.
by
.
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S.Lakshminarayana
Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Abstract
Point of ‘big bang’ can be considered as the center or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions.
If so, the existence of ‘preferred direction’ in the universe may not be wrong.
Based on the Mach’s principle, it can be suggested that, within the ‘Hubble volume’ overall distribution of ‘Hubble mass’ will explain the
observed physical phenomena.
With the discovered applications it is very clear to say that, without a joint and unified study of cosmology and atomic & particle physics, one should not deny the concepts of black hole cosmology.
The most interesting thing is that, at any given cosmic time, if the universe is a primordial growing black hole, then certainly its ‘Schwarzschild radius’ can be considered as its characteristic minimum size at that time.
Clearly speaking, “forever rotating at light speed, high temperature and high angular velocity small sized primordial cosmic black hole gradually transforms into a low temperature and low angular velocity large sized massive primordial cosmic black hole”.
Independent of the redshift observations and considering the proposed relations, with a great confidence now one can start seeing/observing the universe as a primordial expanding and light speed rotating black hole. Based on the proposed relations and concepts of black hole cosmology, definitions of cosmic homogeneity and cosmic isotropy must be re-addressed.
It is also clear that, now the black hole universe is expanding in a decelerating mode at a very small rate in such a way that with current technology one cannot measure its deceleration rate.
Finally it can be suggested that cosmic acceleration and dark energy can be considered as pure mathematical concepts and there exists no physical base behind their affirmation.
For the most serious cosmologists this may be a bitter news, but it is a fact.
Authors hope that, by 2015 definitely this subject will come into main stream physics.
With reference to Black hole cosmology, it can be suggested that, characteristic nuclear charge radius and the characteristic angular momentum of the revolving electron increase with cosmic time.
In addition, characteristic nuclear charge radius is more fundamental than the reduced Planck’s constant.
The key point to be noted is that the Planck’s constant can be considered as a cosmological constant.
.
.
Silvio,
an additional explanation on the linear polarization:
a) Suppose a photon passes by a polarizizer 90º, and so it is polarized vertically with 90º. It means that his particle and antiparticle meet them together in the positions 90º and 270º.
b) Now we will oblige that photon to pass by a polarizer 45º. It has 50% chance to be polarized 45º, depending on his distance d. If it is polarized 45º, it means that the particle and the antiparticle changed their relative position, and they will meet together in the positions 45º and 225º. And perhpas the distance d also can be affected, by a litle changing.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 15th, 2014 at 4:55 PM
Wladimir,
How is the creation of two new corpuscles for the two particles of a divided photon different in essence from hadronization which also involves an act of creation of particles from the vacuum (or aether, as you believe)?
============================================
Joe,
I think the creation is the same in the two cases. When a “hole” is created in the aether due to the rupture of the partnership of the two corpuscles in the photon, the aether creates a new particle.
But in the case of polarization there is not creation of particles.
In the case of polarization there is changing in the properties of some photon.
I cannot believe that, if we change the polarization of a twin brother photon here in the Earth, his brother in the Moon will also change its polarization.
When we change the polariztion of the first twin brother photon here in the Earth, a polarizer is changing the relative position between the particle and the antiparticle of that photon. Such phenomenon requires the interaction between the two corpuscles of the photon with the atomic planes of the polarizer.
I dont believe the twin brother photon in the Moon will also change the relative position between the particle and the antiparticle.
regards
wlad
silvio caggia
September 15th, 2014 at 9:49 PM
@Wladimir Guglinski
1)======================
Sorry, I missed someting…
Two photons A and B, emitted from the SAME laser, can have different distances “d” between their particle and
antiparticle? Shouldn’t them have same distance “d”?
Anyway, if both them pass a vertically polarizer (90º), shouldn’t them have NOW same distance “d”?
=============================================
No,
two photons can be created with the exact same distance d only when are produced via the process of broken an original photon in two twin photons.
The fact that two photons pass a vertically polarizer (90º) does not mean that they must have the distance d.
Two photons with different distances d can be polarized 90º . Each one has 50% of chance to be polarized.
Polarization is a phenomenon of resonance between the distance d and the distance D between the atomic planes of the polarizer. The value of the distance d varies between a maximum and minimum to be polarized.
.
2) =============================================
By the way, what does it means the linear polarization of a SINGLE photon? Shouldn’t it have only spin (circular polarization)?
Shouldn’t linear polarization be a collective property of photons?
=========================================
The particle and antiparticle move in contrary direction, with the same angular velocity (about the line center of their helical trajectory). So they pass one in front to the other in two positions, separated by 180º.
In vertical linear polarization, the particle and the antiparticle pass by the points 90º and 270º at the same time (90º and 270º are the points where they pass one in front to the other).
They always pass one in front to the other in the points 90º and 270º in the linear polarization.
Unlike, in the circular polarization the particle has a circular motion a litle slowly, and so the point of their meeting is always changing.
regards
wlad
@Wladimir Guglinski
Sorry, I missed someting…
Two photons A and B, emitted from the SAME laser, can have different distances “d” between their particle and
antiparticle? Shouldn’t them have same distance “d”?
Anyway, if both them pass a vertically polarizer (90º), shouldn’t them have NOW same distance “d”?
By the way, what does it means the linear polarization of a SINGLE photon? Shouldn’t it have only spin (circular polarization)?
Shouldn’t linear polarization be a collective property of photons?
Regards
Hank Mills:
In your question there is the answer. Obviously I cannot comment. Our Team is making all the necessary work to make the E Cat operate.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The requirement for AC makes me think an magnetic field, altering in polarity, may be needed to stimulate the reactions until they reach a certain level at which they become self sustaining. Another possibility is that the resistor coil acts like a helical antenna emitting an RF signal into the reactor. This second possibility seems less likely, due to the possibility that red hot resistors might have such a great resistance they may not transmit well.
Can you elaborate at all on this? As always, I understand if you cannot. But after following this saga for years now, I’ll be thrilled when we can learn a bit more about what is happening: rather than only reading speculation that is probably 90% wrong that has been rehashed over and over on internet E-Cat forums.
The E-Cat is a dream of an ideal energy source made manifest. I’m not a doubting Thomas, but perhaps a bit of a Zacchaeus, with a great curiosity , climbing up the “tree” of the internet to hear an explanation of whats happening that allows the E-Cat to work it’s wonders. If you were a prophet and the E-Cat was a barrel of water turned into wine, the situation would be so much easier. But since you are a scientist having to deal with patent laws, unsavory characters, and IP issues, the whole situation is much more complicated.
Rafal Krych:
Interesting issue, never thought about that. I will talk with out electronic experts to check what you write.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
How is the creation of two new corpuscles for the two particles of a divided photon different in essence from hadronization which also involves an act of creation of particles from the vacuum (or aether, as you believe)?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
How about making your E-Cat reactors (both domestic & industrial) resistant to EMP (electromagnetic pulse). I mean to hide all electronic components inside metal shielding of reactor (Faraday cage) and maybe some extra fuses to protect against currents induced in external cabling. This might be very important in case of possible “Carrington Event” or human triggered EMP:
http://www.wired.com/2012/02/massive-solar-flare/
Such feature will make your reactors even better when comparing with classical energy sources which cannot be secured like this.
silvio caggia wrote in September 13th, 2014 at 9:47 AM
@Wladimir Guglinski
Now I have some doubts that asked her (and still waiting for reply)
1) What happens if NL2 is put before D2 (after b)?
2) Why do you need to put the infrared beam (that hit O) before NL2?
3) Whats happens if you reduce the distance between D3 and D2?
I thing that you should maintain some reasonable doubt about this experiment till Gabriela answers these questions.
=========================================
Silvio,
we have to wait Gabriela to make the experiments suggested by me.
I even dont know if she will undertake them
regards
wlad
silvio caggia wrote in September 13th, 2014 at 8:39 AM
@Wladimir Guglinski
If I well understood your thinking, the photon behaviour approaching a polarizer should be deterministic (its sub-particles have a determined distance between them) and not probabilistic (as QM says).
So what should happen when a laser beam of vertically polarized photons approach a 45degree polarizer (or a beam splitter)?
According to a deterministic approach all photons should get the same way…
But experimental results say they get two different ways: 50% pass and 50% absorbed (or deviated in a beam splitter).
Have I missed something?
How your model explains the different behaviour of identical photons (same polarization)?
I think that this is the core concept of QM, we must agree on this point before discussing about entanglement or Aspect experiment.
=====================================
Silvio,
two photons with the same wavelenght can have different distances “d” between their particle and antiparticle.
Suppose two photons A and B with the same wavelength, but in the photon A the distance is “d(a)”, and the distance in the photon B is “d(b)”.
Both the photons A and B can be polarized vertically.
So, suppose both them are polarized vertically (90º)
Now suppose they both hit a polarizator 45º
Their chance to be polarized 45º depends on their distances d(a) and d(b). For each one of them the chance is 50%.
Only two twin photons (as created in Gabriela experiment) will have the same behavior, because they both have the same distance “d”.
If one is polarized, the other is polarized too.
If one is not polarized, the other also is not polarized.
regards
wlad
Mark:
No, only with AC, so far. R&D is on course for gas operated E-Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Lets not talk about controllability of the E-cat, can the Rossi effect be initiated by any heat source (gas, Dc, Ac, animal fat, coal,gasoline….)?
Joe wrote in September 14th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Eric,
Your suggestion about recreating a missing part of a particle by using the environment may be true. One example of such a speculated process is called hadronization:
“In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created. Due to postulated colour confinement, these cannot exist individually. In the Standard Model they combine with quarks and antiquarks SPONTANEOUSLY CREATED FROM THE VACUUM to form hadrons.” (capitalization is mine) (Wikipedia, Hadronization)
============================================
Joe,
there is a confusion here.
in high-energy collisions there is collision between matter with matter, at high energy. As energy is converted to matter following Einstein’s equation E=mc² , the creation of quarks occurs.
A similar phenomenon occurs when a photon is divided in the Gabriela experiment. The particle takes a direction, and as the photon cannot be formed by one unique corpuscle, a new antiparticle is created, and together with the particle they form the first new twin photon.
The same happens with the antiparticle of the original photon. It takes another direction, and a perticle is created, and together with the antiparticle they form the second new thin photon.
It is not the case in the entanglement between photons. They have to interact through a very long distance.
And it is not the case of formation of a new photon. It is actually the case of change its polarization.
regards
wlad
Andreas Moraitis:
Gas powered E-Cats are still in a very primitive R&D status, therefore I am not able to answer to your question. Sorry.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Could the gas-powered reactors use a DC source (for example, a battery) as electrical input?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Piergiorgio Mongioj:
I meant that the E-Cats can work properly “from the electrical point of view” if the frequency is either 50 or 60 Hz, I was not referring to the other data.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, you say “50 Hz or 60 Hz are frequencies at which the E-Cat can work properly”. So The E-Cat works properly… Very good news!!! Negative or positive? 😉 “Hot” regards. Piergiorgio Mongioj
Greg Leonard:
Yes, 50 Hz or 60 Hz are frequencies at which the E-Cat can work properly. As a matter of fact, in the USA we have 60 Hz, while in Europe we have 50 Hz.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
Will the ecat work just as well with the American 60Hz and the British 50Hz mains electricity?
Frank Acland:
No, we need AC current: the E-Cat cannot be operated with DC current.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You say that the E-Cat needs AC current to operate. My understanding is that the electricity is needed to run an electric resistance heater — could not DC current power a resistor and achieve the same effect?
So what is additional purpose behind the need for AC?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Eric Ashworth
September 14th, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Could it be posible that if you split a rotating object then the two rotating objects will by means of the free aether be able to re-create its missing partner if it only needs one or two aethers. Could this explain the Gabriela experiment or am I completely off the mark. Regards Eric Ashworth
========================================
Eric
I dont believe, it
That would require a very complex mechanism
regards
wlad
Eric,
Your suggestion about recreating a missing part of a particle by using the environment may be true. One example of such a speculated process is called hadronization:
“In particle physics, hadronization (or hadronisation) is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created. Due to postulated colour confinement, these cannot exist individually. In the Standard Model they combine with quarks and antiquarks SPONTANEOUSLY CREATED FROM THE VACUUM to form hadrons.” (capitalization is mine) (Wikipedia, Hadronization)
All the best,
Joe
To Wladimir and Joe, Thanks for your reply to my questions regarding QE. I will be following your comments which I enjoy on this blog. The subject of aether regarding its existence is, I believe, an important missing link in physics which if ever proven will provide major advances in the understanding of a complex subject. My understanding of aether is that it is a grainy substance with no gravity value because it lacks a dimension of volume but represents a value of size energy i.e. not volume energy. It will respond to gravity because gravity has to sit within a volume. Maybe aether can only make so much volume energy/ matter within a given volume and any remaining aether has to fill the empty space between the manufactured volumes and thereby the free aether will never be at rest as it takes straight line projectories to cover as much distance in the shortest possible time. Could it be posible that if you split a rotating object then the two rotating objects will by means of the free aether be able to re-create its missing partner if it only needs one or two aethers. Could this explain the Gabriela experiment or am I completely off the mark. Regards Eric Ashworth
Steven N. Karels:
As you know, I already answered to you regarding this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In considering the size of the nickel particles, it seems to me there must be an optimal nickel particle average diameter for the Rossi effect to work for industrial applications such as the Hot eCat. Assuming the eCat reactor is at temperature with the internal fuel close to but less than the melting point of nickel, then too small a nickel particle diameter and the particle will melt due to the nuclear event. Likewise, since the LENR effect appears to be a function of surface area, too large of a particle diameter will reduce the likelihood of an LENR effect. So there must be a “sweet zone” for the Rossi effect in terms of nickel particle size. Do you agree?
Dan C.:
Thank you for your intelligent comment. Obviously you refer to the Hot Cat. As a matter of fact the issue you raised is correct, anyway the images you have seen were not related to an industrial plant, but to a bench prototype.
Thank you for your attention and your suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
DR. Rossi
From images I’ve seen, it appears you still employ the flange on the reactor with the studs protruding out.
This would indicate that the reactor would be positioned inside a boiler with the flange pressing against the wall squeezing the seal tight against that wall. As opposed to the flange being on the outside pressing the seal apart when under pressure & increasing the odds of springing a leak. Or worse, the reactor being jettisoned like a safety plug should the studs break off.
Could one assume then that with the above configuration of the reactor mounted to the inner wall of the boiler, that the reactor core itself can be removed through the center of the flange without removal of the outer casing. This could involve just the hermetically sealed charge/insert or include the resistor coils imbedded in the ceramic insert should they need checked or replaced.
I ask because in a comment you posted “When charges have to be changed the system is fast.”
This configuration would be fast & possibly even done without shutting down the entire system to change a single dead reactor.
Also with this design, The outer reactor shell could be built robust enough to last years or decades & become a physical part of the boiler. The reactor itself would then just be the core charge & resistor assembly.
NCY:
Any electric energy source is good for the E-Cat drive, provided :
1- it must be alternate current ( the E-Cat cannot work with direct current)
2- it must be e very elastic source, due to the control system technology
3- it must have an efficiency enough to save the economic convenience of the E-Cat
For these reasons the integration of the Seebeck Effect with the so called Rossi Effect does not work: so far the efficiency of the Seebeck Effect is too low ( max 5%, more likely 3%, minus the loss to convert DC into AC).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Would it be possible to hook up a thermoelectric generator to an Ecat (with the Ecat as the heat source), produce electricity and with the aid of a small battery for a buffer, loop the electricity back into the Ecat for a demonstration device? Thermoelectic seems the simplest for this as they commonly have efficiencies of 5-8% which may be plenty for this application.
NCY
DTravchenko:
We have an R&D section working on gas activated E-Cats, and I think we will be able to resolve the problems we have.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JCRenoir:
Yes, with inconclusive results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, useful link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
AR,
Sorry. I sent the plot/picture of High Entropy Alloys without the article. The link to the original article is below.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/09/04/a-metallic-alloy-that-is-tough-and-ductile-at-cryogenic-temperatures/
Joseph Fine
JCRenoir:
The classic example is the case of flipping a coin: you have a 50% chance that it will be face 1 and 50% that it will be face 2. Obviously if you flip 100 times the coin, it is unlikely you get 50 F1 and 50 F2, most likely you will get 45-55 times either one face or the other: this interval 45-55 is in this example “sigma 1”; means that if you find from 45 through 55 times a face flipping 100 times, there is no event at all, because it is normal. If a stretch of 10 is sigma 1, we will have a stretch of 20 = sigma 2, a stretch of 30= sigma 3, a stretch of 40= sigma 4, a stretch of 50= sigma 5; this means that the higher the value of sigma, the higher the possibility that there is something, that you are looking for, that makes a work: in the case of the coin, can be a trick that makes the coin fraudolent, in case of Physics can be a force that breaks the symmetry or something else. If you get a sigma 5 the probability that there is a break of the normality is very close to be certain ( in Physics nothing is certain, everything has a higher or lower grade of probability).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto:
I do not see how the current international situation could affect the report release. The Report of the ITP has been delayed by nothing but the necessity of a proper review. All Physicists know that the publication of an important paper can take from 6 to 12 months.
Prof. Sergio Focardi has given a strong help to the development of the E-Cat.
Many Professors from the Italian academic world have given an important contribution. The E-Cat is the result of an international team work without which the E-Cat probably could not have been born.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, useful information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Just saw this article on high-entropy alloys.
The article only focused on cryogenic applications, but these materials may also have exceptional properties in high temperature applications.
You may find these materials of some use in your R & D.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/Rob-Ritchie-alloys-paper.jpg
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/12/5338 (Click on PDF; Open Access)
High-Entropy regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Andrea, two questions:
The current international situation is affecting the delay of the report release?
Without Focardi and the fantastic Italian academic world made of humble people would have the E-Cat existed ?
Regards, Roberto
Curiosone:
Sigma can be two different things:
1- a boson of the family of Barions, inside the Hadron system. Is a virtual particle, can have positive, neutral and negative charge.
2- a probabilistic interval that measures statistically the probability that an event is real: for example, sigma 1 makes the extraordinary event unlikely, sigma five makes the event close to certain.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone:
Norman Cook ” Models of the Atomic Nucleus”, 2nd edition, Springer, 2010
Is a gold mine.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Can you explain better the “five sigma” thing?
JCRenoir
Did you ever make experiments to treat with the Rossi Effect radioactive wastes from thermonuclear plants? There are rumors you did .
JCRenoir
Dr Rossi:
Do you think that gas will substitute electric power to make the E-Cats work?
I noticed all your public tests have been made using electricity.
Warm Regards,
DT
Dr Rossi:
In Russia we have enormous reserves of gas: do you think we can take advantage from the E-Cats using gas?
Warm Regards,
DT
What is “sigma” in nuclear physics?
W.G.
We are now going toward the period of the Christmas gifts, and books are among the more donated gifts: which book would you suggest to give as a gift in the LENR neighbourhood?
W.G.
@Wladimir Guglinski
About the Gabriela’s experiment I finally got the setup schema:
i.imgur.com/nwHb1qp.jpg
The red line is the infrared path while the yellow line is the red light path. Yeah, a bit confusingly…
It is very different from what I imagined from the article you posted here, there are not the two arms to apply my suggestions.
Now I have some doubts that asked her (and still waiting for reply)
1) What happens if NL2 is put before D2 (after b)?
2) Why do you need to put the infrared beam (that hit O) before NL2?
3) Whats happens if you reduce the distance between D3 and D2?
I thing that you should maintain some reasonable doubt about this experiment till Gabriela answers these questions.
@Wladimir Guglinski
If I well understood your thinking, the photon behaviour approaching a polarizer should be deterministic (its sub-particles have a determined distance between them) and not probabilistic (as QM says).
So what should happen when a laser beam of vertically polarized photons approach a 45degree polarizer (or a beam splitter)?
According to a deterministic approach all photons should get the same way…
But experimental results say they get two different ways: 50% pass and 50% absorbed (or deviated in a beam splitter).
Have I missed something?
How your model explains the different behaviour of identical photons (same polarization)?
I think that this is the core concept of QM, we must agree on this point before discussing about entanglement or Aspect experiment.