.
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.
Tom Conover:
Thank you, interesting .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
I started here —
https://www.google.dk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_59bVJi6B-nB7Aaw5oD4Cw#q=Edward+Teller+fusion
.. then checked here:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/586350/Edward-Teller
Although the Los Alamos assignment was to build a fission bomb, Teller digressed more and more from the main line of research to continue his own inquiries into a potentially much more powerful thermonuclear hydrogen fusion bomb.
.. and then found more here:
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p337
Edward Teller Lectures
Lasers and Inertial Fusion EnergyWith a Foreword by E M Campbell
Edited by: Heinrich Hora (University of New South Wales, Australia), George H Miley (University of Illinois, Urbana, USA)
About This Book E-Book Reviews Supplementary
How to achieve unlimited, safe, clean and low-cost energy by laser- or beam-driven inertial nuclear fusion has preoccupied all winners of the Edward Teller Medal since its inception in 1991. This book presents their findings, meeting discussions, and personal insights from Edward Teller himself. Expect discussion of important advances anticipated in the future such as multi-billion dollar fusion research projects (NIF), and new schemes such as the petawatt-picosecond laser-plasma interactions evoking new physics and coupling mechanisms.
.. hoping this enough to start your review of “fishing for fusion”
Warm Regards
Tom
Felix Rends:
Thank you very much, this is very interesting. This could give further evidence that LENR have right of citizenship in the Standard Model system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
“Today I have been informed from an Indian nuclear physicist that, during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller expressed the opinion that cold fusion was a possibility.”
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Perhaps the colleague refers to the Oppenheimer Phillips Process:
http://goo.gl/h01H3z
http://goo.gl/9n5ZNm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process
An exothermic stripping reaction (like for example the Oppenheimer-Phillips process), would explain the transmutations taking place and solve the problem with the coulomb barrier.
Same Days ago I have had the same idea in the LENR Forum:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/442-Is-Calcium-Rossi%E2%80%99s-Secret-Catalyst/?postID=1811#post1811
Best regards
Felix Rends
To the Readers, request for help:
Today I have been informed from an Indian nuclear physicist that, during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller expressed the opinion that cold fusion was a possibility. If true, this is important under a historical point of view, but I have not been able to find a reference of this. Is any of our Readers able to inform us about similar reference?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Greg Leonard, Eric Ashworth,
The simulated device creates multiple vortex structures because of the shapes of the blades of rotor and stator, in combination with exact flow, viscosity and density of the fluid.
The clue may be that the torque on the rotor that is mechanically connected with the outer casing, is possible because the blades on the casing “recoil” and “bump” on the vortices that are internally created, and act, as Eric says, as solid objects.
Awsome !!!
You should really cooperate with Wladimir and his knowledge on aether structure. With that simulation software, and a “fluid” that has proper electric and magnetic properties, and some “black-hole-stuff” you might see the appearance of nuclearish familiar stuff.
But…. it looks expensive.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Magico Lipton:
1- the COP raises with the temperature, as explained in the Report of the ITP
2- see above
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Eric Ashworth
Thanks for the interesting post and the web sites you point to.
A quick look at the Entecho idea leaves me wondering how they are planning to deal with the torque acting on the fan.
Surely the craft will spin until the air resistance matches the rotor torque!
What have I missed?
Greg Leonard
Dear Andrea,
now we know that, during the reaction, new Isotopes are forming.
Is the corresponding COP:
1. constant? or
2. it changes (linearly, or in some more complex way)?
Many thanks,
Dear Wladimir,
You wrote: Daniel, we are not speaking about atoms. We are speaking about nuclei. The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).
My answer: Yes, I agree, we spoke about the rotation of the nucleus of the atom and not of the atom itself. I realised my mistake after I posted my previous message, but I did not correct it anymore. So my remark about the rotation of the nucleus when the atom is chemically bound (via electrosphere), was a stupid one, because the nucleus still rotates within the atom even when it is chemically bond (via the electrosphere) isn’t it? And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Daniel De Caluwé
November 5th, 2014 at 6:28 PM
Dear Wladimir,
It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ 😉 ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond 😉
——————————————–
Daniel
we are not speaking about atoms.
We are speaking about nuclei.
The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).
On the Rotation of the Atomic Nucleus
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.53.778
Wikipedia:
Therefore there are several possible answers for the nuclear magnetic moment, one for each possible combined l and s state, and the real state of the nucleus is a superposition of them. Thus the real (measured) nuclear magnetic moment is somewhere in between the possible answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_moment
A simple model for nuclear rotation at high angular momenta
Abstract
A simple solvable model of particles coupled to a rotor is introduced. The solutions illustrate some properties of the nucleus rotating with high angular momentum.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269371900578
Single-Particle and Collective Aspects of Nuclear Rotation
The spectra of rapidly rotating nuclei reveal two distinct components in the build up of the total angular momentum, corresponding to collective rotation and alignment of orbital angular momentum of individual particles. Various aspects of the interplay of these two mechanisms are discussed. The pattern of collective excitations built upon an yrast state of aligned particle motion is analyzed on the basis of a simple model. For the strongly deformed nuclei, the relative contribution of alignment and collective rotation is characterized by two different moments of inertia referring to the yrast envelope and the collective bands. The behaviour of these moments in the transition region from superfluid to normal phase is considered. Finally, some of the consequences of the build up of angular momentum by alignment and collective rotation are considered for the region of the highest spins, where pair correlations are expected to play a minor role.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/24/1B/001
Chirality of nuclear rotation
FIG. 1. The discrete symmetries of the mean field of a rotating triaxial reflection symmetric nucleus (three mirror planes). The axis of rotation (z) is marked by the circular arrow. It coincides with the angular momentum~J.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0001038.pdf
regards
wlad
Dear Wladimir,
It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ 😉 ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond 😉
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
On the ficticious centrifugal force
Dear Daniel De Caluwé
As the centrifugal force is ficticious, how can it cause the rupture of a string ?
Let me explain it.
Suppose you wishes to cause the rupture of a string A with your two hands. So, we have to apply on the string A two contrary forces with your hands, in order to cause its rupture.
Now let us to do an analogy with the case of a stone moving in circular orbit tied to the end of a string B, while you hold the other end with your hand.
With analogy to the rupture of the string A with your two hands (where two contrary forces are applied), it seems that two contrary forces must be applied on the ends of the string B. One force is applied by your hand, and the other force is applied by the stone (the centrifugal force, acting in contrary direction of the force applied by your hand).
Before the rupture of the string B, the force applied by the stone and the force applied by your hand must be equal (since the string was not disrupted).
But let us analyse it by applying Newton’s law. As the string B is submitted to two contrary and equal forces, the resultant on the string B is zero, and therefore it must be at rest (or to move in rectilinear motion).
So,
the centrifugal force does not exist, it is ficticious.
There is only one force: it is the force applied by your hand. And what is done by this force?
Well, in each fraction of time such force applied by your hand changes the direction of the stone motion. In other words, you need to apply a force (transmited by the string B to the stone) in order to change every time the direction of the motion of the stone.
In general, when we have to analyse a phenomenon in which a body has circular motion, the use of the centrifugal force simplifies the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon. In other words, in spite of we know that the centrifugal force is ficticious, however we use to consider its action, so that to simplify the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon.
But sometimes, along a discussion, often we find people like Mr. JR, and they adopt the strategy of refuting our arguments, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious. In this case, there are two situations:
1- The person uses this sort of argument because he does not understand the discussion
2- He uses this sort of argument with bad intent, in order to cause confusion to peoples who are reading the debate. By this way, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious and does not exist, he tries to convince the listeners that he is right, and his opposer is wrong.
So, each reader here has to conclude himself what is the case of our friend Mr. JR.
I simply wash my hands.
regards
wlad
George:
Thank you for the link to Elforsk, very important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Waltc:
…and the right answer is…2!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
I stay on the SIMS analysis made by the Swedish Institute you can see in the Report of the ITP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen, in reply to your November 4th reply. I too am a graphical person. I can provide you with two web sites that deal with fluid dynamics. One of these, a close associate, displays a centrifugal fan that operates in a unique concept. It is a www. site belonging to entecho.com.au/contact.php As you know when semi solid objects spin they appear solid. The other concept is on a http//: site belonging to triteckindustries.ca This concept is similar to the entecho one but does not feature the centrifugal fan even though it could in its design which involves propellers and a baffle arrangement. Both of these technologies require movement to induce and control a flow which is able to be studied and measured. See what you think. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Have you considered the possibility that the 62Ni lone isotope in The Report was not nickel at all but a molecule with a mass of 62?
Dear Andrea,
When you spoke to Neri B. of “Dangerous situations”, are we talking:
1) Dangerous- as in “BOOM!”,
2) Dangerous- as in it breaks, stops working and needs to be replaced (but no “BOOM!”),
3) or something else?
Thanks, WaltC
Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
@JR,
Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
—————————————–
Daniel,
let me explain it by an easy words.
Suppose you take a string and you tie a stone with mass “m” in its end.
And you put the stone moving with circular trajectory with speed V and radius R around your hand.
The stone tries to escape, applying a force on the string. So, you have to apply a force on the string, otherwise the stone go away with the string.
The force of the stone is given by Fc = m.V²/R.
Let us call it centrifugal force (note that, in spite of it is ficticious, however it is able to cause the rupture of a string, because it is actually due to the inertia of the stone, and the inertia is no ficticious).
The string is able to support a force Fs.
If the speed of the stone increases so much, the centrifugal force Fc will be stronger than the force Fs of the string, and the string will have a rupture, and the stone will go away.
Now let us apply it to the nucleus, as follows:
1- The stone plays the role of a proton
2- The string plays the role of the strong nuclear force
The strong nuclear force must be stronger than the centrifugal force Fc , otherwise the proton will move away, leaving the nucleus.
I showed by calculation that with a speed 10% of the light speed, the centrifugal force Fc on the proton is 500N, while the Coulomb force is 50N.
In the distance of 2fm (the radius of the nucleus 2He4), the Coulomb repulsion has the same magnitude of the strong nuclear force ( 50N ).
Therefore we conclude that the centrifugal force on the proton is 10 times stronger than the strong nuclear force.
regards
wlad
Dr. Rossi gets compliments Elforsk seriously. Read the article on page 13 -14
Isotopic change indicate ”Cold” nuclear reaktion -Elforsk follows the development
New test on Andrea Rossis Ecat show clear signs of isotope change in the fuel.
The results indicate that the cause could be nuclear reaction in cold
temperatures.
http://issuu.com/elforsk_/docs/elforsk_perspektiv_2_2014?e=7916266/10018941
JR wrote in november 4th, 2014 at 8:38 PM
The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming
————————————————————–
The radii quoted by Bethe due to the rotation of the nucleus as a whole, as if it were a solid body? Be it as it may, numerous measurements had been made by 1936.
The magnetic moments of nuclei
Bethe explains that the magnetic moments of numerous are known, thanks to a remark made by Pauli, who showed that if the nucleus behaves as a small magnet, it can somewhat perturb the observed atomic spectral lines caused by electrons making transitions from one quantum state to another. This was called the “hiperfine structure” of the spectral lines, and the magnetic moment of the nucleus could be deduced from it. The magnetic moments of about thirty nuclei were known in 1936.
page 347
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=IJa4afSc-MsC&pg=PA347&lpg=PA347&dq=nucleus+rotation+hans+bethe&source=bl&ots=_QY1zPUjBj&sig=XYZNgCuUdsHRJw_biDW6M_mvqEM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0IVaVPaBGYGUNtaqgPgI&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=nucleus%20rotation%20hans%20bethe&f=false
So,
the nuclei have rotation, and since it influences even the atomic spectral lines, the rotation must be very fast, because the magnetic moment of the electron is 9284 (x10^-27 J/T) , while the magnetic moment of the proton is only 14 (x10^-27 J/T).
Without a large angular momentum the protons and neutrons could not influence the spectral lines (the distance between the electrons in the electrosphere and the protons in the nucleus is 10^-11m , while the size of the proton is 10^-15m, and so the size of the proton is despicable regarding its distance to the electrons). And the magnetic moment decreases with the square of the distance.
Therefore there are two alternatives:
1- Mr. JR does not know the nuclear properties of nuclei
2- Mr. JR knows them, however he tries to deceive people by lying
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Yes, taking in account the strong conservative mode maintained by the Professors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Neri B.:
When I said the Cat can become a Tiger it was referred ironically to a totally different issue…anyway we reached very high COPS, but in very Dangerous situations, so it is not proper to talk of them. That was extreme R&D
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
@JR,
Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
—————————-
Dear Daniel
I avoided to call it centrifugal force because the centrifugal force does not exist, I was sure Mr. JR would use it so that to refuse my argument.
.
=============================================
JR wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 7:31 AM
Dear Daniel,
If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.
——————————————
Therefore, according to Mr. Jr,
when a Formula 1 driver makes a turn too fast, instead of being vented out of the curve, the car is pulled towards the center of curvature … ha ha ha
My God …
… then the designers of Formula 1 tracks are crazy, because they put barricades and tires on the outside of the track, to protect against car crashes.
According to Mr. JR, the designers had to put these barricades on the inside of the runway, so cars do not be thrown into the center of the trajectory …
ha ha ha
Dear Mr. JR
your lack of knowledge of elementary physics is awesome.
In spite of the centrifugal force is a fictitious force, however due to the rotation of the nucleus the protons and neutrons are submitted to the tendency to be expelled from the nucleus, due to the INERTIA of their motion.
The protons and neutrons try to continue in a straight TANGENTIAL trajectory, and the strong nuclear force on the protons and neutrons have to avoid they be expelled from the nucleus by such INERTIA
This tendency due to the INERTIA is vulgarly known as centrifugal force. Within the nuclei the INERTIA is contrary to the strong nuclear force.
The value of such INERTIA tendency is Fc = m.V²/R, and (as I have shown here) it is at least 10 times of magnitude stronger than the strong nuclear force.
Therefore, the strong nuclear force cannot avoid the protons and neutrons to be expelled from the nucleus, because the action of the INERTIA on them is 10 times stronger.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
in TPR 1 we saw 3 tests: in the first the reactor melted, in the others two tests the COP was 5.6 and 2.9.
Recently you stated that someone has experienced the cat could become a tiger.
Can you please tell us which is the highest COP you ever achieved in your internal test for a reasonable period of time and at what temperature?
Thank you
JR wrote in November 4th, 2014 at 8:38 PM
1) ——————————-
The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming
———————————-
You are wrong.
the 4H3 nucleus has spin zero because one proton has spin up and the other proton has spin down, while one neutron has spin up and the other neutron has spin down. The total spin is zero.
However all the nuclei have rotation, and so each nucleon (proton or neutron) is submitted to the centripetal force.
2) ———————————-
a centripetal force CAUSES binding, the centripetal force IS the nuclear force, having the centripetal force get larger than the coulomb doesn’t matter much since the coulomb effect is small compared to the binding from the strong force, etc…
————————————-
No, according to the Standard Model, which causes binding is the strong nuclear force (and it is not centripetal, i.e., it does not point out to the center of the nucleus, since there is also attraction between two neighbors nucleons).
3) ———————————-
The closest you come to a true statement is when you *assume* that 11Be can’t be bound by the strong force and then make the bold and daring conclusion that, if there is no binding, then it would not be bound. Bravo.
I don’t think you could have been more wrong. Actually, you could have been more wrong (and certainly will) simply by saying more. I eagerly await to see what simple ideas you screw up next…
————————————-
Bravo, Mr. JR, you are using the Heisenberg phantasmagoric method, so that to explain how the cluster of the 11Be can keep a halo neutron without any sort of attraction force between them.
Heisenber awarded the Nobel Prize with his phantasmagoric method.
There is a good chance you may get the Nobel Prize too.
regards
wlad
Dan C. wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Dear Wladimir,
You say:
“However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.”
I respectfully disagree.
And Mr. Rossi can correct me if I’m wrong.
When Rossi says all energies will be integrated, he is just being realistic. it will take many decades to transition.
—————————————-
just what I did mean to say. I said in the future, and the future does not mean tomorow, or next year. The future means after some decades.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
Regarding the heat measurements in the Lugano report (leaving alone the isoptopic shifts reported): were these measurements in line with what you would have expected based on your own R&D experience with the E-Cat?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Wladimir,
You say:
“However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.”
I respectfully disagree.
And Mr. Rossi can correct me if I’m wrong.
When Rossi says all energies will be integrated, he is just being realistic. it will take many decades to transition. We will need all those other forms of energy during this period.
On many blogs, you see people proclaiming LENR will obliterate fossil fuels within a few short years. It will take more then a few short years just to get started. While many think this will happen fast, I hope it happens fast enough to preserve the fossil resources for all our other needs.
People greatly underestimate the magnitude of the task of transitioning to LENR energy. If it could be mostly accomplished in 50 years, it would be a great feat for society. In this respect, Rossi is right to say all energies will be integrated. At least for the foreseeable future.
With respect,
Dan C.
Boss:
This situation of the “changed position of the clamps” is very funny, while it is also an evidence of the correctness of the work of the Professors. Lacking real reasons to make a serious critic, these persons make “assumptions”: they “assume” that the clamps of the two PCE830 have been changed of position, and upon this “assumption” are writing all their lectures. I make you a simple example of what is going on: you are driving your car correctly, respecting all the laws related to driving, but suddenly a policeman stops you and says: ” I assume you were going overspeed, so you have to pay a fine”. No evidence at all that you have violated the speed limit, but, based on his assumption, he wants to fine you.
This situation is exactly the same.
THE SET UP OF THE EXPERIMENT, INCLUDED THE SET UP OF THE TWO PCE830 HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PROFESSORS, NOT BY ME. THE PROFESSORS CONTROLLED EVERY DAY THE CORRECTNESS OF ALL THE CONNECTIONS. ONE OF THEM (PROF ROLAND PETTERSON) WAS SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THIS TASK. THE CLAMPS HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCONNECTED, EXCHANGED, DISPLACED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Obviously the persons that have an agenda finalized to try to say negative things, not having serious things or citics to make, now fish in the lake of “assumptions” and “hypotesis”. From this lake you can fish out all the monsters you want, being just “assumptions”.
Photos: I was not allowed to make photos and therefore I do not have any photo. The Professors know perfectly how the clamps have been put and know perfectly that no displacement or changement has been done.
The level of this critic is so low, that it is not worth the time of an answer, so, as you rightly wrote, the temptation to spam it has crossed my brain, but you are always so kind that I decided to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Nicola Cortesi:
thank you for the important information. This is an accomplishment due, obviously, to the Report of the ITP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Daniel,
If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have a really simple question for you, but I want to be sure you won’t spam it as a tedious comment coming from that class you refer to as ‘snakes’ (which in fact I’m not).
We are talking about science, not religion, and therefore, big claims have to be supported by huge proofs. Faith has nothing to do with the subject.
In the TPRI some doubts emerged, (such as DC current not excluded) , and eventhough I was totally sure there wasn’t any DC hidden some where, the faith in your honesty couldn’t be enough for science.
In fact in the TPRII DC presence was checked and excluded.
At this point some other doubts have been raised, and just like as for TPRI, I am preatty sure no clamp was inverted. But belief goes along with faith, hence it’s not scientifical.
One picture of the setup would be enough and you would also give evidence that out there it’s full of ‘snakes’.
The TPRII was intended to prove that the Cat works without any reasonable doubt. Then prove it.
Thanks for your attention, always cheering for you.
Regards
Dear Andrea,
today on the webpage of the popular italian journal “Il Fatto Quotidiano”, an article appeared on the recent nomination of Fabiola Gianotti to director of CERN. At the end of the article, the journalist Andrea Von Flue, himself a physician, guesses if the new director’ll start a research project also on LENR. You can read the article in italian on:
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/11/04/grazie-fabiola-gianotti-politica-perso-unaltra-occasione-per-tacere/1191758/
Something has changed!
Hot Regards,
Nicola
@JR,
Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
Kind Regards,
Dear orsobubu,
I can understand that many people can think that communism is a good way to rule man. Truly there are some distinctly bad concepts in the incarnation of lesse faire economy known as capitalism. But the empirical evidence is against communism. It works extremely badly. But this is not a political blog, so I will spare everyone the details.
Regards
Peter
Koen,
Tapping into a free energy flow would be the best. The E-Cat would then behave like a wheel at the bottom of a waterfall. Back in 2011, some people were asking Dr Rossi if the E-cat performed differently at various times of the day. They were implying that the Sun was perhaps responsible for providing the excess energy to the E-Cat. This would have been in the form of a neutrino flux. The question remains though, what is the source of the overunity found in the E-Cat?
All the best,
Joe
Wlad said:
“Dears Mr. Joe , Mr. JR , and dr. Stoyan Sarg
As is known, the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons is not considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics.”
———————–
Wrong. That was an easy one!
Of course, even if it were true, almost everything else you said following this was wrong. The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming, a centripetal force CAUSES binding, the centripetal force IS the nuclear force, having the centripetal force get larger than the coulomb doesn’t matter much since the coulomb effect is small compared to the binding from the strong force, etc…
The closest you come to a true statement is when you *assume* that 11Be can’t be bound by the strong force and then make the bold and daring conclusion that, if there is no binding, then it would not be bound. Bravo.
I don’t think you could have been more wrong. Actually, you could have been more wrong (and certainly will) simply by saying more. I eagerly await to see what simple ideas you screw up next…
Daniel,
Thank you for your kind words, and for reading the article by Prof Meyl.
I think tunneling is a strong candidate for the central process occurring in the E-Cat.
Two reasons are the following:
1. The hot spots on the E-Cat resemble vortex losses in a capacitor as explained by Prof Meyl. (Compare Fig 12 in the article by Prof Meyl with images of the large vertical E-Cat when not running.) And electric capacitance can be used instead of magnetic induction to create an oscillating charge density and near-field waves, to answer your question.
2. The lack of radiation from the E-Cat can be explained by re-absorption which is typical behaviour in near-field radiation. Some radiation does emerge though as EM waves.
All the best,
Joe
Wladimir Guglinski:
I confirm what I wrote answering to Peter Forsberg. When I want to say a thing I say it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Why is centripetal force neglected in Standard Nuclear Physics?
Dears Mr. Joe , Mr. JR , and dr. Stoyan Sarg
As is known, the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons is not considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
However, a simple calculation shows that centripetal force within the nuclei can have a higher magnitude than Coulomb repulsion . Let us see the calculation.
Units used:
Charge of the proton: 1,6×10^-19 C
Mass of the proton and neutron: 1,7×10^-27 kg
K= 9×10^9 Nxm²/C²
I will consider the velocity of the protons 3% of the speed of light c=3×10^8m/s, and so their speed is v= (3×10^-2)x(3×10^8) = 9×10^6m/s.
Actually the speed of protons due to the rotation of the nuclei cannot be lower than 10% of the light speed, but we will be conservative, and so let consider only 3%.
Let us consider the nucleus 2He4, by considering the two protons with a distance of 2fm between them (2fm = 2×10^-15m).
1- Coulomb repulsion between the two protons
Fe = K.q²/R² = 9×10^9 x (1,6×10^-19)²/(2×10^-15)² = 50N
2- Centripetal force on each proton
Fc = 1,7×10^-27 x (9×10^6)²/2×10^-15 = 70N
.
So, by considering the speed of protons to be 3% of the light speed (which is an underestimated value), the centripetal force on each proton within the 2He4 has the same magnitude of the Coulomb repulsion force between the two protons.
If we consider the velocity of protons in the order of 10% of the light speed, we get Fc = 510N (one order of magnitude stronger than the strong nuclear force in a distance of 2fm).
.
Obviously the influence of the centripetal force is stronger in other nuclei, as for instance 11Be, where there is a halo neutron moving with radius R=7fm about the cluster. As the strong nuclear force does not actuate in a distance of 7fm, the halo neutron in the 11Be would have to be quickly expelled from the nucleus 11Be, due to the centripetal force on it, since the centripetal force increases with the radius: Fc = m.w².R , where “w” is the angular velocity.
In the 11Be the centripetal force on the halo neutron is 145N, while the strong nuclear force is practically zero.
And the situation becomes worst, because the neutron decays in a proton, and the 4Be11 transmutes to 5B10 with a halo proton with orbit radius R=7fm.
So, beyond the 145N due to centripetal force there is the actuation of a Coulomb force a little weaker than 50N, while the strong nuclear force is practically zero.
The halo proton would have be expelled quickly from the newborn 5B10, and so 5B10 would have to decay. But this not happens, because the proton actually goes back to the cluster, and the 5B10 becomes stable.
.
So, the question is:
Why the nuclear physicists neglect the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons????
I hope to hear a good explanation from Mr. JR , or any nuclear theorist he wishes to invite come here to explain it to us.
Regards
wlad
Peter Forsberg
November 4th, 2014 at 2:22 AM
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?
—————————————–
Dear Peter
of course in the future there will be only three forms of energy sources used by mankind: the cold fusion, the magnetic generators, and the hidroelectric plants, because they are 100% clean ecologically speaking (but new hidroelectric plants will not be built).
However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in November 4th, 2014 at 5:08 PM
Wladimir,
1. You say,
“I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.”
Should not the charges on your aether particles be UNIT by definition? Otherwise, you would need even more fundamental particles to explain your aether particles.
———————————–
Yes,
but the unit of charge in Physics is the electron charge e =1,6×10^-19C, and I cannot change what was established in Physics.
The charge of an electriciton will be something like 10^-30.e
Besides, the gravity flux of particles as the proton and electron agglutinate electricitons in the form of rings, and the gravity flux passes by withing the rings. These rings of electricitons move with the speed of light, inducing the fields of electricitons.
2. You say,
“As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.”
Do the magnetons, or any other of the QRT aether particles, also form bodies?
——————————————–
No,
magnetons are agglutinated in the form of magnetic fields induced by the flux of electricitons
3. You say,
“Perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.”
a) My concept of a neutron-next-to-a-proton-asymetrically-attenuating-the-electric-field-thus-causing-a-nonzero-Q(b), simply known as the NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) conjecture, for the deuteron is not an abstract mathematical concept but a concrete physical reality… maybe.
—————————————–
Joe,
we are talking about the puzzles of the Standard MOdel, and not the solutions proposed in your theory.
4. You say.
“If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.”
But maybe my NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) theory can be that theory. I shall copyright it. If you have free time, you can be my lawyer as I can not afford a real one.
—————————————
So, you are my competitor, since I solve the puzzle with the model of neutron n=p+e (and the quarupole moment of the deuteron is calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron)
So, I would not be a good lawyer for you… rsss
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
1. You say,
“I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.”
Should not the charges on your aether particles be UNIT by definition? Otherwise, you would need even more fundamental particles to explain your aether particles.
2. You say,
“As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.”
Do the magnetons, or any other of the QRT aether particles, also form bodies?
3. You say,
“Perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.”
a) My concept of a neutron-next-to-a-proton-asymetrically-attenuating-the-electric-field-thus-causing-a-nonzero-Q(b), simply known as the NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) conjecture, for the deuteron is not an abstract mathematical concept but a concrete physical reality… maybe.
b) It is force that is the abstract mathematical concept. Force has never been measured, it has always been calculated. It is a holdover from when we humans believed that spirits moved things by applying a force to them. The only concrete things that can be measured are distance (rod) and time (clock).
4. You say.
“If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.”
But maybe my NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) theory can be that theory. I shall copyright it. If you have free time, you can be my lawyer as I can not afford a real one.
All the best,
Joe
Bob:
1- at peak 1,400°C
2- yes
3- presently we are focused on the 1 MW plant; apart from this, we are making R&D mainly for gas driven E-Cats; obviously I am also studying on the reconciliations of the results of the measurements made by the ITP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Do you know what is the maximum temperature an operating e-cat can produce?
2. Have you achieved that temperature in an e-cat operation?
3. Are there any other e-cat applications you are presently working on in addition to plant for manufacturing and possible aircraft engine use?
Thanks
Bob
P.S. Thanks to all the nuclear theorists who are posting to this blog. The exchange of knowledge is truly remarkable.
Peter Forsberg,
thank you for the link, this part was very interesting:
“Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues.
To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.”
Below, a video you can look at, on the same issue, it is very challenging versus common wisdom that capitalism is the best in spurring innovation because of the lure of reward; it was posted on e-catworld.com by user dinvient:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
obviously, Marx already addressed the question since 1848 in The Communist Manifesto:
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.
It has been objected, that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer any capital.”
Robert Curto:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Forsberg:
Very insightful.
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.