.
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.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
This is in regards to the Andrea Calaon possible nuclear reaction theory.
Analysis #1
Based on the Lugano Report, an estimate of the fuel composition may be attempted
Known facts:
1. Fuel sample had a mass of 1 gram
2. Page 29: “From the analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and ICP-AES analysis we find there is about 0.011 grams of 7Li in the 1 gram fuel.”
3. Page 29: “… the information from ICP-AES that there is about 0.55 gram NI in the fuel.”
4. Page 28: “From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to the Ni.”
5. Page 28: “… from the ICP-AES analysis which shows the mass ratio between Li and Al is compatible with a LiAlH4 molecule.”
6. Page 28: “…natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7% and 7Li 93%”
7. Page 28: “We remark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS.”
Analysis
The average mass of the lithium atoms are 0.07*6 + 0.93*7 = 6.93 amu. Amount of 6Li = 0.011 grams * 6/94 = 0.0007 grams. Total lithium was 0.0117 grams.
Aluminum atoms have a mass of 27 amu while hydrogen atoms have an average mass of 1.
So the molecular weight of the LiAlH4 must be 6.93 + 27 + 4 = 37.93 amu.
Therefore, the amount of LiAlH4 must be 0.011 grams * 37.93 / 6.93 = 0.06 grams and the amount of aluminum must be 0.043 grams. The amount of hydrogen in the LiAlH4 must be 0.006 grams.
The iron mass must therefore be 1.0 grams (total) – 0.55 grams (Ni) – 0.043 grams (Al) – 0.011 grams (Li) – 0.006 grams (H) = 0.39 grams of iron.
Element % by Weight
Nickel 55.0
Iron 38.9
Aluminum 4.3
Lithium (total) 1.2
Hydrogen (no Deuterium) 0.6
Total 100.0
LiAlH4 6.1
It is also likely that the LiAlH4 was prepared using hydrogen depleted of deuterium.
Analysis #2
Andrea Calaon suggested the following reactions on JONP (14 Nov 2014):
Li7 + p + e +Ni58 -> Li6+Ni60 + neutrino + (max) 12.35MeV
Li7 + p + e + Ni60 -> Li6+Ni62 + neutrino + (max) 10.39MeV
From the Laguno Report we know that 5825 MJ of energy was produced.
5825MJ = 3.635E+22MeV
Relative abundance of nickel (fuel): Ni58: 68%; Ni60: 26%
What amount of atomic ingredients are needed to produce the net energy observed and to support transmutation of the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes into Ni62?
Let X be the total number of atoms of Ni-58 undergoing transmutation.
Ni58 reaction:
X = (.68 / (.68 + .26)) * 3.635E+22 MeV / (12.35 MeV + 10.39 MeV) = 1.15637E+21 atoms of Ni58
Let Y be the total number of atoms of Ni-60 undergoing transmutation.
Ni60 reaction:
Y = (.26 / (.68 + .26)) * 3.635E+22 MeV / (10.39 MeV) = 9.67686E+20 atoms of Ni60
The amounts of hydrogen (H) and Li7 (L) needed to support these reactions are:
H = X * 2 + Y = 3.28042E+21 atoms of atomic hydrogen
L = X * 2 + Y = 3.28042E+21 atoms of Li7
Converting number of atoms to grams:
Avogadro constant: 1 amu = 1.661E-24 grams
Hydrogen: 0.005 grams of 0.006 grams present
Li7: 0.038 grams of 0.011 grams present
Ni58: 0.111 grams
Ni60: 0.096 grams
Total nickel = (0.111 grams + 0.096 grams) / (0.68 + 0.26) = 0.222 grams of 0.55 grams present
Conclusion: Insufficient lithium is present to generate the reported energy. Perhaps the aluminum reactions might provide some insights?
Andrea Rossi,
From May 13th 2013, when the first ITP report was published, to October 6, 2014, when the second ITP report was published, is an interval of about 17 months. The recent report described the operation of the E-Cat for 32 days.
Has there been additional ITP work on starting up (or completing) a report on a lengthier operational experiment? Is it possible that such a report might become available in the near future?
Continuing regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Andrea Rossi,
another question about ITPR2, another guess with friends:
When professors write 19.7 A line current what they mean?
A) 19.7 Ampere RMS
B) 19.7 Ampere conventional average
C) 19.7 Ampere Peak
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Why not add movable infrared reflectors around the HotCat reactor (of the Lugano type) and make the control system regulate them. When the reactor overheats, the control system would open the reflectors so that thermal radiation can escape more freely. When the reactor cools down too much, the control system would close them again. It seems to me that it should be possible to reach high COP in this way, without changing the core itself and without the core even being “aware” that he is running at higher COP.
Of course, one might consider moving parts to be risky, but that is probably a solvable engineering problem. For example the reflectors could be bimetallic fins which change shape in reaction to temperature, so that the control system would be passive; effectively a thermostat.
The fact that you are pursuing a gas-cat makes me think that there may be some reason why this kind of construct does not work. However, I do not see what such reason could possibly be.
regards, pekka
Dr. Rossi, lower cost electricity with natural gas, with zero emissions.
Google:
Net Power
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale Florida
USA
Steven N.Karels:
All the assumptions that you are making regarding the charge can create a lot of confusion, because they are wrong, but I cannot answer, due to the fact that, as you well know, I cannot give any information on the matter.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
BroKeeper:
IH and I share the same values and our Team is perfectly aware of the importance of our work. This is the reason why we are dedicating our lives to this endeavour, to make it integrable with all the sustainable energy sources.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
From your philosophical and spiritual insights in past comments indicate you have a higher objective other than acquiring riches and/or self aggrandizement but sincerely projected concern for the physical relief to this world’s unanswerable sufferings. My question is what is within your core values to select Cherokee and their leadership as your partner to lead this imperative endeavor? In other words what are Industrial Heat’s core values that complimented your vision of a better path for all societies? Could you share your thoughts with your loyal followers of IH’s attended directions to achieve these noble hopeful goals?
Thank you for your kind attention, Bro
Giuliano Bettini:
I cannot give information about whom I meet, either positive or negative.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
did Bill Gates met with you also?
Ciao,
Giuliano Bettini.
Koen Vandewalle, You are correct and I am aware that without drawings it is extremely difficult to understand. I presume you are referring to the information posted November 13th 2014. This later information is theorized from an understanding of the mechansim that demonstrates a method of controlling an induced flow so as to form a unified field. The design of the mechanism came as an understanding of a unit of energy referred to as a cubic neutral but as you are aware it would be impossible to describe in words the intricate nature of the machines make-up. It is a vast subject that I have been involved with over the past 20 years and I am still learning. Answer to your first question. No you would not build a thruster or a propeller from my latest information. To build a proper thruster that is silent because of no turbulence/disturbance you would build the mechanism as shown with propellers in multiples of four depending upon application. You mention about heat strengthening the vortex. The vortex is a self regulating control mechanism that responds to its environment. You can’t strengthen a vortex in nature. The vortex either increases an internal gravity value of the structure or it reduces it in response to its environment. In the mechanism the vortexes are continually being structured in compliance with the r.p.ms. of the overlapping propellers. Atoms and particles are self contained constructed units containing a specific value of gravity even though they are comprised of quarks and particles, aether, I believe, being not a structure contains no gravity. I refer to it as an Absolute of size with regards that of an Absolute of volume. Thereby, these two Absolutes make and contain everything that exists. I believe there are two positions where gravity exists, one position being centripetal and one position being central of centrifugal force due to the fractional make-up of any structure. Maybe, if I am able to explain the three basic symbols in a concise way some light will be cast on this nebulous subject.
Regards Eric Ashworth
Steven,
If the ash results are correct, there is a large increase in 6Li,or a large decrease in 7Li or a combination of both. Also a large decrease in 58Ni, or a large increase in 62Ni or a combination of both. In all cases, there is no change in the atomic number of the resultant materials which implies that if protons are involved there must be a revision back to a neutron in the reactions. I would bet without further data and of course speculation, on 7Li to 6Li and 58Ni to 62Ni with a transfer of neutrons. There is also no report of 4He. I think that if more 7Li is required it can easily be added in some form and since it is approx. 1/9th the Atomic weight of 58Ni would add little to the overall sample size weight wise. There are so many variables that can be manipulated, an estimate of sample content is less certain than the content of the various isotopes.
Wlad submitted an interesting data point when he showed that there is much more distortion in the nucleus of the 7Li than in the nucleus of the 6Li. This would indicate that the 6Li is much more stable than the 7Li.
Regards.
Frank Acland:
Clearly our work is giving his consequences.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You might find this interesting: Bill Gates recently attended a meeting at ENEA in Frascati where he was briefed by Dr. Vittorio Violante about LENR.
More information here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/14/bill-gates-addressed-at-enea-by-lenr-research-coordinator-what-does-he-know-about-lenr/
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Andrea Calaon,
There is another problem. If you review my post of 9 Nov, I calculated and estimated the fuel composition (i.e., Ni 55%, Fe 39%, Al 4.3%, Li 1.1% and H 0.6%).
To convert to the number of atoms of each element divide by that elements atomic weight (e.g., Li = 1.1/7).
There is insufficient hydrogen and/or lithium to convert all of the Ni (excluding 62Ni). Perhaps the aluminum had a similar role to lithium?
Eric Ashworth,
what you write remains hard to understand without a drawing.
Is it possible to build a thruster or a propeller with it ?
Is it possible to apply some heat e.g. IR radiation, somewhere to strenghten the vortex ?
A sort of man-made, heat driven tornado that pulls or pushes load.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Steven N. Karels
November 13th, 2014 at 8:51 PM
Wladimir,
Just because the percent of 6Li increased does not necessarily mean that 6Li was created. This would only be true if the total amount of lithium in the fuel and the ash were exactly known. We only know the ratio changed.
—————————————
you’re right, Steven
Then there is need to know the % of total lithium in the fuel and in the ash, so that to know whether the 7Li decays in 4He + 4He, or whether it transmuttes to 6Li.
If the % of total lithium is the same in the fuel and in the ash, then the 7Li is transmutted to 6Li.
This information is very important, so that to give us the answer on what reaction of 7Li we need to consider
regards
wlad
Dear eernie1, Andrea and JoNP Readers,
Eernie1 You said it! A neutron must pass from Li to Ni. I agree. But IMO there is no tunnelling.
The more I look at the data, the more it seems to me that the reactions responsible for both the isotopic shift of Ni58, 60, 61 to Ni62, and the change in Lithium isotopic ratio are either these:
1: Li7 + e + Ni58 -> Li6 + e + Ni59 + 2.26 [MeV]
2: Li7 + e + Ni59 -> Li6 + e + Ni60 + 4.65 [MeV] … and following
or these:
3: Li7 + p + e + Ni58 ->Li6+Ni60+neutrino+(max) 12.35 [MeV]
4: Li7 + p + e + Ni60 ->Li6+Ni62+neutrino+(max) 10.39 [MeV].
In all these “electron mediated nuclear reactions” (as in the theory I proposed) one of the electrons does not take part in the actual nuclear reaction and serves only as a coupling mechanism that allows two nuclei to approach down to 2 or 3 femtometers. In my initial theory I did not consider this type of reaction, which could for example lead directly to 2He4 + e from d + e + d.
If two nuclei have the nuclear properties that allow them to react without the participation of the electron, this type of reaction should actually be possible.
In the reactions 1 and 2 there is essentially a neutron that moves from Lithium 7 to a Nickel isotope, thanks to the electron that locks both nuclei inside its Zitterbewegung (ZBW) trajectory.
But if Hydrogen has a any role in the LENR shown in this test of the Hot Cat, than the correct reactions can only be number 3 and 4.
In reactions 3 and 4 there is a chain of two electron couplings and Nickel can acquire two neutrons. One electron and one proton add to the Ni nucleus together with another neutron coming from Li7.
I think that reactions 3 and 4 take place in two stages: First an electron captures a proton and becomes the mysterious state of matter that someone imaginatively called Hydrino. In this case however the photon emission is at discrete frequencies, and not continuous, because this time it happens inside a metal matrix. Then the “Hydrino” adds to the Nickel nucleus together with the one neutron of Li7. I will use the symbol ep for the proton captured inside the electron ZBW (the “Hydrino”). Reaction 3 would become:
3-1: p + e -> ep
3-2: Li7 + ep + Ni58 -> Li6 + Ni60
ep has no net charge, therefore it should efficiently couple to the other nuclei.
The mass analysis of the ashes shows that during the 32 days of the test (that I think is just the Hot Cat “charge priming”) there is no significant development of deuterium and tritium. This should keep the gamma emissions very low.
During this phase the quantity of hydrogen inside the metallic Ni is probably not high enough for what I call the “classical” LENR reactions (1-5 of my “theory”).
I guess that exceeding the agreement of max 35 days of continuous testing would have led to the ignition of the “classical LENR” with the associated soft gamma radiation that Andrea Rossi confirmed in various occasions (the lead shield …). Needless to say that the time constraint imposed was a clever move that allowed to show to the world a reactor without any significant gamma radiation and with dramatic isotopic shifts, instead of some ephemerous He4 and may be some inconvenient Tritium.
If the “non-nuclear” part of my “theory” is right, it seems that there is a way to make Lithium behave as the interstitial hydrogen.
I am now trying to update the theory I proposed with the possibility of the electron not taking place in the nuclear reaction (as in all cases above), plus some considerations about the transmutations of Iwamura and the Hydrino mystery. I hope I will have time this weekend.
Best Regards
Andrea Calaon
Dear Andrea Rossi,
While the COP of the electricity power eCat is known from previous postings to be around the 3 or higher, the intrinsic cost of electricity generation is about 3, due to Carnot and other efficiency limitations. This discussion ignores the greater inefficiency of electricity generation and focuses only on heat generation by the eCat reactor.
My thoughts will be obviously wrong or incomplete as I lack the direct access to the information and ideas that AR’s development team has access to and holds. That said, it may be interesting and informative to express what I contemplate on a gas-fired eCat versus an electricity heated eCat.
Assume we are interested in only a heat output, e.g., generating warm water or low temperature steam for community heating, etc.
The current Cat and Mouse design may no longer be needed. AR found better stability in a two stage implementation where a smaller unit, running at a COP of around 3 is used to provide the thermal input to a larger eCat reactor. But one of the cooking benefits of a gas fired stove is better control over heat.
1. I suggest that the two stage control may not be needed with a gas-fired eCat.
The major benefit of a gas-fired eCat is the relatively low cost of the fuel compared to electricity. However, keep in mind the electricity is 100% efficient in being turned into heat while the gas-fired approach is around 50% to 70% efficient (some of the heat is lost going up the chimney). There is also the carbon loading issue which I will ignore for now.
The heat geometry for an electric powered eCat reactor is generally fixed by the heating element geometry. The number of wires entering the eCat reactor is limited. While conceptually a gas-fired eCat could have multiple controlled gas nozzles along the reactor. This may be a unimportant option but it is a feature of the gas-fired design.
There is no magnetic field being applied in the process of adding heat using the gas-fired approach. This may not be important but a magnetic field could affect the Rossi Effect. A magnetic field or “vibrations” could still be applied as part of the control but conceptually at lower power than for the purposes of heating the eCat to its operating temperature.
2. No changing magnetic fields with the gas-fired eCat – could be an advantage.
There is added complexity in the gas-fired eCat. Gas plumbing is added, nozzles, a source of ignition but it is also a well-understood technology. So it may be worth the complexity.
3. Increased complexity but the energy source is less expensive.
While the gas-fired approach has chimney losses – heat waste – a well-designed thermal system may be able to recover the majority of the heat loss. This is also a well-understood and mature technology and should be implemented in any production system.
4. Implement heat waste recovery.
Some thoughts – Steve
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Dr Vessela Nikolova regarding her book “The New Fire” have inspired many of us already.
I was happy to see that IH’s Patent #61821914 reports COP 11.07 when measured using water calorimetry. (see page #11 of 13 of the patent).
More information can be found @ http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/industrial-heat-patent-cop-11/
“It seems a very important document. The most relevant part probably regards the COP reached by a Hot-Cat.
In the ‘experimental results’ of the patent application, describing instead a test on a multiple reactor device, we read that a COP of 11.07 was measured using water calorimetry.
The cat is out of the bag, indeed!
Tom
Wladimir,
Just because the percent of 6Li increased does not necessarily mean that 6Li was created. This would only be true if the total amount of lithium in the fuel and the ash were exactly known. We only know the ratio changed.
eernie1 wrote in November 12th, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Dear Andrea,
How much reliability do you place on the report of the ash contents included in the TP3? If they are correct the Rossi effect must involve the removal from one of the reaction atom nuclei, of a neutron, and the capture of that neutron by another of the involved atoms. Most likely IMO, the 7Li passing a neutron in steps to the 62Ni. The Hydrogen through its spin energy absorbed from an imposed RF field can cause the neutron emission by interacting and destabilizing a neutron rich nucleus such as the 7Li.
——————————————
Eernie1,
there is a strange conclusion in the Report, because:
1) In the page 29 they say:
“One can speculate about the nature of such reactions. Considering Li and disregarding for a moment from the problem with the Coulomb barrier the depletion of 7Li might be due to the reaction p + 7Li = 8Be = 4He + 4 He. The momentum mismatch in the first step before 8Be decays can be picked up by any other particle in the vicinity. In this case the large kinetic energy of the 4 He (distributed between 7 and 10 MeV ) is transferred to heat in the reactor via multiple Coulomb scattering in the usual stopping process. “
2) If that was be the case, then there would be only decrease of the 7Li, since it is totally transmutted to 4He + 4He.
3)However, by looking at the composition of the ash in the page 42, we see:
a) 6Li : the original fuel had 8,6% and the ash has 92,1%
b) 7Li : the original fuel had 91,4% and the ash has 7,9%
So, we realize that actually there was transmutation of 7Li to 6Li.
The structures of 6Li and 7Li according to the nuclear model proposed in QRT is shown ahead:
6Li:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._18.png
7Li:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._19.png
.
Those two structures are agree to the quadrupole moment of the two nuclei:
a) 6Li has Q = -0,0008
b) 7Li has Q = -0,04
From the structure of the 7Li we realize that it is submitted to a big unbalance of mass. So, the excitation of the 7Li may cause the rupture of the binding between the deuteron and the neutron, and the 7Li transmutes to 6Li, with the emission of the neutron.
However, there is need to have a special condition of resonance between 7Li and 58Ni, otherwise the phenomenon would have to occur also easily between 7Li and many other nuclei as it occurs between 7Li and 58Ni.
It seems the excitation of 58Ni resonates with the excitation of 7Li.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels:
Sorry to hear that.
Please accept my condolences.
Andrea
Steven
Sorry to hear that! My post was on the third of November.
Regards
Peter
Peter,
We had a death in the family so I was away. I missed reading your postings. What day did you post?
Dear Andrea, Thanks for your information regarding spam and what to do if any information inadvertently becomes spam. I do understand that sometimes you cannot comment on certain topics because of the nature of your work. My comments are merely to share information that could be of interest to both yourself and your readers. I must say I have learnt a lot about atomic physics from your journal. Many thanks for the opportunities your journal provides. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Neil Taylor:
Yes, it does.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Doctor Rossi.
Does your experimental “Gas Cat” also require small electrical input for controllability, etc?
Congratulations for the many international awakenings on your wonderful e-cat discoveries…
Neil Taylor,
Long Time Follower
Dear Steven N. Karels,
Did you not understand the exchange between me and Andrea Rossi a few days ago regarding COP and modCOP?
If you understand that, you know why Andrea is pursuing the Gas-Cat.
Regards
Peter
Italo R.:
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eric Ashworth:
As you know, I cannot comment on this kind of issues. About the theory behind the so called Rossi effect I will be explicit after conclusive reconciliation of the science we got from the work of the ITP.
By the way: this comment of yours has been casually retrieved by me from the spam, where the robot had relegated it: I saw it because in the first page of the spam section. This makes me think some comment is lost in the spam, therefore I repeat: if a Reader finds his comment not published, he is kindly invited to inform us writing to
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
resending the comment as an attachment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrew:
Thank you; the article, as correctly suggested from your link, has been generated from an interview to Dr Vessela Nikolova regarding her book “The New Fire”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Silvio Caggia:
The photo #5 of the Report of the Independent Third Party is very important and has been made on purpose from the Professors. They explained to me that the photo has been taken during the set up of the measurement stuff and they were controlling that the PCE830 was surely able to read perfectly the waves also in extreme conditions: for this reason , as surely have understood the experts and the reviewers to whom the Professors have given the report before the publication, the photo shows the wave also when the system has been put in overload; you can understand it from the acronym “OL” that you can read on the display, while the wave is perfectly described by the instrument.
Thank you for the intelligent question.
Italo R.:
Yes, I got it. I translated it to my Team.
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gherardo:
Thank you, very nice! Panorama arrives also here in the USA in the bookshop close to the factory I am working in.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, To explain a theory I shall use water as an example of how I see molecular interaction. What is water with regards density, well we all know it can be either steam as a vapour, water as a liquid or ice as a solid. Here is why I think these states are able to exist. Considering each state is comprised of two hydrogen units and one unit of oxygen. Thereby three fields of activity that interact in each state.
Therefore, draw three circles and overlap them slightly put x in the two overlaps where the vortex forces occur, label steam. Draw three other circles and overlap them a bit more, put y in the two overlaps, label it water. Do the same again but overlap these by a third and put z in the two overlaps, label it ice.
The overlaps produce two vortexes of a flow force (I believe vortexes are able to gravitate external aether. I do not think aether exists as a single entity. I think it has to be a triplicity and thereby exist as a charge, even when in a free state. An obvious question is, what dictates the adjustment of the x state to the y state and visa versa?.
Water as steam contains lots of kinetic energy, a week economy flow system and a strong outer static barrier that provides it with a loose bind unlike water and especially ice (This barrier provides atoms/structure with identity. Identity is what puzzled Einstein. Why don’t atoms flow together?. The reason why structures do not flow together is, I believe, because of their internal oscillations of the internal vortexes. Kinetic energy refers to the velocity of the quarks and the vibrational pitch/resonance of the vortexes).
Economy flow is produced by the vortex. Thereby, less overlap provides less economy, less economy provides less quality/solidity and less economy provides for more kinetic energy and more kinetic energy privides more identity which allows a structure more independence. Water molecules that become more independent form a vapour.
This reference to a static barrier is fully demonstrable by the previously mentioned mechanism.
Water as ice contains a degree of latent energy because more overlap provides more economy, more economy provides more Quality/solidity and more economy provides more latent energy. More latent energy is responsible for less identity and thereby a reduced static barrier value creates more solidy between the molecules because they are able to get into closer proximity.
If this correct then the peculiar characterists of Browns Gas can be accounted for if aether is brought into the equation regarding the expanded molecular state of water and its contracted state back to water. It could be that when quarks enter a vortex they could in theory because of the motion induced on the quarks become more latent in their charge potential resulting in an eventual releasing of a charge with an added kinetic potential.
Back to the obvious question: In my attempt to answer this question it could be as follows:-
Draw three lines (the three circles represent a top view, the three lines represent a side view) that overlap by a third. The vortexes are formed in the overlaps. In the space surrounding the molecule are quarks as free aether. Quarks to me represent electrical charge. Heat could be said to be electrical in content. So a lot of quarks in the environment would fuel the vortexes. Now through the areas that represent a vortex mark y and make loops that enter and exit each vortex. As will be evident two loops will flow away at the base and two loops will flow towards at the top (As is demonstrable in the mechanism). This flow is positive at its face and negative at its base with regards the individual quarks, according to the geometry of a cubic neutral or I should say a piece of a cubic neutral. Details of this can follow). As we know unlike particles attract and like particles repel. I believe it is the repulsion caused by the increased strengthy of a field that causes the vortexex to move out. When the environment contains few quarks the vortexes move in and create a stronger economy flow system. The economy flow system is a self protecting mechansim with regards the gravity value of the environment in competition with that of the molecule/structure.
Andrea could this activity of what I have described in some way help with the workings of your e-cat. I do not know the technicalities with regards nickel but I think the octahedral cavities with regards a possible distortion could play a part. As you are aware this subjects involves causes and effects. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Steven N. Karels:
a., obviously multiplied by the fact that making thermal energy by means of thermal energy we have not the factor 3 to turn thermal energy into electric energy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
What are the reasons for going to a gas-fired eCat reactor:
a. Cheaper heat source?
b. Faster means of applying heat energy?
c. Variable heating over the reactor?
d. Better energy coupling (source to input to the eCat)?
e. Other advantages?
Dott.Rossi,
my compliments for your interview published on Panorama. It says nothing new for us but it would had been unbelivable one year ago.
Gherardo
PS: the text in italian… http://www.astampa.rassegnestampa.it/GruppoTotoAc/View.aspx?ID=2014111928829069
Dear Dr. Rossi, have you seen?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/13/andrea-rossi-featured-in-panorama-major-italian-magazine-vessela-nikolova/
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have made a guess with some friends about figure 5 of ITPR2. According to your e-cat experience, when was this PCE-830 photo made?
1) During the dummy phase
2) During the test phase
3) During an un-documented e-cat experiment
4) It’s a swedish joke, nothing to do with e-cat
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I’d like to bring to your attention the following news article published this week on Panorama, major Italian weekly magazine:
http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/book-e-cat-on-the-main-italian-magazine/
Kind Regards
Andrew
Gianluca:
The temperature chosen for the secondary fluid of a heat exchanger depends on its flow rate and does not affect the efficiency of the generator.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for your inspiring comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
This morning, on the Vortex-l Website, I saw a well written – and poetic – article titled ‘The Pale Blue Dot’ (in part to honor the memory of Carl Sagan).
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg99693.html
With your permission, I have copied the text below.
—————————————————
The pale blue dot:
Axil Axil Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:32:08 -0800
One of the sticking point that lodges deeply in the gullets of “real”
science is that LENR is just too perfect to be believed. They are wrong. In
point of fact, it is beyond too perfect, it is absolutely perfect. The
corruption of the mind that is our legacy inherited from the mindless
primitive from which we evolved rebels against the concept of such
perfection. Such perfection cannot exist in this life. Such perfection can
only exist and be truly enjoyed in the next. From the pride and prejudice
born deep within that primordial dark place, mankind does not deserve to
drink fully this sweet ambrosia of the immortals.
LENR goes way beyond a great way to produce energy, it is a doorway to a
new science whose implications when fully appreciated and developed will
lift mankind up to trod upon brave new worlds spread like dust before
eternity. A door for humankind will open to savor the power and the
prerogatives of the gods. When man is wise enough to step through this
doorway past the impossible that LENR lays open into timeless and unending
existence, mankind will spread like a rising tide throughout the universe.
This perfection of LENR is its own threat to its credibility and its
science is here 1000 years before its proper time. What aborigines from the
dawn of our past corruption would rightly understand the wonders of our
present civilization without quaking with fear at the reality of such
wonders? The science that LENR will reveal and the future that it portends
it just too awesome to contemplate.
Carl Sagan explained the emotion behind our current science and cosmology
when he wrote Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Sagan
played for high stakes in this attempt to “de-deify” our entire species.
His beautiful, secular psalm dedicated to our demotion is unsurpassed. In
Psalm 8, King David described us as only a little lower than the angels
while in Pale Blue Dot, Sagan takes great pains to obliterate any sense of
cosmic significance.
Sagan says of that picture taken from by a spacecraft from a viewpoint far
out in space: “We succeeded in taking that picture and, if you look at it,
you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you
know, everyone you love, everyone you’ve ever heard of, every human being
who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and
sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic
doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator
and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple
in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and
explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every
superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of
our species, lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”.
With the help of LENR, this view claustrophobic view of human existence is
about to change.
—————
Well done, Axil Axil!
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
it would be interesting to know what the COP of ECAT in a hypothetical function as a domestic boiler (70-80 ° C). The use of low temperature increases the COP?
Thanks
JC Renoir:
I spammed your comment for reasons you easily can understand, but I will respond to the part concerning the questions emerged on some blog related to the Report of the ITP: you ask when I will answer to the questions put here and there. As a matter of fact, all the questions have been answered in this blog, directly from me or from other expert Readers. It is true that notwithstanding this fact, somebody continues to put again and again the same questions, but the intention of these guys is not to make clear obscure points, but to try to pull us in a discussion where they get confidential information; obviously there are also the agenda-motivated guys: our policy with them is just to ignore them, after the answer has been already given regarding the issue they raise.
To all the intelligent and honest questions we have answered .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Clauzon Pierre:
By the way, I want to add that I am grateful to Centrepoint/ Science for the publication and also to Christian Wiesner of PWH Plasmawerk for his kind words.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rafael:
Please Google ” Wikipedia nuclear reactions on the sun” for a quick answer. All this has nothing to do with LENR. If you are interested to understand the basics of nuclear physics, you can buy a high school physics manual : from your language I think this can be a good start for you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jorge Alberto:
Thank you! I did not know that CNN was talking about us!
Warm Regards,
A.R.