Relation between short-range forces and the concept of neutrality

.
by
Jacques Chauveheid
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
.
Introduction:
.
A. Preliminary remarks
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
.

708 comments to Relation between short-range forces and the concept of neutrality

  • Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    Production of cold using heat is a well known technology and surely a possible application for the E-Cat. We made experiments with specialists with good results, but priority is gone to heat demanding industrial utilizations. Your intuition is valid, though.

  • WaltC

    Dear Andrea,
    I believe it’s been said that your lab is sometimes heated by an E-Cat and I understand that it’s not too difficult to produce cooling based off of a heat source (absorption cooler?)…

    – do you ever use an E-Cat driven cooler to provide cooling for the lab?

    It seems like a good time of year for cooling right now.

    Thanks,
    Walt C.

  • Ecco Liberation

    Dr. Rossi:
    In practice, does this electrostatic field phenomenon imply that if a person were to touch an E-Cat he would get a zap (-> electrostatic discharge / ESD)? Or perhaps would he get zapped continuously? I wonder if more than pulsating electrostatic field, ‘randomly intermittent’ wouldn’t be a more appropriate definition for this effect. I speculate that this is caused by nickel dust clouds forming inside your Hot Cats under operating conditions.
    Regards E.L.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Renatoestri:
    Yes, I agree,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ecco Libération:
    No, this phenomenon is for us a serendipity, it has not even mentioned to the Third Independent Party, because, as I said, a lot of further R&D is necessary before considering it a real production.
    We suspect to have observed it during our internal tests with the Hot Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ecco Liberation

    Dr. Rossi:
    Is there any chance/do you believe that the third party testers have observed and analyzed this electrostatic emission phenomenon in addition to performing heat measurements, and that they will report about it in their upcoming paper? Also, does this happen on every E-Cat crafted so far or just specific versions (for example the Hot-Cat)?
    Regards E.L.

  • renatoestri

    Andrea, Giovanni Guerrini :
    thank you for your kind appreciations.
    When this technology will be spread to public,
    an appropriate acronym is important to call it properly.
    These two simple words summarize deep concepts, are
    accurate from technical & scientific point of view,
    and won’t scare anyone.
    My best regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    In this period I am exclusively focused on the 1 MW plant, therefore the issue of the e.m. fields detected is not at the moment on the top of the spear. This is an issue that we do not consider consolidated, more complex research has to be done to say anything important about it. Anyway, based on what we made:
    1- electrostatic
    2- outside the reactor, inside the E-Cat, not outside the E-Cat
    3- see 1
    4- pulsing
    Warning: this all could be wrong. Consistent R&D is necessary before saying anything decisive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    renatoestri,
    I like your idea,maybe it is more correct and easier to say.

    Regards G G

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    Could you please tell us a little more about the electromagnetic fields detected from your device? They have nothing to do with the upcoming report which is only measuring heat production, so I hope you can share just a bit of info. For example:

    1 – What form of EM fields are you measuring? Magnetic? Electrostatic?

    2 – Where are they detected? Inside the reactor? Outside?

    3 – What is the strength of the field in Tesla, if it is a magnetic field?

    4 – Is it pulsing or constant?

    My dream would be that you could design a low temp E-Cat that would produce pulsing magnetic fields outside of the reactor. If this was the case, you could wrap a coil of copper wire around it and convert the magnetism to electricity. I can imagine such a solid state E-Cat being used to power an RF cavity thruster so we could colonize the solar system.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I casually found this comment of you in the spam and retrieved, published it. Probably your address is taken as a spam from our robot. For the next comments, it is better if you change address.
    About your comment: if you read carefully TPR1 you can understand why we need a drive to maintain stable the reactor; this factor, as you correctly say, is also connected with the safety certification.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “Because we need to drive the reactor for safety reasons and we cannot drive a reactor by means of itself.”

    I suggest an alternative consideration. You obviously have a control mechanism (the commercial power) that drives and controls the eCat. If the energy supplied by commercial power was replaced with a very large battery, then the eCat would still be controlled. Correct?

    So the issue is can the eCat generate sufficient electrical power to charge a large capacity power with a large time constant? Do you agree?

    Or is this a safety certification problem rather than a technical problem?

  • Andrea Rossi

    renatoestri:
    Is a good idea.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • renatoestri

    Dear Andrea,

    I’ve just read on Ecat World an article full of good sense:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/06/change-of-name-from-lenr-is-an-urgent-necessity-guest-post/

    It would be a very attractive idea to change the LENR name, where ‘N’=Nuclear recalls in the public imagination
    strongly negative sensations, while, as we know, this new technology doesn’t hide dangerous effects.

    So what would you think about this new acronym to replace the LENR:

    QUAR = Quantum Reactions

    (incidentally, ‘AR’ remembers someone working a bit in this field….)
    My regards and best wishes

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    That is quantum fields theory. Obviously, the study of Physics influences my experimantalistic work, in general. About your assumptions, I am not able to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea:

    You wrote:
    Fermions, as we have seen, are waves in particular quantum fields: matter particles are discrete vibrations in fermionic fields.
    By harnessing these waves, or better let them interact on a controlled way, it may be possible to invent new technology that beats gravity or can be used as a direct propulsion system, or a nuclear-electric battery, I would assume.

    The heat, coming from the E-cat can then be “uncontrolled” by-product of some interactions of these wave-systems.

    Are you studying (two hours each day) and experimenting on these phenomena ?

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Sorry, I did not understand your question. Can you kindly rephrase it ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Were you or your team of scientists capable of predicting or explaining phenomena from this insight ? Do you make hypothesis or ideas on direct propulsion or influencing gravity or the use of resonance for whatever purpose, of these vibrations ?
    If you study two hours per day on physics, it must be worth the effort I assume.
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Fermions, as we have seen, are waves in particular quantum fields: matter particles are discrete vibrations in fermionic fields. When a neutron decays its quantum field resonates with the quantum field of electrons and the quantum field of protons, so that from such resonance one electron is born in its quantum field and a proton is born in its quantum field too. By the way, also an antineutrino is born in its quantum field to maintain the leptons conservation.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Because we need to drive the reactor for safety reasons and we cannot drive a reactor by means of itself.
    Arm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    You can read my patent granted in Italy in 2009.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Claudio:
    Maybe in future
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Claudio

    Dear Andrea, recently Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, Solarcity and Tesla Automotive, has opened the source of his project patents affirming that:
    “Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”
    Behind the first imagine of a philantropist, in his stance there is a solid economic background. If the whole field of electric vehicles developes rapidly, the industrial leader of to-day (that is him now) will earn the maximum benefit by the entire growth.
    Do you think that this method can fit the LENR application market?
    Warm Regards

  • DTravchenko

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Are the powders inside the reactor under pressure?
    Warm Regards
    DT

  • Curiosone

    Why don’t you power the E-Cat with part of the surplus energy it produces?
    W.G.

  • Curiosone

    Andrea Rossi,
    When you have time: a neutron out of an atom decays into proton and an electron; this means that it contains them someway?
    Thank you for your patience
    W.G.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Something happened in my last message, which was not published in its entire form.

    The item 6 in its entire form is the following:

    ————————————————————-
    6) Therefore, such question (why from the mono-field concept considered in Quantum Field Theory it is not possible to explain the zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N ) is a fundamental question in Physics.
    ————————————————————-

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    Here is another example of my disagreement with Mr JR:

    ———————————————————
    3) You don’t understand Quantum Field Theory. QFT does not allow you to calculate magnetic moments of nuclei.
    ———————————————————

    COMMENT

    Mr. JR is not able to understand the fundamental question regarding the reason why Quantum Field Theory is not able to explain the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    Indeed, QFT does not allow to calculate magnetic moment. Actually magnetic moments are calculated from the nuclear models existing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    But here is the reason why QFT is not able to exlain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei:

    1) The concept of field considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics is the same concept of field existing in the Quantum Field Theory, which is a mono-field concept.

    2) Without to consider the rotation of the nuclei, the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have null magnetic moment, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics, because, due to the symmetry of the nucleus, each pair proton-neutron has a symmetrical pair proton-neutron, and the two pairs proton-neutron cancel each other their magnetic moments.

    3) But the nuclei have rotation. And the rotation of a charge induces magnetic moments. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS. So the rotation of the protons within the nuclei induce magnetic moment. And therefore the even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have magnetic moment different of zero.

    3.1) And a theorist cannot, by definition, to define as zero a nuclear property which must be DIFFERENT of zero as consequence of a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS, because such stupid method of definition proposed by Mr. JR violates a fundamental law of Physics.

    4) The problem with Quantum Field Theory is because it is a mono-field theory. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the zero magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N, by considering ANY THEORY developed from the mono-field concept of field.

    5) The zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N can be explained only by considering a NON-mono-field theory, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, where the field of elementary particles is formed by the overlap of two concentric fiedls Sn and Sp.

    6) Therefore, such question (why from the mono-field concept considered in Quantum Field Theory)) is a fundamental question in Physics

    .

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 3rd, 2014 at 9:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Your last several posts are simply wrong in all significant respect. In most cases you don’t even appear to understand the concepts that are being discussed and so even your initial ‘statements of fact’ are simply nonsense:

    =========================================================

    COMMENT

    Dear JR,

    I challenged any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.

    But you are not expert even in elementary Physics, dear JR.

    Actually you dont know even geometry, since you dont know the difference between an ellipsoid and a sphere.
    So, I will not waste my time with your nonsenses.

    .

    To the readers of the JoNP

    Look at the Figure 1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, published in Nature:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    Are you able to realize that Figure 1 shows a structure with elipsoidal shape?

    But Mr. JR is not able to understand that Figure 1 shows an elipsoidal structure.

    In December 2013 Mr. JR claimed here in the JoNP that the structure of the Figure 1 is spherical:

    ————————————————
    JR
    December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.
    ————————————————–

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dave Lafleur:
    It is not exactly as you wrote. We have found as an unexpected phenomenon the direct production of electromagnetic energy. This is an issue we are making R&D upon, but, sincerely, in this period my focus is on the 1 MW plant of the new US Customer. I agree about what you say in regard of scepticism.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dave Lafleur

    If you are finding a magnetic byproduct as well that is certainly interesting. You had no mention of magnetic materials. Care to comment? Should I be surprised if you find a monopole mechanism? I apologize for my questions with no (known?) answers but you sir are a mad scientist and enjoy your blog. I believe that skepticism is healthy but positive or negative this would be a better world if more scientists were asking your questions.

  • orsobubu

    Ahhh… after months of nice compliments about cats and containers and reports, THIS is the action I was missing so much. Pass me my popcorn and soda now, and let me sit down and enjoy.

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    Your last several posts are simply wrong in all significant respect. In most cases you don’t even appear to understand the concepts that are being discussed and so even your initial ‘statements of fact’ are simply nonsense:

    1) You don’t understand the concept of wave-particle duality: all particles behave as waves (in the quantum mechanical sense) all the time. In some energy limits this behavior is similar to a classical mechanics description of particle behavior. In some limits, it is more similar to a classical wave. But it is not correct to say that a particle is ever just a classical particle or a classical wave.

    2) You don’t understand diffraction and quantum mechanics. There is nothing that says a single photon or electron behaves like a particle when it passes through a single slit. A basic QM textbook can address your misunderstanding.

    3) You don’t understand Quantum Field Theory. QFT does not allow you to calculate magnetic moments of nuclei. It can be used to calculate interactions of fundamental (point-like) particles, but a model is required to build a bound state nucleus from a collection of composite (non-fundamental) particles such as protons and neutrons. Also, your argument about orbiting nucleons is a purely classical one, so both wrong and irrelevant.

    4) You (still) don’t understand magnetic moments. They are, by definition, zero for any spin-0 nucleus. So the only thing you can possibly learn from the magnetic moment of these spin-0 nuclei is that people who raise the question of predictions for them don’t have any idea what they’re talking about.

    5) While I’m here, the pion is the particle associated with the Yukawa potential, so it’s fair to say that Yukawa did predict the existence of the pion. However, he assumed it was a fundamental particle, and it turns out that it was a QCD bound state.

    6) You also appear to have basic trouble with numbers. A “zero” is different from a missing entry in a table – that one has given you a lot of trouble. Also, when two measured values are slightly different (proton radius of 0.84 and 0.88 fm), that does not mean that the correct answer is 0.25.

    7) Basic logic. Even if you find a case where someones model of a QCD or quantum mechanical phenomenon is incorrect, that does not overturn everything we know about QCD or quantum mechanics. It might mean that there’s a fundamental flaw, but you’d have to actually look at the details of the model to make such a conclusion.

    These are some of the issues with the claims you’ve been making more recently. There was a useful compilation of an extended list of errors in claims you’ve been making for a longer time, but I’d have to search for it. I can do so if anyone cares.

    I’d work on sorting out these more basic issues before reinventing all of known physics. My apologies if I’ve stated things unclearly or made any minor errors; this didn’t seem like a post that was worthy of a lot of time.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski, Joe:
    Who wants to answer you is very welcome, as well as your comments are.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Michael S.:
    1- When we will have E-Cats producing also electric power, the energy produced will be useful for any apparatus.
    2- We got indications and we are working on that issue in our R&D program
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    …but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:

    Dear Andrea,

    Quantum Field Theory (QFT) was developed from the contribution of several theorists, and one among them is the Nobel Laureate Dr. Gerard t’ Hooft.

    From the concept of field considered in QFT it is impossible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment (as all the nuclei have rotation, the rotation of the protons within those nuclei would have to induce a positive magnetic moment, and therefore QFT cannot explain why those nuclei have null magnetic moment).

    So, I would like to suggest you, dear Andrea, to invite the Dr. G. t’Hooft to come here to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, by considering the Quantum Field Theory.

    His email is the following: G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl

    And I challenge any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here, to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, from the foundations of QFT.

    Regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    An electron has an electric field. We can point to the electron, and we can also point to its effect far away (perhaps to a device measuring field strength). The electron is a local phenomenon, and its electric field is a remote phenomenon. Both phenomena exist at the same time. The local one is of a particle nature, and the remote one is of a wave nature. Therefore, there exists an obvious point of transition between these two different natures. But if we now consider the local phenomenon as wave, the point of transition between two similar (wave) natures becomes problematic. If there were no point of transition, the two phenomena could only be considered as actually one phenomenon (one wave), with no distinction between local particle and remote field.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Michael S

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1/ You have great expertise in plastics waste treatment. Do you think that the Ecat heat-energy cost would allow to tackle/ significantly improve the plastics recovery/reformation costs ? We currently pollute our environment with these plastics as they are so practical but do not include the waste process costs because that would be to expensive. Maybe this jump in energy costs will allow us to create a real cradle to cradle economy and clean up the existing mess ?

    2/ maybe you have already answered this: have you indications of strong electromagnetic fields during the working of ecat ? If yes could a systematic enhancement of this effect allow harvesting of Electricity ?

    Following with patience.
    Electric:) regards,

    Michael

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    1)
    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Obviously I respect your opinion,
    ———————————–

    Dear Andrea,
    it is not a question of opinion.

    The scientific method prescribes that a theory must be able to be fit to the results of the experiments.
    If the theory is incompatible with the experiments, it cannot be correct.
    This is what the scientific method prescribes.

    It is not my opinion

    .

    2)
    but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    ———————————-

    COMMENT

    By considering Quantum Field theory even-even with Z=N have to have positive magnetic moment.
    But they have null magnetic moment.

    It is not a question to be agree, or not.

    By considering the scientific method, Quanum Field Theory is wrong, because the theory does not fit to the results of experiments.

    .

    3)
    I also must add that I do not think that any theory should be considered eternally valid and I think that the phenomenological epochè is always a good exercise.
    ————————————–

    COMMENT

    So, it is the time to realize that Quantum Field Theory is wrong.
    It can work well in a certain level.

    But in smaller scales Quantum Field Theory is fundamentally wrong.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    An electron is a tiny vibration in the particular quantum field it belongs to. The “transition” of a boson into a fermion like a lepton is made by the interaction between the quantum field in which the boson vibrates and the Higgs field; the Higgs field turns the boson into a fermion breaking the symmetry. Once the electron is born after the interaction between the boson’s field and the Higgs field, there is not a transition between the wave and the electron: the electron IS a wave, because it is, as said above, a tiny vibration in the quantum field it belongs to, a tiny vibration that we perceive as a particle of matter. I made the example of the image in the screen of the computer, that is an image, but if we observe it precisely our senses perceive it as a system of pixels, but it is still an image; image does not pass through any transition between image and pixel or vice versa. In this model image is the quantum field of the electron, the lepton ( electron) is the matter: the matter is just a vibration in the field as well as the pixel is just a dot of the image.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Obviously I respect your opinion, but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    I also must add that I do not think that any theory should be considered eternally valid and I think that the phenomenological epochè is always a good exercise.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Joe:
    In the quantum field theory, elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves in a particular field and interactions are between elementary particles in fields; forces carried in their interactions by means of bosons can be thought of as resulting from vibrations in fields.
    =======================================

    COMMENT

    Quantum Field Theory is wrong, because according to the theory the even-even nuclei with Z=N (like 2He4, 6C12, etc.) cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment, because due to the rotation of the nucleus the charged protons would have to produce a positive magnetic moment.

    As said in 29th July:

    …for the moment, we are overlooking something fundamental at smaller scales.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 1st, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    Curiosone:
    As you see, I have edited a little bit your question to make it correct.
    Matter is made by waves
    =====================================

    COMMENT

    Waves cannot colide like billiard balls, as happens in Compton Effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

    Only corpuscular particles can collide like billiar balls.

    As from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to eliminate the incompatibility between the theory and the experiments, Bohr proposed his famous Principle of Complementarity, according to which in some experiments the matter behaves like particles and in other experiments the matter behaves like waves.

    But in 2011 the physicist Aephraim Steinberg made an experiment showing that Bohr’s Principle of Complmentarity is wrong:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295

    According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time.

    The experiment made by Steinberg showed that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because in his experiment a photon crossed a unique slit, and it had inferference with itself (a wave feature), while from Quantum Mechanics we would have to expect a particle feature only, since the photon crossed only one slit.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    How do you distinguish between the wave that composes a particle and the wave that is associated with the surrounding field of that particle? For example, an electron has an electric field which has a wave associated with it. If the electron itself is a wave, where is the point of transition between the wave of the electron and the wave of its electric field?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    I am sorry, but our peer reviewers prefer not to be disclosed. They all are from the main line academia, just to correct your opinion. It is not true that most from the main line scientist are biased against LENR, they are biased against the clowneries that happened in the LENR fields, that unavoidably spray dirt on all the field, as recently happened in a paradigmatic example that everybody understands which has been.
    Anyway: if some of our Readers, with a degree in Physics, wants to be a peer reviewer of the papers that the JoNP receives for publication, he will be welcome.
    About the TPR2, as soon as I will know when it will be published, I will communicate the information on this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    1- No, we have to respect the guarantees of performance we signed for and we will be paid if the guarantees will be respected. As it happens for any kind of technological plant.
    2- Brand new production line with a back up in case of problems to our plant
    3- Yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    1. Will the customer of the first 1 MW plant be involved in the testing of the plant before it is installed to ensure it meets expected performance standards?

    2. Will the plant replace an existing heat source at the customer’s location, or will it be installed on a brand new production line?

    3. Is your work on the 1MW plant currently on schedule?

    Many thanks!

    Frank Acland

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Can you give us the names of the people JONP uses for peer review? It seems to me that it is difficult to choose qualified judges for papers dealing in LENR or some of the other subjects that are published here. Most of the renown scientists will stay away from these subjects because of the prejudices caused by main line academia.
    Any news you can give us about the situation of the TPR2 will be much appreciated.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    In the quantum field theory, elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves in a particular field and interactions are between elementary particles in fields; forces carried in their interactions by means of bosons can be thought of as resulting from vibrations in fields.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    1- 2: Dear friend, you know by heart that I cannot give any information in positive or in negative of this kind. My opinion, the only one I can express, is that any opinion must be respected, independently if they are right or wrong, for the work that is behind it. Work must always be respected.
    The only way to know if an opinion is right or wrong is to make experiments to test it. You can test what you wrote, it is not difficult. For example: we make experiments to reproduce all the apparatuses and processes that have been described in all the patents and publications made in the world regarding the LENR, because that is the only way to verify if they work or not.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>