Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos

.
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.
.
.

558 comments to Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos

  • Chris Johnson

    Dr. Rossi,

    Are you aware of the Echogen supercritical CO2 electrical generator? The first units are in final industrial testing at Dresser Rand, a large steam turbine company.

    See http://www.echogen.com/documents/waste-heat-to-power-applications.pdf and http://www.echogen.com/our-solution/

    In their testing, they use a heat exchanger in the 400C flue gasses to drive the closed CO2 loop. I’m sure that it would be even more efficient with the higher temperatures available with the Hot Cat. Their test units are 300KWe, but they are working on a 7.5MWe unit.

    GE has licensed the technology for marine applications, and Dresser Rand is an investor in the company. They had a presentation at the DOE supercritical CO2 symposium earlier this month (see http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Events/2014/co2%20power%20cycles/Supercritical-Symposium-program-2014-FINAL.pdf) .

    Best Regards,
    Chris Johnson

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    1. The understanding of an aether substance. Because aether has no charge and it only responds to empty space it is undetectable by equipment because equipment is not empty space.
    ============================================

    I think aether is undetectable by equipment because the elementary particles of the aether do not interact directly with the matter (atoms) via experiments with low speed. Aether does not interact even with light. The aether supplies the electricitons, magnetons, and gravitons for the formation of the body of the photon and its gravito-electromagnetic field. Such supply of particles and antiparticles by the aether is the unique interaction with the light, and so there is no way to detect the aether.

    Aether interacts with matter via experiments where the speed of the particle is near to the speed of light.
    For instance, the experiment which measured the growth of the mass of the electron moving very fast. The growth of mass according to Einstein’s equation is consequence of the interaction with the aether.

    2. Aether represents a value of absolute size. Empty space represents a value of absolute volume.
    =========================================

    Empty space does not exist.

    3. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label.
    ==========================================

    I dont know what is dark matter.
    Such a hypothesis comes from the cosmology. I think that, as some misunderstandings are occurring in the atomic and subatomic levels, probably in cosmology also some mistakes are occurring.
    For instance, we dont know if the density of the aether is the same in the all regions of the universe far away of the presence of stars.
    In the case the density of the aether is larger in the perifery of the galaxies, this could explain why the stars are not expelled from the galaxies by the action of the centripetal force.

    However, I dont want to discuss on the puzzles of the cosmology, because we have so many puzzles in the atomic and subatomic levels, and we have to solve the earlier than the puzzles of the cosmology.

    3. Regards energy. This I believe is connected to a charge which is matter and of which is comprised of aether. The degree of energy is directly related to the velocity value of the charge. Compressed aether has more energy than that which is less compressed. Aether whether as a free substance or in the make-up of matter has an affinity for empty space.

    4. To provide for a duration of life between two pieces of matter with strong opposing charges there is need for a resonating barrier of aether matter able to expand and contract and thereby repulse each charge from the resonator thereby maintaining a necessary distance between the two opposing charges.
    ==========================================

    In my model of elementary particles, the electron does not fall dawn into the proton because the inner field Sp(e) of the electron has repulsion with the inner field Sp(p) of the proton.

    The attraction proton-electron is due only to the Coulomb attraction between their outer fields Sn(e) and Sn(p).

    When the outer field of the proton is perfurated, so that two protons share a common outer field, they do not experience the Coulomb repulsion, and this is the reason why there is no need the strong nuclear force for the aggregation of the nuclei. The nuclei are aggregated by magnetic forces.
    The reason why two protons cannot form a stable diproton is explained in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    You say that new rumors hit your ears: was it a brumm brumm or a bramm bramm? If you specify, I can better understand: maybe a Harley Davidson, but also could be masons working to remake the facade of a building. Unless it is a whisper: in this case can be Andrea Rossi that suggests you not to take in any consideration the rumorists. I do not know how the report will be and I do not know when it will be published and if I do not know these things you can be sure that the rumorists are just displacing idle acoustic waves using their tongues as propellers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    If the report of the Independent Third Party ( again thank you for the proper correction) will turn out to be negative, do you think there will be anybody, in the scientific context and outside, that will not publish it ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If the long-awaited report turns out to be negative do you think that any scientific journal will publish it?

    Kind regards, H-G Branzell

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, While you are waiting for a reply from Dr Lakshminarayana. Perhaps you could comment on some of my thoughts with regards to aether and energy as I am intrigued by it. This is what I think and I shall try to keep it brief. 1. The understanding of an aether substance. Because aether has no charge and it only responds to empty space it is undetectable by equipment because equipment is not empty space. Aether represents a value of absolute size. Empty space represents a value of absolute volume. A value of size will always fit within a value of volume. This strange terminology is because I am refering to aether. The same applies to matter which is comprised of aether. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label. For me matter has to have gravity and thereby has physical attributes. 2. Regards energy. This I believe is connected to a charge which is matter and of which is comprised of aether. The degree of energy is directly related to the velocity value of the charge. Compressed aether has more energy than that which is less compressed. Aether whether as a free substance or in the make-up of matter has an affinity for empty space. To provide for a duration of life between two pieces of matter with strong opposing charges there is need for a resonating barrier of aether matter able to expand and contract and thereby repulse each charge from the resonator thereby maintaining a necessary distance between the two opposing charges. If velocity of a charge is responsible for the energy content then maybe the conundrum regarding P+E = N could be explained by the acceptance that nature being physical comprised of aether is not static in its evolutionary progression but travels a distance over a duration of time. I shall attempt to explain. When the proton, the electron and neutron are formed providing a physical mass, the neutron maintains its necessary work of resonating between the proton and the electron. With evolution and the change of environment due to progression i.e. into a more positive zone that activates fission the proton responds accordingly and fuses down being a value of size energy while the electron fisses out being a value of volume energy. The neutron resonating between also responds accordingly and thereby travels a greater distance over the same duration of time and in doing so increases the energy content of the unit. If this is so, then time-distance-velocity is part of the energy equation. Could any of what I think help explain some of the puzzles in modern physics. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 23rd, 2014 at 11:49 PM

    Wladimir,

    Am I correct in assuming that your theory is something to do with what I have breifly described.
    ——————————————–

    Dear Eric,
    it is hard to know it, because there is no way to understand your theory without figures.

    My model of field is like a desire of engineering, with figures showing the two concentric fields and the fluxes of the particles of the aether moving in them.

    When my paper will be published by the JoNP, you will be able to verify if your theory is similar to the mine

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski Sir

    Wladimir Guglinski Sir

    Please let me have a couple of days. I will forward the mail to my professor: lnsrirama@gmail.com

    yours sincerely,
    UVS.Seshavatharam

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thomas Florek:
    Thank you, very nice.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Domenico Canino:
    Let’s wait for the results of the ITP and the R&D on course, positive or negative as they might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    I sent the email ahead to Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana:

    ————————————————–
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com; lnsrirama@yahoo.com
    Subject: your paper published in Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics
    Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:30:44 -0300

    Dears Dr. Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana

    I posted a comment in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, where I ask your opinions about a fundamental question in Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad
    ————————————————–

    .

    Dr. Seshavatharam sent me the following reply:

    ————————————————–
    Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:05:49 +0430
    Subject: Sir, please send by mail if possible …… Re: your paper published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics
    From: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    ————————————————–

    .

    Then I sent to his email the comment posted here in the JoNP, and he sent me the following second reply:

    ————————————————–
    Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:24:20 +0430
    Subject: Please let me have a couple of days.. sir
    From: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    ————————————————–

    .

    Dr. Lakshminarayana. who works in the Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
    Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India, did not send me any reply.

    So, it seems to me that nuclear theorists know that it is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, but they neglect such unforgivable failure of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    Therefore, sincerelly it seems to me that nuclear theorists do not face seriously the challange of eliminating the inconsistence of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because there is no way to eliminate the inconsistences by neglecting fundamental questions which point out to them that they are working in the wrong way.

    Such sort of theoretical work is a clear manner that any theorist can use so that to deceive himself, and also they deceive peoples as our friend Mr. JR, hidding to them the fundamental questions where the current nuclar models have not solution for the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    In my comment of September 23rd, 2014 at 7:23 PM I made a mistake, saying that 6C12 has four protons. But such mistake is because in my nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and only four protons gyrate in orbit with radius R.
    However, the quantity of protons makes no difference. The existence of any quantity of electric charge in the even-even nuclei with Z=N imply that their magnetic moment cannot be null, because of the rotation of the nucleus.

    regards
    wlad

  • domenico canino

    Dear Andrea,
    a few days ago, Rockefeller family, one of the most important in US financial area, announced they to leave their fossil fuel energy investments. Do they know (and do you know) if something of game changing energy world assets is happening?
    Clear regards

  • Hi Andrea. We have done research and found similarities between old ineffective computer software, and ineffective personal relationships. We present the results of our research in this song.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UICS8g20nUA

    (As always, reviews of the song could be positive, or negative).

    :-)

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, As I have told you many times I am not academic and therefore lack technical language. You state, in my paper ‘Aether Structure for Unification between gravity and electromagnetism’ submitted for publication in JONP it is shown etc. etc. that all elementary particles have two concentric grivito-electromagnetic fields. Am I to understand that you theorize that every elemental particle has gravity within it producing an inner field i.e. one that penetrates to the inner gavity and an outer electric field that circumvents the exterior and that these fields have a common point of origin. If this is what you have theorized then your theory is in keeping with my own which I have demonstrated as the unifying field factor and embodied it into a technology. The inner field/gravito field of any structure I refer to as ‘the economy flow system’ and is responsible for maintaining the structure for a specific duration of time. It’s the intensity of the inner gravity together with its field that dictates the lifetime of the structure hence the word economy. The outer electro magnetic field is the connection to the outer exterior gravity/environment. Between the inner gravity and the exterior gravity is where these two circuits have a common location and are responsible for unifying the structure into a stable mass. As the mass progresses along its path of evolution the structure enters into more positive zones of fusion which produces more fission energy. The two circuits respond to the environment and consequently the gravito/economy field collapses and the outer magnetic field increases, hence the structure falls to pieces under evolutionary law, which I believe could be stated as ‘that which is created must eventually be destroyed’. Am I correct in assuming that your theory is something to do with what I have breifly described. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Fundamental question to be responded by Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana, authors of the paper herein published:

    Dears professors,

    There are fundamental questions in Theoretical Physics which, if not responded by a theory, imply in the unacceptability of the theory.
    It is the case of a fundamental question impossible to be solved by any nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics, from whose fundamental principles is impossible to explain the null nuclear magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    Indeed, consider for instance the nucleus 6C12. It has null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment, because the spin and magnetic moment of each pair proton-neutron is cancelled by a symmetric pair proton-neutron.

    However, all nuclei have rotation. So, as the 6C12 has four protons, and they have electric charge, the rotation of the four charges induces a magnetic moment. And therefore, the 6C12 cannot have null magnetic moment, according to the current nuclear models based on the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    To solve such question is fundamental for the enterprise of eliminating the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
    Any nuclear model, unable to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero, is unacceptable.

    In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in JoNP four months ago, it is shown that the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N can be explained by considering that all elementary particles (as proton, electron, neutron, mesons, quarks, etc.) have two concentric gravito-electromagnetic fields.

    So, if we finally realize that such puzzle of Nuclear Physics can indeed be solved via the adoption of a double-field for the elementary particles, it means that the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot solve the puzzle because they are developed from the concept of mono-field existing in the current Quantum Field Theory.

    Besides,
    suppose that the double-field exists in the Nature.
    This means that is impossible to solve the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Physics by any theory developed from the concept of mono-field, as the nuclear theorists are trying nowadays.
    The nuclear theorists are trying to solve the puzzles of Nuclear Physics via the adoption of mathematical solutions, but if the physical structure of the field of elementary particles existing in Nature has a double-field structure, then obviously any attempt made via the concept of mono-field cannot be successful.

    In my opinion such fundamental question regarding the null magnetic moment for even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot be neglected in the Nuclear Physics, because if the the nuclear theorists neglect it they will never succeed in their challenge of eliminating the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    Besides, such question is fundamental for the answer of another fundamental question:
    Is it possible to eliminate the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics via the current concept of mono-field considered in the current Quantum Field Theory?
    Or
    there is need to adopt the new double-field concept of elementary particles?

    I would like to know the oppinion of yours, regarding such fundamental question

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Vincenzo Bonomo:
    Our protocircuit in Bondeno was just experimental and not fit for industrial applications. It was not a particle accelerator, just a water loop. For the rest of your comment, I respect your opinion, but it has nothing to do with our work. Next time you send us a comment, please translate it in English, because most of our Readers do not speak Italian. I published it anyway, maybe some Italian Reader is interested to what you wrote. My answer, anyway, contains the substance of your question; regarding the work of the competitor you cited, I never comment the work of our competitors.
    Thank you for your kind wishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • @george

    since I can only judge of M5* question via google translate, can you confirm that M5* simply
    – state that LENR show promising development including some commercial (E-Cat among I suppose)
    – ask what is the plan of the government for public research and initiative

    Is it correct ?

    It seems far from the idea to close ENEA LENR research ?

    from this report
    http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf
    and this conference
    http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source/
    it seems ENEA too try to push LENR in Europe ?

  • Vincenzo Bonomo

    Egregio Dr. Rossi, come forse ricorderà dalle mie precedenti mail dove affermavo che Lei aveva realizzato sostanzialmente un acceleratore atipico di particelle, sono qui ad interrogarmi sul perchè non abbia mantenuto il fattore di forma toroidale della sperimentazione di Bondeno, rivelatosi molto efficace nella fase di autosostentamento come constatò lo stesso Prof. Focardi, inoltre è mia ferma convinzione che alla base dell’Effetto che porta il Suo nome ci sia la superconduttività dell’idrogeno metallico, fenomeno favorito dal catalizzatore segreto noto solo a Lei.
    A proposito di quest’ultimo ho elaborato un’ipotesi che vorrei sottoporre al Suo giudizio (negli ovvii limiti di riservatezza del caso) anche per avere il Suo benestare per la pubblicazione sul blog 22Passi dell’amico Daniele Passerini, ovviamente se per qualunque motivo ritenesse opportuno rimandare più in là nel tempo la pubblicazione di quest’ipotesi mi adeguerei senza problemi alla Sua decisione.
    Dalla pubblicazione del Prof. Fabio Cardone “VERSO IL NUCLEARE PULITO” riporto il seguente stralcio: “Sin dal 1939 era stata stilata e poi sempre più perfezionata la tavola periodica dei nuclei atomici usando come criterio la massa del nucleo, data dal numero dei suoi componenti, e l’energia di legame specifica ottenuta dividendo l’energia di legame del nucleo per il numero dei suoi componenti, questa veniva chiamata l’energia di legame per componente. Tutti i nuclei a partire dal più piccolo, il deuterio, fino al più grande, l’uranio, erano ordinati secondo il valore crescente di questa energia di legame per componente. Tra i due estremi vi è il ferro che si trova circa a metà tra deuterio ed uranio, inoltre il ferro possiede il valore più alto della energia di legame per componente tra tutti i nuclei degli elementi ed in più il ferro è inerte cioè non è radioattivo. Per questa sua proprietà di avere l’energia di legame più alta il ferro è il più svantaggiato per produrre energia nucleare ed anche il meno incline a farlo. Scherzando si può dire impropriamente che il suo nucleo è e quindi sarebbe l’elemento meno adatto da considerare, almeno secondo il normale buon senso, come avrebbe detto Fermi. Ma tutto questo in condizioni normali, ossia di spazio piatto. Viceversa nello spazio deformato delle forze nucleari, il ferro si trova invece in posizione avvantaggiata. Infatti se vi è una soglia di energia da raggiungere, che è al disopra di tutte le energie di legame, il nucleo con l’energia più alta è quello più vicino, quello che a parità di potenza fornita la supera per primo tra gli altri nuclei e, cosa più importante, nel minor tempo.”
    Ebbene mi chiedevo se il ragionamento del Prof. Cardone si poteva applicare al nitruro di titanio che da superisolante in opportune condizioni di temperatura, pressione, ecc. poteva trasformarsi insieme all’idrogeno metallizzandolo e rendendolo superconduttore.

    In attesa di un Suo cortese riscontro Le faccio i miei migliori auguri per il Suo importantissimo lavoro e Le invio i più cordiali saluti.

    Vincenzo Bonomo

  • Gian Luca

    Thanks a lot Mr.George for your clarifications.
    This is very important for all italians who follow LENR
    and the energetic destiny of their country.

  • Andrea Rossi

    George:
    Thank you for the correction of the information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • George

    Curiosone, please check rigorously your source of information, to avoid to spread around wrong news.
    Regards,
    George

  • George

    Dear Curiosone, before making statements FALSE on M5S should inquire or mention the source.
    Stop throwing mud at those who work on issues such as difficult as the LENR.
    I enclose the link that proves its falsity and reliability. Shame on you

    However, Andrea Rossi has repeatedly said he is not interested in public funding.
    http://banchedati.camera.it/sindacatoispettivo_17/showXhtml.Asp?idAtto=15181&stile=6&highLight=1

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    First of all, I never comment the work of our competitors. Therefore, without commenting the quality of the work made by the Competitor you cited, I must say that we never worked with that Laboratory, directly or indirectly and also that we are not interested to their work, based on what they have published so far about their results. In line of principle, as you know, I repeatedly said that I do not believe in public funding of LENR, for many reasons; we always have refused any proposal of funding coming from Taxpayers. This is a personal point of view . If an apparatus works, money comes from the Customers and from private investors. Obviously my opinion can be wrong and I perfectly understand that it is connected with the vast and complex issue of the pure research, independent from immediate application opportunities. But many distinctions have to be made if we enter in this universe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Yes, I watched “Particle Fever” and I agree with your opinion. Is very interesting and is a successful example of how difficult physics issues can be explained in a way to be understood from the non physicists.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curiosone

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    I read that the “Movimento 5 Stelle” party has proposed to the Italian government to cancel the funds so far granted for the research in the LENR field made in the Frascati Laboratory by Francesco Celani, saying that that work has produced nothing in years and costed to the taxpayer millions of euros. Did Celani or his laboratory participate to your R&D or to your work in some measure?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  • Curiosone

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    Did you see the documentary “Particle Fever”, of Kaplan? Is the story of the quest for the iggs Boson in the LHC of CERN, from the initial fier in 2008 to the discovery of the Higgs; I liked it very much.
    W.G.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Lex wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 3:45 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    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?
    ———————————————

    Andrea Rossi replied in September 16th, 2014 at 4:22 PM

    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.
    ————————————————–

    Eric Ashworth commented in September 20th, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    My understanding of your reply is that what does happen in nature can be accelerated using a mechanism. Therby the Rossi effect is a process of nature that does not violate the standard model.
    ———————————————

    COMMENT:

    Dear Lex,
    cold fusion occurs only in special condictions, and one of them is the need of having resonance between the nucleons which have fusion.
    In order to have such resonance, there is need to apply a suitable electromagnetic field with a specific frequence.

    Cold fusion does not occur in core of the Sun, because the extreme condictions does not allow two nucleons to have fusion withe help of that suitable frequence.

    However, perhaps cold fusin may occur in the heliosphere of the Sun, where perhaps the condition is more favorable for the occurence for cold fusion. Indeed, the heliosphere has a temperature of 1.000.000ºC, while the temperature of the surface is only 6.000ºC.
    There is no explanation for such phenomenon according to the current theories of Physics, and perhaps the high temperature in the heliosphere is due to cold fusion.

    In spite of Andrea Rossi claims that the Rossi Effect does not violate the Standard Model, but even if that it is true however the Standard Model is violated by the results of two experiments, one made by Don Borghi (1993) and other made by Elio Conte (1999).

    The two experiments show that a neutron can be formed from the fusion proton+electron at low energy (this is impossible according to the Standard Model).

    In the Borghi experiment, he used an oscillatory electromagnetic field which frequence is in the same magnitude of that used in the Rossi’s eCat. So, the resonance in the Borghi experiment occurs in a way similar of that which occurs in the Rossi’s eCat.

    Rughero Maria Santilli tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several universities of the Europe, between 1994 and 2000. He was banned from all the universities.
    So,
    as all the universities in Europe had refused to repeat the Borghi experiment, then Santilli undertook to repeat it in the laboratories of the Institute for Basic Research, in 2006:
    Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

    Cold fusion occurs via some mechanisms which violate the Standard Model.

    If the Rossi’s Effect violates, or not, the Standard Model, is another question. In order to respond such question, there is need to know what elements and condictions exist within the eCat, and we dont know them.

    As Andrea Rossi knows what exists within the eCat, he is in a best condition to propose a theory. However, after the moment when he reveals what he uses within the eCat, we will analyse his theory, so that to verify if, indeed, the theory explains the Rossi’s Effect without to violate the Standard Model.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alexvs:
    I strongly recommend:
    Norman D. Cook – “Models of the Atomic Nucleus”, Springer ( Berlin ) – 2010 ( 2nd edition).
    Find it also by Amazon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Roberto,

    The 2009 patent states “… hydrogen is injected into the metal tube containing the highly pressurized nickel powder having a pressure, preferably though not necessarily, from 2 to 20 bars.” The bar is a metric unit of pressure, defined by the IUPAC as exactly equal to 100,000 Pa. It is about equal to the atmospheric pressure on Earth at sea level.

  • Alexvs

    Dear Mr. Rossi.

    Could you recommend an available book upon atomic nucleus?.

    Thanks in advance.

    Alexvs

  • Andrea Rossi

    Roberto:
    I gave this information in the patent granted to me in 2009, with priority April 2008: the pressure is higher.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Roberto

    Caro Andrea,
    probably you can’t give this information, anyway, how is the hydrogen inside the E-CAT: is it at atmosferic pressure or higher?
    Ciao, Roberto

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Obviously you are talking of the “OPERA” team of CERN, experiment made in March 2012. That has been a very unfortunate case: they got 5 Sigma, before making the press conference. If you remember, I published a comment on this blog, immediately after the press conference, writing that there was probably a mistake due to the error margin of the instrumentation. When you obtain a result that is very, very close to the error margin of the instrumentation, the hunch’s Sigmas could not tell the whole story. As a matter of fact it turned out that a loose cable that connected their master clock to a GPS receiver led to a delay in the timing that has been measured by their detector.
    Who doesn’t make mistakes cast the first stone.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    I confirm what I said. Thank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eric Ashworth

    Andrea, Regards your reply to Lex Sept. 16th What you state is ‘What does not happen in nature can happen with a mechanism that does not exist in nature. Nature can take a billion years etc. but with a truck you can make it faster etc.. Also the so called Rossi effect does not violate any law of the standard model’.

    My understanding of your reply is that what does happen in nature can be accelerated using a mechanism. Therby the Rossi effect is a process of nature that does not violate the standard model. It is this reference to the standard model involving the evolution of energy within nature that I have always thought was an unknown and why LENR have not been taken seriously. Am I correct? or am I missing something?. My own theory is that nature, excluding the two absolutes, is sandwiched between these two extremes, these being the absolute fission and fusion states but nature moves from the beginning of fusion which is out of fission into full fusion and consequently into fission. Transmutations I believe are a neccesary requirement to adapt to a foreign environment or you could say adapt into a more positive environmental state thereby distance and time are part of the transmutation equation with regards nature. Just a thought prompted by your analogy. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Hank Mills,

    I have also heard speculation about adding some level of deuterium to natural hydrogen to increase the eCat reaction efficiency. I recall in the early days, Andrea Rossi reportedly enhanced the isotopic distribution of his fuel. Back then, we all assumed he was referring to nickel. But in a general sense, the hydrogen could also be considered a fuel. So adding deuterium would be consistent with AR’s earlier comments. Going against this are some tests reported earlier that adding deuterium “poisoned” the nickel-hydrogen reaction but that was not done in the eCat configuration.

    Obviously, we do not need to worry about particle size for the hydrogen or deuterium as they are gases at the operating temperatures. Still, if a catalyst was found to convert their diatomic nature to a single atom, that might facilitate the eCat reaction. But, this is all speculation. I can neither confirm nor deny whether it is positive or negative (LOL).

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Got it!
    Rolling Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The steps are:
    1- make the test
    2- data are collected and distributed to all the authors
    3- if the data are millions, thousands of discussions and emails will be exchanged by the authors
    4- the authors have to make independently their own analisys on data, samples, etc
    5- the authors will ask to their peers to replicate the analisys on data, samples, etc
    6- data have to be compared with expectations
    7- every author writes his part of the report, based on his specialization
    8- when a draft of report is ready, every author reviews the parts of the other authors, and they reciprocally review their work and their calculations, analisys, etc
    9- when a text of report is agreed upon, the authors ask further reviewing from colleagues
    10- the report is given to the magazine, which makes its own peer reviewing.
    Said this, use as a calculator your good sense and tell me: do you think a total time between 6 month and 1 year is reasonable ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    rotfl

    rolling on the floor laughing

  • Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    One year from the start up.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    I do not give information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Rolling On The Floor Laughs ?
    Laughing Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    You have already said this before, but to quench some speculation taking place on the internet could you state again, for the record, no deuterium (other than the tiny amount found in ordinary light hydrogen) is added to the E-Cat or Hot Cat?

    Thank you.

    Hank

  • JCRenoir

    If you cannot answer, I understand, thank you all the same,
    JCRenoir

  • JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    How much time will you need the 1 MW plant work before considering it reliable and start a mass production?
    Thank you for your time to answer,
    JCRenoir

  • Curiosone

    Do you remember what caused the error of the “discovery” of neutrinos faster than light in CERN ? How many Sigma did obtain the physicists who made it before making a press conference?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  • Curiosone

    Why so much time is necessary before an important paper is published? I am asking independently from your specific case.
    Thank you for your patience,
    W.G.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobibu
    ROTFL: ?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Got it.
    Thank you,
    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>