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.
.
.

559 comments to BCC lattice model of nuclear structure

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Wow!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You have mentioned recently that you have problems to solve — some easy, and some hard. Also you mention that you are involved in ‘difficult’ work. This seems to indicate that the commercial plant is posing a significant challenge for your team.

    1. Are you learning new things about the E-Cat now you have to put it under load in an industrial setting?

    2. How confident are you in your ability to meet your contractual deadlines with your current customer?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    here you can read of another italian that seems to have reached another breakthrough valuable in many fields.
    http://www.enzopennetta.it/2014/10/i-test-al-cnr-confermano-la-tecnologia-wow-su-cs-un-articolo-dellinventore-adriano-marin/#comment-30907
    It’s a quick read. Beyond personal curiosity I think it could sparkle other ideas…
    All the best, Gherardo

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Calaon

    here is other nuclear model in which the equilibrium is via electromagnetism. The author Prof. Lefteris Kaliambos writes:

    After the discovery of the assumed uncharged neutron (1932) and the invalid relativity (1905) which led to the abandonment of the well-established electromagnetic laws, theoretical physicists developed fallacious nuclear theories for the nuclear force and various nuclear structure models, which cannot lead to the nuclear structure. Under this physics crisis in 2003 I published my paper “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism ” by reviving the natural laws which led to my discovery of nine extra charged quarks in proton and nine ones in neutron able to give the nuclear binding and nuclear structure.”
    ———————————————————————-
    http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/STRUCTURE_OF_Be8_AND_Be9

    He tries to explain why 4Be8 is not stable by considering his nuclear model working via electromagnetic interactions.

    So,
    it seems many nuclear theorists are in the last years realizing that it is impossible to find a theory capable to lead to the nuclear structure, based on the current idea of interactions via strong nuclear force.

    The reason why 4Be8 is not stable is shown in the item 3.13-5 (Fig. 14 , page 17) of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Will Hurley:
    Thank you for your attention.
    As I said, our team is focused on the operation and the R&D related to the 1MW plant. We do not sell small commercial units, for obvious reasons related to the defense of the IP. I am sure you can understand. Thank you for your suggestion, though: the suggestions of our Readers all can hekp us in our difficult job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 5:27 PM

    Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Premise about the Nuclear Force
    As Dallacasa suggested in the early 1980’s, (see for example the more recent ref. [1] and [2]) the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic:
    The magnetic dipole moments of the nucleons are due to the very rapid rotation of their charges. The rotation frequency is around 5E23 [Hz]. This rotation generates an oscillatory magnetic field around each nucleon. When two nucleons approach, the rotating charges inside one of them cross the oscillating magnetic field generated by the other. As a consequence the charges are subject to a Lorentz Force. If the rotations inside the two particles are phased and the magnetic moments are parallel (or antiparallel), the nucleons experience a net attractive force. The force is actually cycling at each turn, but the period is very short. The average attractive force is higher than the electrostatic repulsion. At a distance of 2.5 [fm] the potential associated with the force described is in the [MeV] range, exactly the nuclear binding range for light nuclei.
    ———————————————–

    COMMENT

    If the attractive force was higher than the electrostatic repulsion, then all the isotopes of the all nuclei would have to be stable.

    But I agree to with Dallacasa that the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic.

    However the equilibrium is due to magnetic force against centripetal force, as proposed in the new nuclear model described in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    In the paper it is shown that the stability of the light nuclei (not explained by the Standard Model) is explained via the equilibrium between magnetic and centripetal force.

    This model explain, for instance, why 4Be8 (with Z=N pairs) is no stable, in spite of all the other nuclei with Z=N pairs are stable: 2He4, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28… etc.

    It is impossible to explain why 4Be8 is no stable, from the Standard Model,

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in October 27th, 2014 at 7:13 AM

    Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Question c:
    p + e can not create a neutron, as Brillouin suggests. It is simply forbidden by the nuclear reaction rules: this reaction does not conserve the lepton number. Andrea Rossi explained this a number of times in this blog.
    ———————————————————

    COMMENT

    The structure of the neutron is n= (p+e), and therefore the lepton number is not violated, since the electron exists into the neutron in the form of a lepton with spin zero (because the electron loses its zitterbewegung into the neutron, and the ZBw is the responsible for the spin 1/2 of a free electron).

    The violation of the lepton number in the Standard Model actually occurs because of the mass of the neutrinos:

    Violations of the lepton number conservation laws
    “In the Standard Model, leptonic family numbers (LF numbers) would be preserved if neutrinos were massless. Since neutrino oscillations have been observed, neutrinos do have a tiny nonzero mass and conservation laws for LF numbers are therefore only approximate. This means the conservation laws are violated, although because of the smallness of the neutrino mass they still hold to a very large degree for interactions containing charged leptons”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

    The theorists use to create laws to be followed (as the lepton number) based on the Standard Model.
    However the Standard Model is wrong, and it makes no sense to suppose that a law proposed via a wrong model must be followed by the Nature.

    regards
    wlad

  • Will Hurley

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I hope all is well with your commercial endeavor (your 1MW- Cat Baby). Since we are looking at a year before the unveiling of this application, could a smaller unit of say, 3 cats be tried at another smaller commercial business in parallel? I understand you must walk before you run but every business must have more than one product. Good luck.
    Will

  • Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    I am not a Standard Model theoretician, but I am sure that the evidences that are explained by the strong interaction, the weak interaction and the theory of general relativity can not be attributed to electromagnetic interactions.
    As most people interested in physics, I have my own ideas about time, particles, gravity, hidden variables, contextuality, dark matter, dark energy, and the number of different forces that at the moment appear necessary for a coherent picture of our universe … But I think all my guesses would not be worth a dime. And I have already proposed enough strange things. Hehehe
    Best regards
    Andrea Calaon

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear J.H. Silver,
    Is it possible that Dark Matter is the phenomenon that in either strong gravitational fields, and in systems with high speeds of the matter, the “mass” of the matter increases ?
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I will try to answer the questions of your last 2 posts.

    Magnetic field stimulus:
    The frequency ratio between the internal rotation frequency of a nucleon and that of the electron should be in the kiloHertz range. In particular I estimated that the p/e frequency ratio is equal to their mass ratio: 1,836.1527 … . In electromagnetic terms kiloHertz are VERY low frequencies and can modify electron orbitals only “quasi-statically”.
    I guess that if one introduces a frequency that lies at a few kiloHertz distance from a frequency proper of the crystal vibrations, the difference could become effective in the coupling. At the moment I am not able to guess anything better.

    The solenoid around the charge gets the current from a three-phase ac at 50 [Hz]. In the USA the net frequency is instead 60[Hz]. I guess Andrea Rossi had to adjust the control for this difference. By playing with common switches it is possible to shift part of the power to frequencies in the [kHz] range. No higher than that. If this is the case, the electromagnetic stimulation of the charge would be in the kiloHertz frequency range. But if the control system is more complex this guess could be wrong.

    Question a:
    Following only the coupling mechanism that I propose, LENR “ignition” should require only a sufficient number of matrix sites with at least two neighbouring interstitial sites occupied by p/d. However an additional requirement is that the energy of the p/d/t should be high enough to reach the critical distance for the magnetic potential to prevail. This is achieved only when the loading is as high as to make the crystal vibrations highly non-linear in the active particle, so that the energy can actually concentrate. This second requirement makes the load limit higher than the first, and near to the 1:1 atomic ratio.
    It is important to say that in the Palladium matrix interstitial hydrogens distribute homogeneously (they repel each other), whereas in Nickel hydrogens clump/cluster together. So that even with low average loading, in Nickel there are zones which have high loading (above 0.7), together with zones which have almost no loading at all. And these local loading values are enough to stabilize Nickel vacancies. This does not happen in Palladium. So in the case of Nickel one could have the formation of active particles around a hydrogen source with the rest of the matrix remaining not active. In Palladium this would require to load the whole matrix before the critical condition can be reached. And loading Palladium that much requires an electrolytic process.

    Question b:
    Temperature must be high to make the vacancies mobile enough. Plus the temperature populates the “non-linear modes” necessary for the extreme approach between the p/d/t. When the LENR start, their electromagnetic emissions enhance the formation and the movement of the vacancies. In this way there is a positive feedback that should make the reactions difficult to control at high power rates.

    Question c:
    p + e can not create a neutron, as Brillouin suggests. It is simply forbidden by the nuclear reaction rules: this reaction does not conserve the lepton number. Andrea Rossi explained this a number of times in this blog. Plus the energy needed is far too high (782.33 [KeV]).
    Plus neutrons appear only rarely in LENR and always in “extreme” conditions.
    Anyhow you are possibly touching an important point: Can the electron stably “capture” the proton inside its Zitterbewegung (without any successive nuclear reaction)? So far it seemed to me that a single coupling e-p/d/t without the other p/d/t, was not possible. However recently the Hydrino “saga” made me doubt.
    Is this what really happens in the so called Hydrino reactions? In other words, is the particular spectrum that seems to be observed due to the electron accelerating towards the proton when the magnetic coupling prevails?
    Were not for this “coincidence” I admit that I would have dismissed the Hydrino story altogether.

    Clearly other theories would have answered some of your questions similarly.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 26th, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    Dear Wladimir,
    The Nature article you referred is extremely interesting but as is read in the abstract has nothing to do with the concept of Aether. Rather is a beautiful confirmation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
    ————————————————

    sorry,
    I posted the wrong paper

    A vacuum can yield flashes of light
    http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

    Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

    regards
    wlad

  • Dear Andrea,
    If I remember right, the previous HotCat test was with a stainless steel reactor. If the walls contain nickel, it is not surprising if transmutation to Ni62 remains incomplete, because most materials including nickel have non-negligible vapour pressure at 1400 C (see e.g. http://www.powerstream.com/z/vapor-press1-big.png). In alumina reactor such contamination mechanism is obviously absent.
    regards, pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    GP Nolan:
    Congratulations for your publication on Science, great achievement.
    Please send us the link, for our Readers too.
    Thank you for your very kind words,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    J.H. Silver,

    The Pioneer Anomaly was solved two years ago.

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209

    At least this controversy has been resolved. (Or has it?)

    Thermal regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • GPJNolan

    Andrea,

    I am thrilled with your progress. We’ve been chatting since before your first “public” experiment and I send this note as continued support for your “renegade” attitude. As I told you over two years ago now, I have had many people tell me my ideas were crazy and could not work– and that they flew in the face of someone’s reality. There’s nothing more satisfying than making your point in the face of people who would deride you so as to make you NOT succeed.

    I send to you under separate cover our, now, fourth paper accepted in Science– two of which privately faced the criticisms you face (it can’t be done, it’s too complicated, it’s not possible, etc. etc.).

    So– I look forward to further development and YOUR success.

    Best,
    Garry Nolan

  • Thomas Paign

    Steven Karels,
    Detecting helium is actually pretty easy with a sniffer probe and LACO mass spec unit. It’s the measuring which is a bit more difficult, but is still relatively easy.
    T.P.

  • jhs

    Dear Wladimir,
    The Nature article you referred is extremely interesting but as is read in the abstract has nothing to do with the concept of Aether. Rather is a beautiful confirmation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
    BTW one should observe that QED is one of the most precisely verified theories that we now have in Physics.
    Dear Andreas, I agree with you the Sober article is in fact making a much more profound analysis and if needed we can start a much more serious discussion on that topic.
    The example of General Relativity is not right because that theory in fact explains much more phenomena of simple Newtonian Gravitation.
    I suggest the reading of that article about the experimental test of General Relativity by Voyager 1 mission: http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/krisher_1.pdf
    Notably even General Relativity is under question for some aspects and other theories were proposed because some experimental observation seems not to fit the theory or even by some scientists Dark Matter is seen just as an artifact. We must note that the nature of Dark Matter, gravitational interacting matter that should constitute about the 96% of the Universe, is still unknown.
    See for example this paper published on arXiv by Milgrom on MOND theories : http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7661
    An interesting introduction to a very complex experimental fact, eventually connected to modifications of General Relativity, could be also found at the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
    For a more deep discussion of that topic a large number of articles are available. For example this review of 2010 can be a good starting point to understand how difficult is to design an experiment and interpret the data with high precision: http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2010-4/download/lrr-2010-4BW.pdf.
    Have a good time,
    J.H.Silver

  • Steven N. Karels

    E Hergen,

    Detecting helium is a difficult test. What is required is to contain the eCat within a helium-tight container, run it long enough to produce a reasonable helium by-product and then remove the enclosed gas and measure it with a mass spectrometer. The output must be significantly above normal atmospheric helium content to show a positive result. Designing an experiment with the eCat thermal output handled but maintaining a helium-tight enclosure would be challenging.

    I asked Andrea Rossi about this before and he had posted, as I recall, that helium was not produced (or, I assume, that it had not been able to be measured). Given the results of The Test, and the lithium isotropic change, I would assume some helium was generated but that is only my guess.

  • Andrea Rossi

    E.Hergen:
    Thank you for your attention.
    We cannot give this information.
    Warm regards
    A.R.

  • E Hergen

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    in previous posts you stated, that it is possible to recycle the used nickel and use it again as fuel. Now from the last test we learned, that the nickel isotopes shifted to 99% to Ni62. It seems the reactor can run with a concentration of 99% of Ni62. Do you think it is possible to use Ni62 as the sole nickel compound or would it be necessary to blend it with other nickel isotopes?

    By the way: if the reactor runs with the isotope Ni62 alone, then the isotope shifts of nickel are not the main source of the energy production. Did you in your tests ever find helium?

    With best wishes,

    E Hergen

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andreas Moraitis wrote in October 26th, 2014 at 2:39 AM

    Dear J.H. Silver,

    Theories should ideally be not more complex than necessary (here Ockham’s razor makes sense), but they cannot be less complex as needed.
    ————————————

    COMMENT

    Yes,
    because if the Nature operates via a structure more complex than that adopted in the theory, of course the theory cannot work well

    A satisfactory theory must have the same complexity of that existing in the Nature, because she does not follows the rules of the scientific-phylosophical method of investigation established by the men

    We have to establish our rules according to what we observe in the Nature, and not the contrary

    When a method of investigation fails because the complexity adopted in the investitation did not achieve the complexity existing in the Nature, we have to improve the complexity of the method
    The method of investigation used in the 20th Century did not arrive to the complexity existing in the Nature

    That’s why the method used in the 20th Century must be improved

    This is the reason why I did it in my book Quantum Ring Theory

    regards
    wlad

  • Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    A few questions on your theory:

    a. The occurrence of LENR activity seems strongly correlated with the p/d/t loading of the Pd or Ni material. Below a certain ratio, no LENR activity occurs. How does your theory support this observation?
    b. Likewise for material temperature. How does your theory predict LENR activity as a function of material temperature?
    c. Would not the formation of a neutron from a p/d/t plus an electron, under your theory, provide a thermal neutron that eventually would find a Pd or Ni nucleus and then fuse? Why a three body solution instead of a two body solution?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear J.H. Silver,

    Although I highly appreciate Russell and Quine, I’m somewhat skeptical with regard to the probabilistic interpretation of Ockham’s razor. If an empirical theory can be ‘true’ or not depends on its accordance with all possible observations, not on estimated probabilities. Einsteins theory of gravity is more complex than Newton’s, but as far as we presently know it is correct, and Newton’s theory is – strictly spoken – wrong (although it is still a useful approximation). Theories should ideally be not more complex than necessary (here Ockham’s razor makes sense), but they cannot be less complex as needed. A higher probability would not help in this case. By the way, in some cases it might be possible to formulate two theories of different complexity which are both in accordance with the observations. However, it could not be ruled out that only the more complex theory is correct. For that reason, Ockham’s razor should rather be taken as a rule of thumb than as an absolute methodological principle.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 9:43 PM

    Please can you send a link to a paper or at least to a preprint, report or internal note ?
    I normally do NOT refer to Journalist articles as a source of scientific information.
    ————————————-

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html

    regards
    wlad

  • jhs

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I never written that light can be created by an empty space ( note that instead e+/e- pairs creation by space energy density is supposed to be a possible mechanism of Black Hole evaporation )
    you write: “light cannot be created by an empty space”
    “In 2011 an experiment detected the EVIDENCE on the aether existence”
    Please can you send a link to a paper or at least to a preprint, report or internal note ?
    I normally do NOT refer to Journalist articles as a source of scientific information.
    J.H.S

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 7:32 PM

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    As far as I know NO EVIDENCE of Aether existence has been found and
    ——————————————-

    Dear jhs,
    you are wrong,
    light cannot be created by an empty space

    In 2011 an experiment detected the EVIDENCE on the aether existence
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms

    Michelson-Morley did not detect the luminiferious aether because the aether is no luminiferous

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    J.H. Silver:
    Welcome !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • jhs

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    before discussing about aether it would be interesting to refer here the fascinating letters to Nature of P.A.M. Dirac, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v168/n4282/abs/168906a0.html , where he puts forward a new theory of electrodynamics including the concept of Aether. There was also a very interesting debate on same pages with H. BONDI & T. GOLD and L. INFELD who P.A.M Dirac responded.
    You can find all the links at that page:
    http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NATURE%2CNEWS&sp-q=Is+there+an+%C3%86ther%3F&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all
    which include links to many other interesting articles of fundamental Physics.
    Very interesting is also to read the article “A New Æther-Drift Experiment” by L. Essen also published on Nature in May 1955.
    See this link http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v175/n4462/abs/175793a0.html#more_articles
    As far as I know NO EVIDENCE of Aether existence has been found and this lead us to a basic concept op Philosophy of Science known as The Principle of Parsimony and well illustrated in the article of Elliott Sober ( The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 145-156)
    see link : http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/687195?uid=3738296&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105031406703
    This Philosophical article is so fascinating that I would like to propose to all the readers the first paragraph of it:
    ” The principle of parsimony has typically been described and defended as if it were a deletion rule, counseling agnosticism. Ockham, followed by those after him who liked the razor to which he gave his name, says that a hypothesis should not be asserted, or an entity postulated, if it is not needed to explain anything (Boehner [1957]). The razor slices away; it tells us to remove what is unnecessary. Modern justifications of parsimoniousness have presupposed this formulation of the principle, and have sought to justify it on grounds of probability. Both Russell ([1951], pp. 148, 155; 119591, PP. 71, 265, 267-9) and Quine [1966] recognize that removing an existential claim from a theoretical system has the effect of raising the probability of what remains. This is simply because a conjunction must have a lower probability than either conjunct, provided that the conjuncts are mutually independent. ”

    This means that if we can formulate a theory with a minimum set of concepts that theory has a larger probability to be true.
    Best regards,
    J.H.Silver

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    in 2002 the magazine Infinite Energy had published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytic Fusion”, (Vol 8 No 46) in which I proposed the application of a magnetic field external to the vessel, in order to align the nuclei and so to increase the velocity of the cold fusion reactions, and to become the experiment easily replicable (at that time it was very hard to get the replicability of cold fusion experiments, and the academicians used it as an argument against the occurence of the phenomenon)

    Coincidently or not, in 2003 Dennys Lets and Dennys Cravens showed in the anual ICCF-10 their experiment in which they applied an external field to the vessel, and the replicability of their experiment was improved (they had exhibited the experiment occuring in their laboratory by controling it in the ICCF-10 by the internet)

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    there is a point to be noticed.

    If the space was empty (and therefore Euclidian), the magnetic nuclear moment could not actuate in a distance of 10^-11m, since the radius of the nucleus is 10^-15m and the magnetism decreases with the square of the distance.
    But such law is valid only for the Euclidian space.

    The density of the aether within the nuclei is very high (in the same magnitude of the aether within the Sun), because protons and neutrons are confined within the very smal volume of the nuclei

    So, the high density aether spreads along the distance of the radius Bohr 10^-11m, because it decreases actually proportinal to 1/R.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    2. Your cold fusion setup seems too simple. Ni, a catalyst, and an applied oscillatory EM field would have been used many decades ago to detect LENR. But that detection never happened. I doubt that the E-Cat uses anything exotic or extremely refined beyond what scientists decades ago would have procured for their own experiments.
    —————————–

    Joe,
    cold fusion exists along decades.
    But as cold fusion is impossible by consideing the Standard Physics, the academicians used the strategy to claim tha the results were fraud and errors in the calorimeters.

    http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/index.htm

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I repeat:
    ” In collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working to explain the results”.
    We will publish our explications, when we will be ready. At the moment we are studying. I prefer not to anticipate ideas that could result wrong.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Brandon Hurd:
    We all love the Country of Nelson Mandela.
    I am not able to answer to your question, but I hope our technology can work also in South Africa.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Stefano Landi:
    Thank you, Dr Landi, for your kind attention.
    1- At those times I could not say other than what I said, due to IP constraints. As a matter of fact, the enrichment system is the process made by means of the ECat. Nevertheless, the results from the test have gone well Beyond what we found before during our internal R&D. As I said, now we are studying how to reconcile, but during these last days we arrived to understand possible explications; much more study is necessary, though.
    2- Information about the 1 MW plant will not given before the operation of it will be considered consolidated. Problems are many, some easy to solve, some not.
    3- Please, see#2.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    Do you consider the other three interactions – gravitational, strong, weak – to be essentially electromagnetic?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Although your bridge analogy involves resonance, it is false in that the actions are sequential: foot-stomping followed by bridge vibrating. In your cold fusion model, an external third party – oscillating EM field – is applied to all actors simultaneously. So in the latter case, a catastrophic change is not necessarily expected. (Conditions would have to be examined first.)

    2. Your cold fusion setup seems too simple. Ni, a catalyst, and an applied oscillatory EM field would have been used many decades ago to detect LENR. But that detection never happened. I doubt that the E-Cat uses anything exotic or extremely refined beyond what scientists decades ago would have procured for their own experiments.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    Thank you for your response. It will take me a few days to digest it.

    Question: I believe you mentioned an applied electromagnetic field could enhance the process. Is this in the “few kiloHertz” region, sort of a beat frequency or is it a much higher frequency?

    The eCat that was tested in The Report has within it heating wires in the form of a helix. Applying a current will induce a magnetic field. Adding an RF component could provide the needed electromagnetic oscillations to assist the reaction. Your thoughts?

  • Stefano Landi

    Dear Andrea.
    Congratulation for your work. I am following the blog and I hope the ecat and emouse will work perfectly for the sake of humanity.
    I have a couple of curiosities.
    1) in your conference in Italy you said about a procedure of Ni isotop enrichment. Is this in agreement what the results of the Itp report? The amount of Ni isotopes before the run do not seem enriched as compared to the natural Ni isotopes composition
    2) the 1MW plan has been working now for several months. Although the period is too short you could say something about the main problem occurred and whether these problem coul be solved easily or not.
    3) although data now are only preliminary, you could also say how much time the ecat was really active (producing energy) and how much energy produced so far..
    Kind regards

    Stefano

  • Brandon Hurd

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I would just like to say to you, first of all, congratulations on the findings of the ITP and WELL DONE! It is an amazing result.

    Also, I would like to say, thank-you for the work you have done over the years – work that will benefit all mankind. You have endured so much over the years to get this far – with great courage and determination. For that, personally, and on behalf of all those on my continent – Africa – who don’t yet know how your invention will change their lives for the better, I thank you.

    In my country, South Africa, the government is currently making plans for 8 new nuclear reactors, generating up to 9.6GW of power, to be commissioned at an estimated cost of around $100bn. I am hopeful that there will be an alternative available – based on the E-Cat – before such a vast sum of money, which my country can not afford, is committed to existing nuclear technology.

    I that regard, I have a question for you. Now I know this is difficult to answer but I would appreciate it if you could offer your best guess: When, in your opinion, do you think your technology could make a difference in a country like mine? In other words, when do you think we will be able to see, either new E-Cat power plants being built, or existing coal-fired power plants being retrofitted, or even smaller E-Cat power generators being made available for people’s homes?

    Many thanks once again and keep up the hard work.

    Warm regards
    Brandon Hurd
    Cape Town, South Africa

    P.S. – If you are ever in Cape Town, it would be my absolute privilege to give you a personal tour. I definitely mean it.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    thanks for the reply, I understand, better, I do not understand, but that’s okay, I adapt to…..
    You said: “in collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working on a theory that could explain the results of the report.” So maybe some young nuclear physicist is happy to answer:
    in which way can the energy be produced, as a result of:
    1. decrease in Lithium from Li7 to LI6;
    2. increase of the Nickel mass from Ni58 to Ni62
    Isotopic Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Vessela Nikolova

    Hello Andrea,
    thank you for what you wrote about my book. I thank also the reader Andre Blum, because with his review he shows to have fully grasped the message I wanted to convey by writing your biography. I am a psychologist, so I tried to bring out the psychological aspect of the protagonist and his experience, trying to explain how his past personal story has somehow an “influence” on his future choices, and in particular on those related to his latest discovery: the E-Cat.
    Vessela

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 9:28 PM

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.”

    But then why bother having a “sandwich” at all? Why not just apply a magnetic field to align the Ni atoms and the protons, and let their magnetic dipole moments do the rest of the work of transmutation?
    ———————————-

    Joe,
    the proton moving in oscillatory motion between the two magnetic moments, the Accordion-Effect of the Ni and Te nuclei, and the oscillatory electromagnetic field, all they may get resonance, and the amplitude of the oscillation of the proton starts to increase

    do you know why a battalion of soldier do not cross a bridge by marching ?

    do you know what happens when a battalion of soldiers crosses a bridge by marching ?

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.”

    But then why bother having a “sandwich” at all? Why not just apply a magnetic field to align the Ni atoms and the protons, and let their magnetic dipole moments do the rest of the work of transmutation?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I am not sure I will be able to really “illuminate” you. But let me try. :)
    The theory I propose is more or less summarized in two “evolving” (not yet complete) documents on this internet-site:

    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

    However it may well be that I haven’t been that good in describing “the collapse mechanism”. So I will try here to describe it in a possibly different and more effective way.

    Premise about the Nuclear Force
    As Dallacasa suggested in the early 1980’s, (see for example the more recent ref. [1] and [2]) the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic:
    The magnetic dipole moments of the nucleons are due to the very rapid rotation of their charges. The rotation frequency is around 5E23 [Hz]. This rotation generates an oscillatory magnetic field around each nucleon. When two nucleons approach, the rotating charges inside one of them cross the oscillating magnetic field generated by the other. As a consequence the charges are subject to a Lorentz Force. If the rotations inside the two particles are phased and the magnetic moments are parallel (or antiparallel), the nucleons experience a net attractive force. The force is actually cycling at each turn, but the period is very short. The average attractive force is higher than the electrostatic repulsion. At a distance of 2.5 [fm] the potential associated with the force described is in the [MeV] range, exactly the nuclear binding range for light nuclei.

    Premise about the Electron
    The electron manifests as a point charge with a perfectly symmetric electric field. However the Dirac Equation, which is the best “description” of the electron we have, says that the electron has an intrinsic and very fast “oscillation”: the so called Zitter-Bewegun. The frequency of this rotation is very high: 2.47E20 [Hz], so that it would be quite challenging to measure it (cristal interference, …). Actually the Dirac equation describes the evolution in 4D (Minkowski Space) of the plane (it is a bivector in “Geometric Algebra” terms) where the rapid rotation takes place (ref. [3]).
    The only option that makes sense is that the point charge travels at the speed of light. The size of the rotation circle is much larger than any nucleon: The diameter is about 386 [fm]. The intrinsic spin and the magnetic dipole moment of the electron are consequences of this rotation. The size of this intrinsic rotation determines the nice shapes and the sizes of the atomic orbitals and therefore all properties of chemical bonds.

    Coupling
    The electron Zitterbewegugn frequency is only a few kiloHertz lower than the inner frequencies of the nucleons mentioned above. As a consequence if the electron can see two nuclei with at least a magnetic quadrupole moment rotating around at those frequencies, a net attractive force between the electron and the nuclei develops. In this way the magnetic force that keeps nucleons together can manifest at a much larger scale, thanks to the coupling with the electron. Fortunately this coupling requires additional conditions (otherwise the universe would not exist as we know it) in order to overcome the “electron orbital” repulsion and bring to a nuclear fusion:
    The precessing spins of electron and nuclei must be kept aligned (antiparallel),
    Two nucleons need to couple together in order to prevent spin flipping.
    The kinetic energies should not be too high,
    Electron and nucleons must first find themselves at a distance as low as a few picometers.

    These four necessary conditions make the presence of the attractive potential essentially undetectable in almost all common materials and conditions. However the movement of the dislocations in heavily non-linear crystals loaded with hydrogen isotopes allows to reach the critical condition.
    Higher temperature increases the mobility of the dislocations and the kinetic energy of the interstitial nuclei. Plus an electromagnetic stimulation can generate the magnetic field necessary for the (precessing) spin alignment plus an additional contribution to the internal frequency gap between electron and nucleons.

    Eventually the answer to your question: The Collapse
    When two p/d/t (hydrogen nuclei) or one p/d/t and a nucleus couple with the electron, a ballet starts. The electron is much lighter than any nucleus, but it is caught between the two nuclei. The ballet depends on the relative masses of the two nuclei and the incoming directions.
    Anyway, during this phase the accelerating particles emit photons in the energy levels permitted inside the metal structure. The emission in this phase should be mainly dipolar.

    In common fusion reactions the magnetic coupling starts only at something like 3 [fm] and there are no energetic levels between which the the shortly accelerating nuclei can radiate. Therefore the excess energy in the magnetic attraction potential (the mass difference) can manifest only as kinetic energy of the daughter particles.

    With the mediation of the electron instead the magnetic potential can manifest over distances that allow accelerations of the nuclei and consequent electromagnetic fractionation.
    But fusion needs all three particles to meet inside 3 [fm], and the electron Zitterbewegung radius is much larger than that. In fact there is a “second pahse” of the collapse.

    The two nuclei reach the Zitterbewegung radius and cross it. Inside this radius the magnetic potential is repulsive. Hence the nuclei remain captured “inside the electron trajectory”. The electron point charge moves at the speed of light, which is much higher than any speed the nuclei can possibly reach. Therefore the nuclei behave as as inside a continuous potential well. The potential well in the Zitterbewegung plane is circular.
    Inside this circle the two nuclei attract each other with the very same magnetic potential that attracted them towards the electron. They “see” each other quite strongly because their magnetic moments directions are now completely locked by the coupling and their charge rotations have been phased during the approach. Therefore the two nuclei accelerate inside the circular orbit of the electron Zitterbewegung (helical in space) towards each other. During this phase they emit radiation that should resembles that of a synchrotron. When they are within 3 [fm] nuclear fusion actually takes place, since the electron keeps crossing them very frequently. The reaction is unusual because it is a ternuclear reaction (three particles meet in the same place). But the nuclear steps are the common ones.
    One proton acquires the energy to exchange with the electron the massive W+ that carries a positive charge and the flavour-change (up-down), becoming a neutron. The electron is annihilated and the flavour-change (u->d) flies away (it is the electron neutrino). The new neutron is born already bound to the p/d/t. In this way it has not been necessary to reach the mass of a free neutron before the appearance of the daughter particle.

    The fusion between two heavy (Z>1) nuclei with the mediation of the electron in principle should be possible. However the dynamic that leads to the magnetically oriented particle approach during a vacancy movement should need at least one highly mobile interstitial nucleus (the one that jumps into the forming vacancy); plus this nucleus must have at least a quadrupole magnetic moment (He4 is out). The LENR experiments seem to say that only hydrogen isotopes can make the trick. May be the results of Iwamura point at something heavier.

    This is what I managed to write today. If you have any question/critic/suggestion/doubt please tell me. I am here to try to understand.

    Andrea Calaon

    [1] Cook Norman D., Dallacasa V., “LENR and Nuclear Structure Theory” for ICCF-17.
    [2] Dallacasa Valerio, Cook Norman D., “The magnetic force acting between nucleons”,
    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36827/MagneticForceActingNucleons.pdf?sequence=1
    [2] Hestenes D., “Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics”,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andre Blum:
    Thank you, I agree. “The New Fire” is a sincere book.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 3:58 AM

    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?
    ——————————————-

    No,
    because there is no need a big amount of catalyst, since it is not consumed in the nuclear reactions.

    Rossi said he tested several catalysts. But perhaps he said it only with the aim to increase the mystery on the working of the eCat.

    In the page 30 of the Report is said:
    “Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed.”

    So, probably the catalyst is in the form of a lattice.

    Perhaps 52Te is not the best catalyst, in spite of it seems it is the best to resonate with Ni via Accordion-Effect.

    However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.

    From the Report (page 29), there was 68.1% of 58Ni in the unused fuel and 0,8% in the ash, and so the larger amount of Ni isotope consumed was 58Ni.

    From the aspect of resonance via Accordion-Effect, the best catalysts are:
    64Gd
    52Te
    40Zr

    The stable isotopes to be catalysts are:
    40Zr91 has magnetic moment -1,30
    52Te125 has magnetic moment -0,89
    64Gd155 has magnetic moment -0,25

    Unfortunatelly I did not find the magnetic moment of the stable 58Ni, but from the magnetic moments of Zr91, Te125, and Gd155 we realize that the best one is the Gd155.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andre Blum

    Dear Andrea,

    I read Vessela Nikolova’s biography about you today, and I loved it. It is a real page turner. Your background is impressive and so full of hurdles. I hope you like how the book came out too. I certainly recommend all of your many followers to read this one.

    Best regards,
    Andre

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    I think one Metric ton is 1000 kg or 1 million grams. So if Nickel costs about $15,210 per metric ton, 1 gram (unprocessed of course) costs about 1.5 cents. Not bad for 1.5 MWh. So the processing might cost as much as the raw material.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/nickel-prices-slide-extends-roller-coaster-year-1413993743

    Joseph Fine

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>