BCC lattice model of nuclear structure

.
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.
.
.

563 comments to BCC lattice model of nuclear structure

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The Professors of the ITP will answer to all the questions in periodical updates of the report published on
    http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad
    It is time for me to turn my attention to further improvement of the industrial E-Cat; the R&D work related to it is the most beneficial to me to spend my time and does the most for my knowledge of both the industrial application and the Physics involved in it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    I am confident in the work of the Professors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curiosone

    Who will answer to the questions formulated in regard to the Report?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  • JCRenoir

    I have given the report of the Independent Third Party to read to a prof of Physics who teaches physics of the neutron in a university. He wants not to be cited,because wants not to be involved in the blogs, but he has said, after reading the report, that the measurements and the analysis have been made in the best possible way. He too says that the reconciliation of the strange shift of Ni isotopes is hard to do, but there can be many reasons, for example that most of Ni powder remained upon the internal surface of the reactor, so that a shift is happened, but not in that measure. Ways to reconciliate the shift of a minor percentage are not impossible, in theory. The shift of Li is all but impossible to explain, he says, at least in theory.
    What do you think?
    JCR

  • Andrea Rossi

    Vessela Nikolova:
    Good Luck!
    Nice week end to you too
    A.R.

  • Vessela Nikolova

    Hi Andrea, here is the link where you and all the interested readers can find the book “E-CAT – THE NEW FIRE”, in both English and Italian version: http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/. I wish you a nice weekend! Vessela

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    @Orsobubu,

    You wrote: Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects.

    My answer:Well, first: i) I don’t see the E-cat as ‘a sword’, and certainly not with ‘annihilation purposes’, but as a very beautifull, important and necessary invention of dr. Andrea Rossi; and ii) I did not say that it could fit inside the Standard Theory, but that I believe its inventer, dr. Rossi, when he says that, untill now, he can explain the Rossi-effect within the present Theory, but I’m also a big admirer of dr. Wladimir Guglinsky, who combines knowledge, physical insight and intuïtion (at a very high level) to formulate his QRT, that already explains certain phenomena that present theories don’t, so his QRT certainly is a candidate.

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In your model of cold fusion, there would be as much catalyst 52Te as 28Ni within the E-Cat. Does that not seem excessive?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Andrea,

    You wrote: Very interesting, isnt it?

    My answer: Yes, and especially the way they detect it, is very interesting, and I agree with you where you wrote that it is now more difficult to say that dark matter does not exist.

    Kind Regards

  • Dear Andrea,
    Some people think, and I find it not impossible, that observed accelerating expansion of the universe might be explainable by General Relativity alone, that is, not requiring dark energy. Low density regions of the universe expand faster than high density regions. After a while the low density regions dominate the volume of the universe and hence the average expansion rate appears to have increased. It is not a mathematical contradiction because the equations of General Relativity are nonlinear.
    There is also a visibility effect: some regions of the universe are hidden from our view because of gravity lensing. If density of the hidden regions differs from the average, it biases our estimate of the average density.
    regards, pekka

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear orsobubu,

    You wrote:

    “Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects. I could be wrong but perhaps there is another diplomatic possibility to reconcile Rossi’s, Guglinsky’s and your views. It is known that for applications of gravity at non-relativistic speeds, the Newtonian theory gives satisfactory results. Might be the case that the phenomena that take place within the Sword, especially for what really matters to Rossi, namely patents, industrialization, replicability, etc. can be explained by dosing “with a degree of flexibility” the standard theory without getting rid of it? In the future, certainly will exist a more comprehensive physical theory than the Standard, may be the QRT or another one, in the same way that, for gravity, there is the theory of Einstein explaining the acceleration at relativistic speeds. Inside this new theory, LENR in particular and in general all the other contradictory observed physical phenomena, would be explained in a more complete (though never definitive) manner, as Wlad wrote in his last post; this would mean that even the complete description of the Sword physics would need a proper place inside the new theory but, from the point of view of the explanation of the supposed transmutations, etc especially in regard to their engineering optimization, today it would not be strictly necessary to dig further theories, while the subset tools in the Standard one remain permanently valid for the revolutionary annihilation purposes of the Sword. Only my 2 cents.”

    I believe you are right!

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    I report a communication released today from Industrial Heat:
    “Recently we become aware of information being distributed offering ownership,shares or prepurchase agreements for Energy Catalyzers (E-Cat) with request of money in the following Territories: North America, Central America, South America, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Emirates. As the lawful holders of the E-Cat rights and Intellectual Property in the above specified Territories, we want to clearly state that no such agreements are being offered to the public. If you receive a solicitation, we strongly encourage the public not to respond, provide personal information, or commit any resources.
    John T.Vaughn, Vice President
    Industrial Heat”

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Explanation on cold fusion reactions in the eCat by considering the “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei

    Joe wrote in October 23rd, 2014 at 1:34 AM

    Wladimir,
    If the “hole” in the electric field really exists, would not scientists have observed LENR many decades ago by simply applying “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles as you state, along with other measures?
    ————————————————————————–

    Dear Joe,

    It is not so easy as you think.

    First of all, you have to remember that according to the scientific criterium, the physicists have to propose the most simple solutions (avoiding conjectures). So, in general they consider the most simple models (from the physical physical viewpoint), and they develop a mathematical theory by applying it on that model.

    But suppose that the physical structure existing in the Nature is no so simple as they consider in their simple physical model. Well, in this case there is no way to develop a mathematical theory 100% satisfactory taking the simplest physical model, and that’s why the theorist has to adopt some paradoxical assumptions, like Gamow did. He tried to solve a paradox (the emission of alpha particles with energy lower than that of the Coulomb barrier) but he introduced other paradox, as I explain in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    Let me tell you my last conclusion on how the “hole” in the electric field makes possible cold fusion to occur in Rossi’s eCat.

    We have to begin by understanding that the “hole” in the electric field does not allow a “free” passage of a particle within a nucleus.
    In the case of the 92U238, the alpha particle exits the nucleus with an energy of 4,2MeV, while the Coulomb barrier has 8,8MeV, and so the energy necessary to cross the electric barrier of the hole in the electric field of the 92U is 48% of the total Coulomb barrier in the rest of the electric field of the nucleus.

    The Fig. 1 ahead shows the three fields of a proton, as proposed in my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the JoNP. In the paper it is shown that from the double-field structure of the Fig. 1 it is possible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.

    FIG. 1
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png

    As the radius of the electric field has the magnitude of the Bohr’s radius 10^-11m, and the radius of the nucleus is 10^-15m, of course the Fig. 1 does not show the real proportion between the fields. The Fig. 2 show a better proportionality (but of course not real yet):

    FIG. 2
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2-_3_fields_in_real_proportionality.png

    The nuclei also have their 3 fields like shown in the Fig. 2 for the proton. Let us see how a proton can enter within a Ni nucleus via the hole in the electric field of the Ni, in the Rossi’s eCat.

    Suppose the 3Li7 loses a neutron, and after some minutes the free neutron decays in a proton and electron. In the Don Borghi experiment he used a emf oscillatory field, which produces the ionization of the hydrogen atoms, and avoids the free electrons to be captured by the protons within the reactor. Then suppose that in the Rossi’s eCat the oscillatory emf avoids the proton to capture electrons, and so that proton resulted from the decay of the 3Li7 stays free (if the proton captures one electron and they form a hydrogen atom, the electron will have Coulomb repulsion with the electrons of the electrosphere around the Ni nucleus, and then the proton would not be able to enter within the Ni nucleus).

    According to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei have a structure formed by hexagonal floors, as shown in the link bellow, for the 46Pd nucleus. The distance “d” between the hexagonal floors has dilation and shrinkage, in order that the nucleus works as the below of an accordion, along the z-axis direction. I called it Accordion-Effect:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig4-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif

    When two nuclei are aligned along the same direction, their Accordion-Effect can resonate, and probably the resonance can help a particle to enter within one of the nuclei. I suppose the best nucleus to get resonance with the Ni in the Ross’s eCat is the 52Te, used as catalyst in his reactor.

    For the occurrence of cold fusion, two 52Te nuclei have to form a sandwich with a Ni nucleus, as shown in the Fig. 3. All the six hole in the three electric fields have to be aligned along the same direction. The resonance due to the Accordion-Effect between the two 52Te and the Ni will help the proton to enter within the Ni nucleus, as explained ahead.

    FIG. 3
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_3-_sandwich_formed_by_two_52Te_and_one_Ni.png

    Consider that the ionized proton is captured by the sandwich, as shown in the Figure 4. As the electric field of the proton (shown in red) is positive, and the electric field of the Ni nucleus has negative electrons (shown in blue), the field of the proton has attraction with the field of the Ni.

    FIG. 4
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_4-_proton_captured_by_the_sandwich.png

    Note that, in spite of there is also attraction between the proton and the electrons of the 52Te, however the proton is attracted by the electrons of the Ni and the other 52Te bellow the Ni, while in the other side the proton has attraction with the electrons of only one 52Te. Therefore the proton will be pulled by the Ni, and the positive electric field of the proton gets overlap with the electric field of the Ni, as shown in the Fig. 5. The Accordion-Effect helps the overlap to occur.

    Also note that the positive pole of the magnetic field of the proton has attraction with the negative pole of the 52Te, while the negative pole of the proton has attraction with the positive pole of the 28Ni. Therefore the proton is submitted to an oscillatory zig-zag motion along the z-axis, and such zig-zag motion helps the field of the proton entering within the field of the 28Ni (probably also helped by the Accordion-Effec of the 28Ni).

    FIG. 5
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_5-_overlap_between_the_fields_of_proton_and_Ni.png

    Obviously, not only a proton can enter within a nucleus via cold fusion, but also the deuteron without electrons in its electrospere.

    So, we realize that cold fusion can occur via two ways:

    1- with the help of a lattice. Because the alignment between the two 52Te and the Ni in the sandwich can be helped with a lattice.

    2- with the help of the kinetic energy in a gas. The hot fusion occurs when a nucleon perforates the Coulomb barrier of the electric field of a nucleus but without entering via the “hole” in its electric field. This requires a very big kinetic energy, under high conditions of pressure and temperature. However, there is a little chance of a nucleon to enter within a nucleus via the hole in the electric field of the nucleus. The chance is very small, but sometimes it occurs. So, probably cold fusion occurs together with hot fusion in the Sun, but cold fusion occurs in very small scale compared with the hot fusion reactions.

    Regards
    Wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Yes, you are right, but otherwise it is quite impossible explain the expansion of the Universe: you say Dark Energy, yes, but energy has to come from some foundamental force and in this situation the force can only be gravitational; then, vibration in a gravitational field can only be generated from matter, which, in this situation can (so far) be hypotised only in the form of the Dark Matter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I hope you are wrong. It is a so beautiful !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    Very interesting, isnt it?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Here is an article about it:

    Hubble Telescope Finds Ring of Dark Matter

    It appears to be an exceptionel ring of dark matter, due to a collision between two clusters:

    The team created simulations showing what happens when galaxy clusters collide. As the two clusters smash together, the dark matter, as calculated in the simulations, falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back out. As the dark matter moves outward, it begins to slow down under the pull of gravity and pile up, like cars bunched up on a freeway.

    “By studying this collision, we are seeing how dark matter responds to gravity,” said team member Holland Ford, also of Johns Hopkins University. “Nature is doing an experiment for us that we can’t do in a lab, and it agrees with our theoretical models.”

    Tracing dark matter is not an easy task because it does not shine or reflect light. Astronomers can detect its influence only by how its gravity affects light. To find dark matter, astronomers study how faint light from more distant galaxies is distorted and smeared into arcs and streaks by the gravity of the dark matter in a foreground galaxy cluster. This powerful phenomenon is called gravitational lensing. By mapping the distorted light, astronomers can deduce the cluster’s mass and trace how dark matter is distributed in the cluster.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news98450367.html#jCp

  • orsobubu

    Andrea, I also saw the Hubble images, and there is a funny thing. When looking these incredible photos, one has to pay attention if they are real or fake. I’m a lot more skeptic about Hubble than about the Sword! For example, the real, original n.39 presents a totally black background. Scientists calculated the optical distortion (gravitational lensing) made by the galaxy cluster over other extremely far galaxies in the distance behind the cluster, which is already 4 billions light years from us. They transformed these map in blue pixels with a gradient of transparency and superimposed it to the original photo, theoretically supposing that it could be a representation of the invisible dark matter. So the image is more a statistical graph than a real one. To give you an example, the skeptics believe that the Professors made the same Photoshop trick over the photos in the TPR2 to fake the color temperature variance of the Sword hehehee … now after long, hard debunking work they are supposing a negative luminescence to explain the inexplicable…

    Even more impressive is photo number 34, and in fact it is a total fake. As soon as I saw it, I wondered how it could be that a telescope could see an asteroid so distant as Uranus with that level of detail, like our Moon. It turned out that it is a digital 2D painting superimposed over a 3D model.

  • orsobubu

    >if comments go beyond the first page they are lost

    Ok, now finally we know that Dark Matter is mostly made of my spammed messages. :) I changed the address.

    Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects. I could be wrong but perhaps there is another diplomatic possibility to reconcile Rossi’s, Guglinsky’s and your views. It is known that for applications of gravity at non-relativistic speeds, the Newtonian theory gives satisfactory results. Might be the case that the phenomena that take place within the Sword, especially for what really matters to Rossi, namely patents, industrialization, replicability, etc. can be explained by dosing “with a degree of flexibility” the standard theory without getting rid of it? In the future, certainly will exist a more comprehensive physical theory than the Standard, may be the QRT or another one, in the same way that, for gravity, there is the theory of Einstein explaining the acceleration at relativistic speeds. Inside this new theory, LENR in particular and in general all the other contradictory observed physical phenomena, would be explained in a more complete (though never definitive) manner, as Wlad wrote in his last post; this would mean that even the complete description of the Sword physics would need a proper place inside the new theory but, from the point of view of the explanation of the supposed transmutations, etc especially in regard to their engineering optimization, today it would not be strictly necessary to dig further theories, while the subset tools in the Standard one remain permanently valid for the revolutionary annihilation purposes of the Sword. Only my 2 cents.

  • Dear Andrea,
    Yes I saw the photo (after clicking 39 times..microsoft), it’s impressive, being made of so large structure. About your thought of vibrations: perhaps such vibrations, if they exist, should be observable as gravity waves. Unfortunately LISA gravity wave mission was postponed into far future.
    regards, pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Both your last comments have been retrieved from me from the spam, where the Dark Energy had pulled them: probably your address is taken as an advertising from out robot. Next time you better use another address, because the fact that I found your comments is very casual: I have time only to look the first page of spammed messages, if comments go beyond the first page they are lost.
    I thought the mass of the Dark Matter could be the source of the vibrations in the gravitational fields that make the pull responsible for the expansion of the Universe..
    Did you see the photo? What a magnificence!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,
    A pull which makes the universe expand at accelerating pace is called Dark Energy. Dark Matter is a different thing: in collaboration with normal matter, he wants to resist such pull.
    regards, pekka

  • Dear Andrea,
    Concerning your earlier reply to Joseph Fine. A pull which makes universe expand at accelerating pace is called Dark Energy, which is different from Dark Matter. Dark Matter resists such pull, as does normal matter.
    regards, /pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    About the Dark Matter, I saw right now a fantastic photo made by Hubble Telescope .
    If you google to “Striking Images from the Hubble Telescope” and go to photo 39 you will se how the Hubble made a photography of the Dark Matter !
    Is really beautiful and interesting. It is a photo of a ghostly ring of DM in the galaxy cluster designated Cl 0024 17.
    Well, now is more difficult to say that the Dark Matter does not exist. Probably the expansion of the Universe is pulled by the DM. This photo is really impressive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frederic Maillard:
    I am not in charge for the commercial issues of IH.
    Thank you for your kind words,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Got it; Giannino: why should I be afraid of this enlightened people? Our work is made to upgrade the quality of life of the mankind they work for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea and Giannino,

    Perhaps Giannino Ferro Casagrande meant the Bilderberg group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

    Joseph Fine

  • Frederic Maillard

    Dear Andrea,

    Many thanks for mankind !
    It’s important your wonderful invention has been confirmed once again in its effectiveness by the recent ITPR.

    Is IH looking for any other 1 MW industrial customer in parallel to the one which you mentioned several times recently ?

    If so, do IH plan to get several in parallel ?

    And in different industries ?

    Best wishes
    FM

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Calaon,

    You posted on 11 Oct — “If you want I can detail on the collapse mechanism.” Could you please illuminate me?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dima Redko:
    Between 6 months and 1 year, unless major problems rise.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giannino Ferro Casagrande:
    Thank you for your kind appreciation, but: what the heck is Bidelberg?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Giannino Ferro Casagrande

    Ringrazio !!! Resto sempre in attesa di una Sua eventuale apertura verso la mia persona !!! Sempre più faccia molta attenzione al circolo Bidelberg !!! Io sono uno tra i primi ad aver aderito alla possibilità d’acquisto di un E_CAT domestico ! Un caro saluto a tutta la Sua squadra ; buon lavoro e a presto Giannino di Udine !!!!!!!!!

  • Dima Redko

    Dear Andrea!
    In your opinion, how long the fine-tuning of the 1 megawatt plant may take?

  • Dear all,
    in my post of the October 11th I said that the LENR are reactions of the type:

    Nu(N) + electron + p/d/t -> Nu(N+1) + photons

    This expression is not correct. The correct equation is in fact (as probably someone already noticed :)):

    Nu(N) + electron + p/d/t -> Nu(N+1/2/3) + photons

    where the 1/2/3 corresponds to the three possible reacting particles: p/d/t.

    This is important because if in the interstitial sites there are nuclei of deuterium or tritium, the LENR can cause an isotope shift of 2 or 3 mass units at a time.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    Again are around fake websites selling shares or devices related to the E-Cat: I continue, consequently, to warn everybody that we are not selling shares or participations of any kind, we are not seeking public money under any form of Investments and that domestic E-Cats are not for sale, pending safety certification.
    Any offer of these or similar things is a fraud. Before paying to anybody a single cent, please inform us about what has been offered to you, so that we will inform our attorneys.
    You can contact anytime
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    and I strongly suggest to you to contact us before spending a single cent of your money.
    Warm Regards,
    Dr Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corp (CEO).

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    If the “hole” in the electric field really exists, would not scientists have observed LENR many decades ago by simply applying “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles as you state, along with other measures?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    Wladimir,

    1)===================================
    2. Do you not think that a “hole” in the electric field of a nucleus as proposed by QRT would have been conjectured many decades ago by scientists after having applied the simple mechanism of, as you state, “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles and witnessing strange new phenomena? Could they have not, like you, deduced that the particles’ “holes” were being aligned to each other’s “oscillatory motion”?
    =====================================

    COMMENT
    Joe,
    I think no,
    because I did not deduce the “hole” suggested by the phenomena mentioned by you.

    When I discovered my new nuclear model with the central 2He4, I tried use it so that to calculate the binding energy of the light nuclei. I was using a mono-field concept of field (a Coulomb field surrounding the 2He4).
    After a long attempt, I arrived to the conclusion that it was impossible to get theoretically the binding energies.
    So, after a long meditation, I had concluded that there was need another second field, and so I discovered my double-field concept.
    Later I imagined how those two concentric fields could be formed by the electricitons of the aether, and when I found the shape of the fields I realized that there was a hole in those fields.

    Going in my work, later I discovered that the hole in the electric field could be the explanation of other phenomena, as for instance the puzzle of the alpha particles emission by the 92U, solved by that unsatisfactory solution proposed by Gamow.

    Therefore I did not discover the hole in the electric field because I was trying to explain some phenomena. Unlike, after the discovery of the hole in the electric field, I had realized that from that model of electric field some puzzles could be explained.

    .

    2) ====================================
    3. Does QRT explain the null magnetic dipole moment of even-even nuclei of Z = N (eg 8O16) by saying that, although the inner electric fields (negative) of the protons are carried by the protons in their orbit about the central 2He4 inside the nucleus, the outer electric fields (positive) of the protons are stationed IMMOBILE outside the nucleus and are therefore responsible for that observed property of a null magnetic dipole moment?
    ========================================

    No, Joe,
    the solution is more complex.
    I show the solution in the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted to JoNP five months ago. I suppose it will be published in the upcoming one or two months.
    So,
    please be patient, and wait the publication. Then we will be able to discuss it, in order to conclude if my solution is satisfactory.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The Professors of the ITP are independent from us.
    Now we of IH are focused on the industrial plant and the related R&D.
    Our Team has to make sure that the performance of the 1 MW plant respects the contract IH made with his Customer. There is no room for anything else, at the moment. I think for us the time of tests is over, because from now on the Third Party becomes the Customer, whose validation criteria are substantially based on how much money they make with a plant, i.e. how much money they save making heat with the plant. They are not very much interested to technicalities, with one exception: the plant must not emit any kind of pollution. That’s all: make money, do not pollute. Numbers will be just numbers, not comments.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    The authors of the Lugano report conclude their report by saying:

    “Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.”

    You have mentioned that this report was the last of its kind. I am wondering whether the authors be able to continue any kind of study of the E-Cat in the future.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    The reference on Vortex is interesting. As a Dark Matter of fact, D.M. is a logical implication of the pull that makes the expansion of the universe, so it has right of citizenship in the Standard Model Country. I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with the E-Cat, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi and readers,

    I saw this reference on Vortex-l discussing the possible detection of Dark Matter coming from the Sun. I am not sure if Dark Matter particles (Axions?) are considered to be Standard Physics, or whether this is an experimental error.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/world/astronomers-claim-dark-matter-breakthrough-2014102211#ixzz3Gu8tGFYT

    I don’t know if you have a similar effect occurring within your CAT. But apparently, your CAT is not showing any ill effects.

    Keep on keeping on,

    Joseph Fine

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Congratulations on the longest comment in the history of the JoNP. You have outdone yourself.

    2. Do you not think that a “hole” in the electric field of a nucleus as proposed by QRT would have been conjectured many decades ago by scientists after having applied the simple mechanism of, as you state, “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles and witnessing strange new phenomena? Could they have not, like you, deduced that the particles’ “holes” were being aligned to each other’s “oscillatory motion”?

    3. Does QRT explain the null magnetic dipole moment of even-even nuclei of Z = N (eg 8O16) by saying that, although the inner electric fields (negative) of the protons are carried by the protons in their orbit about the central 2He4 inside the nucleus, the outer electric fields (positive) of the protons are stationed IMMOBILE outside the nucleus and are therefore responsible for that observed property of a null magnetic dipole moment?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 7:07 AM

    And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).
    ——————————-

    Dear Daniel
    the academicians always had an irrational resistance against a New Physics.

    When in the end of the 19th Century the radioactivity of some elements was discovered, some young physicists understood that a New Physics was required.

    But Lord Kelvin never accepted it. He refused to look at to the New Physics, because he loved so much the Old Physics.
    Such irrational resistance can be understood, since old scientists passed all their life dedicated to the Old Physics, and it is hard to them to accept that their theories were developed under wrong foundations.

    Even Planck did not understand well the repercutions of the discovery of his postulate. There was need a young mind to understand it, and finally Einstein interpreted the Planck discovery by proposing the idea of the quantum of light. However, Millikan spent 10 years trying to prove that Einstein’s idea of the quantum of light was wrong.

    Now we are seeing the birth of a New Era, similar to that when the young physicists like Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, started to develop the Quantum Mechanics.

    Along the last 5 years many new discoveries had pointed out that many phenomena are impossible to occur by considering the current principles of the Standard Physics.

    And many other discoveries are coming.
    Soon or later the physicists will realize that a New Physics is an unavoidable need, like in the beginning of the 20th Century the young physicists understood the need of the development of a New Physics, the Quantum Mechanics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 6:32 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    You made your point, I made my point.
    Prof. Focardi, by the way, never talked about new Physics, he Always invited to study better the existing Physics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ———————————————-

    Dear Andrea
    there are some points I would like you explain to us, because the problem seems to lie in what Prof. Focardi had used to consider what is a New Physics.

    In their report, Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén write the following:

    ”We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible.”

    So, there are two ways you may propose a theory:

    WAY 1- you have to propose that nuclear transformations can give neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation.

    CONCLUSION 1- in this case you are proposing a New Physics, since your proposal denies the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics.

    .

    WAY 2- you have to propose that there are no nuclear transformations in the eCat

    CONCLUSION 2- In this case your theory is according to the Standard Physics

    But in their report Levi , Foschi , and Essén say:

    page 26:
    “Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the above Ragone plot.”

    page 27:
    “The result from the heat measurement is remarkable by giving such a large amount of heat from the very small quantity of fuel powder used confined in the small volume of the reactor.
    This large amount of heat is, as pointed out above, way beyond what can be expected from chemical burning, which only involves rearrangements of the fuel material at the atomic scale, i.e. by transforming atomic binding energies to kinetic energy. Very large energy transformations can only take place when binding energies at the nuclear level are exploited,
    as in fusion reactions for light elements and fission reactions for heavy elements.

    Therefore,
    if you wish to propose a theory that there is no nuclear reactions, however your theory will be disagree to the conclusions of the Report.

    In order to have your theory agree to the Report, you have to propose the following conjecture:
    “a large amount of heat from the very small quantity of fuel powder used confined in the small volume of the reactor can be obtained from non-nuclear reactions

    But in this case you are proposing, again, a New Physics.

    .
    .

    FINAL CONCLUSION:

    Therefore,
    no matter if you develop your theory from the WAY 1 or the WAY 2, your theory will be based on a New Physics.

    .

    FINAL COMMENT:

    The dream of Prof. Focardi is unattainable. There is no way to conciliate the results of the eCat with the foundations of the Standard Physics.

    Einstein also had a dream: he wished to unify the gravity with electromagnetism, from the foundations of the Standard Physics (by considering the space empty, without an aether). Although he had tried along 40 years, he died without to achieve his dream.

    So, other dreamers have had unattainable dreams in Physics.

    But as I said before, the science is not a question of belief, it is a question of facts.

    And if the facts are not according to our belief, we have to abandon our dream, because to reject facts is against the scientific criterium.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    As I said, I am studying with others on this. It is impossible to talk of this issue before we have completed our study. If we will deem our study worth , we will publish it, but until we do not arrive to that level, it is more correct not publish as a comment branes that could be wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Friends,

    Suppose, for one time, that the supporters of Andrea Rossi’s invention, with unbiased altruism, have to evaluate and validate the possibilities of hot fusion.
    Because most of us have limited scientific background, sometimes from Youtube High-School and Google University, we have to be a little straightforward and must use some simplifications to start with. We all participate in a learning process, and if we get answers, some of the more specialized among us, will share and educate the rest if that can be done.

    First of all: the reactions:
    How much (net-) energy is produced by one D+T fusion ?
    At what temperature does this happen ? Before and after ?
    Can the reactions be controlled in a manner that we achieve more or less constant and controllable rate of “fusions per time-unit” ? Constant or intermittent ?

    Second:
    From the previous, we can calculate the energy flow that will be generated from the reactor.
    How do we harvest all the heat that comes out of this pressurized and very well shielded machine ?
    How is this heat transferred to mechanical or electrical energy ? If a stirling engine is found not to be fit for E-cat, then it may not be fit for a hot fusion machine neither. So how will the flow of energy push something mechanical ?
    Can an “internal fusion engine” in analgoy with “internal combustion engine” be made ? At what RPM ?
    From the ITP-II report on the E-cat we learn a lot about energy transfer by radiation and convection at high temperatures, and we also learn that all construction materials are sometimes very near to conditions where they overheat and go broke.
    So a computer simulation with 10.000°C gas that is driving a virtual turbine is not very likely to become common practice in reality. In the first prototypes of E-cats there might have been a lot of molten nickel. That was maybe a decade ago.

    Third:
    safety. Neutrons are generated. Where do they go ? They have to be shielded at least. This conflicts with the second issue: we have to evacuate heat, which demands thin, heat transfering, maybe IR-transparent(thanks to the critics that point out this important issues we learn from), finned walls. The ultimate solution could be a massive diamond reactor vessel for the superior heat conductivity ? Does diamond shield neutrons ? Does diamond break up in that condition ?

    Shiny pictures of enthousiast young people around an also shiny “artists impression” built with polished stainless steel, may be helpfull to convince public, political and financial “opinion” makers. If we start to ask some technical questions, the matters seem to be very complex and the results hard to achieve. It is to ask how the political and financial sponsors were informed about all this.

    So reducing this complex and very interesting scientific matter into numbers like in: “years to go” and “billions to spend”, goes past the technical complexities in this matter.
    One could ask on equal bases how much it would cost to refill the empty oilfields, based on experiments of making a hole in the ground (labour-hours + digging equipment) and pouring a gallon (auxiliary goods) of diesel-gas-mixture (price at pump) in it.

    As with all calculations, the result that is returned from the computer will be a number.

    As for the EROI of the concept of hot fusion, it might be in the numbers as if we have to suck the last drop of fossil energy from the hardest, deepest rock in the earth.

    Criticism has to be answered in both ways. All can learn from that.

    Friendly Regards,
    Koen

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Wladimir,

    I think dr. Rossi just does not want that you use his E-cat and his Rossi-effect, as an extra argument, that your theory could be right. He just says that he didn’t need a new theory to explain the Rossi-effect, and probably will not need a new theory in the future (to reconcile for the increase of the relative abundance of the NI62 isotope in the latest independent third party test).

    But this does not mean that your theory is wrong or not interesting, because you rightly refer to the other phenomena, that have nothing to do with the Rossy effect, and that show that, indeed, something could be wrong with the present nuclear physics theory.

    So, both could be right. And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).

    P.S. You have to understand that, on this website of dr. Rossi, who can explain the Rossi effect with present physics, probably doesn’t want that people associate the Rossi-effect with exotic or still controversial science, but this does not mean that your theory is wrong, because it explains the other (non-Rossi-effect) phenomena.

    Kind Regards,

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    “I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory.”
    “I think I have understood, but much has still to be studied.“
    “I am perfectly aware of the fact that a theory is made to be overcome, but I do not think this is the case.”
    Interesting but … it would be interesting to understand something about what you have understood.
    At the time of Focardi (Rossi-Focardi paper) you were making some assumptions:
    ————
    The proton capture process performed by a Nickel nucleus produces a Copper nucleus according to the scheme
    Ni(X) + p1 >> Cu(X+1) (3)
    Copper nuclei, with the exception of the stable isotopes Cu63 and Cu65, decay with positron (e+) and neutrino (nu) emission in Ni nuclei according to the scheme
    Cu(X+1) >> Ni(X+1) + e+ + nu (4)
    Subsequently, the positron annihilates with an electron in two gamma-rays according to the process
    e+ + e >> gamma + gamma (5)
    ————
    Now, without infringing the IP protection, what are in principle your ideas?
    Regards (restricted, classified),
    Giuliano Bettini.

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>