.
by
Gamal A. Nasser
Faculty of science, Mansoura University, Egypt
E-mail: chem.gamal@hotmail.com
.
.
Abstract
This model is development of solid nuclear models. Like FCC model, this model can account for nuclear properties that have been explained by different models. This model gives more accurate explanation for some nuclear properties which are Asymmetric fission, Nuclear binding energy and the most bound nuclei, Natural radioactivity and Number of neutrons in nuclei depending on the structures of these nuclei. The structures of nuclei in this model have special advantage, as there is separation between lattice positions of similar nucleons giving new concept for nuclear force.
.
.
Dear ing. Rossi,
What is The following step of The e cat disclosure?
Press conference?visit to The plant in operation?other?
Hank Mills:
Please find the answers below your questions scrolling your your comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Calaon:
You make all your considerations. As you know, I cannot comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your words; why onslaught ? The critics that mostly count, at this point, are only the critics of the Customers that buy our plants. Critics that teach us something are useful, while critics that repeat the usual blabla are irrelevant: in any case I do not see any onslaught in the horizon of the E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Georgehants:
Our Team is working to put this technology at work.
Thank you for your kind words.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
The opposition will continue to say the E-Cat does not work. At this point they are irrelevant, though. The era of this kind of tests is finished, now the focus is exclusively on the plants we sell to Customers and the R&D is focused only on the Customers’ needs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi wrote in October 8th, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Wladimir Guglinski:
Thank you for your kind expressions. What is beginning is just a period of tough work on R&D.
——————————-
Dear Andrea,
I know there is a lot of work to do. For instance, there is need to improve your technology so that to get electricity from the eCat.
However today is a great day, because the controversy is ended.
In spite of many of us were sure that the eCat works, however many stated that the E-Cat didn’t work.
It’s a great day of a New Era for mankind.
regards
wlad
Dear Eernie,
also,
do not forget that Rossi uses a catalyst in his eCat, and without a catalyst the eCat does not work.
Therefore, if your supposition of the reaction via 3Li7 is really correct, however the mechanism of the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 depends on the help of the catalyst.
Perhaps Rossi does not use any catalyst, and he told a lie, just with the aim to deceive everybody, by putting them very far away on the mystery on how his eCat works.
But I dont think Rossi said a lie, and I guess he really uses a catalyst.
Rossi tried several catalysts, and some of them work better than other ones.
I predicted that the best catalyst to resonate with the structure of Ni is the 52Te:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/How%20repulsive%20gravity%20contributes%20for%20cold%20fusion%20occurrence.pdf
According to my new nuclear model, the nuclei exhibit a phenomenon (which I named Accordion-Effect): they have shrinkage and expansion like the bellows of an accordion.
The Accordion-Effect of the nucleus Ni can resonate with the Accordion-Effect of other nucleus (the best resonance occurs with the 52Te).
In the case your speculation about the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 is correct, however probably the resonance between the Accordion-Effect of the Ni and 52Te helps the extraction of the neutron.
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski:
Thank you for your kind expressions. What is beginning is just a period of tough work on R&D.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alessandro Coppi:
Grazie!
Cari saluti,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
Thank you, but to reach the highest international recognition I still have to give evidence of a commercial breakthrough. A huge work has still to be done.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, three long years for those of us following your progress, but I think the time may have flown very fast for you being so busy changing the World forever.
Now we shall see if those with power and influence will allow this technology to be given freely to the people or held back as it has been for many years for political and financial reasons.
All of science now has a new baby to nurture and help grow to maturity.
Many congratulations and good luck as always for the future, both yours and the new science of LENR.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
it is exactly the target we have now.
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in October 8th, 2014 at 3:42 PM
1) ————————————-
This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.
—————————————
Eernie,
There is no experimental evidence for such assumption.
The halo neutron with 7 times further from the cluster was detected experimentally for the 4Be11, but not for the 3Li7.
The halo neutron of the 4Be11 has an orbit with radius 7fm, and therefore it is a proof that the strong force is not the cause of the aggregation of the nuclei, since the strong force does not actuate in distances longer than 3fm.
.
2)————————————–
(3) The 7Li atom has a neutron which seems to be excessive when examined in accepted nuclear cluster theory. This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.
———————————————
Dear Eernie,
the structure of the 3Li7, according to my new nuclear model, is shown n the Figure 13, page 17, of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in JoNP:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
What you say makes sense by looking at the structure of 3Li7 shown in the Figure 13.
The neutron has spin-interaction with the deuteron, while the centripetal force Fc tries to expell both the deuteron and the neutron, but the magnetic force Fm pulls the deuteron toward the central 2He4, and as the neutron is tied to the deuteron via the spin-interaction, the neutron is kept in the 3Li7.
.
3)—————————————-
(4)The amount of external energy necessary to strip this neutron from the 7Li atom producing a 6Li atom can be applied through thermal sources since the strong force has a small retaining force on the neutron.
——————————————
Eernie,
perhaps the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 can be caused by the oscillatory electromagnetic field applied in the eCat (maybe the spin-interaction deuteron-neutron can be affected by the oscillatory emf).
Other hypothesis is to suppose that the rotation of the nucleus 3Li7 can be incresead by the application of the oscilatory electromagnetic field used by Andrea Rossi. Because the deuteron has a positive electric charge, and it is orbiting the central 2He4, and so perhaps an external electromagnetic field can change the rotation of the nucleus 3Li7. By increasing the velocity of the rotation of the 3Li7, the centripetal force on the neutron increases, and it is expelled from the 3Li7.
regards
wlad
Congratulations Dr Rossi, now the only thing we need is the customer announcing he will save millions using your E-cat!
Dr. Rossi, I want to add my congratulations to the many other.
I know this is only the first step.
I will be very happy to watch you climb every wonderful step to the very top.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
P.S. I am with Gherardo on the Nobel.
Grande Andrea Rossi, qualche volta come tanti ho dubitato, ma ero sicuro che la oltre le colonne ci fosse un nuovo mondo, tu hai ci portato frutti nuovi, che come le patate sfameranno il pianeta per i secoli a venire.
Un saluto in italiano, una volta tanto.
Ciao Andrea, grazie per la tua tenacia.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations on a positive outcome. I was slightly disappointed that the test was not 6 months but 30+ days is more than sufficient for demonstrating a nuclear level activity. I was also disappointed that the COP was not higher but, for such an important test, I understand the need to be conservative. Better to have a positive test result for such a critical test.
Now begins the onslaught of the critics…
Dears followers of the JoNP
So, finally the coroner officially declared that the body of the deceased is really dead.
The eCat works
Rossi survived
And a New Era of humanity begins
regards
wlad
Mark Fouchi, in your post you said cancer was another passion of yours.
I am very interested in cancer patients and cancer research.
If your want to you can send me an email, you may want to know what I am
doing.
BOBBYCURTO@WEBTV.NET
Bobby
Ft. Lauderdale
Dear Andrea,
I have one question:
Did you give them an unprimed rod that you turned on for 10 hours for checking that it worked?
I guess they stopped the test just before finishing the priming.
In fact if I am right in the first month or so of operation the matrix and the “rest” undergo rapid transmutations:
– Li7+e+p -> He4 + H4(non-excited)+photons
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+photons
– Li6 +e+p -> He4+t+neutrino+photons
(Li7 reacts quicker due to the higher magnetic moment …)
– Ni58+e+p -> Ni59+neutrino+photons
– Ni59+e+p -> Ni60+neutrino+photons
– Ni60+e+p -> Ni61 …
– Ni61+e+p -> Ni62+neutrino+photons
(Ni61 is disappears quickly because it has actually a “long range” magnetic moment)…
Tomorrow I will try to detail. I wrote the equations without checking them (masses, energies, …)
At Ni62 is the end of the story: it has the lowest energy per nucleon.
Ni64 should not react.
This is the way you were saying you enriched in Ni62 an Ni64. No centrifuges!
After the priming the transmutations should be very limited. And the “classical” LENR reactions with protium, deuterium, tritium, H4, He4 … start. The COP should change as well. And not towards lower values.
Well done Andrea.
Ciao
Andrea Calaon
Dear Andrea,
First, I would like to say that I am aware of the statement in the report in which it is stated they ran the reactor in such a way to ensure continual operation and that their results do not represent the best possible performance of the reactor. However, that does not answer my questions. I hope you can provide additional clarification.
HANK MILLS: FIND MY ANSWERS BELOW YOUR QUESTIONS ALONG YOUR TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS, TO MAKE IT FASTER:
A few thoughts:
1 – The previous model of hot-cat tested in the first report could produce similar COPs at far lower temperatures (around 400C) than the new hot cat in the current report. In this report, temperatures of over 1,000C were required just to obtain similar COPs.
WRONG, READ BETTER THE REPORT
2 – The output of an E-Cat goes up rapidly with temperature. This is because the emission of infrared power rises quickly at higher temperatures. At 1,200C, much less 1,400C, the hot cat in the first report would have been producing a huge amount of output with a very high COP (probably 10 or higher). In this report, a maximum of around 3.8 was achieved.
YOU SAY SO, BUT IT IS NOT SO. THE REPORT HAVE TAKEN MEASURES. YOU MUST BASE YOUR CONSIDERATIONS UPON WHAT THE RESULTS ARE, NOT UPON WHAT YOU ASSUME THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. REMIND THAT SHOULD I HAVE 5 BALLS, I COULD BE A PINBALL.
3 – We have already been told by “cures”, who worked with scientists on the original E-Cat, the reactor wants to “run away” very quickly when heat is applied. I assume it starts to “run away” at temperatures far lower than 1,400C. This means the original E-Cat could have an infinite COP at a lower temperature.
REMIND THE PINBALL….
Here are my questions.
(I would like to clarify that when I say less efficient I mean that at temperatures of 1,200C or higher it seems like the COP of the new model of E-Cat should have been greater than the previous model that obtained the same efficiency at a much lower temperature. In addition, I would like to state, for the record, that the efficiency of your technology can be infinite. We are only discussing a couple specific implementations.)
1 – Why does the new hot-cat not produce high efficiencies at high temperatures, unlike the previous model of E-Cat?
READ BETTER THE REPORT
2 – Is the ONLY answer for question one that they provided constant input power and this lowered the COP to an extent that even a one thousand degree Celsius temperature difference could not overcome?
NO
3 – Are there other reasons as well why the new model of reactor is less efficient?
HANK: PLEASE READ THE REPORT. IT IS NOT AN EASY READING, IT TAKES TIME AND FOCUS, OTHERWISE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT
4 – Was a truly self sustaining mode of operation, in which the temperature would have remained constant or climbed for lets say half an hour without any electrical input, available to be tested?
I WAS NOT THERE MOST OF TIME, THE PROFESSORS MADE THE TEST THAT THEY DEEMED OPPORTUNE TO MAKE THEIR MEASUREMENTS, COHERENTLY WITH THE AIM OF THE TEST. IT WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL TEST, WHERE YOU HAVE TO REACH SPECIFIC CONTRACTUAL TARGETS, IT WAS A TEST WHOSE AIM WAS EXQUISITELY SCIENTIFIC: TO CHECK IF THERE WAS OR NOT AN ANOMALOUS PRODUCTION OF ENERGY, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, FOR A LONG PERIOD. TO AVOID A LACK OF RELIABILITY, THE TEST HAS BEEN CONDUCTED VERY CONSERVATIVELY. SO IS WRITTEN. PLEASE READ AGAIN AND CAREFULLY AND BE SURE THAT WHILE YOU READ YOU ARE OPEN TO LEARN, NOT BIASED TO FIND CONFIRMATION OF YOUR PRE-EXISTENT CONVINCTION.
5 – At what temperature range could they have cut off input power and then self sustained, maintaining the same temperature or climbing in temperature for a significant period of time? Please answer this question even if they were not allowed to utilize self sustaining mode.
SEE ABOVE
6 – If this test was to validate the technology, the highest possible efficiency and COP would provide the most skeptic-proof evidence: obliterating any false notion of measurement errors. Since this is the case, why did industrial heat provide the testers with a new model of E-Cat that were less efficient than the previous model?
STUDY THE REPORT. SEE THE RAGONE DIAGRAM
7 – Would it not have been better to send them additional modules of the previous design so they could have obtained a higher COP?
SEE ABOVE
8 – Did you intentionally, to ensure absolute safety and zero possibility of a run away, send them reactors that were produced (perhaps by an adjustment of the fuel) to only be capable of lower efficiency?
NO
9 – Do the results they obtained from the new version of the “hot cat” match those produced in your lab?
WITH THE CONVERSION FACTORS DUE TO THE CONSERVATIVENESS OF THE TEST, YES
10 – When tested in your lab, does the model of E-Cat used in the current report produce better, the same, or worse efficiencies (COPs) as the model used in the first report when provided the exact same input (in whatever mode tested)?
I CANNOT GIVE INFORMATION OF WHAT WE DO IN OUR R&D LABORATORIES
11 – How exactly is the new model of hot cat improved – as said in the report – if the efficiency is lower than what it would be with the previous model at high temperatures? Other than the fact ceramic is used which allows for the device to remain intact for longer periods of time at high temperatures.
READ BETTER THE REPORT OF 2013 AND THE REPORT OF 2014, THEN MAKE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
12 — There are individuals saying that after the test the fuel had been melted – according to the electron microscope images – and the reactor would not have been capable of being restarted because the reaction sites would have been destroyed. Would the reactor have been capable of being restarted?
YES
13 — Did the fuel they tested come from the charge of the mouse or the cat?
FROM THE CAT
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.
Thank you,
Hank Mills
Carlo Marcena:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Wolstenholme:
Let me study and understand throughly the Report.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto M.:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
V. Kanninen:
Our R&D work will never end.
Now our work is focused on the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer, the Third Party par excellence: if it does not work he does not pay!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
BroKeeper:
He,he,he..yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you, Giuseppe!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I cant resist the temptation to be the first to offer a scenario for your effect based on the ash report. If the ash does contain the purported isotopes resulting from the reaction starting from the reported fuel combinations, there are a few conclusions that can be made. (1) Obviously the 62Ni must be produced through neutron capture by the 58,59,60 and61Ni atoms which are all neutron deficient. (2) the neutrons must be thermal neutrons and can only come from the 7Li atoms. (3) The 7Li atom has a neutron which seems to be excessive when examined in accepted nuclear cluster theory. This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.(4)The amount of external energy necessary to strip this neutron from the 7Li atom producing a 6Li atom can be applied through thermal sources since the strong force has a small retaining force on the neutron. The neutron thus is ejected from the 7Li atom and assumes the thermal energy plus half of the strong force energy(recoil energy) and enters a neutron deficient Ni atom such as the 58Ni creating a 59Ni which can receive another thermal neutron to produce a 60Ni until it becomes a 62Ni which is one of the most stable species of isotopes because of the nucleon bonds it possesses. The process is exothermal because the neutrons contain both the thermal energy and the portion of the strong force energy which is finally expelled by the 62Ni to equilibrate its nuclear energy balance. Thus we comply with the law of conservation of energy.
More details as I think further about possible mechanisms. This is my first stab at it.
Congratulations, there was no doubt in my mind that you had a viable device.
Successful regards.
Valeriy Tarasov:
I cannot enter in this. In the report is written what has been found.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi a very well deserved result, I am just a simple engineer and connect wait to get my hands on a ECAT system and start design systems with it as it was intended. Do you have a time line of when the 1MW Ecats will start rolling off the production line and do you have any special design considerations when incorporating it external heating and power systems. The temps that they achieved in the report make the ECAT useful for electricity generation (as you well know) and do you see higher COP’s than stated in the report.
Again thank you for bring this to the world
Well, better than I thought. And without running the device at the maximum potential, neither in the self sustaining mode. GREAT
I would like to know which is the real limit.
BTW Compliments, the world owe you one!
Anders Lundell:
Thank you: it will be good news if the plants will work properly. We gotta work, now: the cow is harnessed, now has to pull.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gherardo:
Now comes the most difficult part of the work: industrialization in a permanent R&D process. It is beginning with the 1 MW baby, but this is the beginning, not the end, of a very hard work.
Lavolale, lavolale!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
Let me read and study carefully the report: I was supposed to receive it several days before the publication, but I saw it this morning, published in a very surprising way. It is complex. Let me elaborate.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
My most sincere congratulations !
You must be relieved – especially not having to write “positive or negative results” any more 😉
But I can’t resist also asking questions arising:
– where there not more scientists involved ? Did some refuse to subscribe the report ?
– in my understanding the test run was to last 6 months ?
Best regards to you on this very special day,
Michael
Ps. Had I wanted to slightly keep areas of doubt in the report, maybe to borrow some time, I would not have done otherwise.
Andrea Calaon:
Thank you for your kind words, also from our Team!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Fabio82:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pavel Vrbovsky:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
congratulations on the wonderful results . This is huge success.
Pavel Vrbovsky
Andrea, grazie di cuore! Per me sei un modello di determinazione ed integrita’.
Fabio
Finally I have the chance to sit in front of the computer and write:
Congratulations to you and your team Andrea!
Well done!
I have a few questions, but I will ask them after reading the report carefully.
Warm Regards
Andrea Calaon
Dear Andrea.
October seems to remain E-cat-month.
Do you call this ITP report positive or negative ? And why ?
This test was in idling mode, without a flow of steam. From the report we learn that the e-cat works more performant at higher power: 100Watt more input resulted in 700Watt more output. Will you publish some numbers (max COP in driven mode) of your own heavy-duty tests now ?
On page 5, top picture, the power analyzer shows the switching of the triacs. Power is ON for some peaks and OFF during the rest of time. It is about 1/3 – 2/3 ON/OFF. Is this driven and self-sustain, or is this driven mode ? The voltages and frequencies are “OL”. I understand that some secrecy has to remain.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Dott.Rossi,
my best compliments for the achieved result.
You knew it but the reality is true only when shared and now it is.
Those days nominations for the Nobel prizes are beeing announced and my best hope for you is that you’ll achieve that overdue Nobel prize.
For the humanity the hope is that this breakthrough will fully unfold and will not be blocked or delayed by opposing economic forces.
Complimenti ! ma non ci dimentichiamo di lavolale !!! 🙂
Gherardo
Dear Andrea Rossi!
Congratulations!
I belive this is good news for the world.
Best regards
Anders
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulation with very important publication!
One more thing I would like to mention here (I have written this as an idea on e-catworld.com forum before). For me, the paper confirmed that thermal effect in your e-cat results from the decay of litium 7 producing alpha particle which are absorbed by surrounding material and that give the thermal effect. In result of that you have no radioactivity outside.
Best wishes,
Valeriy Tarasov
Dear Andrea,
Congratulation to the achievement of the long-awaited result!
Giuseppe
Congratulations Andrea. Your low morning input prayers resulted in very high output, perhaps COP=Infinity. 🙂
Dear Andrea,
Great news for you and your team (and for the whole world), champagne congratulations! Most interesting new public information was certainly in the chapter concerning fuel and ash analysis.
The report was based on 32 days test run. Is there still longer term third party test run planned or even going on right now ?
kind regards
V. Kanninen
NOW THE “NEW FIRE” IS REALLY ON !!!!!
GREAT ANDREA!
MANY COMPLIMENTS AND THE BEST FOR YOUR FUTURE!