.
by
Valeriy Y.Tarasov
E-mail: vytarasov@yahoo.com
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
The h-space theory is a variant of unified physical theory – a theory of everything.
This theory was built de novo, as the existing physical theories are incompatible and so unsuitable for unification.
A new approach is needed, and has been developed by re-evaluating the definitions of primary physical concepts.
The starting point for the re-evaluation was the following equation – Et = mvL, where energy – E, time – t, length – L, mass – m, velocity – v.
Analysis of these physical concepts resulted in the construction of a unique equation of the primary concepts such as space, length, energy and velocity.
From this, models could be developed that explain all well-known physical phenomena.
In addition, h-space theory predicts phenomena rejected by the current mainstream theories, such as limits to gravitational and electrostatic interactions, and the possibility of cold fusion (as a consequence of the electric charge definition, a modification of Coulomb’s law and the definitions of elementary particles in h-space theory).
The final section of this article describes a number of experimental tests that could be used to verify the h-space theory.
.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Joe wrote in January 11th, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Wladimir,
You write,
“So, the probability of fulfilling the two conditions is very small (there is need to hit the “hole” and at the same time to move along the z-axis direction).”
The meeting of proton and neutron does not need to be so exact. They can be prompted to alter their course by interacting with each other’s fields. An example is two permanent magnets that are pulled to each other’s pole even if their polar axes are not aligned. Eventually their axes do get aligned. Therefore, by QRT, 1H2 (and not 1H1) should be omnipresent in the Universe. There has been more than enough time for every atom of 1H1 to undergo enough collisions with neutrons to ensure a successful transmutation to 1H2.
========================================================
Joe,
you cannot compare the behaviour of a neutron with the behaviour of a magnet.
The neutron needs to enter within the secondary field Sn(p) of the proton via the hole in that field, otherwise the neutron cannot get interaction with the proton.
The “hole” in the proton’s field Sn(p) is situated in a distance of 10^-11m (radius Bohr).
The radius of the proton is 10^-15m.
So, the bodies of the neutron and the proton are separated by a distance 10^4 times larger than the radius of the proton.
If we compare the body of the proton with a ball with 20cm diameter, the body of the neutron will be in a distance of 2km far away of the proton.
With this very large distance there is no way to have alignment of their z-axis in order the neutron to hit the proton
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, I too read that paper and is very intriguing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe,
I don’t know enough about the details of big bang nucleosynthesis to say. The high densities and temperatures complicate things enormously, as the densities increase the probability of fusion, while the temperatures lead to photo-dissociation of the deuteron, so the temperature-dependent equilibrium complicates things and makes it very different then what’s going on in the universe now.
However, the temperatures at the point you’re discussing (where there are predictions of the n/p ratios based on thermal equilibrium type arguments) are far too high to have significant deuteron formation. So what happens with deuteron formation depends on later stages when things are cooler.
Electrons and especially neutrinos are again different. At incredibly high densities (very early on), neutrinos interact enough that they are in equilibrium with matter, but as densities decrease the weak neutrino interaction decouples them from other matter. So the timescales (and density/temperature scales) relevant for determining the neutrino population are different from everything else.
Those are general issues related to how one deals with the early universe; as I say, it’s not my area of expertise so while I know that these considerations are critical, I can’t provide details or numerical estimates.
Dear Joseph Fine,
I’m speechless, as expected. Thank you very very much !
Best Regards,
Koen
To the Readers of the JoNP:
Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the paper ” The gravitational constant and its relationship to the properties of virtual particles” by Dr Sundar Narayan (Lambton College, Sarnia, Ontario- Canada).
JoNP
Peter Wolstenholme:
You are right, as well as Alessandro Coppi, but the E-Cat is not an apparatus that can be dealt with a self-certification like a low voltage appliance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
Of course you are probably right as e-cats will be closely scrutinised by hostile folk. But Alessandro Coppi and I merely drew your attention to the facts relating to the Low Voltage Directive in the European Union, and the CE mark.
Best Wishes,
Peter W.
Peter Wolstenholme:
To put a device like the E-Cat for sale to the public without a major certification would be a suicide.
Warm Regards.
A.R.
In fact the CE low voltage directive covers apparatus working between 50 V and 1000 V. a.c. and a similar d.c. range. Not really low! If a manufacturer of mains- voltage devices checks carefully that his products meet the various relevant specifications he is permitted to affix the CE mark without needing a third-party testing laboratory. (I suspect that in the US one would require UL certification.)
JR,
Your statement about a sparsity of neutrons in the Universe (when compared to 1H1) is the only logical explanation for the preponderance of 1H1 in the Universe.
It has been determined that there were about seven protons for every neutron at the beginning of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), primarily due to their relative mass.
Question: How are the relative numbers of electrons and neutrinos in the Universe determined? They could not possibly be determined solely by their relative mass as in the case of the baryons.
All the best,
Joe
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you, very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, the invitation to read an interesting article engineer electric fan.
The Rossi Effect is visible also without the catalyst
http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/rossi-effect-visible-without-catalyst/
JR, Thank you for your comment, intelligent as always.
Wlad thinks I am your friend ! (I wish)
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Alessandro Coppi:
No, it is not so. We need a safety certification made by a major certifier. By the way, the E-Cat is not a low voltage apparatus.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, what I am going to say could be a nonsense, but at least for Europe the safety certification in this case should be restricted to the low voltage direttive CE, this imply that it is not mandatory a third party certification, but the IH itself can apply the mark.
Best regards
Alessandro Coppi
Roman Vorobyov:
We do not sell anymore commercial licenses.
So far we do not produce devices able to make electricity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frederic Maillard:
Soon.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka Janhunen:
The independent -particle model implies that there is a total angular momentum value j for each nucleon that is made by the sum of the spin s and its orbital angular momentum. The j value is an observable quantity that has been measured also for ground state isotopes. Ground states do not imply absence of orbital momentum.
See also Greiner-Maruhn ” Nuclear Models” Springer 1996 pp 11-40.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad,
What makes you say that there is a significant neutron background throughout the universe?
Even if you generated a large background of neutrons, their lifetime is only about 15 minutes so they will all decay away unless the neutron+proton fusion rate is extremely high. But the neutron-proton interaction has an extremely short range and so there is little chance that they will come close enough to interact at any reasonable densities, yielding a fusion rate that is negligible compared to the decay rate.
Joe – Does this sufficiently answer your question? It really has much more to do with the neutron lifetime than the details of proton+neutron fusion.
Dear Dr. Rossi
When do you think you will get the e-cat certified in China for industrial usage, if not granted yet ?
Best wishes
FM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
(Not related to E-cat)In Norman Cook’s book that you recommended, I did not understand the angular momentum part. It looks to me that a ground state lattice nucleus should not rotate, because rotation would increase its energy. If so, then the orbital angular momentum of all its nuclei should be zero, and the total angular momentum would just be a sum of the spins. Did you understand this angular momentum issue when you read Cook’s book?
regards, pekka
Wladimir,
You write,
“So, the probability of fulfilling the two conditions is very small (there is need to hit the “hole” and at the same time to move along the z-axis direction).”
The meeting of proton and neutron does not need to be so exact. They can be prompted to alter their course by interacting with each other’s fields. An example is two permanent magnets that are pulled to each other’s pole even if their polar axes are not aligned. Eventually their axes do get aligned. Therefore, by QRT, 1H2 (and not 1H1) should be omnipresent in the Universe. There has been more than enough time for every atom of 1H1 to undergo enough collisions with neutrons to ensure a successful transmutation to 1H2.
All the best,
Joe
Dear sir (senior)!
With great admiration I observe Your work and I want to ask the following questions:
Do you have the distributor of Your firm in Israel?
Besides, Can Your firm produce devices for building electricity energy providing with automatic control of device loading?
Can You send Your answer to my question to my E-mail
rvorobyov@walla.co.il
with the attributes of Your firm – address, E-mail, etc?
Sincerely,
Dr. Roman Vorobyov.
Dear Robert Curto
please tell to your friend Dr. JR that he can win a US 500.000 prize, if he solves the puzzle on the mystery why the hydrogen exists in the Universe, since it seems impossible to explain why all the hydrogen of the Universe was not converted to deuterium thanks to the fusion proton-neutron due to the background of neutrons of the enviroment.
regards
wlad
Dear Joe,
I was thinking about the puzzle of the deuterium formation, and I got the following conclusions:
1) The deuteron cannot be formed via the perforation of the flux n(o) of the proton by a neutron with energy in order of 2MeV. Because with this energy of the neutron, when the neutron enters into the field Sp(p) of the proton there is no way for the neutron to be captured by the proton (they do not succeed to get spin-interaction, in order to form the deuterium).
2) The neutron can be captured by the proton only if the neutron has low energy when it enters within the field Sp(p) of the proton. But a neutron with low energy cannot perforate the flux n(o) of the proton and neutron, and so the deuterium cannot be formed by low energy neutrons (if the neutron needs to enter within the field Sp(p) by perforating the flux n(o) of the proton).
3) There is only two ways for the formation of the deuterium:
3.a) Via hot fusion within the stars, between two protons. The fusion produces 2He2, which decays in deuterium (it happens only in 0,01% of the 2He2 decay, because in 99,99% of the decays the 2He2 decays in two protons).
3.b) Via cold fusion, when a neutron with low energy enters within the field Sp(p) of a proton by the “hole” in the field Sp(p). In this case the deuterium can be formed by low energy neutrons of the background of neutrons, because the neutron and the proton succeed to get spin-interaction.
However, it is a very very rare phenomenon, because:
3.b.1- The neutron needs to hit the “hole” of the field Sp(p) of the proton
3.b.2- The neutron needs to move along the direction of the z-axis of the field Sp(p) of the proton. If the neutron hits the “hole”, but it does not move along the z-axis direction, the neutron will not hit the proton, and they cannot have spin-interaction, and therefore they cannot form the deuterium.
So, the probability of fulfilling the two conditions is very small (there is need to hit the “hole” and at the same time to move along the z-axis direction).
Therefore,
we realize that the formation of the deuterium is very hard, because in the hot fusion in the stars it occurs less then 0,01% of the 2He2 decay, and via cold fusion (due to the background of neutrons of the enviroment) the formation of the deuterium is also very hard to occur.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels:
I already answered to these questions. In a nutshell: replications made by professionals are safe. By not professionals are dangerous.
That’s all I can say.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Claud:
I am sure 100% that all the members of our Team are working at the maximum of their possibilities to reach the best results reachable at the maximum possible level. Each one of the team related to his specific duties is making the best possible work.
Nothing to add.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle,
The following links may help answer your question which, ideally, will lead to further questions.
The first several links refer to the D-Wave Systems Company’s commercial ‘quantum’ computer. It is an advertisement, but perhaps is a good starting point. Other links are to key papers by Richard Feynman and Seth Lloyd. These should keep you busy for several hours or days. Lloyd’s paper suggests the Universe may be a quantum computer.
http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/quantum-computing/
http://www.nature.com/news/computing-the-quantum-company-1.13212
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quest-for-quantum-computers-heats-up/
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall05/frs119/papers/feynman82/feynman82.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4455
//////////////
The universe as quantum computer
Seth Lloyd
This article reviews the history of digital computation, and investigates just how far the concept of computation can be taken. In particular, I address the question of whether the universe itself is in fact a giant computer, and if so, just what kind of computer it is. I will show that the universe can be regarded as a giant quantum computer. The quantum computational model of the universe explains a variety of observed phenomena not encompassed by the ordinary laws of physics. In particular, the model shows that the the quantum computational universe automatically gives rise to a mix of randomness and order, and to both simple and complex systems.
//////////////
Hope these will be helpful.
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Andrea, excuse me for the question slightly mischievous: having you now only theoretical and r&d responsibility, are you quite sure that the operating management of your firm are doing their best to obtain quickly the safety certification for the small cat to start in a short the massive production of this new product?
Hoping it truly, my best regards
Claudio Rossi
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It appears that on other related sites, people are proposing replicating to some degree the Rossi effect by means of amateur and home-based experiments.
1. Do you think this is a safe and wise thing to do?
I would assume, even with the eCat ingredients used in The Report, that it is possible for the reaction to get out of control and an explosion to occur. \
2.Wouldn’t it be best to suggest the experiments be limited to those with the proper facilities to conduct such a potentially dangerous experiment?
2. Or do you feel that even with no sophisticated control system, a water-cooled experiment is always safe?
ERRATA:
Joe,
In my previous comment to you, where it is written:
In my book Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that, in order to form the 1H2, there is an energy of 2,2MeV so that to perforate the fluxes n(o) of the proton and of the neutron.
the correct is:
In my book Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that, in order to form the 1H2, there is need an energy of 2,2MeV so that to perforate the fluxes n(o) of the proton and of the neutron.
regards
US 500.000 prize for any nuclear physicists who solves a puzzle
I will register notarized that will pay the US 500.000 prize for a nuclear physicists who presents a solution for the puzzle explained ahead, via any current nuclear model which works with the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The puzzle:
1- There is no Coulomb repulsion between proton and neutron
2- There is a background of neutrons in the enviroment
3- There is attraction proton-neutron via the strong force
4- So, as there is no Coulomb repulsion proton-neutron, and there is attraction via strong force, then according to the principles of the Standard Nuclear PHysics the low energy neutrons of the neutron backbround would have to hit the protons of the hydrogen in the enviroment, and so deuterium would have to be formed.
5- Therefore, along billion years, in the Earth the water of the oceans and rivers would have to be composed by heavy water D2O, instead of H2O. Also, all the hydrogen in the Universe would have to be changed to deuterium, and therefore hydrogen could not exist in the Universe.
.
I have the following properties:
One flat in the beath, in Cabo Frio-RJ city – US 150.000
One flat in Juiz de Fora-MG city – US 100.000
One house in Paulinia-SP city – US 150.000
One house in Cataguases-MG city – US 100.000
.
According to the notarized, I will sell the four properties if the puzzle is solved, and the nuclear physicist who solve the puzzle will receive the prize.
regards
wlad
Joe
January 9th, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Wladimir,
You write,
“[…] in order to form the deuterium 1H2 there is need 2 sort of energy:
1- the energy necessary to win the Coulomb repulsion
2- the energy necessary to perforate the flux n(o)”
This explanation does not tell us why a QRT Universe would consist of mostly 1H1 rather than 1H2.
=====================================================
you are wrong.
The explanation explains it very well
In my book Quantum Ring Theory it is shown that, in order to form the 1H2, there is an energy of 2,2MeV so that to perforate the fluxes n(o) of the proton and of the neutron.
The thermal neutrons of the background (with energy smaller than 1MeV) cannot interact with the proton of the hydrogen, so that to form the 1H2.
When I go back to my house, I will scann the page of the book QRT, and put it here.
regards
wlad
Valeriy,
I originally asked Wladimir the following:
“Should not 1H1 turn into 1H2, 1H3, etc, with all of these isotopes later decaying into 1H2, 1H3, or 2He3, but never back into 1H1?”
The Universe contains mostly 1H1 (about 90%, and in molecular and ionized forms) and a much smaller amount of He. The rest is trace elements. None of the isotopes of H or He decays into 1H1. They stop at 1H2, 2He3, 2He4, etc. The 1H1 has had enough time (billions of years) to get hit by traveling neutrons and be converted into 1H2 and 2He3. But obviously that did not happen. 1H1 is still omnipresent in the Universe.
How does the standard nuclear model explain this lack of conversion?
All the best,
Joe
A reading suggestion for all Italian speaking about the essence of Quantum Mechanics:
Ghirardi G. Carlo, Un’ occhiata alle carte di Dio. Gli interrogativi che la scienza moderna pone all’uomo
It is a bit over explaining in some parts, but goes into the core of the QM problems without bias for Hidden Variables and likes.
The author is absolute world top-class: He is one of the authors of the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory (GRW).
An English version would be appropriate I think …
By the way, this is in short what I think: Hidden Variables are non-local because particles are in essence lightlike. Hidden Variables are also NOT CONTEXTUAL because the accepted formalism of spin is Wrong (as unbelievable as it may seem, reed Hestenes …) and the Kochen-Specker theorem does not apply.
Buona lettura
Regards
Wladimir,
You write,
“[…] in order to form the deuterium 1H2 there is need 2 sort of energy:
1- the energy necessary to win the Coulomb repulsion
2- the energy necessary to perforate the flux n(o)”
This explanation does not tell us why a QRT Universe would consist of mostly 1H1 rather than 1H2.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Readers,
I am looking for an opportunity to perform the experiments proposed in the article to test h-space theory. Any ideas and suggestions are welcome.
Best wishes,
Valeriy
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
I am afraid, the short answer to your question without describing the relatively large part of h-space theory will not be convincing for you. Any way, in h-space theory the existence of hydrogen in the universe is explained by the fact that it is most stable complex of proton and orbital electron, and in turn, proton is most stable complex comprising two positrons and one electron (I see this sentence will attract anger of many physics textbooks readers :)).
I did not understand this part of your question – “Should not 1H1 turn into 1H2, 1H3, etc, with all of these isotopes later decaying into 1H2, 1H3, or 2He3, but never back into 1H1?”
Best wishes,
Valeriy
Dear Joseph Fine,
can you give us a link to some understanding of a quantum computer ?
Could the universe be built with spherical layers of Q-bits ?
Just a thought.
Kind regards.
Koen
Dr Joseph Fine:
I did not know the paper you sent the link of, and it appears to be interesting.
I need to study it.
Thank you for sending it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I saw this article a few days ago (* See link below).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/
Did you knew about this version of Quantum Theory? If so, does it help you to understand and/or explain the Rossi Effect (even if you cannot explain it to your readers at this time)?
Very real regards,
Joseph Fine
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
So…a Kalashnikov is looking at me: have I to be worried or delighted? ( He,he,he…).
I love Russia and Russian culture. I hope Russia will work peacefully with all the world, and that all the world will work peacefully with Russia, as well as I hope that all the energy sources will be integrated to the benefit of mankind of all the world.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Dr. Rossi , in the following link an interesting article in an important magazine written by
Maxim Kalashnikov on how the world has changed , and what awaits them: they talk of you also in Russia!
http://yug.svpressa.ru/society/article/109141/
Jack:
In the best scenario could be November 2015/ January 2016.
Wishes of a great 2015 also to you from our Team,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
thank your for your answer at my previous question and my best wishes for a great 2015 to you and your team.
You said that, in the most positive scenario, the commercial phase will likely start shortly after the end of the test period of the 1 MW plant.
If everything goes as expected, again in the most positive scenario, how long should this test still last?
Thank you again and good work, Jack.
Guest:
In the Lugano Report is mentioned that for a very short period they had a peak at 1,400°C.
I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
You invited Dr Tarasov to answer you: I think he will do it if he deems it opportune.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Walt C:
1- I prefer not to give this information before the product is ready. The form will be the one with more commercial potential, for obvious reasons.
2- Not in the first wave
3- Certifications will have to be specific for every model
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
1) You mentioned that you have domestic E-Cat models that are ready to work once they are certified– I’m guessing they are the furnace room, hot water, Boiler Replacement type E-Cats?
2) Is there also thought on the horizon of a “Portable E-Cat”– something like a portable room heater which produces 3x more heat than it consumes in electricity? (For heating individual rooms, garage spaces, cabins, etc.)
3) For some reason, I have it stuck in my head that the “Certifiers” would be different for the two types of domestic E-Cats– one being viewed as a piece of furnace room equipment and the other being viewed as an appliance– but maybe that’s not true. Is there any reason to think that certification of a “Boiler Replacement domestic E-Cat” would be harder/easier/different than certification of a “Portable domestic E-Cat”?
I have uses for both types of domestic E-Cats, once they are available.
Thanks, as always! WaltC
Andrea,
In the Lugano report it is mentioned that the Hot E-Cat was run at 1400 C. At this temperature, the nickel lattice structure would break down from crystalline into an amorphous structure similar glass. Also at this temperature, the Lithium would be a gas. Aluminum would a liquid. Does the solid-solid phase transition from crystalline structure to amorphous structure in the nickel provide a plausible starting point for any theories?
Thank you for your hard work hope to hear back,
guest