Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

.

by
Wladimir Guglinski
retired, author of the Quantum Ring Theory
.
In the book Quantum Ring Theory I had proposed a double-field model for elementary particles (composed by two concentric fields), therefore a field model fundamentally different of the mono-field model considered in the Quantum Electrodynamics  (QED).
The inner field, named principal field Sp, gyrates and induces the outer field, named secondary field Sn.  In the book, published in 2006, it was considered that the outer field Sn gyrates.
In this model, the outer field Sn is responsible for the electric charge of the particles as the electron, the proton, etc.
Later in 2010 I changed the  double-field model, by considering that the outer field Sn does not gyrates.  However, in 2014, after a long discussion with the reader Mr.Joe in the Comments of the Journal of Nuclear Physics, he drew our attention to two key points:
  1. An outer field Sn induced by the rotation of an inner field Sp must have rotation.
  2. A mono-field model violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge in the even-even nuclei with Z=N, because they have null magnetic moment, but as all the nuclei have rotation then the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have to have non-null magnetic moment (because the rotation of the positive charge of the proton would have to induce a magnetic moment). Therefore QED violates the monopolar nature of the electric charge in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
  3. A double-field model in which the outer field Sn gyrates would have to induce a magnetic field in the case of even-even nuclei with Z=N, if we consider the field Sn in the classical sense of Euclidian space.  But the space considered in Quantum Ring Theory is not Euclidian, in order that the rotation of the field Sn never induces magnetic fields, and this is the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
Here we will analyse these questions in details.
.
.

535 comments to Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

  • Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Not at all. Our present work is too important to have even the time to think about zomberies.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    I agree.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    “isospin” defines the symmetry between proton and neutron. It is a quantic number that corresponds to the spin of quarks in a specific situation.
    Isospin is so called because has the same mathematical structure of the spin.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    I am sorry, but what you are asking for are particulars of a contract between IH and the Customer that are under NDA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JonJon:
    We are setting up a benchmark for what concerns the E-Cats.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JonJon

    Hi Andrea,
    To an engineer, the 400 days is called Type test (routine, sample and type test of a new product ). As there is currently no standard manual for LENR, for example IEC,AS/NZS, are you setting up a benchmark standard for LENR operation and safety?

  • Frank Acland

    Thank you for the clarification about the 400 days.

    If you don’t mind, could I ask:

    a) Is the 365/400 days requirement a contractual obligation you must fulfill?
    b) If so, are you currently within this obligation for the 400 days that have started?
    c) If you go over the 35 days, does the clock restart, and a new 400 day period begin?
    d) Is there a required average COP level you must achieve during the 365 days of operation?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Yes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curiosone

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you give a definition of “isospin” in a nutshell ( not the one you can find on Wikipedia)?
    Thank you for your patience,
    W.G.

  • Curiosone

    I saw the answer you gave to the zombie: well done: ” non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa” ( Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy- Inferno).
    W.G.

  • JCRenoir

    Has the action of the zombie had any effect on your present work?
    JCR

  • JCRenoir

    I read your statement on Ecatworld regarding the zombie. Which is the position of Industrial Heat?
    JCR

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Has the 400 day period you mentioned in the reply to georgehants started already?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco:
    To make a module of 20-30 kW is not a problem, there are not particular problems.
    The power of the modules does not affect the COP, it is the reliability of the control that becomes an issue increasing the power beyond a limit within which we got reliability.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    Yes, the 1 MW plant is for to generate energy necessary to the Customer of IH to make its production in his premises.
    Yes, for the first 400 days of operation is allowed now and again a “pit stop” to make adjustments and improvements, along with regular maintainance. The important is that within 400 days the plant makes its full production for at least 365 days. This means that during the first period of 400 days we have at our disposal a maximum of 35 days of stop to make improvements, adjustments and maintainance. The operation is intended 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Dear Mr Rossi, you say that you have a “production plant”, does that mean that the 1mw unit is producing energy that is literally being used in a productive capacity at the customers premises.
    Allowing that there must be “down time” while you do the necessary changes and improvements as you proceed?

  • Marco

    Dear Andrea,

    since a typical boiler for hot water and house warm up is 20-30 Kw, is it a huge problem developing a single e-cat with this power? Is the problem only due to control difficulties or also COP is affected?

    So this take me to the next question: you said that the smaller the ecat, the simpler is to control it. Does this mean also higher COP? In other words could you increase COP producing smaller (e.g. 5Kw) ecat?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Morrissey:
    Good question. Yes, the basics are the same, the electronics are different, due to the fact that the control system for a unit is much simpler.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bernie Morrissey

    Congratulations on your accomplishments.
    Bernie

  • Bernie Morrissey

    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations small your accomplishments. I was wondering if one of the hundred reactors would be the same as one of the home units.
    Bernie

  • Andrea Rossi

    JonJon:
    Enough.
    Everything is organized. Obviously potential will be turned into actual when the results will be consolidated. For the moment they are not.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JonJon

    Hi Andrea,
    If everything is going smoothly for you and I.H, by the beginning of next year, how many 1MW units can your production line make a month?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    On the base of your comment, I definitely used the wrong English translation.
    Let me then correct, and write that the 1 MW plant that has been delivered to the Customer is a production plant, the number one of the production made in the USA by Industrial Heat and our magnificent team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You use the term “Prototype” when describing the installed 1MW thermal plant. I have seen general practice to call a non-customer delivered unit a Prototype while a delivered unit is either Pre-Production or Production, In my work experience, a Pre-Production unit is generally hand assembled by engineers with some technician support while a Production unit is generally assembled by technicians who occasionally may require some engineering support (i.e., a production line process).

    Perhaps you might try the same distinctions if they apply. A Prototype unit generally has connotations of being unreliable, poorly documented and troublesome compared to Production units.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sailmenn:
    Sorry, your message is gone in the spam and I have not been able to recover it, but here is the answer.
    You asked if it wouldn’t be better to make a simpler 1 MW plant with bigger reactors instead of a 1 MW plant with 100 reactors.
    The answer is no, based on our R&D and calculations. We have a very consolidated experience about the safety of the E-Cat modules and they also have been already safety- certified. For the time being we have to maintain this configuration of the plant. Obviously bigger reactors are more difficult to control: allow me a naif example: a tiger is more difficult to menage than several tens of cats…
    Thank you for your question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I am sorry, I cannot give these details so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    you wrote:
    ”Hot Cat or E-Cat are the same thing, just in different configuration.”
    >oxforddictionaries.com. Definition of configuration in English: “An arrangement of parts or elements in a particular form, figure, or combination.”<
    What causes the difference between the low temperature reactors and the Hot Cat? Because of the fuel? Control system? Engineering? Other?
    Thermal Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hugh DeVries:
    1- Ecat is a registered trade mark
    2- Hydrofusion is a Swedish commercial Licensee of Leonardo Corporation and is licensed to use the trade marks of the same in the way they deem it useful
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alexvs:
    1- The so called Rossi Effect is described well in the Report of the Independent Third Party.
    2- Pons-Fleishmann is an electrolysys induced LENR, Rossi Effect is a LENR induced by other means ( see 1).
    3- The Paneth-Peters Effect was a fusion of deuterium inside micropowders of Pd, quite similar to what Fleishmann- Pons made.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alexvs

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    Could you define what is exactly the so called Rossi Effect?
    How is it different from Pons-Fleischmann or Paneth-Peters Effect?

    Regards

    Alex

  • Hugh DeVries

    Andrea,

    There needs to be an official focal point for recording and expanding the terminology for the ECAT with product numbers, specifications, etc. I am led to believe this central point of communication is the website ECAT.com –but this seems to add some confusion.

    “ECAT.com is a domain owned and operated by Hydro Fusion. ECAT.com is designated as The Official ECAT Website by Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation. – See more at: http://ecat.com/about#sthash.sg7md4qG.dpuf.”

    This opens up some questiona that need to be addressed.

    Has the “ECAT” acronym been trademarked? Hydro Fusion claims they own the “ECAT.com domain. Who is in charge of approving the content of the ECAT.com website? There appears to be model number reference to the ECAT HT. Should the patent terminology be consistent in the website? How does it tie in when defending Intellectual Property rights?

    Best regards,
    Hugh DeVries

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie:
    Hot Cat or E-Cat are the same thing, just in different configuration. The distinction is conventional. The structure is the same. Both work on the base of the so called Rossi Effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I am quite familiar with all your previous tests of the low temperature E-Cat which you have employed in the 1 Meg unit used in the present factory device. And I know you have publically allowed observations and published your data when they were displayed. However none of the tests on the low temperature devices were performed outside your venue or by third party investigators like the tests performed on the Hot-cat by the third party group. Again, am I missing some coexisting basis, where testing the Hot-cat by the 3pt format, then also can be related to the low temperature device as proof of its viability?
    Regards.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Thank you. You are right, but the work, albeit long, is all but tedious.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland,
    When I say “prototype” I mean that it is the first fully functioning commercial plant intended for long term use, supplied to a Customer that uses it for generate the heat necessary to make the production of his industry..
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    Being on your team performing that job must be the most facinating, fullfilling career possible — despite it being long, tedious work.

    Congrats on your exciting occupation!

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    When you refer to this 1 MW plant as a ‘prototype’, do you mean it is a test plant that will see limited commercial use, or is the intent for it to be a fully functioning commercial plant intended for long-term use?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    That’s the job of my Team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie:
    Please go through this very blog, to find the many tests made with the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    We still have not statistics to answer your question. So far we are in a R&D mode, in which maintainance goes in parallel with corrections, modifications, etc.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    Does Industrial Heat have a team or group of researchers looking at a more inherent, fundamental method of controlling the output of a reactor? To be more precise, I mean methods such as adding elements or chemicals to the core, adjusting geometries, or adding the LENR version of control rods rather than the other perfectly valid method of extensive computer control. I dream of a series of E-Cats that are self sustaining, but always bouncing back from a set maximum temperature.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    You have submitted the Hot-Cat to third party testing and allowed the results to be published. I have been curious about the fact that the cool E-Cat has never been investigated or replicated and the results published by third party individuals. Have I missed something?
    Regards and congratulations.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    Which system has the shorter “Mean Time to Repair”, the reactors (and controllers) or the plumbing?

    Steam under pressure can be very unforgiving.

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    control of temperature, steam, flow rates, correct operation of pumps, electromagnetics, just to give an example; obviously I cannot enter into particulars, but consider that the 1 MW plant has about 30,000 components and an orchestra of more than 100 reactors to put in harmony, trying to reach the “perfect harmony”. It is not easy, considering that this is a prototype.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    What do you do all day when babysitting the 1MW plant?

    E-Cat Stokers will probably have less to do than Maytag repairman.

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gian:
    Thank you for your email, but at the moment I have only one thing to do: work, work, work, with my wonderful Team, to merit all this: I do not think I deserve it still, until the tests are finished; remind that the final results could be positive, but also could be negative. Now we have to work, work, work.
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • gian

    Caro Andrea
    Please read this, made with Google translate, and tell me how do you feel to be considered at these levels from the highest echelons in the world.
    Leggi questo (io me lo sono goduto con google translate)
    e poi confidami come ci si sente ad essere arbitro dei
    destini delle grandi potenze. anzi del mondo.

    http://www.kp.ru/daily/26323.7/3203639/

    With sympathy, but please be safe, you never know…
    Best wishes,
    Con simpatia, ma sii prudente, non si sa mai.
    Caldi,no roventi saluti

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers of the JoNP:
    Today has been published the paper of Wladimir Guglinski “Aether structure for the unification between gravity and electromagnetism”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    David:
    Sorry, but I cannot get any liability about safety related to third parties that want to replicate the so called Rossi Effect.
    As I already wrote in this blog many times, it is absolutely necessary that the experiments are made by professionals with the due knowledge of all the safety regulations and laws.
    Should I give instructions, I automatically could get liabilities. These experiments are dangerous and must be done by professionals expert of the art and of the safety issues involved. This is all I can say and underline. I strongly suggest to non experts of the art and of the safety issues connected to it not to make any experiment: I say this not to avoid competition ( competition will come in any case from proper concerns), but to avoid that somebody gets hurt. This is the sole thing that , responsibly, I can write and say.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hello again Andrea!

    We have started a new category for replication, now when the Russian researcher Alexander Parkhomov has started- I think many will follow.

    Would you be interested in writing down your most important experiences of safety and construction. And let me publish them as an important topic of security.

    This would be a good thing for everyone. I think this evolution will not be stopped, people willwhether we like it or not try to copy the rossi effect in their garage during those next 10 years.

    Example issue
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1081-Safety-before-you-start/

    Best David

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>