction with the free proton, however such attraction helps the probability of the neutron to interact with the free proton.
For a proton to fall down within a nucleus (causing its desintegration), the proton must enter within the nucleus moving along the z-axis (see Fig. 12 regarding the desintegration of 3Li5, in the page 15 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in JoNP:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
.
3. Also, if the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 were not only greater than the magnetic moment of a neutron but also had the SAME sign as the magnetic moment of the free proton, would not the free proton be repelled from the nucleus?
COMMENT
Joe, the repulsion or attraction due to the magnetic moment depends not only on the sign, they depend also on the position of the particle. See item 3.11 in the page 11 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
——————————————-
3.11- Point of capture of the nucleons
All the nucleons, protons, deuterons, neutrons, are captured in the inner region of the
nucleus (the inner sides of Ana and Douglas), where they have their original sign of
magnetic moments. In that central region the deuteron has magnetic moment μ=+0,857μn , the proton has μ= +2,793μn , and the neutron has μ=−1,913μn. In any point outside of that central region they change the sign of their magnetic moment, and from the Least Action Principle there is no advantage for their capture.
——————————————-
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels:
We will bring this technology to the wider possible field of application.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
A few months ago you said there were around 16 people involved in your science team at IH — is that number still accurate?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am scheduled for another mission trip to Guatemala in May. It would be nice, one of these years, to bring eCat technology (heat, electricity, purified water) to the developing nations. I hope you are successful beyond your wildest dreams. Most Mayan Indians I work with or visit burn wood for heat and water purification. Electricity is sparse or non-existent.
Koen Vandewalle:
We must put a distinction between products that are ready (www.leonardocorp1996.com) and products that are in the horizon of the future ( for example jet engine applications).
R&D covers both categories, but with a different approach, as you correctly write. Our lab facilities are complex, we have a data measurement section, a radiation measurement section, a prototype manufacturing section, an electronic systems invention section and a new materials preparation section: sometimes we have to invent materials that are not for sale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I wonder how your lab facility looks like.
When work is going very well, and multiple branches are developed at the same time, and information is cross-linked between the several branches, evolution is so fast and demands quick changes and production of ranges of possible test-units with slightly different characteristics. When time urges, this looks messy, but when everyone knows what everyone else knows and what they are doïng, it is very fast and efficient. But it also could mean that the final products are far away from ready for presentation because of a lot of change is beïng done.
When products are nearly finished, then manuals and other paperwork is beïng done, as is PR and sales. Things get cleaned and lined up. Small improvements are done. Unsuccessfull prototypes or parts are beïng removed, etc.
On the other hand, when there are structural problems, or if the owners of the organisation aim at long term goals or are strict on budgets, things are put in a masterplan with serial development of the components after the finishing of certain benchmarks, and probably some outsourcing or external coöperation, which demands a clean and transparent way of working. This is like planning human travel to Mars or something in 2050.
Since you said to be working on a jet-engine (WOW !), and are working very hard, and time is limited for everybody, I tried to get an idea of the state of the work in progress, based on my understanding of project management in creative circumstances, and without asking the millionth time: “are you nearly finished ?”.
Best Regards,
Koen
Wladimir,
1. In QRT, are the proton and neutron of a deuteron bound together by the nuclear force?
2. In QRT, would not the magnetic moment of the free proton be drawn to the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 if the latter were GREATER than the magnetic moment of one of its constituent neutrons?
Also, if the nuclear magnetic moment of 5B11 were not only greater than the magnetic moment of a neutron but also had the SAME sign as the magnetic moment of the free proton, would not the free proton be repelled from the nucleus?
All the best,
Joe
Mark:
No, it is not yet finished: I meant “made”, not “completed”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea
In your answer to TravDi
You said the work is “done ”
Is testing completed?
Mark
Giuliano Bettini:
Getting old…
WarmRegards,
A.R.
Andrea Calaon:
Thank you, interesting. I did not know about it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
As you probably know, Toshiba, together with NET Power LLC, Shaw Group Inc. and Exelon Corporation is developing a new supercritical CO2 Power System.
See:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120614006703/en/Toshiba-Signs-Agreement-Develop-Generation-Thermal-Power#.Uy7nJ87vlfs
May be that would be a very convenient place where to radiate and heat up CO2 and H2O with Hot Cats and make fuel consumptions virtually limited to start up times only (and, unfortunately … CO2 production very low). It would be a GRAND start for LENR power.
Best Regards
Andrea Calaon
Silvio Caggia:
This is a matter of Philosophy of Physics and you understand that if Physics is a matter to be subjected to a process of “Epochè”, its Philosophy is subject to Epochè to the second power… said this, I think that the “Ensemble” interpretation is the more probabilistically acceptable; as you know, it is also strongly adversed by many Physicists, which is a good sign.
About the second question, the answer is no, even if, generally speaking, the more you study, the more you have probabilities to understand ( oh, my God: while I am writing this, I get the impression that sometimes the contrary is true…when it turns to Physics, nothing is certain).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in March 22nd, 2014 at 6:52 AM
Wladimir,
1. In QRT, a proton traveling in the vicinity of a (positive) nucleus will be drawn to it by the magnetic force F(M) of that nucleus. The gravitational fluxes n(o) are not strong enough to keep that proton in orbit about the nucleus. Therefore, that proton will simply crash into the nucleus and destroy it since no coupling to a neutron (by way of the residual strong force and in order to keep the two of them orbiting the nucleus as a newly formed deuteron balanced between the centripetal force acting on the neutron and the magnetic force acting on the proton) would be practically possible due to the very low probability of the two of them actually encountering each other along parallel paths in order to accomplish this coupling.
—————————————-
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
look at the Fig. 56 in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
We have:
1) The proton is submitted to centripetal force (trying to expell it) and magnetic force (pushing it toward the nucleus)
2) The magnetic force is stronger, and so the proton goes back to the nucleus
3) However the contribution of the centripetal force allows the proton to move slowly toward the newborn 5B11.
4) The proton has a magnetic moment +2,79 and the neutron has a magnetic moment -1,91, and therefore they have a strong magnetic attraction.
5) Then I dont understand why you claim no coupling to a neutron would be practically possible due to the very low probability of the two of them actually encountering each other along parallel paths in order to accomplish this coupling.”
regards
wlad
TravDi:
No, the work is done in a neutral laboratory and the set up of the experiment has been done by members of the T.I.P.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone ( Walter Gentili):
We are organizing tests with an industry specialized in Jet engines. I strongly believe in this application.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
25 years ago today:
1989 – March 23 – Cold Fusion Press Conference at University of Utah.
Nothing to declare? 😉
Best regards,
Giuliano Bettini.
JR wrote in March 22nd, 2014 at 9:01 AM
For those who are interested in such things, the 11Be data Wladimir refers to is perfectly well explained by conventional models of nuclear physics. It is not considered a puzzle, but a confirmation of the interesting (but long standing and well understood) prediction of quantum mechanics that a nucleon can spend significant time at a distance larger than the ‘nominal’ range of the nuclear force.
Even the press release mentions this: ” resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances”. This isn’t some new explanation invented to save the strong force, it’s a common, everyday result of quantum mechanics. Even the simplest nucleus, the deuteron, has a significant part of it’s wavefunction where the nucleons are separated by more than 2-3 fm.
COMMENT
For those who are interested:
1) The explanation given above by Dr. Nörtershäuser is a desperate attempt based on the Heisenberg’ phantasmagoric scientific method, the same method which proposed the concept of isospin, unable to explain why there is not dineutrons existing in the nature.
2) But even if the explanation given by Dr. Nörtershäuser was acceptable, however his explanation is unable to explain the formation of the 5B11 from the decay of 4Be11, as I had already explained, as follows:
——————————————–
If the strong nuclear force should be responsible for the cohesion of nuclei as the nuclear theorists suppose, the proton could never go back to the cluster, because in a distance of 7fm it cannot interact with the cluster via strong force, and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the cluster and the proton would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the 4Be11, and 5B11 could not be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decays.
——————————————————
Therefore, even if the Nörtershäuser’s solution was viable for the explanation of the halo neutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, as claimed by Mr. JR, however the 5B11 would never be formed in the decay of the 4Be11, according to Nörtershäuser’s solution.
3) Mr. JR has not a deep understanding of fundamental questions in Physics, and he is one among several theorists who use the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method, by proposing desperate attempts with the hope of to explain several puzzles that current Nuclear Physics cannot explain
4) Mr. JR
please explain us how is formed the 5B11 isotope in the 4Be11 decay, because:
a) the neutron is in a distance of 7fm from the nucleus
b) the neutron decays in a proton, and a newborn 5B11 is formed, with a halo proton in a distance of 7fm
c) a big Coulomb repulsion actuates on the proton, and it must be expelled from the newborn 5B11
d) Therefore the 5B11 cannot be formed by the decay of 4Be11
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
an “epistemological” question…
You studied philosophy, phisics, quantum mecanics and probably the various QM interpretations…
1) Which is your preferred QM’s interpretation? (My preferred ones are Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation and Parr’s Nodal Interpretation)
2) Had it a role in your explanation of Rossi’s Effect? (You can ignore this question if it reveals some secret)
Have a nice Spring!
How is going your research regarding the application of the E-Cat to jet engines?
Regards,
W.G.
Dear Andrea:
Is the work of the third indipendent party made in your factory or in a factory of Industrial Heat ?
Do you think you will make something in Russia?
Good luck!
Andreas Moraitis:
Thank you, this publication of Nature is very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Maybe the following paper could be of interest:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140321/srep04429/full/srep04429.html
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
For those who are interested in such things, the 11Be data Wladimir refers to is perfectly well explained by conventional models of nuclear physics. It is not considered a puzzle, but a confirmation of the interesting (but long standing and well understood) prediction of quantum mechanics that a nucleon can spend significant time at a distance larger than the ‘nominal’ range of the nuclear force.
Even the press release mentions this: ” resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances”. This isn’t some new explanation invented to save the strong force, it’s a common, everyday result of quantum mechanics. Even the simplest nucleus, the deuteron, has a significant part of it’s wavefunction where the nucleons are separated by more than 2-3 fm.
In fact, if you look at the paper, rather than the press release, there’s an even more clear and detailed demonstration that this result doesn’t conflict with modern theory. Figure 3 directly compares the extracted charge radius (which is much closer to what they actually measure) to theoretical predictions, and the measurement is in excellent agreement with these predictions.
One is certainly free to declare that quantum mechanics is nonsense and not believe anything that uses it. But it’s quite obviously wrong to conclude that this measurement is inconsistent with traditional models of the nuclei when they provided predictions which were confirmed by experiment.
Wladimir,
1. In QRT, a proton traveling in the vicinity of a (positive) nucleus will be drawn to it by the magnetic force F(M) of that nucleus. The gravitational fluxes n(o) are not strong enough to keep that proton in orbit about the nucleus. Therefore, that proton will simply crash into the nucleus and destroy it since no coupling to a neutron (by way of the residual strong force and in order to keep the two of them orbiting the nucleus as a newly formed deuteron balanced between the centripetal force acting on the neutron and the magnetic force acting on the proton) would be practically possible due to the very low probability of the two of them actually encountering each other along parallel paths in order to accomplish this coupling.
2. You seem to be eliminating the need for the residual strong force when you say,”So when a proton perforates the secondary field Sn(..), and it is captured by the principal field Sp(..), the proton does NOT submitted to the strong Coulomb repulsion”. But the proton is actually repelled by the Coulomb force BEFORE it could ever perforate the Sn of another proton. That should be the explanation in QRT for the nonexistence of diprotons in Nature. That would also explain the nonexistence of dineutrons and the existence of deuterons: the Sn of the neutron is slightly negative due to the presence of the electron on the outside of the neutron’s proton.
3. All this is assuming that you are correct in your presupposition that it is the neutron at the 7-fm mark that is the one that is actually decaying. Otherwise, the story would be a much simpler one for QRT.
All the best,
Joe
Thorbjorn:
The Professors of the third indipendent party who are making the test have applied some of their instruments specifically to check that there is not immission of direct current, pulsating or not, that the PCE 830 is not able to detect. Surely in the report will be given the description of all the instrumentation used during the test. The set up has been made by them and the Hot Cat has been carefully and totally insulated from any possible source of energy, with exception of the electric energy measured by means of two PCE 830. The measuring instrumentation is property of the Professors of the TIP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Are the professors also able to detect if there is any pulsating direct current?
(PCE 830 can (apparently) not detect pulsating direct current.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsating_direct_current
Best regards,
Thorbjörn
Puzzle on how protons and neutrons are bound within the light nuclei
Dear Joe,
I would like to know your opinion about some questions regarding to the nuclear properties of the atomic nuclei, as follows:
.
1) As you know, the isotope 4Be11 has a halo neutron which distance to the rest of the nucleus is 7fm. Of course such neutron far away 7f from the nucleus is an incontestable evidence that the strong nuclear force cannot be the responsible for the agglutination of the nuclei.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php
The theorist Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser (Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz) proposed a solution (so that to conserve the strong force as the cause of nuclei aggregation):
—————————————————–
Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.
—————————————————–
But of course his solution is merely a desperate attempt based on the phantasmagoric Heisenberg’s scientific method.
.
2) Besides, in the Introduction of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in JoNP, it is shown that Nörtershäuser’s hypothesis is also unacceptable because of the feature of the decay of the nucleus 4Be11.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
Look what is written in the Introduction
—————————————————–
Someone could argue that the halo neutron is weakly linked to the cluster, and it leaves out the nucleus after the 13,81 seconds just because of the weak link. However this is no true, because in 97% of decays the 4Be11 transmutes to 5B11, and therefore the neutron does not leave out the nucleus. In 4Be11 the neutron decays in a proton and electron, and the proton goes back to the cluster. If the strong nuclear force should be responsible for the cohesion of nuclei as the nuclear theorists suppose, the proton could never go back to the cluster, because in a distance of 7fm it cannot interact with the cluster via strong force, and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the cluster and the proton would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the 4Be11, and 5B11 could not be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decays.
——————————————————
Therefore, even if the Nörtershäuser’s solution should be viable for the explanation of the halo neutron in a distance of 7fm from the rest of the nucleus, however the 5B11 would never be formed in the decay of the 4Be11, according to his solution.
.
3) Joe, along my talk with you here in JoNP (between March 5th, 2014 at 3:01 AM and March 11th, 2014 at 1:50 AM ), I showed that it is possible a coherent explanation for some puzzles of Modern Physics concerning the properties of the proton, electron, photon, and the preference for matter over antimatter in the Universe.
In my comments, I mentioned that the proton, the electron, and the atomic nuclei have a principal field Sp(..), which rotation induces the formation of a secondary field Sn(.. ), surrounding the principal field. And the electric charge of the nucleus is due to such secondary field Sn(..). So when a proton perforates the secondary field Sn(..), and it is captured by the principal field Sp(..), the proton does NOT submitted to the strong Coulomb repulsion , as supposed wrongly by nuclear theorists. And therefore there is no need to consider that protons and neutrons within the nuclei are bound via strong force.
In my paper Stability of Light Nuclei it is proposed that the stability of the light nuclei is due to the equilibrium between two forces on the protons and neutrons: the centripetal force and the magnetic force.
.
4) In the end of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei it is shown the mechanism which explains why the halo neutron is kept in a distance 7fm far away of the rest of the nucleus 4Be11, by considering the centripetal force on the neutron, and after the decay of 4Be11 in 5B11 the magnetic force on the proton pushing it toward the direction of the rest of the nucleus 5B11.
What do you think about those questions, dear Joe ?
Regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Very interesting, thank you, maybe when we will be able to produce electric power the decentralization will amplify the role of the E-Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Here a document you might find to be of interest in case you haven’t yet seen it. It’s a white paper from General Electric Corp. titled ‘The Rise of Distributed Power’ http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/02/25/document_gw_02.pdf
The overall premise is that we are moving into an era when power production will become increasingly decentralized. GE has recently announced a $1.4 billion investment program into distributed energy systems.
What role (if any) do you see the E-Cat playing in this move to decentralized power production?
Many thanks!
Frank Acland