Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM

.
by
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada

.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier.

The current theoretical understanding does not offer an explanation for cold fusion or LENR. The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures of the atomic nuclei.

For explanation of the nuclear energy, a hypothesis of a field micro-curvature around the superdense nucleus is suggested.
Analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier.
The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on similarities between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.

615 comments to Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Joe,

    I’ve read your interesting contribution about Konstantin Meyl, and your suggestion that, maybe, free energy is involved in the working of the E-cat, but what about the gas driven E-Cat, where probably, a magnetic induction is not used anymore? If a gas driven E-cat works, without magnetic induction, there should be another explanation, isn’t it?

    Kind Regards,

    P.S. I appreciated very much your interaction with Wladimir on this forum, and I want to thank both of you for it.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Regarding the source of creativity I recently read this previously unpublished essay by Isac Asimov:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/531911/isaac-asimov-asks-how-do-people-get-new-ideas/

    I found it insightful. Asimov was a great thinker.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, Velocys can convert natural gas into high value clean fuels such as Diesel and Jet Fuel.
    They have invested over 300 million dollars in their Technology and have over 900 patents.
    It can be done on a small scale.
    Some places Flare their natural gas into the air because they have no use for it.
    Natural gas is very inexpensive, and we have plenty of it, plus it is available all over the World.
    Google:
    Velocys
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Joe,
    Thank you for your reply.

    I am in trouble with the concept of unlimited elasticity in a three-dimensional system or in any non-pure-mathematical system.

    Andrea Rossi stated more than once that transmutations are only a side-effect of the phenomena that are happening in the E-Cat. I am really, really curious what will be the embarrassing outcome if an E-cat reactor runs very very far beyond “exhaust of the fuel”. Did the TIP2 test really cut-off the power one hour before 99,.. % of fuel was used ? I don’t think so. The graphs even shows to us that the device performs better with enriched Ni62.

    I think there is a flow of aether in each particle that has a mass, and E-Cat, as other nuclear or radio-active devices or materials are capable of tapping energy from that flow.

    I am also thinking that fundamental researchers must have found excess energies in a myriad of experiments.

    Being right is unimportant to me. Curiosity all the more.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen.

  • Neri B.

    Wladimir,
    i totally agree with you. Simply coupling a Stirling engine (let’s say 25% conversion in electric power) with others, also more than one Hot-CAT, you could get enough electric power to drive as many PRIMARY ECAT as you want.
    Andrea give us one of your Hot Cat so that we can start testing a Stirling…eheheh

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    We are working on this issue; as you say, the E-Cat will be improved a lot over the time. I think that to to gain a strong efficiency for the production od electric power we need to use gas instead of electricity, for the reasons you correctly explained in your comment yesterday. If we take in consideration the results of ITP and integrate them with the ratio 3:1 = thermal energy: electric energy, we can see that there is still a COP >1, but we are pursuing more strong effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    As you correctly say, I cannot give information about this issue, positive or negative as they might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Eric Ashworth,
    Indeed: observation and concentration, and letting our brains “spin by themselves” on the gathered and accumulated acquisitions, may be the holy grail of creation and human inventivity.

    I very much like alle the pictures of Andrea Rossi, staring and observing the E-cats and the measurements on the computers. That is “creation in action”.

    Your observations carry the force of creation. Vortex-like structures, and their dynamic behaviour in changes in their environment, seem to work likewise. Is it possible to link to a drawing or picture of the vortices and flows you refer to. The description with words are not so accessible to me. Others use formula’s (calculus), which abstractions are mostly only accessible to a certain elite, and I am still in a continued -but slow- process to absorb them. I am more a graphical person.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear dr. Rossi,

    Did you try Cr instead of Ni, as suggested by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, the author of the article? And if yes, was the result positive? (Of course, I understand when you don’t want to answer this question because of protection of IP).

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  • Robert Curto

    orsobubu,
    Very interesting.
    Thank you
    Robert Curto

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 9:48 PM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    How many electricitons form the charge on the electron?
    —————————————

    I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.
    As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.

    2.
    Does not a neutral object attenuate a radiating field? A neutron stationed next to a proton should cause a disruption in the electric field of the proton, creating a shadow effect. This, in turn, would register as a non-null Q(b).
    —————————————

    If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.

    Joe,
    perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abastract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.
    Would you?

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Wladimir,

    You say that the secondary E-cat could produce 1kWh of electricity. I have yet to hear Rossi say that he can produce electricity with good enough efficiency. Do you have other information?

    I agree that the Rossi effect is in its infancy, and will likely be improved a lot over time.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Eric Ashworth

    Hey Wladimir, Regards reply from Dr Gabriela Lemos, you knew it like I did they would not perform the experiment. Why?. I say trapped between two opposing lines of thought. You obviously score points yet again. I would take it as another compliment. All the best Eric Ashworth.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. How many electricitons form the charge on the electron?

    2. Does not a neutral object attenuate a radiating field? A neutron stationed next to a proton should cause a disruption in the electric field of the proton, creating a shadow effect. This, in turn, would register as a non-null Q(b).

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    Wladimir,
    Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?
    ————————————-

    Joe,
    according to the Standard Model, both the proton and the neutron are symmetrical particles.

    May you give us a reasonable reason why the neutron could cause an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors? (mainly taking in consideration that the neutron has no charge).

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    In QRT, is the electric monopole composed of electricitons?
    —————————————

    Yes

    2.
    Why do you assume that the neutron in either a deuteron or a nucleus like 4Be9, 8O17, etc has no interaction with its partner nucleons? Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?
    ——————————–

    You have to ask it to the authors who proposed 33 different theories so that to explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron, along 66 years.

    If the question is so easy as you suppose, probably they would no need 66 years of unsuccessful attempts.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS:
    Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been published the paper ” Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to BSM”, by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Toronto, Canada.
    JoNP

  • Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle, Reply to your November 2nd message. The main thing is as you say ‘once that vortex is created then maybe a continuous flow could keep tunnelling through’. What I have observed is that a vortex flow conservs energy and thereby is able to penetrate because of a degree of gravity existing in the vortex created by the generating mechanism. In the mechanism it is demonstrated that when two vortexes are formed from a common plane of origin they spin in the same direction. To help explain: take circle divide it into two parts and put a vortex in each compartment, they both spin in the same direction. Consequently, when they make contact they cancell out their spin from curvature to linear in the direction of the original vortex flow. Two vortexes descend and meet. What I am getting at is the geometry of flows or fluid dynamics. When part of these vortexes peel off due to a design feature of the mechanism, the vortex seems to conserve an amount of the energy that created the vortex flow. As in the most recent paper of the JONP gravity is considered empty space. When atomic structure spins with centrifugal force the atoms move off centre of the structure, creating a point of gravity. Vortexes I believe contain gravity, helical trajectories must also. Gravity is a conservational force of energy. Physicists mention so much about energy but do we realy understand it?. Because there are only two types of energy or I should say recognised these being latent and kinetic, movement must have influence and therefore a consideration of various movements must be part of the energy equation. Latent I believe must be a value of gravity that binds, kinetic must be the exposing of the value in terms of the measurable energy value. If it is then all that is created, is from two states, these being a state of something and a state of nothing that contain the same attribute which is gravity. If physics can be distilled down to simplicity then that which appears complicated will be better understood. My approach as you know is a simple one. Regards Eric Ashworth

  • orsobubu

    Rober Curto,

    from “Re-Think: How to Think Differently”:

    “There is a widely accepted notion that creativity requires the context of the three “B’s”, the bus, the bed and the bathroom. Einstein awoke from his sleep to discover the theory of relativity. Archimedes recognized the theory of displacement while taking a bath, and ran through the streets yelling “Eureka, I’ve got it”. Similarly, many of our survey respondents said that they got their best ideas:

    -In the bed, drifting to sleep, sleeping, trying to fall back asleep at 3am
    -In the bath, showering, washing, bathing
    -In the bus, car, plane, travelling, walking home in a tree-lined street on a cool night with no traffic”

    Rossi is an innovator also in B-thinking habits, because he gets his best ideas riding a Bike and reading his Blog.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, is the electric monopole composed of electricitons?

    2. Why do you assume that the neutron in either a deuteron or a nucleus like 4Be9, 8O17, etc has no interaction with its partner nucleons? Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 7:58 AM

    Peter Forsberg:

    you are right about the fact that the commercial ( not physical) COP of the E-Cat must be divided by a factor 3 in case of electric power production, because if we use electricity to drive the E-Cat, to make 1 kWh of electricity is necessary to burn 3 kWh from a thermal fuel.

    As you correctly say, to make the E-Cat convenient to produce electric power we need one of the following at least:
    1- get a COP > 3

    ————————————–

    Not necessarily.

    You can put a secondary E-Cat producing electricity to drive the principal E-Cat. To make 1kWh of electricity, instead of using the 3kWh from a thermal fuel, it can be supplied by the secondary E-Cat.

    However, the E-Cat technology is in its beginning, and of course a better solution will be achieved.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Reply by Dr. Gabriela Lemos

    Some days ago I sent an email to Dr. Gabriela, asking whether her staff decided to undertake the experiments suggested by me:

    —————————————–
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: RE: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:02:27 -0200

    oi, Gabriela
    o que vocês decidiram?

    Vocês executarão as novas versões sugeridas para a experiência de vocês ?

    Em particular, acho que seria muito interessante executar a versão com os fótons se movendo ao longo de uma mesma linha, mas em sentido contrario. Não sei que dificuldades técnicas essa execução exigiria, mas acho que seria extremamente interessante verificar se haveria entrelaçamento quântico entre esses dois fótons se movendo em sentido contrario, e penso até que não haverá entrelaçamento nenhum. Se isso ocorrer, o fenômeno entanglement terá que ser pensado sob uma nova visão.

    saudaçoes
    wlad

    ———————————————

    She sent the following reply:

    ———————————————
    From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:15:15 -0300
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Olá Wlad,
    obrigada pelas sugestões.
    Temos vários experimentos na linha de espera para serem realizados. Quando tivermos tempo para testar sua sugestão eu te aviso.
    Abraço

    ———————————————

    Translation:
    ——————————————–
    “Hi, Wlad,
    thanks for the suggestions.
    We have several experiments in line waiting to be realized. When we have time to test your suggestion I warn you.
    hug

    ——————————————-

    So,
    it seems to be that sort of polite reply sent when somebody wishes to say no.

    However, who knows?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    riding a bike you can relax and think from scratch ( epochè).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, you need to take more bike rides !
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Thank you again for your comment. I understand your point. Doubtless, if we succeed to use gas we get closer to the path you suggest. Besides, gas is going to see its price fall down, due to the high offer coming from the fracking technology on the rise.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Thank you, stellar!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Of course, the ssm will play an important role.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I would think another way of making the E-Cat technology suitable to produce electricity would be to find a way (perhaps by altering fuel composition, making a melt proof reactor housing, creating additional control methods that do not consume power, etc) to allow the hot cat to self sustain – maintaining a constant temp with zero input – for significant periods of time.

    We know the E-Cat can self sustain. Dr. Levi performed a test on an E-Cat that self sustained for 18 hours, with the only input being the power consumption of the control box. In addition, the reactors of the one megawatt plant self sustained for hours. Hot cats have also self sustained, even if we on the outside only know of the test in which the reactor went up 1000 degrees C in 20 seconds and produced a megawatt of constant thrmal output until it destroyed itself.

    My understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong, is that any model of E-Cat has the potential to self sustain. Some models (lower temp) simply do so in a more stable manner. Others, such as the hotcats, may become unstable due to the high temps.

    I don’t know a single one thousandth as much about the challenges involved in developing and improving the E-Cat as you do. But as an ignorant, clueless outsider, I can help but think perfecting self sustain mode for the hot cat should be a priority due to the massive benefits it would offer.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg

    I would like you explain some doubts I had concerning the Fig. 1 of your paper, as follows:

    Question 1)
    The distribution of charge in the neutron is shown in the Fig. 10, page 50, of my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    I cant see how such distribution (measured by experiments) can be obtained from your model of the neutron, since it seems the neutron of the Fig. 1 has symmetric structure.

    .

    Question 2)
    The proton has magnetic moment +2,79284
    The neutron has magnetic moment -1,91304
    If the deuteron was symmetric as shown in Fig. 1, its magnetic moment would be:
    +2,79284 – 1,91304 = +0,8798
    However deuteron has magnetic moment +0,8574
    How do you explain the difference +0,0224?

    .

    Question 3)
    From Fig. 1 we realize that the proton has non-spherical distribution of charge. But experiments measured null electric quadrupole moment for the proton, and therefore it must have a spherical distribution of charge.
    How do you explain it?

    .

    Question 4)
    In the case you have an explanation for the item 3, however a proton with spherical distribution together with a neutron would have a spherical distribution of charge, and therefore the deuteron would have null quadrupole moment.
    But experiments measured non-null quadrupole moment for the deuteron.
    So, this question 4 must be explained together with question 3.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    Thanks for an interesting answer. I understand that you have calculated COP correctly according to science. But I do not agree with the scientific point of view that all energy is equal. This simplification is just one of the problems with the current paradigm of physics.

    After your reply I think I understand your assertion better, that all types of energy will be necessary and integrated in the future. And I also think I understand why you call it energy catalyzer instead of energy generator. You will perhaps always be dependent on other sources of energy to feed the ECat and amplify the input energy. Maybe you should have called it energy amplifier.

    You are right that Sweden is very advanced when it comes to centralized heat distribution. Sweden is very good at centralizing solutions by and large, since our society is semi socialistic. I live in a house that is heated by pressurized steam delivered in pipes to my neighborhood. But I long for the day when I could have an ECat instead, since I would like a decentralized heat source. A society with decentralized energy generation is more resilent against extral stress (war, pandemics, natural disasters, economic depression…) and more democratic. Each year when the goverment monopoly raises the cost of my heat bill I have not much to say about it. I cannot change to a new supplier.

    But even if I had an ECat and if the ECat ran on centrally created electricity (or even gas), then I would still be dependent on a central point of failure and with less possibility to negotiate price per kWH.

    So please make the leap to electricity generation if possible. A self sustaining ECat would be something that is vastly better than an ECat running on external energy. What efficiency have you been able to achieve so far? (My guess is confidential).

    Regards

    Peter

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Joe,

    Let us analyse the situation of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    1) Yukawa proposed a model of neutron where a meson jumps between two protons. But the free neutron exists along 15 minutes before to decay , and therefoe Yukawa neutron cannot exist, because his model works only for a neutron existing within the deuteron, because a free neutron cannot exist according to Yukawa model, since a meson cannot jump in one unique proton.
    So, we have to discard the Yukawa model, and we cannot use it so that to explain the null quadrupole moment of the deuteron.

    2) So, we have to consider the quark model of neutron. But:
    a) The deuteron has non-null quadrpole moment, as measured by experiments.
    b) As the proton is a spherical distribution of charges, and the neutron has no charge, then the deuteron has to have a null quadrupole moment, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    3) Two neutrons must be bound via the strong force, since there is no repulsion force between them, but there is a force of attraction trying to bound them. Heisenberg proposed a mathematical solution so that to solve this puzzle, the abstract concept of Isospin. But two neutrons bound via the strong force can be separated only by applying a force of repulsion capable to win the attraction force. And the abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is not able to create any sort of physical force of repulsion.

    We have therefore the panorama in which the Standard Model was conceived. The model does not work since from the beginning (the model of nucleons interactions), and therefore it will never succeed to supply a nuclear model capable to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

    The Standard Nuclear Model was developed from phantasmagoric assumptions, as that proposed by Heisenberg.
    As consequence, when the nuclear theorists apply such method so that to find a nuclear model, they are obliged to adopt some phantasmagoric assumptions, in order to fit the theoretical nuclear model to the real nuclear properties of the nuclei, inferred by experiments.

    Of course from phantasmagoric mathematical assumptions (similar to the Isospin proposed by Heisenberg) it is no possible to find a satisfactory nuclear model. Because if they assume a phantasmagoric assumption for the stability of a nucleus, when they apply that assumption to other nucleus the theory does not work anymore.

    There is no need to be a genius for understanding it.

    In the neutron model adopted in Quantum Ring Theory, an electron moves about the proton in the structure n=p+e.

    When a proton and a neutron are bound in the deuteron, the electron can have two positions:

    a) when it passes between the two protons, the electric quadrupole of the deuteron is null, because the two protons and the electron form a spherical distribution of charge

    b) when the electron passes in the opposite position, the distribution of charge is no spherical (the neutron and the proton form a spherical distribution of charge, but the assymetry of the position of the electron creates a non-spherical distribution of charge). The calculus in the paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron shows that the theoretical result is the same of that measured in the experiments.

    The model of neutron n=p+e is the unique viable model so that to eliminate the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Phycics.

    Besides, the model n=p+e was confirmed experimentally by the Don Borghi experiment and the Conte-Pieralice experiment.

    regards
    wlad

  • orsobubu

    Andrea, you will surely enjoy this image taken with the ultra-deep multiwavelength Hubble Space Telescope Frontier Fields camera. It shows “Pandora’s Cluster,” a group of 500 galaxies, formally known as Abell 2744, located 4 billion light-years from Earth. I’m pleased to tell you that this blue light you love so much is not photoshopped dark matter, this time it is real! Basically, the blue light is the faint glow of stars spewed out by six Milky Way-sized galaxies in their death throes, as they were torn apart by gravitational forces around 9 billion years ago:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/light-dead-galaxies-hubble-space-telescope_n_6083010.html?utm_hp_ref=science

    “The intracluster light (ICL)is bluer (g – r = 0.68 ± 0.04; i – J = 0.56 ± 0.01) than those found in the stellar populations of its main galaxy members (g – r = 0.83 ± 0.01; i – J = 0.75 ± 0.01). Based on these colors, we derive the following mean metallicity Z = 0.018 ± 0.007 for the ICL. The stellar population properties of the ICL suggest that this diffuse component is mainly the result of the disruption of infalling galaxies”

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 10:30 PM

    1. ————————-
    In QRT, is a magnetic monopole composed of magnetons?
    —————————-

    Yes

    2. ————————-
    Does not standard physics teach that a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, leaving the nucleons in a more ‘relaxed’ state otherwise and therefore allowing for non-null magnetic moments to arise?
    —————————–

    Let us analyse such question:

    a) If a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, then Z=N eve-even nuclei like 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20 etc cannot exist as formed by 2He4 clusters.

    b) 2He4 is very stable, and it has binding energy of 7MeV per nucleon. But 4Be8 also has 7MeV/nucleon. Therefore 4Be8 is a strong competitor to 2He4, and by considering it as a spherical distribution of 8 nucleons bound via strong nuclear force, it must be strongly stable.

    c) There is not any principle in the Standard Nuclear Physics from which the 4 protons and 4 neutrons would have to form 2He4 clusters in the 4Be8. Actually they would have to form a stable spherical structure with the 8 nucleons bound via the strong force.
    The same we can say about the 8O16. Therefore 4Be8 and 8O16 actually had to have binding energy of 7MeV/nucleon, and they both to be stable.

    d) If the 4Be8 creates two clusters of 2He4 only at critical energy just before decay, then why a hell it creates the two clusters? Because having a spherical structure with binding energy 7MeV/nucleon, it must to be stable, and cannot decay. And therefore it cannot create clusters of 2He4 just before decay.

    Dear Joe,
    the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed from wrong fundamental principles.
    So, we have the following situation:

    1- There is no way to find a nuclear model capable to reproduce the nuclear properties of the nuclei, by starting up from those wrong principles.

    2- That’s why the nuclear theorists are trying all the sort of conjectures so that to explain the stability and properties of the nuclei

    3- And the consequence is obvious: they are obliged to propose conjectures which do not fit to the own fundamental principles adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Thank you for your comment.
    I think we must make a distinction between the COP under a scientific point of view, related to the Thermodynamic first and second principles, and the commercial point of view; besides, we also have to make a distinction between thermal energy market and electric power market.
    The COP ( Coefficient Of Performance) under a scientific point of view is correct as it is calculated in all the existing literature on the matter, because of the equivalence, under the energetic point of view, of a thermal kWh and an electric kWh.
    Thermal energy is a necessary commodity, without thermal energy most of the industrial activities could not be performed and 3/4 of mankind could not work ( or survive) during the cold months. To say that thermal energy is a useless type of energy is groundless.
    The fact that nuclear plants and also most of the existing electric power generators working with the Carnot cycle waste about 2/3 of the energy does not mean that thermal energy is a waste, means that we waste 2/3 of the energy, which is a completely different thing. In the smartest plants heat is recovered, as you surely know, by co-generation and by the most recent tri-generation, and the heat is sold, not wasted. Your Country ( Sweden) is very advanced in centralized heat distribution, as you obviously know.
    Still remains a part of heat ( about 20%, if I am not wrong) that necessarily gets lost , not because heat is a waste, but because exhaust gases must be expelled above a certain temperature ( if I am not wrong about 150°C) to avoid looping and fogs, and this is an unavoidable cost in terms of heat for power generators that use the Carnot cycle.
    On the contrary, you are right about the fact that the commercial ( not physical) COP of the E-Cat must be divided by a factor 3 in case of electric power production, because if we use electricity to drive the E-Cat, to make 1 kWh of electricity is necessary to burn 3 kWh from a thermal fuel. As you correctly say, to make the E-Cat convenient to produce electric power we need one of the following at least:
    1- get a COP > 3
    2- make the E-Cat work with gas instead of electricity, issue upon which we are making strong R&D with problems to resolve ( casually, your comment arrives after the day during which- while riding my bike- I got a very good idea that could resolve the problems: if this new invention works, soon we will have the gas driven E-Cats, but there is work to do).
    Thank you for your intelligent comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    We will give more information when we will have completed the work in course to reconcile the results with our expectations, which were different from what has been found. So far I cannot add anything to what has been written in the Report.
    Thank you for your continue attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    i cannot find any reference to the measurement of Hydrogen in the SIMS analysis of TPR2.
    Is there a particular reason for this? In your theory is always valid the assumption that a nucleum of hydrogen penetrates the LI and NI nuclei?
    Thank you

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    I am probably in deep waters here, so correct me if my thinking is not adequate.

    I do not understand why you use the COP measurement as and indicator of the ECat performance. I have never understood this. For me the COP measurement is like comparing apples with pears. Or, rather apples with rotten pears. You divide heat energy with electrical energy. They are really not very compareable. Heat energy is the most useless type of energy that you can have, whereas electrical energi is a very versitile type of energy. It is easy to go from electrical energy to heat, but not vice versa.

    We can use the exampel of electricity produce by a nuclear power plant. A nuclear powerplant has an efficiency of 33%, so alot more energy (heat waste in the powerplant) has actually been used by your ECat than the electrical energy that you use in your calculations. So, I think that you have to multiply the COP with 0.33 to get a realistic measurement of a modCOP. If modCOP > 1 then the ECat has produced net energy according to my thinking.

    Luckilly, the ECat is guaranteed to produce at least COP 6 according to many reports over the years, so modCOP is then 2.

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  • Joe

    Jim,

    You don’t have to sell me on EU. I just finished watching a YouTube video of Stephen Crothers tearing General Relativity to pieces.

    Concerning the E-Cat, tunneling with the help of Tesla radiation might be the central ingredient in the whole process. If div B is truly nonzero, then so is grad div B which represents longitudinal waves. Near-field waves are notoriously weak but at inter-atomic distances, something that Tesla never tried, that may not be the case. Hence, the Rossi Effect.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    What you list in your comment are not “assumptions”: are numbers to be measured, for each of the issues you cited. There are not assumptions, implicit or explicit, in what you said. Luckily. Just precise maths and precise engagements. Returning to the paradigma of the comment of mine you are referring to: it is groundless to make assumptions about how the reactor should have behaved, without knowing how it is done, in a discussion related to calculate a performance that is based exquisitely upon the ratio between the amount of energy produced and the energy consumed, independently from how the consumed energy has been utilized inside the reactor; we have an E-Cat: we consume x kWh/h and we produce y kWh/h; if y/x>1 the E-Cat works, if y/x<1 the E-Cat does not work. All the rest is useless bla bla ( or a smartesque attempt to steal information pulling us in a discussion that has nothing to do with the measurement of the COP).
    Thank you for your comment: your comment, as well as the comments of our sceptic friends, are useful for our work, to maintain a vigil readiness against errors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, is a magnetic monopole composed of magnetons?

    2. Does not standard physics teach that a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, leaving the nucleons in a more ‘relaxed’ state otherwise and therefore allowing for non-null magnetic moments to arise?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There are always “assumptions” in business. That the eCat will be safe to operate. That it will behave according to its specification and/or contract. That delivery will be made in a timely manner per the contract. So Yes there are assumptions, explicit or implicit. The success should be made upon verifiable performance metrics as specified in the contract and associated documents. Another assumption is that payment will be made when the specified performance has been demonstrated or achieved. That the receiving party technicians can be taught how to successfully operate and maintain an eCat(s).

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie:
    This information will be given when we will have finished the set up period.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    OK, I send you the model in the video in the comment of E Hergen of yesterday. The original.
    With the autograph too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 7:57 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Just a statistic curiosity: your comment is the # 20,000 arrived to this blog.
    ———————————————

    Fine!
    I’m waiting for my prize.
    Andrea, you may send my eCat by mail, and do not forget to autograph it.

    regards
    wlad

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Can you tell us what was the contract COP agreed upon?
    Regards

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 4:45 PM

    1. In the Sound of Aether, how do the electricitons and magnetons organize themselves in order to form a longitudinal wave?
    ———————————————-

    Joe,
    I did not propose a theory

    2. In your response to JR, you seem to believe that in standard theory, a neutron added to an even-even Z = N nucleus forms an isotope whose values for intrinsic spin, intrinsic magnetic dipole moment, and electric quadrupole moment are identical to those of the newly introgressed neutron. In effect, you claim that standard theory views these three properties of the neutron as carrying the same values as those for the nuclei of 4Be9, 8O17, etc. But is this what standard theory actually teaches?
    —————————————-

    Joe,
    we infer from their model, described in The Very Rich Structure of the Rather Light Nuclei:

    ======================================
    “The molecular description of 9Be, in terms of two alpha-particles bound together by a neutron in a molecular orbital, was developed by Seya and collaborators in 1981 [21].”
    ======================================

    Because the neutron moving in a molecular orbital does not interact with any one of the alpha-particles, and so 4Be9 and 8O17 etc. have the properties of the 4Be8, 8O16, etc. with the addition of the properties due to the neutron.

    Besides,
    there is not any physical reason why the neutron may have preference to be bound with any of the alpha-particles either in the 4Be9 or the 8O17, because 2He5 is no stable.
    So, any of the 2He4 particles cannot bound with the neutron in the 4Be9, 8O17, etc., so that to change their properties of spin zero, magnetic moment zero, and quadrupole moment zero.

    regards
    wlad

  • Jim

    @joe, what, you mean like dark energy and dark matter??? the classical physicists are taking too many drugs! Check out the Electric Universe at http://www.Thunderbolts.info. When the insiders finally realize that the fact that electromagnetism is 10-39th greater power than gravity, and they begin to do real experiments instead of math theory, then we may actually get somewhere in understanding our universe and the matter in it. The electrical nature of everything we are and have around us is what is real…. It may actually be that the “Fusion” we are seeing is a byproduct of the electromagnetism from the heating coils along with the electrical covalents of the Ni-Li powder.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The test of the Independent Third Party did not produce assumptions, it produced measurements.
    Assumptions are groundless when the task is to measure.
    Let me give you a paradigmatic example: the Customer who has got the 1 MW plant signed a contract where IH gives a guarantee of a certain production of energy with a certain consumption of energy: now, do you think that IH will be paid based on the energy produced and energy consumed measurements, or based on the “assumptions” about how it had to behave?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I not sure if you have been following any of the the online discussion on various blogs regarding the Lugano test results. Some claim the reported resuslts are invalid based on assumptions about how the E-Cat should have behaved during the test.

    Would you agree with this statement:

    “There is a another possibility. There exists many false assumptions made about the behavior of the Ni-H reactor. This behavior does not conform to expected norms of measurement.”

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Joe

    Koen,

    The physical proof that space consists of no more than three dimensions is that the law of conservation would not exist otherwise. Mass-energy would enter dimensions that would be beyond our potential to observe.

    All the best,
    Joe

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>