.
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.
Domenico Canino:
We go where we are called with acceptable proposals. Politics are not my turf. The sole acceptable proposal we got so far has been from the USA, where I am working with a wonderful Team; thanks to them we are making a masterpiece in the factory of the Customer of our Licensee. This said, I conserve a loving sentiment toward Bondeno, where the first E-Cat has been born and where I worked in EON’s factory together with Prof. Sergio Focardi. I wish to the people of Bondeno everything good . They are laborious people that merit it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
dear andrea rossi,
in Bondeno where you have a factory, the Lega Nord political movement, has won the regional elections. 75% percent. Please come back!!!
Paul:
He,he,he..
A.R.
Wladimir, Regards artificial intelligence, they did not use artificial intelligence because of it being artificial. If youn want intelligence you have to use the real thing. It’s called human. Not difficult to understand. By using the Oxford English dictionary it will be revealed that A.I. is not a real intelligence which it is not or you could say what created, what is termed artificial intelligence. When you answer the question all will be revealed. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Andrea,
Boiler making is a lost art. Maybe IH should hire Purdue’s Mascot, Purdue Pete the Boilermaker:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Purdue+mascot&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS612US612&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=C8N3VPmdBe2rjAKQo4HgAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
Paul
Joe wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 6:03 PM
Wladimir,
Every nucleus that you mentioned has a magnetic moment that is smaller than that of 3Li7. If the 1p1 electron of 3Li7 is able to pull a nucleon away from the nucleus of 3Li7, it should be even easier to pull nucleons out of the target nuclei that you mentioned. The result would be a collision of nucleons from both nuclei – intended source and intended target – right at the centre of rotation of the 1p1 electron.
———————————————-
Joe, two things:
1- 7Li has a neutron weakly bound
2- 7Li has 3 protons, its electrosphere is small, compared with the electrosphere of Ni, which has 28 protons.
Therefore the orbit of the electron p1 in the Fig. 6 is very nearest to the nucleus 7Li and far away from the nucleus Ni, As the magnetic force decreases with the square of the distance, you may realize that the magnetic force on the neutron of 7Li is very stronger than on the neutrons of the Ni.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png
The neutron (or proton) will always exit from the lighter nucleus to the heavier one.
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski:
Let me rephrase it: we do not give information about ANY experiment we do or do not do inside our reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
Every nucleus that you mentioned has a magnetic moment that is smaller than that of 3Li7. If the 1p1 electron of 3Li7 is able to pull a nucleon away from the nucleus of 3Li7, it should be even easier to pull nucleons out of the target nuclei that you mentioned. The result would be a collision of nucleons from both nuclei – intended source and intended target – right at the centre of rotation of the 1p1 electron.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Orsobubu,
How “Intelligent” is something that allows its misuse or abuse ?
I share your opinion.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Dear Wladimir,
why didnt they use the A.I. nuclear model so that to discover the Rossi’s secret ?
Andrea stated that some of his findings are serendipities. No idea if Artificial Intelligence can deal with serendipities.
A tree that grows on a twig tends to collapse. Maybe the A.I. consumes more energy than E-Cat can produce.
BTW: I very much like your FIGURES on the Calaon-Guglinski theory.
Kind Regards,
Koen
PS: Andrea, soon or later, that damned spam-robot wille erase the entire J.O.N.P. and all knowledge about E-cat. I have no idea why you keep that monster.
Andrea Rossi wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 1:19 PM
Wladimir Guglinski:
We do not give information about our R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.
————————————–
Dear Andrea,
you did not understand.
I am not asking any information about R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.
It was suggested the following experiment:
1- The reactor will be completely empty. Inside the reactor will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca41 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.
2- Again the reactor will be completely empty, and will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca43 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.
3- Again the reactor will be completely empty, and will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca40 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.
.
So, the test of the ash is regarding a fuel NOT used in your E-Cat, and therefore it has nothing to do with your E-Cat.
In another words, your reactor will be used only as a vessel so that to promote cold fusion by using a fuel 20Ca, 7Li, and N (this fuel has nothing to do with your technology).
This experiment is of the interest of the cold fusion researchers, so that to undertand cold fusion.
But I understand that you do not waht to perform it.
I think other cold fusion researchers will be interested to do it later.
regards
wlad
Wladimir Guglinski:
We do not give information about our R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
my theory of the non-spherical shape of the electric field (Coulomb barrier) of the nuclei can be tested in the E-Cat.
Ahead I explain how it can be done.
The nuclei have non-spherical Coulomb barrier, as shown in Fig. 1 for the 2He4.
FIG 1:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png
But due to the chaotic spin of the nuclei, the z-axis shown in Fig. 1 gyrates chaotically, and therefore in average the shape of the Coulomb barrier is spherical, as shown in Fig. 2 for the 2He4 (showing also the electrons of the electrosphere)
FIG 2:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png
In order to have cold fusion between two nuclei their z-axes must be aligned by an external magnetic field.
When the z-axis of a nucleus is aligned toward a direction, the chaotic rotation of the z-axis stops, and two nuclei may align their z-axes as shown in Fig. 5 for the nucleus 7Li.
FIG. 5:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png
Therefore, only nuclei with nuclear magnetic moments can have transmutation via cold fusion.
There is no way to get cold fusion with the following nuclei, because they have null nuclear magnetic moment:
2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8’O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, 16S32, 18Ar36, 20Ca40, 22Ti44
So, suppose that a fuel composed by 20Ca41 , 7Li and H is put in the E-Cat, and after some days the analysis of the ash shows that there was transmutation of the 20Ca41.
The same is repeated with a fueld composed by 20Ca43, 7Li and H, and suppose after some days the analysis of the ash shows that there was transmutation of the 20Ca43.
Then the next test will be made with a fuel composed by 20Ca40, 7Li, and H. The analysis of the ash must show that 20Ca40 did not had transmutation.
The same can be repeated with other nuclei with magnetic moment zero, as for instance 14Si28, by comparing with the results made with its isotope 14Si29.
If the experiments with nuclei having magnetic moment zero show that they do not transmute within the E-Cat, but their isotopes with non-null magnetic moment have transmutation, this will constitute a strong evidence corroborating my model of non-spherical shape of the Coulomb barrier of nuclei.
In the case the non-spherical shape of the nuclei proposed in my theory is confirmed by experiments made within the E-Cat, it will be an important discovery for the undestanding of the mechanisms responsible for cold fusion occurrence.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle,
you hope that the economic model is rendered obsolete by the advent of innovative technologies and scientific theories. This makes sense because, in order to have a revolutionary change, the economic structure must evolve in the first place; in fact these technologies may represent a structural change of economic relations, the same way that the steam engine allowed the passage to an industrial economic structure and the definitive affirmation of capitalist production.
The problem, though, is that the revolutionary process is not mechanical, not deterministic, the contrary, it is dialectical. So there is a relationship between the economic structure and its superstructures, such the political one. If the change of the structure was enough, we would have already had the revolution, because the current means of production and the economic development that have been established since the beginning of the last century would have been enough to get rid of the old capitalistic system, clearly unfit to take full advantage of the actual potential of the social productive forces, as the world wars demonstrate.
Unfortunately the political superstructure is still inadequate, and it is still in the hands of a class that manages the system in an anarchist way, with enormous waste, overproductions, useless duplications and destructive competition, crisis, violence, environmental damage, underdevelopment, unemployment. On the other side, the class of the producers, who realizes materially all the values, the use value (goods) and exchange values (money), and gently give them to the ruling class, is not yet conscious of its power and is poorly organized.
Artificial Intelligence can only be developed by huge means of production, by biggest capitalists, from largest financial concentrations, and by the same capitalist states. So, Artificial Intelligence, in the hands of the class that holds these means of production, has no chance of being able to emancipate workers, for the simple fact that it will not be used to revolutionize the economic model, but rather to strengthen it. Therefore will not be used to overcome the social relationship of wage labor, the only system that produces not fictitious capital, but instead will be used to enlarge exploitation, because this is the only way to increase profits and capital.
But since the reality is dialectical, in the course of this process the working class is inevitably strengthened, and also more and more crisis are inevitably produced. It is inside this inherent contradiction in social/economic relationships – and thus in political organization – that lies the possibility of change, certainly not in the evolution of the technology itself.
Mr.Rossi
I have question.:)
Did you prepare your Thanksgiving turkey using E-cat technology as part of R&D.:)
Joe,
I did not find the magnetic moments of Ni58 and Ni60
But as 61Ni has negative magnetic moment -0,75, and as 7Li has positive +3,24, it means that when they align their z-axis, the 61Ni must be up side down (7Li and 61Ni with contrary nuclear spins).
20Ca41 has mag. mom. -1,59
20Ca43 has mag. mom -1,31
and therefore when they align their z-axes with 7Li, the two nuclei Ca also must have contrary spins of the spin taken by 7Li.
stable 26Fe57 has mag. mom +0,09 (positive like mag. mom. of 7Li).
This means that, when 57Fe aligns its z-axis with 7Li, they have to have the same spin (rotation in the same direction).
I dont know yet what to think about the influence of the spin of the two nuclei, when they are gyrating in the same direction, and when they gyrating in contrary direction.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 7:35 AM
Wladimir,
concerning your post “Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…” posted on nov 25.
I expect that the upcoming Artificial Intelligence will make obsolete most of the standard model and new models, finding the real unified field of the universe(s).
Do you know of the existence of experiments on A.I. in nuclear science ?
————————————-
Dear Koen,
why didnt they use the A.I. nuclear model so that to discover the Rossi’s secret ?
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 1:20 AM
Since your model must necessarily involve a target nucleus that has a greater magnetic dipole moment than the source nucleus in order that a nucleon be successfully drawn, compare the relative strengths of the magnetic dipole moments of Fe and Co; and of Ca and Sc.
———————————————
Not necessarily, Joe
7Li magnetic moment is greater than Ni.
For instance, 7Li has magnetic moment +3,25, while 28Ni61 has magnetic moment -0,75
What pulles the neutron of the 7Li toward the Ni is the orbit of the electron p1 (shared by 7Li and Ni), which magnetic moment is very greater than that of the 7Li:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
concerning your post “Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…” posted on nov 25.
I expect that the upcoming Artificial Intelligence will make obsolete most of the standard model and new models, finding the real unified field of the universe(s).
Do you know of the existence of experiments on A.I. in nuclear science ?
I also think that IP and patents, and some economic models will be obsoleted by A.I.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Dear All,
in these days I do not have much time for participating to the discussion of the JoNP. Please understand me. I will comment/answer you as soon as possible.
Regards
Andrea Calaon
Wladimir,
You write,
“As the authors of the Lugano Report were seeking only for Ni and Li isotopes, perhaps in the ash it can be found (if they look for):
26Fe + Li7 -> 27Co + 2He4 + n
20Ca + Li7 -> 21Sc + 2He4 + n
As the authors were not looking for Co and Sc, perhaps they are in the ash.”
Since your model must necessarily involve a target nucleus that has a greater magnetic dipole moment than the source nucleus in order that a nucleon be successfully drawn, compare the relative strengths of the magnetic dipole moments of Fe and Co; and of Ca and Sc.
All the best,
Joe
Wladimir, With regards your reply 26th Nov 2014. To me conservation of momentum is displacement of field energy that has a knock on effect regarding a centre of gravity. Your formulae P=Mass/velocity if I am correct inertia comes about by the formuae Push=Mass and velocity/Movement that equals inertia or that no push or attraction upon mass equals no velocity/movement and thereby no inertia. If this is so then we are in full agreement. Evolution comes about by inertia. Really, conservation of energy is the disturbance of a field after the manufacture of a body. When field energy is disturbed it will react, over a period of time, in a specific way to re-establish its field or you could say its comfort zone. This is a natural reaction and only to be expected but could be termed a frustration upon an environmental influence.
In the case of the neutron moving towards the Ni58 nucleus I believe it to be as stated in case 1) of your explanation.
With regards the neutron moving towards the Ni58 from Li7 I will put forward my theory when I have time and will look forward to your comments. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?
———————————–
Probably yes
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Wladimir,
I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.
—————————————
Steven,
I dont think so.
32 days is enough for all the reactions to occur.
Besides, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn exist in the fuel, why they do not appear in the ash??
Let me tell you what I am thinking.
I think several reactions can occur in the E-Cat.
For instance, he have:
9F has 1 complete hexagonal floor + 1 deuteron
26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors
So, 9F can lose one deuteron. Therefore, instead of 6Li7, actually the best element to react with 26Fe is the 9F:
9F + 26Fe -> 27Co (the 26Fe captures one deuteron from the 9F)
On the other hand:
7N has one complete hexagonal floor minus a deuteron
Therefore 7N can capture a proton:
7N + H -> 8.0
However,
actually there is a lot of reactions to be considered, and there is no way to discover what are the real reactions occuring in the E-Cat.
Even Andrea Rossi cannot tell us what is going within his E-Cat, in spite of he is promissing to prove that it is possible to explain its working from the Standard Model.
There is only one way:
1) After Andrea Rossi gets the patent of the E-Cat (and therefore his invention will be protected against plagiarists, and he will show everything within his reactor), several experiments will be made, as follows:
2) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 7F
3) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed
3) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 17 Cl
4) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed
5) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 6Li7
6) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed
7) Within the E-Cat will be put only 20Ca and 7F
8) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed
9) and so on, with all the combinations between two elements
Any combination of two elements is able to react by cold fusion.
The only difference is: some combinations of two elements have an easier reaction than other two elements.
The paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM by Dr. Stoyan Sarg was published one year ago.
Now the paper was published again, because the results of the E-Cat were confirmed by the Lugano Report.
However, the paper was published again not because it gives a good prediction.
In the Abstract Dr. Sarg says:
“The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on similarities between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.”
But this is not true.
Actually cold fusion occurs with any combination of two elements. The difference is because some combinations of two elements, together with some suitable improvements, give a higher COP.
It seems to me Andrea Rossi used the paper of Dr. Sarg as a strategy to deviate the competitors from the secrets of his E-Cat, puting then in the wrong way.
As he also told that the fuel of he E-Cat is Ni.
Andrea Rossi wants to protect his invention, and sometimes he gives wrong informations, so that to deceive his competitors.
He is playing a cat-mouse game with the competitors.
So, it’s a waste of time to try to discover what are the reactions within the E-Cat.
We have to wait Andrea Rossi to get the Patent.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.
The question for Andrea Rossi would be — does the isotopic composition of the eCat reactor change for a much longer run (e.g., a 6 month run)? I would still content that some helium was produced but not captured in their measurements. IMHO.
I do think their is significance in the three helical wires, nominally for heating the reactor. A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?
Wladimir,
I understand C, carbon, is sometimes added to remove oxides and oxygen (from the initial air in the enclosure) from a heated sample. So perhaps C is added to capture oxygen in the form of CO2. Naturally, I would assume, a more than sufficient amount of carbon would be present to make certain that oxygen and oxides were captured in the operation. So this might explain the presence of carbon. Opinions?
Dears Joe and Calaon,
I found very interesting the information about the high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (not found in the ash), and also the elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F which cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.
As you know, my new nuclear model is composed by hexagonal floors formed by deuterons, with a central 2He4.
So, we have:
😯 has 1 complete hexagonal floor
12Mg has 2 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons
18Ar has 3 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons
20Ca has 3 complete hexagonal floors
26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors
28Ni has 4 complete hexagonal floors plus 2 deuterons
A nucleus with a complete hexagonal floor as 20Ca and 26Fe may have an Accordion-Effect without distortions (while the Accordion-Effect of Ni is distorted).
So, we have to suppose that 26Fe and 20Ca can get a better alignment of their z-axes with 7Li than 28Ni.
As the authors of the Lugano Report were seeking only for Ni and Li isotopes, perhaps in the ash it can be found (if they look for):
26Fe + Li7 -> 27Co + 2He4 + n
20Ca + Li7 -> 21Sc + 2He4 + n
As the authors were not looking for Co and Sc, perhaps they are in the ash.
Dear Calaon,
what do you think about?
regards
wlad
Dears Calaon and Steven Karels,
probably the nuclear reaction between 7Li and 58Ni occurs easily when the two nuclei are aligned by a magnetic field in the E-Cat, without any additional improvement.
But probably in the beginning the E-Cat had a very low COP.
There was need to shake the nuclei within the reactor, in order to get the most high quantity of reactions 7Li+58Ni (and also 7Li+ 60Ni and 7Li+61Ni) by second.
That’s why along the years Andrea Rossi had improved his reactor, so that to increase the velocity of the quantity of the reactions by second, in order to increase the COP.
For instance, perhaps the first E-Cat had only one coil in the alumina cylinder.
By putting 3 coils, if the electric current is AC, inside the reactor occurs an oscilatory magnetic field by the overlap of 3 oscillatory magnetic fields. By this way the nuclei are shaken, and is increases the speed of their interaction.
With an additional magnetic field induced by a DC current (or a permanent magnet) the nuclei 7Li and 58Ni have their z-axis aligned.
In order to increase the COP, perhaps Rossi had used a catalyst.
But in the last page 53 of the Lugano Report there is an intriguing information:
————————————————–
The measured analytes were Ni, Li, and Al. The elements Ni and Al are measured with two independent emission lines to minimize risk for systematic errors. The elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F cannot be measured quantitatively by this technique.
Sample 1 was ash coming from the reactor in Lugano. Only a few granules of grey sample were possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same. One large and two very small granules were observed.
Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.
————————————————–
Let us analyse it:
1- The catalyst could be C, O, N, Ar and F, because perhaps they appear in the ash, but they cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.
2- Aluminium also can be the catalyst
3- C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn cannot be the catalyst, since they do not appear in the ash, and therefore they are consumed within the reactor
4- However, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn do not appear in the ash, then where did they go ???
5- As they do not appear in the ash, it means that they had transmuted.
6- Then why the authors of the Report did not speculate about a possible reactions between them ? (for instance, with hydrogen)
8- And why did not they try to discover what would be the elements resulted from their transmutation?
9- Besides, as Rossi claims that his E-Cat consumes Ni, why a hell there is a high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg and Mn in the fuel ?? (and they are not found in the ash) ???
regards
wlad
Bernie Koppenhofer wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy
————————————
Bernie,
I suppose that, based on the protocol, before the test Andrea Rossi had already agreed that the reactor would be returned, and the test was done with the Professors’ promise to return the reactor. By the way, probably was made a contract-return of the reactor, signed by IH, Leonardo and the Professors of the ITP.
regards
wlad
Bernie Koppenhofer:
The Hot-Cat that I gave to the Professors of the ITP has been given back to me the day after the day in which the reactor has been turned off. The Professors had only one reactor, because the other 2 that I brought to Lugano as spare parts, just in case of breakages, have not been delivered to the Professors, since no breakages happened to the one we gave them to be tested.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy Thanksgiving!
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for this contribution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eric Ashworth wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58″.
This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?.
————————————————–
in absence of force there is conservation of momentum P= m.V . The inertia does not depend on actuation of a propelling force.
However, in the case of the neutron, when the neutrons is moving toward the Ni nucleus, it can happen the following:
1) Before to arrive to the cross-section of the electron’s orbit, the magnetic field induced by the electron’s motion applies a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron (the two magnetic vectors point to the the same direction).
The neutron is PULLED by the electron’s orbit toward the Ni nucleus.
2) After crossing the cross-section, the magnetic field of the electron starts to apply a force of REPULSION on the neutron (because the two magnetic vectors continue with the same direction).
And so the neutron is PUSHED toward the Ni nucleus.
However, I did not mention it because I am not sure if the neutron changes its magnetic field regarding the electron’s orbit after crossing the cross-section of the electron’s orbit (in this case, if the neutron changes the magnetic field vector in the contrary direction, then the electron begins to apply a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron, after it crosses the cross-section, and therefore decreasing the speed of the neutron going by inertia toward the Ni nucleus).
regards
wlad
Georgehants:
Absolutely yes: when the contract signed by IH with their Customer for the 1 MW plant will have been totally satisfied, fullfilled and totally paid for, that will be the first plant in history making real energy in an industrial process. That will be the real game changer in the history of the production of energy, like the “New Fire”. This is why I have no time at all for any other issue, in this period. I need maximum focus, because failure is not an option and all the problems that pop up on daily basis have to be resolved properly to consolidate the technology. I want this masterpiece made by our Team to be perfect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, after all your years of hard work, at this time what is the thing that you are most looking to achieve and will give you the most satisfaction in your work?
Could it be the successful completion of the 1MW plant for your customer?
Dear Herb Gillis
After the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons of their results in cold fusion experiment, along a decade the replicability of the results was a serious problem.
As nobody knew how cold fusion occurs (because it is impossible by considering the Standard Model, and there was not any new nuclear model compatible with cold fusion) the cold fusion researchers faced the challenge of to replicate the results they claimed to have obtained earlier.
I had analysed the problem of replicability by considering my new nuclear model, and I had discovered why in some days the researchers did succeed to replicate the results, and in other days they had failed.
In those experiments the nuclei were aligned by the magnetic field of the Earth. But in some days there are magnetic storms in the Sun, and so the alignment of the nuclei by the Earth’s magnetic field is disturbed by the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field, and that’s why in some days the researchers did not succeed to replicate the results.
Also, any apparatus inducing magnetic field in some laboratory could have influence in the results. Therefore, a researcher could succeed to replicate the experiment in his laboratory, but when other researcher tried to replicate the experiment in his laboratory he did not succeed to replicate it.
Then I had submitted to Infinite Energy my paper What is missing in Les Case’s catalytic fusion, and in 2002 the magazine had published it. In the paper I had suggested to use an external source of magnetic field, in order to eliminate the disturbance of the magnetic field of the Sun (and also to replace the magnetic field of the Earth).
In 2003 Dennys Lets and Dennys Cravens had exhibited in the cold fusion ICCF-10 their experiment where they had used an external source of magnetic field, and by this way they had solved the problem of the missing of replicability in cold fusion experiments.
Probably Andrea Rossi took knowledge on the experiment made by Lets and Cravens, and then Rossi started to use an external magnetic field in his experiments.
So,
it is possible cold fusion can occur in the intestines of some animals, because the alignment of the nuclei of the food is produced by the magnetic field of the Earth.
Of course the cold fusion occurence requires the animal to be at rest, in order to promote the alignment of the magnetic fields along a long period of time. This is the case, for instance, of the bears when they hibernate.
As the white bears live in the north pole of the Earth, the alignment is easier to occur, because in the poles there is convergence of a big quantity of magnetic lines of the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
Regarding the birds, they do not change the position of their body when they sleep, cold fusion can occur in their intestines during the night (preferably in countries near to the poles of the Earth).
regards
wlad
Herb Gillis wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 6:24 PM
Wladimir Guglinsky:
The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
———————————————
Dear Herb
probably yes.
But we have to remember that the E-Cat has some special conditions. For instance, Andrea Rossi uses three parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor, and so three magnetic fields are produced.
In the case the current is AC, then of course he uses another source of a magnetic field, so that to produce a resultant vector magnetic field for those three fields induced by the three coils.
We have also to remember that cold fusion probably occurs in some animals, because 200 years ago it was observed that in the feces of certain birds appear some elements that do not exist in the food they ate.
Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that when bears hibernate they can also produce cold fusion in their intestine.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Wladimir Guglinski:
There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody.o the JoNP’s blog.
——————————————-
Dear Andrea
In 3rd Dec 2013 the JoNP had published the paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory, by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.
Now in 2nd Nov 2014 the JoNP is publishing again the same paper by Dr. Sarg, Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM.
This paper has been published again in the JoNP because in October 2014 the Lugano Report had confirmed the results of the E-Cat.
This seems to be a privilege.
regards
wlad
Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58”.
This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?. There can also be an attractive force. What I believe is that there is a displacement of the magnetic fields contained within the object and which then displaces the objects centre of gravity. When these centres of gravity are distorted by their magnetic fields there is an imballance directly related to the energy input required to move the object at a specific velocity. At N.T.P. an object set in motion will regain its original field but it requires a duration of time which can be measured as a distance. At a higher temperature under normal pressure but with an induced force an object can regain its N.T. within normal pressure to reveal an imballance in its centre of gravity and a distorted magnetic field that will respond to its exterior environment because it contains properties of inertia. The neutron, I believe, has a centre of gravity and a field composed of quarks. When distortion sets in because of inertia there is a period of readjustment that can be interpreted as a distance. If the readjustment occurs over a vector then its a mobile inertia. If it occurs over an oscillation then it is a static inertia. This is how I understand inertia. There seems to be an enigma with regards what is referred to as the coulomb barrier and an inability of being able to cross it. Perhaps and this is what I believe, the referrence coulomb barrier should be coulomb barriers. Structure I believe is made up of densities with regards a geometric structure. This I shall put together and try to explain as best I can. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Andrea Rossi & Readers of the JONP:
When he was at Hughes Aircraft on a Masters’ Degree Work-Study program, John T. Neer took written Notes of Lectures given by (Physicist) Richard Feynman.
The 5-Volume set of Lecture Notes are partially similar to the contents of the 3 Volume FLP (Feynman Lectures in Physics) series, but cover different topics as well.
Volume 5 contains a set of Mathematical Techniques which should be useful to anyone interested in Physics or to those who want to brush up on their skills.
http://www.thehugheslectures.info/about/
http://www.thehugheslectures.info/the-lectures/
As far as I know, there were no references to phenomena similar to the “Rossi Effect”, which should not be surprising if everything falls into ‘Standard Physics’.
Unfortunately, Richard can not be here to ponder the current mysteries for a few months, or even a few days, and then snap his fingers and say ” Ah-ha! So that’s what’s happening! ”
Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Thanksgiving. Perhaps someone will use these Lecture Notes and have an “Ah-ha” moment.
Thankful Regards,
— Joseph Fine
////////////////////////////////
The Hughes Lectures
Feynman Lecture Notes by John T. Neer
The Lectures
These lectures notes run from the fall of 1966 to 1971. Feynman lectured prior to this period and continued on after 1971. With a few exceptions, the actual 2 hours lectures were not dated. However, the volumes in chronological order.
I want to stress, again, that these are my personal notes and are only a representation of the lectures I attended. They are to the best of my ability my recreation from memory and my original real time notes. No AV recording system was used in the transcription of my raw notes.
25 MB Download
Volume 1
Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology
(224 pages)
Feynman solicited topic input from the scientists and engineers at the Labs for the coming year. New discoveries were being made in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology at the time. This 1966-1967 lecture series focused on these subjects. This volume is unique since, as far as I can tell, Feynman did not lecture on this subject matter at CalTech. While much of the material is now dated, what remains is a look into the mind of Feynman as he worked to explain such topics as stellar evolution, nuclear synthesis, cosmology, “black stars” (aka black holes), and general relativity.
I inserted more current content from the web which relates to the 1966-67 lectures with recent experimental observations and discoveries. While this lecture series has been “eclipsed” by the tremendous theoretical and experimental advancements over the past 45 years, I am sure the reader(s) will find in these lectures the power of Feynman’s insight and ability to have fun with a new subject not touched on by him at CalTech in his “normal” class and research work. I trust others, more specialized in the topics of volume 1, can and will contribute to the additional information to further enrich the notes in the future. This editing will best be done when the notes are moved and dropped in a dynamic and editable platform, yet to be identified.
The Volume I subject matter was not part of his prior lecture activity, Feynman would talk with some of his CalTech colleagues who worked in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology about their work and theories. He would then come to the lecture literally with a (maybe 2 or 3) 3×5 cards and proceed to pour out 2 hours of theory and complex mathematical representations of the topic of the day. This was his genius and almost mystical in his ability to focus his thinking and presentation ability on the most important aspects of a given topic.
36 MB Download
Volumes 2
Relativity, Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, Matter-Wave Interaction
(209 pages)
Feynman reflected on how he could teach his original FLP’s volume 2 & 3 differently and better than in his first pass through the subjects five years earlier. The attendees wanted him to lecture a couple years on the subject matter in the original FLP and essentially let him give his revised, enhanced, and expanded lectures. This then led more naturally into QED with a good foundation layer established. Feynman also tailored his lectures more to the level of his audience understanding they were not freshman and sophomore undergraduates but post graduate, doctorate level scientists, employed doing advanced research.
49 MB Download
Volume 3
More on Matter-Wave Interaction, Intro to Quantum Mechanics, Scattering Theory, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum, Intro to Lie Group, SU 2 & 3 “stuff”, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Pair Production
(314 pages)
Feynman went on in greater detail to complete his lectures on wave-matter interaction. From there he started into quantum mechanics and his path history formulation. He extended his lectures to include Lie Group theory and the SU 2&3 “Stuff”.
Feynman diagrams are discussed in Volume 3 at some length as he went deep into QED theory including such topics as quantum scattering. As better understood today, his diagrams represent a visual language of the complex physical processes at the particle interaction level. I have noted recently that with the power of new computers and new concepts the Feynman diagrams have, arguably, run their course. While this is possibly the case, I would assert that bypassing a fundamental understanding of the Feynman diagram concept makes it hard to understand what replaces them. This is like hand held calculators replacing the need to know the fundamental multiplication tables and being able to check what the calculator is telling you. I personally observed in a number of lectures where Feynman would self-check himself as he was working out the math because he could sense that if he kept going he would not get the right physics. This was his true genius at work. That was truly amazing to both watch and try to absorb in real time.
13 MB Download
Volume 4
Molecular Biology
(65 pages)
The Molecular Biology lectures started out and then eventually died out as the year progressed. Feynman found the material challenging to get his head around before the lecture and, therefore, very time consuming. He apparently found a CalTech colleague, Seymour Benzer, who changed from physics to biophysics as a person who stimulated Feynman’s interest in this topic.
By consensus the lecture series ended early. Feynman was deep into his own parton theory which was his version of quark theory. He and Gell-Mann were collegial competitors in those days.
In preparing these notes for release I decided to include what notes I had of those lectures only to give evidence of Feynman’s interest to explore all the dimensions of science and nature. For those involved in the field these notes will not provide much informational value particularly with all the advancements on research and understanding of molecular biology. The value, I believe, for the reader is how Feynman thought through the subject matter and mentally organized it so he could lecture on it. That might aid teachers in this field to sharpen up their own presentation material. At the end of the volume are my un-transcribed real-time notes that I never got to but I decided to include for those who are into this field.
6 MB Download
Volume 5
Mathematical Methods/Techniques in Physics and Engineering
(163 pages)
By some who have seen samples of my notes Volume 5 has been referred to as the “missing lectures” to the FLP “Red Books”. Feynman himself felt that he should have taught the mathematical methods first and then the physics since math is the “language” of physics. Feynman was apparently talked out of starting with a course in math-physics. The attendees at the lab talked him into a year-long lecture on his approach to mathematics as the language of physics.
I note here also that the math lectures have been referred on the Reddit by someone as “sophomoric” since all physic students must take similar course work and presumably “master” math while learning the physics. In my own case I wanted to learn the physics and minimize the math, or better said, not confused by the physics because the math was too difficult to grasp.
This is how Feynman approached physics and how he taught himself, at an early age, by developing many shortcuts through the math; “Feynman diagrams” were one clear by product of his self learning process. He did not want to get bogged down and distracted from understanding the physics. This is why and how he got involved in the Manhattan Project; he was their math wizard.
One story he told of those days: Someone came running into him needing a quick answer to a nuclear decay process that was described by some expansion series like the Sum from 1 to infinity of 1/(1+n^2)[probably not the real one]. Feynman asked how accurately he wanted the answer and the person said 10% would do for now. Feynman said he took a few seconds and said the answer was 1.3 (or something like that); the person was amazed how fast he could give him that and asked how he did it. He said since you told me you only wanted the answer to 10%, it was only necessary to go to the second term in the series expansion and that was good enough for better than 10% accuracy. This story is emblematic of Feynman’s mathematical thinking which is not sophomoric. This is why he made such a contribution to the Manhattan project and ultimately QED. He did indeed “think different”.
In my own experience I found in my graduate studies that the some of the professors tended to focus more on the math rigor than in teaching the real physics. In Feynman’s world he “felt” the physics and used the math to express that “feeling” and understanding. Language does not necessarily express the essence of the content contained in the idea being described. One must understand both the power and limitations of the language used when discussing a subject. Words don’t always express what one wants to say; so it is for math and physics.
Lecture Sidebars: Another “feature”, or aspect, of the notes is my attempt to capture “side bar” topics. These special topics or thoughts (including some philosophical ones) added color and currency to the lectures as only Feynman could deliver. He was unconstrained in the lecture environment to take off on a sidebar and the attendees both enjoyed and encouraged him to do so.
© Copyright 1966 – 2014 John T. Neer.
///////////////////////////////////////
TO ALL OUR AMERICAN READERS:
THE TEAM OF THE JoNP WISHES YOU ALL A PEACEFUL THANKSGIVING DAY. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL!
Steven N. Karels:
he,he,he…
Not yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg,
In the page 2 of your paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM it is written:
“From Fig. 3 we see that the nuclear overall shape for elements with 18<Z<86 have not spherical but elongated shape.”
In the Fig. 3 we also se that 10Ne20, with Z=10, has spherical shape.
However,
in 2012 by the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where it is shown the shape of the 10Ne20 detected by experiments.
The Fig. 1 of that paper shows that 10Ne20 has non-spherical shape, and so the structure proposed in your paper is in disagreement with the experimental results, since according to your nuclear model the 10Ne20 must have spherical shape.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
I think the readers of the JoNP would like you come to explain why your nuclear model predicted wrongly the shape of the 10Ne20.
I also would like to remember you that in November 3rd, 2014 at 10:33 AM I had posted as comment herein in the JoNP four questions about your models of proton and neutron (to be responded by you) but you did not respond any of them yet.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Any Black Friday specials on eCat reactors?
Wladimir Guglinsky:
The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
Regards; HRG.
JC Renoir:
Yes: the reactors combined make a volume of half cubic meter to yield 1 MWh/h of Thermal energy. All the rest of the plant is constituted by heat exchangers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone:
I cannot comment this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have been impressed by the last data you gave of the 1 MW plant: you confirm half cubic meter of reactor to give 1 MW?
JCR
Dr Rossi:
Your critics have found a resistance that has no linear resistivity with the temperature, exactly as you said many times. So this drops the accusations made from someone. Comments?
Godspeed,
WG
Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…
… and anybody interested in the subject.
Dr. Stoyan Sarg is going to pronounce a speech where he says that Coulomb barrier was wrongly interpreted in scattering experiments:
“At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier.”
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/21/dr-stoyan-sarg-to-address-nanotek-expo-2014-on-lenr/
But Dr. Sarg is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the scattering experiments, and the vision about the Coulomb barrier is correct.
In normal condictions (different of those occurring in cold fusion experiments) the electric field of nuclei (Coulomb barrier) is spherical, as correctly interpreted by the nuclear theorists, because of the following:
1- The nuclei have non-spherical Coulomb barrier.
For instance, the figure shows the Coulomb barrier for the 2Her, shown as yellow in the figure.
FIG. 1:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png
2- But the nuclei have chaotic rotation (due to repulsions between protons) and the z-axis of the Figure 1 is changing its direction every time.
3- As consequence of the chaotic rotation, the electric field takes in average the spherical shape, as shown in the Figure 2 ahead for the 2He4.
FIG 2:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png
4- The spherical Coulomb barrier of the Figure 2 was detected in the scattering experiments, and so the vision of the Coulomb barrier by the physicists was correct
5- However, in cold fusion phenomena occurs the alignment of the two z-axes of two nuclei (as for instance 7Li and 58Ni in the Rossi’s Effect).
We see it in the Figure 5 ahead.
FIG 5:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png
6- The two Coulomb barriers of 7Li and 58Ni take their original non-spherical shape in the Figure 5 because the z-axes of the two nuclei stop to gyrate chaotically. This happens only in the cold fusion experiments (for instance, in the Rossi’s E-Cat the z-axes of 7Li and 58Ni are aligned along the axis of the alumina cylinder, because of the magnetic field created by the electric current in the coils).
7- As we realize from Figure 1, there is a “hole” in the Coubomb barrier of the nuclei, along the z-axis:
FIG 1:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png
8- When the two z-axes of two nuclei are aligned (as 7Li and 58Ni in the Figure 5), the two “holes” of the two nuclei are aligned, and so it is easier for a particle as a proton or a neutron to exit one of them and to enter within the other.
regards
wlad