.
Abstract
Basic idea is – current cosmological changes may be reflected in any atom. At any given cosmic time, ‘Hubble length’ can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Some cosmologists use the term ‘Hubble volume’ to refer to the volume of the observable universe. With reference to the Mach’s principle and Hubble volume, at any cosmic time, if ‘Hubble mass’ is the product of cosmic ‘critical density’ and the ‘Hubble volume’, then it can be suggested that, each and every point in the free space is influenced by the Hubble mass. Clearly speaking, with Hubble volume and Hubble mass: quantum physics, nuclear physics and cosmic physics can be studied in a unified manner. In this new direction authors noticed some interesting coincidences. With reference to the present fine structure ratio, present value of Hubble’s constant is 69.53 km/sec/Mpc or 71.75 km/sec/Mpc.
JR wrote: Rather than having a frame which is intrinsically unstable, couldn’t that frame be in the form of a table? Are you claiming that a table requires a gasoline motor to avoid collapsing after holding things up for an extended period??
This is exactly my point. No energy would be used by the table, or any rigid construction holding the magnet up. The human body is a different thing as we have flexible joints in our shoulders and we need to spend energy countering the pull of gravity on our arm.
Regards
Sverre Haslund
Wladimir,
The Meta Model by Dr Van Flandern was used by him (and continues to be used by his followers) to explain astrophysical phenomena (examples: perihelion advance; stability of planetary systems), so the finer points of quantum phenomena (example: magnetic moments) were not considered.
As I have stated in a previous post, applying laws of the macro world to the micro world does not seem to work well at explaining mu = 0 for 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc. I doubt that it is a question of field type (mono-, di-, etc) though since altering NUMBERS (of fields, in this case) usually does not solve problems but rather re-constructs problems in a different way. What is needed is a new factor.
All the best,
Joe
Mr Rossi:
I found very interesting the interview to the scientific journalist Mats Lewan about his book ” An Impossible Invention” on your E-Cat:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/matslewan.html
I also read the book and it contains many particulars : how do you feel about all the information this book gives to a skilled reader?
Wladimir wrote: “but there is need energy supply so that to hold the rigid frame in the horizontal position.
Then let us put a small gasoline motor supplying energy to some apparatus which stays holding the ridig frame in the horizontal position. The aparatus can be, for instance, a system formed by pulleys and a small clutch.
And when the gasoline finishes, the apparatus will stop to hold the magnet, and it will fall down.”
Rather than having a frame which is intrinsically unstable, couldn’t that frame be in the form of a table? Are you claiming that a table requires a gasoline motor to avoid collapsing after holding things up for an extended period??
Craig Cassarino:
Thank you for sending this interesting link:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/matslewan.html
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle, Tom Conover:
The process of R&D never ends in a high technology concern. Always must be kept a distinction between the production of today and the future production which will be born by the R&D process. An industry that does not compete with itself to build its future is doomed to decade.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Koen,
You must keep in mind that it is humans that devise laws. Laws do not exist in Nature. If they did, we would find them ready-made and complete. There would be no need for hypotheses or the concept of progress. So the answer to your question (“But if we reject one thing that is true, how can we find then the whole truth?”) is that scientific truth is temporary. It is never final, never “whole”. There is no need to worry about having missed or overlooked a phenomenon of Nature that would have rendered a particular model as complete. It is we humans that decide that a model is worthy of a certain consideration at a point in time since it is we humans that devise models. How could it be otherwise?
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in May 6th, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Koen,
If you are interested in a dualistic model of Nature, you should examine the Meta Model by the late Dr Thomas Van Flandern. It consists of two components: a light-speed, light-carrying particle (“elyson”), and a faster-than-light graviton. Electromagnetism and gravity are explained using these. Here are two papers:
————————————-
Joe,
is it possible to explain from Van Flandern theory the reason why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment ?
Do you think is it possible to explain it by considering any mono-field model for the elementary particles ? (like the mono-field model used in the Quantum Electrodynamics- QED).
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle wrote in May 7th, 2014 at 2:33 PM
Joe, Wlad,
Thank you. Lots to read. Again.
Is there an agreement that gravity is a flux of something ?
But if we have no technology, and we will never have technology that will be capable of measuring it, even not indirectly, then does the scientific community have to reject or accept it ? But if we reject one thing that is true, how can we find then the whole truth ?
It is as searching for one needle that is outside of the haystack.
Kind Regards,
————————————
Dear Koen
10 years ago I could never suppose that it would be possible to make experiments detecting the shape of even-even nuclei with Z= N (which detected that they have non-spherical shape, as predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory).
We dont know what can be the advancement of the techonolgy along the years
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in May 7th, 2014 at 4:54 AM
Wladimir,
Cannot the same argument you poser to JR also be applied to gravity. Does gravity, in its existence, consume energy or mass?
——————————————-
yes, Steven,
I discuss this regarding the magnetism and gravity in my new paper Aether structure for unification of gravity and electromagnetism
regards
wlad
Sverre Haslund wrote in May 7th, 2014 at 3:07 PM
Wladimir Guglinski,
It’s easier to understand this if we think of the magnet being supported by a rigid frame instead of by a persons arm. Why then does the arm grow tired if you are not doing any work? This is all to do with biology and the complex way our muscles work: chemical energy has to be burned to keep them stiff and able to exert pressure. But magnets are not like that: they exert a force pushing each other apart and do not consume any power as long as they don’t move
——————————————–
COMMENT
Ok, dear Sverre,
but there is need energy supply so that to hold the rigid frame in the horizontal position.
Then let us put a small gasoline motor supplying energy to some apparatus which stays holding the ridig frame in the horizontal position.
The aparatus can be, for instance, a system formed by pulleys and a small clutch.
And when the gasoline finishes, the apparatus will stop to hold the magnet, and it will fall down.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
Sorry, but I do not understand your question.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski,
It’s easier to understand this if we think of the magnet being supported by a rigid frame instead of by a persons arm. Why then does the arm grow tired if you are not doing any work? This is all to do with biology and the complex way our muscles work: chemical energy has to be burned to keep them stiff and able to exert pressure. But magnets are not like that: they exert a force pushing each other apart and do not consume any power as long as they don’t move.
Regards,
Sverre Haslund
Andrea,
Do you think that you compete with technologies that “don’t exist” ?
If the answer is positive, then is it that why the gas-cat is important ?
All the information becomes more and more confusing to me. It takes too long.
Kind Regards,
Koen.
Joe, Wlad,
Thank you. Lots to read. Again.
Is there an agreement that gravity is a flux of something ?
But if we have no technology, and we will never have technology that will be capable of measuring it, even not indirectly, then does the scientific community have to reject or accept it ? But if we reject one thing that is true, how can we find then the whole truth ?
It is as searching for one needle that is outside of the haystack.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Wladimir,
Cannot the same argument you poser to JR also be applied to gravity. Does gravity, in its existence, consume energy or mass?
Koen,
If you are interested in a dualistic model of Nature, you should examine the Meta Model by the late Dr Thomas Van Flandern. It consists of two components: a light-speed, light-carrying particle (“elyson”), and a faster-than-light graviton. Electromagnetism and gravity are explained using these. Here are two papers:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quantum_Physics/StructureOfMatter.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/meta_cycle.asp
All the best,
Joe
A question to Mr. JR
Consider a magnet fixed in the vertical iron surface of the door of a refrigerator. Due to its magnetism, the magnet does not fall down under the attraction of the gravity. Then let’s analyse the question.
The magnetic force of attraction between the magnet and the iron surface yields a vertical friction force, which avoids the magnet to fall down under the force of gravity. According to current Physics, there is no work produced in the equilibrium of the magnet, because the definition of work L is L= F.d, where F is the friction force applied on the magnet, and d is the displacement. As the magnet do not move, then d=0, and so L= 0, meaning that there is not any work produced.
However, consider that you put the magnet over your hand in the horizontal position, one meter above the floor. You need energy so that to keep your arm in the horizontal position, holding the magnet in your hand. This energy is supplied by the food you eat. But suppose you stop eating , and you stay holding the magnet in your hand along days and days. Of course the energy supplied by the food will finish, and you will not have the necessary energy to continue holding the magnet, and it will fall down.
As we realize, in spite of your arm do not make any work (because your arm is not applying any displacement on the magnet), however there is need energy so that to keep the magnet one meter above the floor.
Now let us consider the magnet tied to the iron surface of the refrigerator. Obviously there is energy for keeping the magnet in that position. And suppose that such energy is supplied by the magnetism of the magnet. Well, in this case the magnetism of the magnet would have to decrease, since it is supplying energy so that to avoid the magnet to fall down. And then, after some, weeks, or months, or years, the magnetism would become weak, and the magnet would have to fall down. However this does not occur.
Therefore the magnet needs to get energy, in order to replace the energy spent for holding it tied to the iron surface of the refrigerator. And then a question arises: where the energy supply for the magnet comes from ?
————————————————
Dear Mr. JR,
please explain us where the energy supply for the magnet comes from, by considering the current theories of Physics.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle wrote in May 6th, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
Being a simple engineer, I do not allways understand your theories – although I try to. Therefore these engineer-ish questions.
—————————————
Dear Koen
the paper has many figures showing how the particles and antiparticles of the aether work within the proton, the electron, and the nuclei.
I think you will understand it very well
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in May 6th, 2014 at 8:32 AM
Wladimir,
You must be able to answer the following question in your new paper:
is it the polarity of the strong graviton g that decides the polarity of the magnetic field in its vicinity, or is it the orientation of the magnetic dipole moment of a nucleon that decides what the magnetic field in its vicinity will look like?
—————————————-
Dear Joe,
as you will see, in the new paper the force that keeps a nucleon in equilibrium with the centripetal force is not magnetic.
Now I realized that there is equilibrium between centripetal force and a force which nature is gravitational.
In this new model there is not magnetism within the principal field Sp.
It is NOT the charge of the deuteron which produces the force Fm which I supposed to be of magnetic nature.
Actually the force is Fg (force of gravity).
Then you could reply that the neutron would also have to be submitted to the gravity force Fg. However I discovered why the neutron is not submitted to that force within the principal field Sp.
The fact that deuteron has charge, and the neutron has no charge, made me to suppose wrongly that the equilibrium would have to be promoted by a force caused by the charge of the deuteron.
So, sometimes something which seems to us to be very obvious deviates us from the correct way.
This new solution eliminates the incoherences of the old model proposed in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in the JoNP.
regards
wlad
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
Aether Structure for Unification between Gravity and Electromagnetism.
That will be very interesting. Can you give a glimpse ? Aether, is that: marbles (dust), liquid, gas(compressible) ? Does there exist an aether-vacuum ?
How many different components do you need in your unification model ? (My hope is two components :”heaven” and “earth”; Non-aether and Aether)
Being a simple engineer, I do not allways understand your theories – although I try to. Therefore these engineer-ish questions.
I hope your theory enables a rebuild of some parts of science so that it fits all, and there is no longer need for contradiction and opinion concerning the matter.
Thank You,
Koen
Wladimir,
You must be able to answer the following question in your new paper:
is it the polarity of the strong graviton g that decides the polarity of the magnetic field in its vicinity, or is it the orientation of the magnetic dipole moment of a nucleon that decides what the magnetic field in its vicinity will look like?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Joe,
I think I finally succeeded to find a structure of aether and a model of field for elementary particles with perfect coherence.
I am writing a paper entitled Aether Structure for Unification between Gravity and Electromagnetism.
As soon as it be ready I will submit it for publication in the JoNP
After its publication I would like to know your opinion
regards
wlad
Enrico Billi:
Very interesting, you are always bearer of good stuff: your Physics Degree from the University of Bologna is working.
Lavolale, lavolale!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s.- for the Readers: Enrico Billi is a Physicist friend of mine and works in China, very hard; in Italy Chinese People pronouces “L” the “R”, so the Italian “lavorare” ( = to work) pronounced by a Chinese becomes ” Lavolale”: for this reason we joke saying always “lavolale, levolale” , to mean don’t lose your time, just work.
Dear Andrea,
using graphene and quarz, it is possible to make electricity thanks to the properties of electrons when they are squeezed on a 2D layer like graphene. As quantum physics says these electrons becames “anyons” so their properties changes and electrons became superconductive. Quarz release electrons when it is warm so you can make electricity directly without turbines or stirling engines.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DO3aq919Xcs/Uz9JHbyYGtI/AAAAAAAAAa8/OOxwVkAgEiM/s1600/CellaEnergeticaStatoSolido.png
Do you think it could helpfull for you e-cat?
LavoLaLe lavoLaLe
Enrico Billi
Frank Acland:
This is a possible line of evolution of the Hot Cat technology, but remind that the results of the tests could still be positive or negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Since the E-Cat is produce heat which can be used to make electricity, and you use heat to initiate and control the E-Cat reaction, are you able to use the energy produced by one E-Cat (either heat or electricity) to control the reaction in a separate unit?
It would seem to be a logical arrangement — are there problems with this approach?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Giovanni Guerrini:
By the way: the study has been published on ” Functional Ecology”, the author is Ismael Galvan of the Spanish National Research Center ( CSIC).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giovanni Guerrini:
I suspect so too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dott Rossi,
I think that certainly is right the second,like bacteria and antibiotics.
Regards G G
F.C.:
I spammed your comment because contains unacceptable insults against a competitor of us. Nevertheless, the second part of your comment was interesting, regarding the publication concerning the fact that birds exposed to radiation doses in Chernobil became more resistant to radiations. That is interesting, but raises in me a question: the analysis did not make a clear distinction between selection of the more fit and evolution of the same cells. I mean: the measured statistics, that say now the birds are more resistant to radiations in the Chernobil area, could derive not from an evolution of the same birds, that matured a higher resistance to radiations, but could derive from the fact that the less resistant birds are dead and therefore did not reproduce themselves. This distinction has not been studied, therefore the study is not significant, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your attention. Obviously I cannot give direct or indirect information about what happens in the reactor, even in a simulated scenario.
You can make your suppositions, which are welcome, we cannot give information upon the simulations derived from such suppositions, for obvious reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gillana:
No, I am not able to estabilish anything regarding the publication date of the Third Independent Party, because it does not depend on me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi A. Rossi
I would like to know if it is possible for you to establish a date beyond which certainly tests will be published peer reviewed.
Many tanks all the same.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for addressing my questions, as you are permitted.
The scenario I had in mind was a “what if” one. Suppose eCat technology showed that it could produse excess power but the effective COP was limited to three. This would cause problems in self-powering using electrical power generation — all the produced electricity would be consumed in heating and controlling the eCat.
One of the problems with thermal solar plants is the molten salt temperature they can produce. This limits their electricity generation under the Carnot cycle. If there was a way to have an eCat be heated by the molten salt from the thermal solar plant, then increasing the temperature in another molten salt storage area, the Carnot efficiency could be dramatically increased. If these things were possible, then efficient electrical energy production from thermal solar plants would be improved.
Storage of molten salts in not a problem environmentally and is not physically large. So the storage of enough molten salts to handle night time operation or even low sunlight for several days is possible with a large enough molten salt storage capacity. This would be ideal for baseload (continuous constant output for months) electric power generation, totally replacing carbon based plants and would make solar a 24-hour per day generation a possibility.
Steven N. Karels:
1- confidential
2- yes, but I cannot specify
3- confidential
4- yes
5- confidential
6- possibly
7- I cannot explain what happens inside the reactor
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
As I understand your Cat and Mouse control implementation,
1. you have a multi-variate input control, I assume a minimum of two control parameters, the first identified as temperature and another parameter identified as “vibrations”. Is this essentially correct?
2. Are there additional control parameters?
3. In the current implementation you apply or do not apply electrical energy to produce thermal energy to heat the eCat to some temperature range while applying or not applying “vibrations”. Is this correct?
4. In the natural gas versions of eCat control, I would assume you apply or not apply burning natural gas (and air), replacing the electrical heating with energy derived from burning gas. Is this essentially correct?
5. Natural gas and air burns with a flame temperature bewteen +900C and +1,500C. So I assume you would use some control mechanism (flame on or off or some heat transfer mechanism) to keep the eCat within a desired temperature range when it is operating? Please confirm.
6. The use of a thermal solar plant can typically heat molten salt to around the +500C to +600C range. Is this temperature range adequate for eCat operation?
7. Can a thermal source at 500C to 600C be used to activate an eCat and have the eCat produce higher temperatures? You answered “maybe” – can you clarify how this would occur? It would seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but I could be wrong.
John L:
Makes sense.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Do you think, these peripheral heat exchanger and already well known molten salt fluid system technologies will be better off to R&D and manufacture in places like China or India? When systems are fully installed and ready, you need integration, integrating the Hot cats in right places. Lets others manage the well known interfacing peripheral systems may save you a lot time and moneys.
John L
Steven N. Karels:
I confirm that we are working on the use of gas.
About the other questions:
1- why not?
2- maybe
3- the increase of efficiency depends on the integral of efficiency in function of temperature for the molten salt in question, at the due pressure. Rules are the same as for any other heat source.
4- why not? Again, after the E-Cat system, the heated fluid behaves like in any other heating system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have previously stated that the burning of natural gas can be the thermal input source for eCat technology (please confirm).
What I have in mind —
1. do you think a large solar thermal plant could provide that thermal input to an eCat?
2. The thermal power eCat could heat a molten salt to a higher temperature than normally provided by a solar thermal system.
3. The higher thermal temperature of the stored molten salt could result in an improved Carnot efficiency and resulting conversion to electricity.
4. The stored higher temperature molten salt could produce electricity continuously, even during times of darkness.
Without releasing any proprietary information on the eCat operation, does this approach seem possible?
jhs:
I do not know ( and I am not interested to) whom Widom and Larsen are Partners of. All I know of their theory is that it is wrong for the basic reason that it does not respect the leptons conservation law. Before talking of “my” theory let us wait for the results of the experiment made by the Third Independent Party on the E-Cat. The professors are working upon millions of data and the results, if positive ( hoping they will be positive) will give base, I suppose, to theoretical considerations. I am a Galilean guy, in the sense that I think it is useless to theorize ( I have read enough trivialities in the patent applications around) without solid experimental results. Theory must be a derivative of experimental activity in my vision. Obviously I am far from being convinced to be right, but this is my way to do things: first I want results, eventually I search the theories behind the results. As a consequence of this, the influence of the interesting articles you gave the links of are totally uninfluent respect my work, which is based upon totally different principles. Sincerely, I confess you that I think probably I am not the person that will find the more convincing theoretical explication of the so far supposed Rossi Effect. This does not mean that I do not have theoretical ideas.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Have you noticed that the Widom Larsen – the Partners of the Snake in Lattice LLC- theory has been attacked in this arXiv paper by L. Maiani and others ?
“Neutron Production Rates by Inverse-Beta Decay in Fully Ionized Plasmas”
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5288
Here is the abstract:
“Recently we showed that the nuclear transmutation rates are largely overestimated in the Widom-Larsen theory of the so called `Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’. Here we show that unbound plasma electrons are even less likely to initiate nuclear transmutations.”
This paper cite also a previous paper by the same group:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501
“Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces”
with abstract:
“It has been recently argued that inverse-beta nuclear transmutations might occur at an impressively high rate in a thin layer at the metallic hydride surface under specific conditions. In this note we present a calculation of the transmutation rate which shows that there is little room for such a remarkable effect.”
Did this influence your theory ?
Hank Mills:
I did not mean that I can talk of theory. I cannot talk about what happens inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea,
You stated, “I forgot to say: before the publication of the report of the Third Independent Party, anyway, it is opportune to talk of “presumed” Rossi Effect.”
By “opportune” do you mean that you are now permitted to discuss the theory, or partial theory, that will be included in the report?
If so, here are a few of my thoughts.
1 – You have already stated in the past that you no longer think transmutation of nickel into copper is the primary source of energy production. If this is the case, then additional reactions must be taking place between light hydrogen and other light hydrogen atoms (H-H), light hydrogen atoms and the small number of deuterium atoms found in common hydrogen (H-D), deuterium atoms and other deuterium atoms (D-D), or hydrogen (light or heavy) and other elements in the reactor. Most likely, as you have explained, many such reactions are taking place. I suppose the most interesting information will be the identity of the reaction or reactions producing the most power.
2 – If a metal hydride is utilized, it will be very interesting to learn how it may serve both a role as a provider of hydrogen, replacing the hydrogen tank, a catalyst to produce atomic hydrogen, and an additional set of reactants for nuclear reactions.
3 – I hope the theory explains precisely how heat is both used to stimulate and reduce the rate of nuclear reactions. Maybe if this info is released, some of your readers and supporters could provide you with ideas on how to keep the reaction at a constant temperature and stable without an occasional “drive.”
4 – It will be facinating if the theory provides a possible explanation for how the E-Cat might be producing a direct current.
5 – Those individuals preoccupied with safety may be interested in how the E-Cat produces vast amounts of heat with very low levels of radiation.
These are a few thoughts of mine. If now is a good time to discuss the theory, my eyes will stay glued to this Journal!
Pekka Janhunen:
I forgot to say: before the publication of the report of the Third Independent Party, anyway, it is opportune to talk of “presumed” Rossi Effect. The results, before the publication, cannot be known and they could be positive, as I hope, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka Janhunen:
About the probabilities that in nature can be reproduced the so called “Rossi Effect” : as you know, under a probabilistic point of view, nothing is impossible, but everything has a proper probability factor. Whatever you can think about, theoretically, is possible, within a certain field of probability. In our case, the probability that spontaneously the conditions necessary to get the Rossi Effect can happen in and/or on the Earth are very, very low, distant from the impossibility by an evanescent measure. About what can happen in the Universe, we barely know what happens in and on the Earth, let alone the Universe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Before discussion went to Darwin, you invoked the topic of astrophysics. One question is whether or not Rossi effect type LENR process might exist naturally somewhere in the universe. The process needs, at minimum, solid metal and pressurised gaseous hydrogen in contact with each other. Such combination is probably rather rare in the universe because hydrogen escapes from small, rocky planets, while planets that are massive enough to hold hydrogen easily grab a large mass of it from the protoplanetary disk in a runaway process because hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, resulting in a gas or ice giant planet. A giant planet has no solid surface except possibly deep down in very high temperature and process, hence no possibility for at least this type of LENR.
The situation (common elements but rare combination) is a bit reminiscent about the situation of life on earth. Life needs three things: nutrients, energy source and liquid water. Although all are plentiful on Earth, the triple combination is not very common. For example ocean surface waters have water and sun but no nutrients; bottom waters have nutrients and water but no energy source; deserts have nutrients and energy but no water. Only coastal areas, lakes and rivers have all three, roughly speaking. (Of course, your invention can change the pattern for example by providing low-cost heat to greenhouses, but that’s another topic..)
regards, /pekka
Eernie1:
The results of the test made by the Third Indipendent Party will be published not before June 2014, as I heard recently from one of the Professors. I have not idea of the results, which could be positive or negative, as far as I can know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
With all the speculation going on about IH I must ask you this question. Are you learning the Chinese language, preferably Mandarin?
I sense that you are much happier these days. Does the fact that the investigating professors made you sign a NDA mean that they are feeding you some information? Otherwise why would they want one.
It feels like to me that something is immanent perhaps within this month of May.
As the American cowboy says, ” Happy trails”.