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
.

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

  • Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Thank you, interesting
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi,
    Please Google:
    ALGAE POWERED BUILDING IN GERMANY
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, florida
    USA

  • Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    I do not know if you are right or not and if your parallel makes sense or not. I know that we have a consolidated explication about how the so called “Rossi Effect” works and the physical mechanirms that allow it to work. Otherwise, it could not work reliably in industrial applications.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    This is a period of top level engagement for what concerns the 1 MW plant, we are in the most critic moment; all our team is focused on it. About the Report, the waiting for it is a massive vibration in the field of anxiety.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    From the outside, with no news forthcoming, things seem very quiet regarding the E-Cat. Obviously things are different from your perspective.

    What can you tell us about the level of activity going on with your team at the moment?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Let’s have an historical parallel:
    American continent was already inhabited by natives and seems that some north european businessmen made business with natives before Columbus’s discovery.
    In 1492 the italian Columbus was able to convince a big partner, Isabel of Hispany, to finance the west way to China Far lands, after some problems with some “portoghesi”…
    But after years columbus was still wrongly convinced to have reached China Far lands.
    Was only Vespucci who understood that it was a New World, so in 1507 the map drawer Martin Waldseemüller used the name of Vespucci to call America.
    :-)
    Moral: the name of this phenomena will be attributed to the first who will *explain* them, not who discovered or sell them.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Graviton IS classified a stable gauge boson by the Standard Model. It is true that other gauge bosons are virtual particles ( gluons, which mediate the strong forces and W+, W- and Z, which mediate the weak forces), but this fact has nothing to do with the fact that gravitons are stable gauge bosons, as well as photons. The speed of the gravitons is necessarily the speed of light, since gravitons are massless: all massless particles travel at the speed of light, this is a law of Physics!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thorbjorn:
    I prefer QUAR, but I respect your choice.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Thorbjörn

    Just to be clear, do you agree with Frank Ackland that it is better to use QR, or do you prefer QUAR?
    I prefer QR.

    Best regards
    Thorbjörn

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 10th, 2014 at 8:50 AM

    Curiosone,
    : I fully believe that the QFT is the best available model, even if we all know that theories are done to be eventually overcome .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Curiosone wrote in August 10th, 2014 at 2:35 AM

    Andrea Rossi:
    Thank you for your answers: your “analogies” are big help to understand the worls of elementary particles for us laymen. I also have to thank Wladimir Guglinski, but I am not able to understand what he says, I have not enough education.
    W.G.
    ===========================================================

    COMMENT
    Dears Andrea Rossi and Curisione

    Quantum Field Theory is the best available model, but it works in a certain level.

    In a deep level it does not work, and therefore some principles of the theory must be wrong.

    For instance, according to the fundamental principles of QFT the neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron.
    However, the Conte-Pieralice experiment and the Borghi experiment prove that neutron is formed by proton+electron, and therefore something is wrong with the principles of QFT

    And since those two experiments prove that QFT cannot be the fundamental theory, what we had to expect from the theorists?

    Well, we had to expect that the community of physicists would have to undertake an effort, in order to repeat those two experiments.

    Unfortunatelly, instead of to undertake an effort so that to repeat the two experiments, the community of physicists actually adopts the strategy of running away of the two experiments as the devil runs away of the cross.

    Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli tried to repeat the Don Borghi experiment in the laboratories of several universities in Europe, between 1993 and 2000. He was banned from all the European niversities.

    In 2002 I had a discussion via email about the Taleyarkhan experiment with the Nobel Laureate Dr. G. t’Hooft.
    During the discussion I told him about the Don Borghi experiment, and he sent me the following reply:

    “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”.

    Well, a scientist cannot claim that any evidence of any experiment is phony, because he has not a laboratory into his brain, in order to repeat the experiment within his head, so that to verify the results of the experiment.

    The Scienfific Community prescribes that any controversy about any experiment must be solved via the repetition of the experiment. And not to claim that the experiment is phony, because its results are disagree to the foundations of the Quantum Field Theory.

    But it is easy to understand why Dr. t’Hooft said that Borghi experiment is phony. It is because Dr. t’Hooft is one among the theorists who developed the Quantum Field Theory, and he awarded the Nobel Prize thanks to his theoretical contributions.
    So, as Borghi experiment proves that something is wrong in the foundations of QFT, it is obvious that Dr. t’Hooft wishes to be the most far away he can from any experiment with the aim to repeat the Borghi experiment.

    In 2008 Santilli repeated the Don Borghi experiment and confirmed its results:
    Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

    Finally, I would like to ask to Andrea Rossi to answer:

    1- Are you agree with Dr. G. t’Hooft, and you also believe that Don Borghi experiment is phony?

    2- As Dr. t’Hooft, do you think that there is no need to repeat an experiment, in order to eliminate the controversy about its results?

    3- Do you think that the community of physicists is in the correct way, rejecting the Don Borghi experiment without to try to repeat it ? (so that to save QFT)

    4- In the case your opinion is that Don Borghi must be repeated in the laboratories of the universities worldwide, suppose the results be confirmed. Please tell us your opinion:

    As from the foundations of QFT a neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron at low energy , which is a premise denied by Don Borghi experiment, do you continue keeping your opinion that QFT is the best available model ?

    5- Concerning your words: “About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists“, I would like to know your opinion:

    A) I think that Quantum Field Theory is wrong because, among other experiments, from its foundations the results of the Don Borghi experiment are impossible to occur.

    B) The opinion of the most of the Physicists is based on their rejection of the Don Borghi experiment.

    C) Therefore:
    Who, in your opinion, is following the Scientific Criterium?

    a) Wlad ? (having my opinion supported in the results of the Borghi experiment)

    or

    b) the most of the Physicists? (having their opinion suported by the rejection of the Borghi experiment).

    regards
    wlad

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea, I don’t know if the Graviton can be classified as a stable gauge Boson like the photon. Many gauge bosons are considered virtual particles(see Feynman diagrams). The discovery of a free Graviton particle as of this time is still in question although the speed of the Graviton field effect has been measured as the speed of light.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We are talking of QUAR, or LENR in generic sense, not just for the E-Cat, anyway.
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    You are right.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Interesting discussion about a label for your energy source. I would suggest that just as LENR is an acronym for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it would be better to use QR for Quantum Reactions (easier to say, too!)

    Also, I think if you want any label to stick you, and Industrial Heat, would need to make a coordinated effort to use it in official communications. Even then, the media will probably be the ones who will determine the common name for this reaction.

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    W+ and W- ( discovered by Carlo Rubbia, who merited a Nobel Prize for this discovery) are the sole GAUGE bosons with an electric charge, but there are other bosons with electric charge: the bosons that belong to the hadrons are mesons, made by a quark and an antiquark, and among the mesons there are kaons ( k+ and k-) and pions ( pi+ and pi-) that have an electric charge. Obviously, we are talking of virtual particles, with a lifespan below 10^-23 s
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • KD

    Mr. DTravchenko
    You wrote.
    “What do you think about the proposal of Mr Estri to change the definition “LENR” into “QUAR” ( Quantum Reactions)” ?
    The other proposal might be. QURER (Quantum Rossi Effect Reactions)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Christopher Calder:
    I understand your point, but you are making confusion between two issues that have to be distinguished between each other.
    Evidence of the fact that QUAR ( or LENR) work is in course of being collected, due to the TPR2 and the first 1 MW commercial plant : we will see if the results will be positive or negative. A different thing is the negativeness or positiveness of a specific semanthic. If somebody asks you if it is raining you cannot answer ” the real problem is to have a roof upon houses”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Along the Standard Model, that I respect, Gravitons are stable gauge bosons, therefore they cannot be considered virtual particles. It is true that they have not yet been directly observed, but indirect evidence of them is clear: a consequence of the general relativity is that ripples in the gravitational field describe waves at the speed of light. They have been indirectly detected in 1974 by Russel Hulse and Joseph Taylor, who merited the Nobel Price for this work; they discovered a binary system of neutron stars spinning in a very close orbit. General relativity says that this system should lose energy emitting gravitational waves , causing the orbital period to decrease as the two stars approach closer: Hulse and Taylor measured this change in the period, exactly as Einstein had supposed on the base of his theory.
    Many attempts are now in course to measure directly gravitons: mainly utilizing astrophysical sources, by bouncing lasers off mirrors distant from each other: as a gravitational wave passes through, it stretches spacetime and as a consequence mirrors get closer, eventually getting more distant. This distance variation can be measured by the changement in the lasers’ wavelength. A typical example is the US Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, that consists of two separate facilities, one in Washington State and one in Louisiana.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea and Wlad,
    Since the idea of virtual particles has been introduced into this discussion, do you think as I do that the graviton is a virtual particle. That is, it does not exist as a particle until there is mass interaction. No mass no graviton. The mass interactions create the graviton force fields which then interact in an attractive manner. The graviton has no mass itself and no spin therefor can be classified as a Boson. The spins of the fermionic particles are coupled to the field and therefore conserve spin parity. The system exhibits 4 dimensional Riemann symmetry with time as the only non-Abelian dimension and has spherical geometry. The fields are weak but interact across vast distances.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with LENR. Once you explain to people that this technology is non-radioactive and inherently nontoxic, they won’t care what you call it. The problem now is not that people are afraid of LENR. The problem is they don’t think that it actually work. All we need to do is prove that it works and the name won’t matter. LENR is more honest and understandable than QUAR.

    Sincerely, Christopher Calder

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Conservation has nothing to do with Stability: all leptons respect the conservation law, but only electrons and neutrinos are stable. Leptons conservation law implies that the number of leptons has to be conserved after any interaction in which leptons are involved, while stability implies that an elementary particle does not decay, so far we know about it. Muon and Tau are leptons, but they are not stable, they are virtual particles, which means resonances of waves during interactions between particles: virtual particles are bookkeeping devices that indicate how quantum fields are vibrating during interactions between elementary particles.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone,
    There is not any thing enough difficult not to be possible to explain it in simple words, but also remind that simple explanations are superficial and sometimes the necessity to semplify makes explications misleading. Just be aware of this. About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists, therefore you find incoherence between what he writes and what you find in what I write: I fully believe that the QFT is the best available model, even if we all know that theories are done to be eventually overcome .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    Yes, I think is a very good idea, also to take off from LENR the pressure of the “N” letter. Semanthics sometimes count. I will try from now to spell QUAR instead of LENR, and this will be a contribution of the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Therefore: the next Authors are gently invited to use the definition QUAR instead of LENR. Let’s see what happens.
    Thank you for your comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • DTravchenko

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Since everybody asks you questions of Physics, allow me to ask you: are W+ and W- the sole bosons with an electric charge?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  • DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    What do you think about the proposal of Mr Estri to change the definition “LENR” into “QUAR” ( Quantum Reactions)?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  • Curiosone

    Another question, dear Andrea Rossi, when you have time: since Leptons are conserved, does this mean that Leptons are stable?
    W.G.

  • Curiosone

    Andrea Rossi:
    Thank you for your answers: your “analogies” are big help to understand the worls of elementary particles for us laymen. I also have to thank Wladimir Guglinski, but I am not able to understand what he says, I have not enough education.
    W.G.

  • Hank Mills

    Orsobubu,

    Here is my response in the form of an essay. I think that the E-Cat will allow an amazing future for the world, if used appropriately.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MJOFSAW

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lata:
    As I said, this is an issue that has to be put under a long and complex R&D work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Lata

    Hi Andrea,
    If you detecting pulsating electrostatic forces, EM waves cannot be far behind. Will it be possible to make e-cat powered microwave oven. That will be amazing.
    Warm Regards,
    Lata

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in August 8th, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    Hank Mills:

    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.
    ====================================

    COMMENT:

    Your dream of colonizing the solar system is already a reality:

    Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
    http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP

    New experiment (again) proves to be wrong Einstein’s empty space:

    Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

    http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

    According to the current Modern Physics, the experiment (tested in the NASA Johnson Space Center) violates the energy-mass conservation law.

    This new proof that space is not empty reinforces the experiment publshed in 2011 by Nature:
    Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html

    Surprisingly, again we dont see any newspaper in the world claiming that Einstein was wrong.

    The scientific community of physicists continues keeping the old desparate attempt so that do not recognize that Einstein was wrong.

    We have only to wait so that see how many years the scientific community will be well succeeded in such attempt.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    forgot the last phrase!
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • orsobubu

    Hank Mills:

    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.

    Surely you’ve read Gerard K. O’Neill’s “High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space”; related technology problems could heve been addressed since the ’70s, at least for the beginning phase requirements. But the political will was lacking and, above all, the possibility – for a capitalistic production system – to plan such huge projects requiring massive capital investment without short-term profits. Yes, someone is building spaceplanes for rich tourists, but only because they are already collecting fat advance payments. Think about Ebola outbreak. Animal vaccines are almost ready, they cannot complete the human trials because companies foresee uncertain returns. Capital market is too much plagued by risks and overproduction crisis. I cannot imagine that a “simple” energy plant can extricate these philosophical, objective economic contradictions. It seems more plausible that disruptive technologies could exacerbate the social turmoil and bring to a revolution, like the steam machine marked the end of serfdom economy. This is my bet 😉

    But, Hank, I really wish that an E-Cat would allow your dream to come true; yesterday Rossi wrote: “I am anyway always interested to analyse newfindings in my old love, the Seebeck Effect, to which I dedicated IN THE NINETIES 4 years of my life”

    Imagine if in a distant future he could write: “I am anyway always interested to analyse newfindings in my old love, the LENR-powered EmDrive Thruster, to which I dedicated IN MY NINETIES 4 years of my life”

    hehe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ecco Libération:
    I cannot give information in positive or in negative regarding what happens inside the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ecco Liberation

    Dr. Rossi:
    I’m sort of reluctant to ask this since I don’t want to step into confidential information territory, but have you ever observed whether putting a powerful magnet in contact with the internal E-Cat surface or applying a powerful electromagnetic field to the entire reactor (along different directions just to be sure) stops or affects this electrostatic field phenomenon in any detectable way? If it’s related to the motion of particles inside the E-Cat like I previously speculated, then I would expect it does, perhaps together with excess heat production.
    Regards E4L.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dan C.:
    Here are the answers, but not for free: you owe me a pizza.
    1. C
    2. B
    3. A
    4. No: the effect ( if real) is totally independent and insulated from the control box, which is external. The E-Cats’ external surface doesn’t carry any kind of current, being electrically insulated.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Thank you for your insights.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    p.s. I am anyway always interested to analyse newfindings in my old love, the Seebeck Effect, to which I dedicated in the nineties 4 years of my life. So far they are not efficient, but I am curious to understand what is going on with the new rare earth based semiconductors.

  • Dan C.

    Dear Andrea,

    he he, You knew these questions would be asked.
    1. Does this electrostatic pulse occur
    A. during drive mode
    B. during self sustain mode
    C. during both

    2. Is this detected in
    A. the mouse
    B. the cat
    C. in both

    3. Does this occur
    A. at high temps
    B. low temps
    C. both

    4. Was this detected as some type of feed back to the control box or some evidence discovered when analyzing the reactor after a shut down.

    Thank you in advance for any answers you can give. It helps to occupy our idle minds while awaiting the TIP report.
    I wish you all the best with the 1Mw plant.

    A Rossi kind of analogy:
    We have built a beautiful new car in our factory. It sounds wonderful. It is time to cross fingers and drive it around the block.
    If all goes well, we plan a great road trip. :-)

    Regards,
    Dan C.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi.

    This was just a conceptual question. Perhaps the thermoelectric conversion would be more reliable (no moving parts) than a conventional Carnot cycle electricity generation. In an ideal world, the excess heat would be made available to thermo-to-electric converters (through batteries) that would control the eCat operation. But I agree — probably a not useful combination for further consideration. Thank you for your response and consideration.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Why have we do adopt a system that has a lower efficiency if we can have a system that yields a higher efficiency?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    The configuration of the Hot Cat and the E-Cat is such that all the heat produced goes out to the heat exchanger, once the operation is stabilized, for the 1st and 2nd thermodynamic principle. On the contrary, a transfoemer would reduce the efficiency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, I read that reactors are insulated for safety reasons by means of particular ceramic material, this reduce the heat transmission, would not be better to use an insulating transformer that will grant the same safety grade without affect the heat excange?

    Best regards

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I was suggesting that a possible configuration for an eCat system might be one where the eCat produces heat which drives a refrigeration unit from the heat. The cold from the refrigeration unit and the excess heat from the eCat drive a device that produces some electricity which is used to control the eCat. It probably will not work as the thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency is very low. If I knew a typical eCat effective COP, an analysis could be attempted.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, I do not understand what you mean: can you kindly rephrase?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Curiosone wrote in August 5th, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    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.
    ============================================

    COMMENT

    Dear Curisione,
    along decades the theorists used to suppose that it is impossible the neutron to be formed by proton+electron, because of several theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e.
    For instance, the proton has spin 1/2, the electron has spin 1/2, and so the neutron formed by p+e would have to have spin 0 or 1.
    But experiments show that neutron has spin 1/2.
    There are many other theoretical restrictions agsinst the model n=p+e.

    Therefore the nuclear theorists believe that the proton and the electron do not exist into the neutron.
    And from the principles of Quantum Mechanics, it is impossible a neutron be formed by the fusion proton+electron at low energy.

    However two experiments, one made by Elio Conte and Maria Piealice, and the other made by Don Borghi, have demonstrated that a neutron can be formed by proton+electron at low energy (this is IMPOSSIBLE according to the current Nuclear Physics).

    So, the two experiments show that something very serious is wrong in the principles of the current Nuclear Physics).

    And, as Nuclear Physics is wrong, then the structure of neutron formed by proton+electron is possible, as the two experiments have proven.

    According to the Scientific Method, any controversy about a question must be solved via the performance of experiments.
    However, sometimes the scientific comunity does not apply the Scientific Method so that to solve scientific controversy. Instead of, they betray the Scientific Method, so that to save the theories in which they believe.

    That’s why the physicits reject the experiments made by Conte-Pieralice and Don Borghi, because if the two experiments be accepted by the Scientific Community there is need to reject as wrong even some principles of the most reputable theory of the present days, the Quantum Electrodynamics.

    The Conte-Pieralice experiment was published in 1999 by the Infinite Energy Magazine.

    The Don Borghi experment was in a paper titled Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, in the American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ecco Liberation:
    The external surface must be electrically insulated for safety reasons because even if you don’t touch it with the finger, you could enter in contact by means of any accidental conductor.
    The E-Cats and the Hot Cats all have the external body surface electrically insulated by means of a ceramic that is thermally conductive and electrically insulating

  • Steven N. Karels

    Tread A drew Rossi,

    Interesting comment on cooling. I know some devices can produce electricity. Depending on you effective COP, you might be able to make sufficient electrical power from the thermal heat difference, provide cooling and maybe use the excess heat for another application?

  • Ecco Liberation

    Dr. Rossi:
    I figured that since a Hot Cat already is a thermal hazard under working conditions (as its surface temperature peaks at several hundreds °C), having electrical insulation for the static electricity it apparently generates would have been kind of redundant as one would get a bad burn before possibly getting electrocuted. I meant that hypothetically speaking – where safety is not #1 priority – referring to an exposed, uninsulated inner core. I do get your point, though.
    Thanks, E.L.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ecco Liberation:
    The external surface of the Hot-Cat is electrically insulated, for obvious safety reasons.
    Currents are out of the reaction but inside the Hot Cat.
    If you touch any external part of the Hot Cat you do not feel any current nor measure any electromagnetic emission.
    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>