.
by
by
Jacques Chauveheid
If quantum mechanics can provide quantitative expressions of forces in conformity with the work of Erhenfest and the principle of correspondence, recognized quantitative expressions for nuclear and weak forces do not currently exist. In addition, the four basic forces do not depend on temperature, since measured in vacuum between particles.
In one of his books, Abraham Pais recalled a comment by Rutherford during the 1914-1919 period: “the Coulomb forces dominate if v (speed of alpha particles) is sufficiently small”, evidencing by these words the velocity-dependence of the strong-nuclear force. However, since Rutherford did not apparently refer to temperature, optimal conditions for nuclear fusion do not necessarily arise in disordered configurations characterized by extremely high temperatures, such as those encountered in stars like the sun. Even compared with galaxy formation, hot fusion in many stars seems the slowest and most inefficient physical phenomenon in the universe, because the sun’s ten billion year lifetime has an order of magnitude similar to the age of the universe, this circumstance having been highly beneficial for the life on earth.
Although not based on equations, Rutherford’s conclusion constitutes the essence of the “cold” approach to nuclear fusion and reactions starting from moderate energy levels, instead of extreme temperatures hardly controlling with precision the physical parameters ruling nuclear phenomena. In this view, a better theoretical understanding of these parameters will help nuclear technologies.
.
.
B. Theoretical antecedents
Eddington mentioned the concept of asymmetric affine connection in 1921 and pointed out applications in microphysics, but he did not pursue this idea [5]. In 1922, Elie Cartan introduced geometric torsion, as the antisymmetric part of an asymmetric affine connection. In May 1929, Cartan wrote a letter to Einstein in which he recommended the use of the differential formalism he developed, but Einstein did not follow Cartan’s advice.
Between 1944 and 1950, J. Mariani published four papers dealing with astrophysical magnetism and introduced an “ansatz” structurally similar to that used in the present theory. The German word “ansatz”, used by Ernst Schmutzer (correspondence), refers to a supposed relationship between fields of distinct origin, for example geometric contrasting with physical. Einstein also used an ansatz when he identified gravitation with the 4-space metric, but he did not put it in the form of an equation, presumably because being trivial.
The organization of the paper is the following: Section II details the Lagrangian formulation and the calculus of variations. Section III is about field equations and quantitative expressions of forces. Section IV introduces the short-range force between charged particles, first referred to as strong-nuclear between nucleons. Section V is on Yukawa and complexity. Section VI details the short-range forces in both systems electron-proton and electron-neutron, evidencing a weak nuclear mechanism in LENR technologies.
When not stated otherwise, mathematical conventions are those of reference.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
AR,
Happy Labor Day,
After you and your teams’ many hours, days, weeks, months and years of hard work, in the near future, I hope the Third Party Independent Report will arise and shine on a bright new day.
Joseph Fine
silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 1:20 AM
@Joe
@Wladimir Guglinski
I have not well understood the experimental setup of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, can you correct me?
She has a laser beam L that is splitted in two beams L1 and L2, L1 is then splitted by a non linear cristal NLC1 in two entangled beams L1a and L1b, while L2 is splitted by a non linear cristal NLC2 in two entangled beams L2a and L2b. L1b and L2b show an “output” (interference or not) according to the “input” that L1a and L2a interfere or are blocked by something put between them. Is this resume correct?
You say that “output” at Lxb occurs istantaneously with “input” at Lxa, but this is due to the fact that the two arms of the experimental setup have the same lenght. What happens if Lxb arm is shorter than Lxa arm? The “output” will precede temporally the “input” realizing a sort of time-machine! 🙂
John Cramer tried this for many years without success, If Gabriela succeded the most interesting thing to inspect with this experiment is the real nature of Time.
Regards
===============================
Dear Silvio
you are making confusion between INSTANTANEOUS and SIMULTANEOUS
According to Quantum Mechanics, the entanglement is INSTANTANEOUS
According to QM, you can put one detector here in the Earth, and the other in the Moon, but the image of the entanglement in the Moon will be produced simulteneously with the image produced in the Earth, because the entanglement is INSTANTENOUS (according to QM).
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in August 31st, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Wladimir,
But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.
All the best,
Joe
===========================================
COMMENT
Dear Joe,
this is the INTERPRETATION of the quantum theorists for the entanglement, according to the principles of the Quantum Mechanics.
To consider it as instantaneous is consequence of the Interpretation of Copenhagen.
Actually we dont know if it really is instantaneous, because in the experiments the distance between the detectors is very short, and there is no way to verify if it occurs instanteneously, or not.
A new experiment published by Nature in 31 July 2014 already had shown that it is wrong the Interpretation of Copenhagen:
“To Bohr and others, the process was instantaneous – when you opened the box, the entangled system collapsed into a definite, classical state. This postulate stirred debate in quantum mechanics, But real-time tracking of a quantum system shows that it’s a continuous process, and that we can constantly extract information from the system as it goes from quantum to classical. This level of detail was never considered accessible by the original founders of quantum theory.”
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/07/30/watching-schrodingers-cat-die/
.
I dont believe entanglement is intantaneous.
I think the entanglement occurs via interaction between the gravity fields of the twins photons.
As any theoretical controversy must be decided via experiments, this is the reason why in my oppinion more experiments must be performed, in order to help us to discover how entanglement occurs.
regards
wlad
SECOND REPLY BY DR. GABRIELA BARRETO LEMOS
From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:49:03 +0200
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Hello Mr Guglinski
Thank you for your suggestion. I will discuss it with my co-workers when they all return from their holidays
Best regards.
Gabriela
.
On Aug 30, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Wladimir wrote:
Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos
I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).
I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.
The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments
@Joe
@Wladimir Guglinski
I have not well understood the experimental setup of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, can you correct me?
She has a laser beam L that is splitted in two beams L1 and L2, L1 is then splitted by a non linear cristal NLC1 in two entangled beams L1a and L1b, while L2 is splitted by a non linear cristal NLC2 in two entangled beams L2a and L2b. L1b and L2b show an “output” (interference or not) according to the “input” that L1a and L2a interfere or are blocked by something put between them. Is this resume correct?
You say that “output” at Lxb occurs istantaneously with “input” at Lxa, but this is due to the fact that the two arms of the experimental setup have the same lenght. What happens if Lxb arm is shorter than Lxa arm? The “output” will precede temporally the “input” realizing a sort of time-machine! 🙂
John Cramer tried this for many years without success, If Gabriela succeded the most interesting thing to inspect with this experiment is the real nature of Time.
Regards
Wladimir,
Communication of information occurs by way of waves traveling in a field. And the concept of travel implies the concept of speed. And the concept of speed implies a lapse of time between two points in space. But quantum entanglement (QE)occurs INSTANTANEOUSLY. The reason why neither standard physics nor QRT can explain QE is because they depend on the concept of field which implies a lapse of time rather than instantaneity.
All the best,
Joe
Rafal Krych:
All I can do is to perform honestly my work together with my great Team in our limited field of application. World can be saved only by Mankind ( which means persons like you) with the help of God.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
I spent today working all the day.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
This is Appeal of Polish intellectuals to the citizens and governments of Europe. We need your E-Cat ever more then before in order to cease dependence on Russian gas.
Good luck then and please keep saving this world.
From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:44:11 +0200
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Thank you for your email. I will look into this proposal. Best Regards
.
On Aug 30, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Wladimir wrote:
Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos
I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).
I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.
The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments
Dear Dr. Rossi, today it is Sunday and in this day people generally rest from own work.
How are you passing the time today?
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Joe wrote in August 30th, 2014 at 9:53 PM
Wladimir,
1- =========================================
There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones.
=============================================
COMMENT:
I am not agree.
Joe,
I also believe in the power of the mind, because several experiments in the field of Biology already had proved it.
However, the power of the mind has no influence in the results of experiments where the Laws of Physics prevail.
You are assuming that Gabriela and her team were accompanying the experience all the time, and so the their minds were influencing the occurrence of the entanglement.
But suppose that Gabriele repeats the experiment as follows:
1- The team puts a video camera filming what happens in the detectors
2- They go away, leaving the experiment to run without any mental influence
Do you think that, in this case, will the entanglement do not occur?
2- ===================================
a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner.
======================================
COMMENT
I want just to discover how the entanglement occurs, and I think it is caused by the interaction between the two gravity fields of the twins photons A and B.
That’s why I suppose that the relative angle between the detectors has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement, because the angle between the detectors changes the angle between the paths of two photons.
Suppose Gabriele makes two experiments:
a) the photon A and B have perpendicular paths.
b) the photon A and B have parallel paths
The interaction between the two gravity fields will be different in the situation a) and b). And we have to discover if such difference has influence in the formation of the image caused by the entanglement
regards
wlad
RicT:
By nature I am an optimist guy, but, as a professional, I must maintain a neutral equilibrium.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear. Dr. Rossi
What’s Your “feeling” about TPRII?
1) positive
2) negative
3) prosecco For the Team
4) Champagne free For anyone!!!
As human beings, after all, we have feeling – that may be wrong or right….
Thank you
H-G Branzell:
Good question.
Under a scientific point of view, based on the First Principle of Thermodynamic, the COP of an apparatus that generates heat with chemical reactions MUST be <1. Therefore, under a scientific point of view, any COP>1 should be considered a positive result.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
M.B.:
There is no inconsistency: also the results of the 1 MW plant operating in the factory of the Customer of IH could be, after a long operation time, positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark:
1, of course !!!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
This was necessary.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
There is no mystery to quantum entanglement when you remember what I mentioned a while back about the nature of space and time. Space and time are not physical objects but mental ones. True physical reality is beyond space and time, therefore it is not constrained by space and time. And since by logic, conservation must always be upheld, a change in one entangled particle will produce an inverse change in its partner. And this happens immediately and independently of the distance between them because time and space are of no consequence as I mentioned.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
I agree that if the TPR2 is positive it would give the entire field of LENR a huge boost. However isn’t that going to work against you somewhat since then your rivals would be able to attract much more support for their projects. Even I would be tempted to write a proposal for development of a system on the basis of this report that shows the feasibility of extracting energy from the nucleus. The number of possible approaches are large(I can thing of at least a dozen), and there is abundant venture monies available in the financial world(almost all internet startups can get some funding). If you are allowing the inspectors to generate this information for altruistic reasons, I commend you, but that is the only reason I see for your generosity.
Regards from your friend
Hi Andrea, 1 or 2?
1,The test report will be available freely to the general public
2, The test report will be available at a cost through some commercial means to the general public
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Let me share one thing that has always puzzled me. In your references about the third independent party report you’ve never failed to stress that a negative result in it cannot be ruled out. A negative result, as far as I understand, will mean that the E-CAT reactor does not work the way it is supposed to. On the other hand, you are getting ready to open a 1MW plant which will use E-CAT reactors.
Isn’t there a logical inconsistency here? How can E-CAT’s be used in industrial applications if the 3rd party report, which is supposed to be the final word about the functionality of these devices, eventually comes out negative?
Kindest regards,
M.B.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
For the commercial E-Cats you have promised a COP of around 6. If if turns out that the independent third party has found that the COP is less than 5, will you then call the result negative?
Best regards, H-G Branzell
Jouni Toumela:
Thank you for your information regarding heat exchangers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,
Now thinking again, I am quite sure you already knew all this, but still the makings of the heat-exchanger is facinating. Perhaps relaxing also, you surely need that also.
Br Jouni
Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,
Mr. Steven N. Karels brought silver nanoparticles to my attention, thank you, they are facinating.
Also the thermal properties of nanoparticle fluids are interesting. Please use 10 minutes of your studying-time to watch this highly interesting video about the theory of nano-fluids aswell as the makings of a micron-sized(?) heat exchanger.
Youtube-videos are highly valuable in learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04W53ihLXk
Warmer Regards, and all the best,
Jouni Tuomela
Steven N. Karels:
I cannot give information about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
The work of the Third Independent Party is the first long term test made upon a LENR device in the last 25 years. The results will be the results that for the first time in the history of the LENR will be released by a third independent party after a test not of hours, but of thousands of hours, without interruptions and without intervention of the inventor or the owner. The results could be positive or negative, as I always said.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I still don’t understand why the TPR2 report is so important to you. You have already established the basis of the industrial complex necessary to introduce and manufacture your devices. There is field testing established which will confirm the quality of the devices and their usefulness. These results are what will allow your work to be continued and distributed, not the results of the report. Also, you claim that the theory of the Rossi effect is well known to your group so any speculation by the investigators can only be conformation which has no real value to you. Having this report as a backup is useful only to allow you to say “I told you so”, and you don’t need that in my opinion. Perhaps the institutions that are funding the report work need their own confirmation to convince their owners to further fund their own efforts in this area of technology, but your establishment does not. The only other value I can imagine is the possibility that they may uncover some technology which may be useful to you. A long shot in my opinion since you have much more device experience than them.
I am saving my anxiety for the results of the plant installation, which I thing will, after a few bumps, prove your system is a genuine advancement.
Regards and good luck!
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I know you cannot discuss the inner workings of your eCat reactor. But more than likely you have an adhesive that holds the nickel powder to the inside of the external cylinder so that energy may be transferred when the eCat is reacting. That assumed, it is important to keep a high thermal conductivity of whatever material secures the nickel to the heat transfer elements, i.e., the external cylinder. Increasing the thermal conductivity of the material that secures the nickel is important in a couple of ways.
1. It keeps the nickel from melting and therefore loosing what ever surface preparation has been done to make it work.
2. It will allow a higher external cylinder surface temperature at the heat transfer area to occur which could affect Carnot efficiency.
My estimates based on some assumptions and some simple calculations indicate that the difference between a moderate thermal conductivity and a good thermal conductivity might result in a temperature difference of 100 Celsius. Perhaps you may wish to consider this? Adding a conductive material like silver nanoparticles might significantly increase the thermal conductivity.
“just say”: I mean: please stop to say…
Angel Blume:
I cannot supply further information about the mechanism of the E-Cat. We now know it well, and it is strictly bound to the issues covered, as you correctly say, by the NDA and the defense of the IP.
We do not have safety concerns, since safety certification has been obtained for our industrial E-Cat after the reactors have been properly designed and all the measurements made OUTSIDE the E-Cat have confirmed its safety also in terms of ionizing radiations. We have experts of the matter working with us, who are physicists from laboratories specialized in measurements of ionizing radiations.
About the domestic E-Cat, any commercial information is impossible until a safety certification is obtained for it: as I explained many times, there is a paramount difference between the certification of industrial plants, operated by certified technicians, and domestic appliances, operated by persons that are not even supposed to read the manuals. The price of the domestic E-Cat will be computed after we will know exactly the requirements estabilished during the certification process, besides other issues.
Pre-orders are just a waiting list, with no engagement at all, with no money deposited. We cannot accept money until the product is really for sale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven,
you are right, I agree (obviously).
However, IMO the matter is too important, it’s time to give an answer. The Americans went to the moon, so just say “yes, oh well, who knows, may be, perhaps, boh, it is too difficult …..”.
I repeat: I hope that the professors give a definitive answer.
My best Regards,
Giuliano Bettini.
Pietro F.:
I will answer to your questions after:
1- the publication of the TIPR
2- our publication of the performance data of the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
We have to wait and be patient. Obviously the anxiety is getting exponential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: vcq@quantum.at
Subject: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:13:07 -0300
Dear Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos
I think it would be of interest to repeat your experiment by changing the angles of incidence of the two twins photons when they hit the two detectors (by putting the two detectors with several different angles one regarding the other, in order to verify how the relative different angles between the two detectors can influence in the formation of the image produced by the entanglement).
I hope by this way we may try to understand the physical laws that rule the entanglement.
The reason why I suppose it is explained in the comment of mine published in the Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853#comments
============================================
Wladimir Guglinski
August 29th, 2014 at 7:32 PM
How does the quantum entanglement works?
I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement.
But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence:
Quantum imaging with undetected photons
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html
The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist.
So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence.
It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether.
Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab:
http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html
The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus.
Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory.
According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory.
In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction.
However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle captures a new particle either, in orther that two twins photons A and B are formed.
The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B?
In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png
The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela.
In another words:
What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether?
It’s an exciting chalenge.
.
Dear Joe
when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP.
regards
wlad
============================================
.
Thanks to your attention
Wladimir Guglinski
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Just like in an American jury trial, the fast verdict is usually guilty when the evidence is overwhelming. If the TIR scientists saw results where the amount of output energy was less than or equal to the input energy, the report would be negative and it could be quickly released. So the seemingly long release time for the TIR to me says the results will most likely be very positive. But as in any trial, we must wait for the verdict before congratulations are in order.
Giuliano Bettini,
You posted — I’m quite amazed by the statement “..the transmutation of Ni (…) has still to be confirmed.” In other LENR experiments transmutation have been reported at the atomic level. But for AR to report transmutation of a secondary (not primary) reaction would be very difficult. The amount of copper that might be produced could be much less than one milligram of mass, depending on how secondary the reaction was. So distinguishing it from contamination could be difficult.
Nuclear reactions produce so much energy compared to chemical reactions that not a lot of byproducts are produced. To prove a nickel-to-copper relationship, one way might be to determine the fuel contents before initial operation, then examine the same fuel distributed in different eCat reactors run at one month, two months, … to six months and measure the copper in each fuel sample. And to be able to show a relationship with energy produced versus copper produced. But measuring milligram or microgram levels of any material can be very challenging.
Buongiorno ing. Rossi,
1) su cento attivazioni dell’ecat quante riescono?
2) riguardo alla prima domanda c’é stata una progressione significativa negli ultimi tre anni?
3) su cento ecat attivati quanti mantengono una stabilità ragionevolmente utilizzabile ai fini commerciali?
Se puo’…!
comunque la ringrazio e buon lavoro
(by google translate):
Hello ing. Rossi,
1) on one hundred of ecat activations ecat how they do it?
2) With regard to the first question there was a significant progression in the last three years?
3) on one hundred of those ECAT activated how maintain a stable reasonably usable for commercial purposes?
If you can …!
anyway thank you and good job
Pietro F.
Dear Mr. Rossi
I am getting confused with your last replies.
I entirely agree with Mr. Janhunen to the possible reaction scenario. Being all isotopes from Cu59 to Cu62 long lived enough (minutes / hours), it is factible to detect the positronic radiation. Moreover the ratio Ni60/Ni62 before and after gives a clue of what is happening inside the reactor.
Without revealing your catalyst, not breaking your NDagreements, I think you could be more explicit. As I see, some posters are well qualified to help you on foreseeing the effects regarding radiation from reactor, because I understand that your mayor concern now is safety.
From last posters I learned that we can preorder domestic E-Cats. How much do they cost? How can I preorder a single unit?
Thanks in advance and good luck.
Angel
Giuliano Bettini:
When I say that the results of the Third independent Party could be positive, but also negative, I do not joke. That is the reality. Our work is under examination and under R&D and we honestly have the duty to say that the results of the examination could be negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
I think the data from the next TIPR will give information about the energy density issue after a long operation period.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How does the quantum entanglement works?
I used do not believe in the existence of the quantum entanglement. In my book Quantum Ring Theory, by considering my model of the photon, I had proposed a new interpretation for the Alain Aspect experiment, without the need of considering the entanglement.
But a new experiment published in the journal Nature does not allow any doubt on its existence:
Quantum imaging with undetected photons
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html
The experiment was made under the lead of Gabriela Barreto Lemos, a Brazilian physicist.
So, the entanglement exists, and we have to try to understand what is physical mechanism underlying its occurrence.
It is obvious that, for the understanding of such physical mechanism, we need to try to understand the entanglement by considering a physical structure of the aether.
Another experiment which is dealing with the structure of the aether is being made in the Fermilab:
http://astro.fnal.gov/projects/OtherInitiatives/holometer_project.html
The structure of the aether is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
But the best aspect of the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is the fact that such structure is connected to the structures of the electron, the proton, the neutrino, the photon, and the nucleus.
Therefore, the structure of the aether proposed in QRT is not a lonely theory, actually it is a theory connected to structures of the elementary stable particles of the universe, and this is the best aspect of the theory.
According to the photon model of QRT, the photon is composed by a particle and its antiparticle moving in helical trajectory.
In the experiment made by Gabriela, when the photon is broken in two parts, the particle takes a direction, and the antiparticle takes another direction.
However, in the instant when the photon is broken, the lonely particle captures a new antiparticle from the aether, and the antiparticle captures a new particle either, in orther that two twins photons A and B are formed.
The question is: how does occur the entanglement between the twins photons A and B?
In the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it is proposed a string of gravitons (of the elementary particles as the electron and the proton) captures magnetons in the perimeter of the universe (the most far away limit of the universe), as we see in the Figure 2.5 of the paper, ahead:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png
The question now is to discover how the gravity strings of the photon A gets entanglement with the gravity strings of the photon B in the experiment made by Gabriela.
In another words:
What are the laws of Physics underlying the entanglement via the structure of the aether?
It’s an exciting chalenge.
.
Dear Joe
when my paper will be published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I would like to talk about the question with you, here in the Comments of the JoNP.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi,
If the High Temperature E-Cat produced its design power (nearly) continuously for an entire year, or about 8,765.76 hours, then its Energy Density (Wh/kg) should be about (8765.76/116) = 75 times the Energy Density reported in the May 2013 Arxiv paper.
I don’t remember the May 2013 Energy Density, but a factor of 75 is significant. Of course, if it ran for only six months per charge, the Energy Density multiplying factor is ‘only’ about 38 times as large.
Still good.
Energetic regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear A.R.
I’m quite amazed by the statement “..the transmutation of Ni (…) has still to be confirmed.”
You must admit: after 25 years, the transmutation which “has still to be confirmed” feeds the skepticism, at least with regard to the cold fusion. In my naivety, I would say: “If there is Copper, there is Copper. However, if there is no Copper, it means that there is no Copper. Full stop.”
Where is the problem? Extremely sophisticated measurements? Unexpected difficulties?
Where am I wrong? I hope that at least the Professors give a definitive answer.
Giuliano Bettini.
Martyn Aubrey:
2.
It will be either electrically or gas powered, we think.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Whilst I understand that the domestic E-Cat will not be available until it is certified (which may take some time), what form would the construction take?
1. A single reactor.
2. A smaller version of the Cat & Mouse two reactor configuration.
3. Something else.
4. Not decided yet.
Also, would the domestic E-Cat be purely electrically powered, purely gas powered, either, or both?
Kind Regards,
Martyn Aubrey.
Steven N. Karels:
1- There is not a conflict, the transmutation of Ni remains a secondary effect that, by the way, has still to be confirmed.
2- Efficiency is not just COP, is a more wide concept encompassing many other characteristics, like stability, reliability, duration etc. All these issues are in evolution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You had mentioned previously, I think, that the conversion of hydrogen plus nickel into copper was a secondary reaction regarding thermal energy generation. Now, apparently, you are suggesting that 62Ni production occurs and can possibly enhance the eCat efficiency. Are these statements in conflict?
1. Can you clarify?
2, Can you define what you mean by eCat efficiency? Improved effective COP? Something else?
Wladimir Guglinski:
Your pre-order is in our records, as well as all the pre-orders we received, but I must say that we cannot foresee when the domestic E-Cats will be put in the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.