.
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.
.
.
When Steven N. Karels reads Andrea Rossi saying RCPN (Report Could be Positive or Negative), he LOLs. But when I read Steven N. Karels trying every subtle trick to know the nickel particle size from Rossi, I ROTFL. LOL.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
LOL
abbreviation
informal
Laughing out loud; laugh out loud (used chiefly in electronic communication to draw attention to a joke or amusing statement, or to express amusement):
‘I love how you said ‘coffee is not my cup of tea’. LOL!’
Steven N. Karels:
In some comment, as in your last one, I found the acronym “LOL”: forgive me for my ignorance, what does it mean, exactly?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
All I had to say is written in my patent.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I knew that you could not comment on the nickel particle size or anything else that goes on within your eCat reactor. However, you previously stated that the nickel particle size does affect eCat performance. This analysis confirms that statement. Of course, the analysis maybe incorrect or correct, so it may be viewed as either positive or negative. (LOL)
WaltC:
I hope the Report will be published also in a way that will allow free access to the Readers, but, as you know, this does not depend on me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
This may be premature, but do you know if the publisher of the ITPR2 will require payment for us to access the ITPR2 journal article?
Thanks,
Walt C.
Tom Conover:
1- We are not yet in a situation that justifies an automated production line, but we have already part of them and the designs for the complete operation. Obviously, before we launch a mass production we need first of all to evaluate the report of the Independent Third Party, the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process. Probably you think all this takes too much time: you have not idea of the thousands of thousands of particulars you have to adjust; the more you work, the more you have to work because new problems are born from former ones. It is a permanent ( Hi, Orsobubu!) struggle.
2- No.
3- This information is not available to the public.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea,
Just wondering, you mentioned that September you would be exceptionally busy this year. 3 questions not related to IP for you to consider, if possible.
1) Are the automated production lines running properly?
2) Have you shipped 5 or more 1MW plants during Aug and Sept?
3) How many man hours does it take to assemble a 1MW plant?
Thank you for answering if you are able to do so, and for your pioneer work and perseverance!
Warmest regards,
Tom
Steven N. Karels:
I can’t comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Lata:
I did not say that. You probably misunderstood what I wrote.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Particle Size Analysis – eCat 10kW Reactor
Given a Hot eCat, can we derive the minimum nickel particle size consistent with the particle not melting?
Nickel specific heat capacity: 0.44 Joules/ (g * C)
Nickel melting point: 1,455C
eCat External Surface Temperature: 1,000C
Nickel density:7.81 g/cc
eCat reactor average output: 10kW
Assume allowed nickel particle temperature increase is 200C.
Assumed nuclear energy released per nuclear event: 3MeV
Assumed amount of nickel fuel in one eCat reactor: 5 grams
Assuming the nickel fuel is in the form of small particles (spheres) located immediately inside the eCat cylinder, then the average nickel particle temperature must be around 1,200C. So the nickel particle size must be larger enough to absorb a single nuclear event energy release without melting.
Amount of energy released = 3MeV = 4.8 * 10^^-13 Joules per nuclear event.
So the amount of mass of each nickel particle must be equal to or greater than 4.8 * 10^^-13 J / (200C * 0.44 J/(g * C) = 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams. The volume of such a particle would be 5.45 * 10^^-15 g / 7.81 g/cc = 6.98 * 10^^-16 cc. The volume for a sphere is 4/3 * pi * radius^^3. So the diameter must be about 11 microns.
Number of nickel particles: 5 grams / 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams per particle = 9.2 * 10^^+14
Nuclear events rate: 10,000J/sec / 4.8 * 10^^-13 J/event = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events / sec
Average event rate for a single nickel particle = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events/sec / 9.2 * 10^^+14 particles = 22.7 events / sec
Given the larger number of assumptions used, I would guess the nickel particles are 1 micron or larger.
Hi Andrea,
You had recently said that you can selectively activate the Rossi Effect in a single nano grain of fuel. Is it possible to build a small pebble or lump of NiH fuel with a few grains always activated? The pebble will always be smoldering like the small pilot flame on gas stoves. Then you can ignite the whole pebble when needed.
Regards,
Lata
Joe wrote in September 17th, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Wladimir,
You write,
“Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.”
But if there would be an electric field, that means that there would necessarily also be a nonzero resultant electric charge on the photon (perhaps under certain conditions). But since the photon is never observed as charged, the presence of a magnetic field is unexplainable in the context of QRT (as well as QM and QFT).
=========================================
Joe,
as I said, the particle and antiparticle are separated by a distance “d” very short regarding the size of the electromagnetic field.
The two particles behave as they were in average one unique corpuscle.
There was not up to now a technology able to detect the non-zero resultant of the electromagnetic field.
The non zero magnetic resultant also was never detected before the experiment published in August 2014 in the Nature Photonics.
But now, thanks to the new technology, we know that the photon has a non zero magnetic resultant ( in spite of, in average, the magnetic field is zero).
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
You write,
“Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.”
But if there would be an electric field, that means that there would necessarily also be a nonzero resultant electric charge on the photon (perhaps under certain conditions). But since the photon is never observed as charged, the presence of a magnetic field is unexplainable in the context of QRT (as well as QM and QFT).
All the best,
Joe
Nava Lina:
I do not know. Possibly in the report will be acknowledged who funded the test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Chi ha finanziato il test e i testers?
Who gave the funds necessary for the Independent Third Party Test and the Professors who did it and the Report ?
Regards
Lina
Joe
September 17th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Wladimir,
It would be understandable if the experiment had detected just one of the two magnetic fields within the QRT photon. But that would have been on the order of 10^-30m (the distance d between the two particles) and not on the order of 10^-11m (19 orders of distance further away). At that latter distance, both magnetic fields would cancel if the two particles propagated symmetrically. But since a magnetic field is detected at that greater distance, the two particles must necessarily be propagating asymmetrically. And if such is the case, an electric field (and its associated electric charge) would also be detected. But that does not occur.
=============================================
Joe,
they did not make the experiment so that to the detect an electric field.
The aim of the experiment is to detect the magnetic field
However, we know that the electric field and the magnetic field of the photon move together ( DxE = -dB/dt, Maxwell equation). The light is a propagation of an electromagnetic field in the space.
Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.
regards
wlad
DTravchenko:
No.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. attention: your comment has been casually fished from the spam, wherein our robot has sent it: check that the address you sent it from is not connected with an advertising of some sort.
Marco:
I cannot give this infrmation, in positive or in negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Georgehants:
We are working cutting our way through a jungle.
The compass says we are going in the right direction.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi wrote in September 17th, 2014 at 3:26 AM
Curiosone:
After the press conference of CERN regarding the finding of the Higgs boson , the the physicist Joe Incandela, spokesperson of the team that made the job, to a journalist that asked if at that point their work was finished, answered: ” Sometime they think after a success the job is finished, but for us any success is the beginning of a new work”.
==============================================
COMMENT
But in the case of the Hiigs boson, I suspect that after that success wrongly interpreted as success the physicists will discover that the beginning will be a new work in a different way they are expecting.
In 2015 the LHC will work at its full capacity, and I think the physicists will have many unexpected surprises.
regards
wlad
Dear Mr. Rossi, are you at this time satisfied with the progress you are making with your job in Research and Development.
Are things moving in-line with your hopes.
Have you encountered any major unforeseen difficulties in your progress with the Rossi Effect.
Best wishes
Dear Hank Mills,
I definitely feel that quantum tunnelling is important to explain the Rossi effect, but I’m not so sure about the Casimir effect. Quantum field theory is fascinating and worth studying any time but before diving deeper into that subject I was hoping to know your opinion if it will also benefit my understanding of the Rossi effect.
From my rather humble phenomenological approach to understand the Rossi effect, I always felt that phonon resonance effects might be more relevant for its explanation.
All the best,
Manfred
Dear Andrea,
Regarding my previous question: I know you use common AC current, but I would like to know if you tried AC current with different frequencies or even better measure the frequency response in a reasonably broader band (maybe 10-100000 Hz?) of some parameters like COP etc…
By the way, if you do that, yo can do a Bode or Nyquist diagram and design a PID controller to enhance the stability… Just a suggestion…
Regards.
Wladimir,
It would be understandable if the experiment had detected just one of the two magnetic fields within the QRT photon. But that would have been on the order of 10^-30m (the distance d between the two particles) and not on the order of 10^-11m (19 orders of distance further away). At that latter distance, both magnetic fields would cancel if the two particles propagated symmetrically. But since a magnetic field is detected at that greater distance, the two particles must necessarily be propagating asymmetrically. And if such is the case, an electric field (and its associated electric charge) would also be detected. But that does not occur.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On the topic of nickel particle size, you referred me to your Italian patent and then said the question was previously answered. I offer this analysis to bound the particle size:
Particle Size Analysis – eCat 10kW Reactor
Nickel specific heat capacity: 0.44 Joules/ (g * C)
Nickel melting point: 1,455C
eCat External Surface Temperature: 1,000C
Nickel density:7.81 g/cc
eCat reactor average output: 10kW
Assume allowed nickel particle temperature increase is 200C.
Assumed nuclear energy released per nuclear event: 3MeV
Assumed amount of nickel fuel in one eCat reactor: 5 grams
What is the smallest size particle diameter that could function within an eCat reactor?
Assuming the nickel fuel is in the form of small particles (spheres) located immediately inside the eCat cylinder, then the average nickel particle temperature must be around 1,200C. So the nickel particle size must be larger enough to absorb a single nuclear event energy release without melting.
Amount of energy released = 3MeV = 4.8 * 10^^-13 Joules per nuclear event.
So the amount of mass of each nickel particle must be equal to or greater than 4.8 * 10^^-13 J / (200C * 0.44 J/(g * C) = 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams. The volume of such a particle would be 5.45 * 10^^-15 g / 7.81 g/cc = 6.98 * 10^^-16 cc. The volume for a sphere is 4/3 * pi * radius^^3. So the diameter must be about 11 microns.
Number of nickel particles: 5 grams / 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams per particle = 9.2 * 10^^+14
Nuclear events rate: 10,000J/sec / 4.8 * 10^^-13 J/event = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events / sec
Average event rate for a single nickel particle = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events/sec / 9.2 * 10^^+14 particles = 22.7 events / sec
Given the larger number of assumptions used, I would guess the nickel particles are 1 micron or larger.
Curiosone:
After the press conference of CERN regarding the finding of the Higgs boson , the the physicist Joe Incandela, spokesperson of the team that made the job, answered to a journalist that asked if at that point their work was finished: ” Sometime they think after a success the job is finished, but for us any success is the beginning of a new work”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
You already know my answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Very difficult to say now, but the potential scenario could be proportional to that of a diffused utility.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dima Redko:
The peer reviewing of an important paper usually needs 6-12 months of reviewing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
in your opinion what might be reason for the 3-d party testers to take so much time to release their report? If I understood correctly the test itself ought to be complete by March 2014.
Dear Andrea,
How many full time staff do you expect will need to be employed by companies that install your industrial plants to operate them?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
In regards to the question about quantum tunneling and the Casimir effect, I think both are active in the E-Cat.
Recently, I’ve read how researchers have seen quantum tunneling between the tips of tubercles on nickel powder. Even when the tips are not touching, the high amount of charge at the tips allows for current to pass between them. If there is hydrogen present, it can transform into a superconducting form at the tips. This could allow nuclear reactions to take place.
When it comes to the Casimir effect, at the small distances between cracks, there can exist newtons of force. These forces may manipulate hydrogen and allow for energy extraction from the zero point energy field.
My guess is there are multiple phenomenon taking place in the E-Cat. Some may be desirable and others may not.
Have you ever attempted to stimulate nuclear reactions via a spinning permanent magnet – presenting alternating fields to the reactor – and a non-magnetic reactor casing? It would be interesting to see how it affects the reactions.
Joe wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 4:46 PM
If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one.
==============================
Joe,
note that the size of the magnetic field of the photon (the range of its actuation) has the magnitude of 10^-11 meter.
While the magnitude of the distance “d” in the photon has a magnitude shorter than 10^-30 meter.
So, the distance “d” within the photon is practically zero regarding to the size of the magnetic fields of the particle and antiparticle.
Therefore the existence of an effective magnetic field for photons can be detected only via a phenomenon of resonance, and that’s why it can be detected only via the use of an interferometer.
Also,
note that such resonance (thanks to which it is possible to detect the existence of the effective magnetic field for photons) occurs because of the existence of the distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle.
If the distance “d” would not exist between particle and antiparticle, the resonance would not occur, and the experiment published in the journal Nature `Photonics would detect nothing.
regards
wlad
regards
wlad
Are you open to sell other commercial licenses besides the licenses you already sold?
Warm Regards,
D.T.
When the report will be published your work will be substantially finished, if the report will be positive?
W.G.
silvio caggia wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 5:41 PM
@Wladimir Guglinski
Now I am a bit confused about your model of photon linear polarization… Photon linear polarization info is contained in distance “d” between particle and antiparticle OR in angular position between particle and antiparticle?
How are these two info related?
===============================================
Silvio,
1- The angular position between particle and antiparticle defines the polarization of the photon.
2- The distance “d” defines the ability of the photon either to be polarized, or not.
Because the polarization is a resonance phenomenon (the ability of the polarizer to change the angular position between particle and antiparticle depends on the resonance between the distance “d” in the photon and the distance “D” between two consecutive atomic planes within the polarizer; if the distance “d” in the photon is not able to get resonance with the distance “D” in the polarizer, then the polarization does not occur).
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 4:46 PM
Wladimir,
In QRT, it is the symmetrical motion of the charged particle-antiparticle pair within the photon that is responsible for the seeming lack of electric and magnetic fields. Those fields cancel. If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one. And the electric charge should become nonzero as would be indicated by the presence of a newly appeared electric field. So QRT has to explain how we can have a magnetic field without an electric field (and its associated electric charge).
==========================================
Joe,
in average the electric field of the two corpuscles is null.
As the particle and the antiparticle are very small, and also is very small the distance “d” between them, they behave as if they were one unique particle with electric charge zero.
There is no way to detect each one of the two electric fields by experiments.
And the magnetic fied acually does not appear in the experiment published by Nature. The existence of such magnetic field is deduced from the use of an interferometer, as said in the paper:
“We experimentally observe an effective magnetic flux between 0 and 2π corresponding to a non-reciprocal 2π phase shift with an interferometer length of 8.35 mm and an interference-fringe extinction ratio of 2.4 dB. “
regards
wlad
@Wladimir Guglinski
Now I am a bit confused about your model of photon linear polarization… Photon linear polarization info is contained in distance “d” between particle and antiparticle OR in angular position between particle and antiparticle?
How are these two info related?
Wladimir,
In QRT, it is the symmetrical motion of the charged particle-antiparticle pair within the photon that is responsible for the seeming lack of electric and magnetic fields. Those fields cancel. If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one. And the electric charge should become nonzero as would be indicated by the presence of a newly appeared electric field. So QRT has to explain how we can have a magnetic field without an electric field (and its associated electric charge).
All the best,
Joe
Manfred:
Whattaya think?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Lex:
LENR are not that simple, and you cannot resolve the problems just thinking that you can have nuclear reactions with low level energy: it is not that simple. What does not happen in Nature can happen with a mechanism that in Nature does not exist. Nature can take one billion years to make a stone travel from the Alps to the Adriatic sea, but with a truck you can make it faster and without all the meteorytes crush tests, the earthquakes, the floodings, the hurricanes, the you think it you put it, that you need to get Nature make the logistics.
What I can say is that the so called Rossi Effect does not violate any law of the Standard Model.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’m following your story with great interest because to me its clear that this is a big promise for the future of my kids. One question keeps running in my mind since I started reading about the E-Cat and LENR 3 years ago.
The generally adapted theory on the creation of elements in the universe states that new elements can only be created under extreme energy level conditions. Now it seems that inside your E-Cat nickel is transformed into cupper at low energy level conditions, what would that mean for the theories on the creation of elements and the creation of the universe? Does your E-Cat fits in this theory?
Kind regards,
Lex Steigenga
Lex
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Which one of the two effects do you think are more relevant to explain the Rossi effect?
– Quantum Tunnelling
– Casimir Effect
Wishing you all the best and keeping my finger crossed for the energy revolution!
Thanks,
Manfred
To the readers of the JoNP:
New experiment with light published by the journal Nature Photonics corroborates photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
Non-reciprocal phase shift induced by an effective magnetic flux for light
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n9/full/nphoton.2014.177.html
In the experiment the photon had interaction with a magnetic field.
But according to Quantum Mechanics, the light is a propagation of a duality wave-particle, which electric charge is null.
First of all, we have to note that a particle with charge zero cannot have magnetic field.
So,
according to the concept of photon considered in Quantum Mechanics we had to expect that would be impossible to have interaction between the photon and a magnetic field.
Such experiment can be explained only by considering the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, because as there is a distance “d” between the particle and the antiparticle, it is possible the existence of an effective magnetic field for photons, in spite of its total electric charge is null.
There is no way to explain the phenomenon by considering a photon with electric charge null as considered in Quantum Mechanics.
In the paper published in the journal Nature, the authors say in the Abstract:
“However, recent theoretical work¹,² has shown that an effective magnetic field for photons can exist if the phase of light changes with its direction of propagation”.
But in spite of the recent theoretical work mentioned in the paper had proposed the existence of an effective magnetic field for protons, however it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain WHY the phenomenon occurs, because it makes no sense to consider that a wave-particle propagation with electric charge zero could be able to produce such magnetic field.
This is always the problem with Quantum Mechanics. The authors of a paper propose something, but they cannot explain WHY that occurs, because from the models of Quantum Mechanics there is no way to find the cause of the phenomenon.
regards
wlad
Marco:
We use normal AC current at the frequency it is supplied to us from the grid.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
NCY:
Yes, it is an issue for our R&D.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Has there been any R&D toward using a Stirling Engine to generate mechanical advantage/electricity directly from the E-cat?
Thank you for your time.
NCY
Dear Andrea,
maybe my comment got spammed, so i am resending it. Anyway some of the issues got asked and answered.
I was wondering if the frequency of the AC current changes the COP or the stability or other features and if you have tried, with an AC/AC converter, other frequencies and with what results.
Regards.