# Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

.

by
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.
.
.

### 538 comments to Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

• ing. Michelangelo De Meo

dear Dr. Rossi:
the work of prof . Alessandro Parkhomov continues to make progress …

http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Parkhomov%27s_E-Cat_replication_experiments

• Andrea Rossi

Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for this important link.
The work of Dr Alexander Parkomov is getting all the more important.
Warm Regards
A.R.

• ing. Michelangelo De Meo

dear Dr. Rossi , from Russia arrive good news …

1) A.G. Parkhomov succeeded to build a long-time working reactor with measurement of pressure. From March 16, 23:30 hour the temperature is maintained till now (March 19, 10:00 hour)
Photography of the reactor
http://lenr.seplm.ru/novosti/ag-parkhomovu-udalos-sdelat-dlitelno-rabotayushchii-reaktor-s-2330-16-marta-temperatura-derzhitsya-do-sikh-por

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/fast-issue-lenr-parkhomov-news-from.html

• Andrea Rossi

JC Renoir:
The liquid drop model implies a sharp drop of nuclear density at the surface of the nucleus, like would happen with a billiard ball. But the experiments show this is not true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

D. Travchenko:
The work of Dr Alexander Parkhomov is professional. He did not involve himself in fields he is not expert in and made a mastery calorimetric measurement. His system was apparently simple, but every particular has been made with professionality and a lot of work. He is a guy that for every page that he writes has a background of 100 pages studied. I do not know him, I did not work with him, but this is the idea I thought up about him reading what he did.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Curiosone:
I am studying together with a major nuclear physicist the results of the Lugano test. Long Skype conferences, he from his University, me from inside the 1 MW E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

To the Readers of the JoNP:
Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the paper “To understand the basics of the Black Hole cosmology” by Proff. Seshavatharam and Laksminarayana ( Dept. Nuclear Physics- Andhra University, India).

• Curiosone

Dear Andrea:
About your Effect: are you going to publish some theoretical interpretation of it?
Thank you,
W.G.

• DTravchenko

Dr Andrea Rossi:
After your answers to April and Ing. Michelangelo De Meo, what do you think now of the work of Dr Parkhomov with the replicas of the Hot Cat?
Warm Regards,
D.T.

• JCRenoir

Dear Andrea Rossi:
Do you think the liquid drop model can explain the functions of the atomic nucleus?
JCR

• Andrea Rossi

Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
I repeat the answer already given to the comment of “April” few hours ago.
E = BSc^2
where BS stays for Bull S….
Should this equation be true, with the theories I read regarding electron capture in LENR we could move all the high speed trains of the world for millions of years.
Not to mention the tragicomic reference to ” very fast changes of pressure”: what does mean very fast ??? Where are the numbers? Where is the Math ? In these reactions one second is an eternity: the average halflife of a virtual particle is 10^-23 s !!! Who controls if a reaction is faster or slower? It appears clearly that these guys have no idea what is a real experiment, what is a real machine, what is real work…in this paradisiac condition of virtual reality ( sort of mental masturbation) they can say whatever theoretical BS they want, provided they have not to make real work that forces them to pay hard if make mistakes.
I suppose to have made clear my opinion.
As my friend Sergio Focardi many times said: ” To understand LENR is not necessary to make exotic Physics, is enough to study seriously the existing Physics”. And I add: ” Without bias”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• ing. Michelangelo De Meo

Dear Dr. Rossi:
what do you think of the electron capture at low energy ? See the link:

• Andrea Rossi

Paul:
Our Team is always in close contact, the flow of information must be exchanged in real time as things happen. As for the management, everybody has his specific role and I do not belong to IH’s management.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Paul

Andrea,

How often do you meet with Industrial Heat’s management team?

IH’s hands off management style seams a little too good to be true.

Paul

• Andrea Rossi

Pietro F.:
I want to add that we trust the USPTO and I am confident our appeal will be taken in due consideration.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Pietro F.:
Our attorney is preparing a strong appeal.
We’ll see.
I can’t take rest this year.
Warm Regards from inside the plant.
A.R.

• Pietro F.

Dovrebbe (Lei ma soprattutto il legale che si occupa del brevetto) dare un occhiata al commento che ha postato su facebook il gruppo Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project:

Should (but mostly the lawyer in charge of the patent) take a look at the comment posted on facebook by the group Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project:

Buona domenica e si riposi!! 😉

Pietro F.

• Andrea Rossi

Hank Mills:
For the small units the situation is more difficult, because the control system does not have the same synergies. We are working on it, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Hank Mills

Dear Andrea,

Have these very long periods of self sustain (via changes of the charge and control system) also transferred over to the individual hot cat reactors you are testing?

Thank you.

• Andrea Rossi

Patrick Ellul:
The upgraded ssm is not due only to the control system, even if it allows more synergies. Also the charge is changed after an intense study of the Lugano report analysis. If the fuel will last less, more, or uneffected has to be experienced. Good question, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Patrick Ellul

Dear Andrea,
Your plant is using more ssm than you predicted thanks to the preciseness of your control system. Based on your theory, does this mean it might ‘burn’ through the fuel faster than the originally calculated 1 year? Or is there no correlation?
Regards,
Patrick

• Andrea Rossi

Frank Acland:
Yes. The Professors of the Independent Third Party are scientists from whom there is really to learn and I have taken advantage of this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

BroKeper:
Sorry, I cannot give this information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• BroKeeper

Dear Andrea,

Can you surmise yet during the plant’s operational time if the resulting added isotopes influence the catalyst’s reactions either positive or negative and whether it affects its ssm and/or life span? Have you or will you analyze periodically a sample of the plant’s E-Cat ash in stages for isotopic change?

With much respect, BK

• Frank Acland

Dear Andrea,

Has your understanding of the mechanism (theory) behind the Rossi effect changed significantly since your study of the Lugano report?

Kind regards,

Frank Acland

• Andrea Rossi

Eernie1:
You are right.
Warm Regards
A.R.

• eernie1

Dear Andrea,
History repeats itself. Fermi solved the questions about fission through ash analysis. It seems to me that the ash analysis of the 3PT is going a long way towards solving the LENR questions at least in the case of your device.
Regards and good hunting.

• Andrea Rossi

Marco Serra (2):
1- We have to test this, because we cannot apply to a single E-Cat the same control system and synergy we can with the 1MW E-Cat.
2- Everybody is free to use our publication to try to replicate whatever he wants. Patents ( when granted and if granted) protect commercial use of an invention, not its scientific experimentation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Marco Serra (1):
We hoped that an increase of COP was on course, due to evolution after the Lugano Report, but not in the measure we got it, SO FAR: don’t forget that at the end the results could be positive, but also negative: we are opening our path through a jungle with a machete: don’t know what is beyond.
Only at least one year of experience will give us a reasonable certainty about the reliability of the technology.
Thank you for the blessing: we all need it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Marco Serra

Dear Andrea,
I’m very curious about the positive surprise of your customer but understand your committement to not release any number until the end of the test. But let’s try to not broken any secret.
The customer certainly has evaluated the \$COP measure, which is defined as:

\$COP = (gas cost for the same amount of thermal energy) / (cost in the electric bill to produce it).

In ITP setting (with no SSM) the COP was around 3. The unofficial COP with SSM was very roughly estimated to be 10 or more (I don’t remember where it was said, maybe i’m wrong).
Is the \$COP, the customer evaluated and be surprised of, in line with the estimated COP with SSM or is it a positive surprise also for you ?

God bless you
Marco Serra

• Marco Serra

Dear Andrea,
It’s a great joy to me to listen that the current electric feeded 1MW ECat could compete in costs with the, not yet ready, gas cat. It means that NOW you are really ready for the market. The positive surprise of your customer is a confirmation that your ECat can be sold NOW, as it is, and spread world wide. It would be a good news for planet earth that has broken this month the threshold of 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have theese questions:

– Is this long SSM achievement already replicable in a single reactor HomECat ?

– what kind of application does your applied for patent cover ? I mean, are Dr Parkhomov, Dr Ahern current experiments in conflict with it because they are based on nikel powder too?

God bless you

Marco Serra

• Andrea Rossi

Hank Mills:
“ssm” means to me self sustained mode.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Paul:
Grand good question! We’ll see. Depends on how gas price goes, too.
Anyway the gas fueled version has to be developed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. he,he,he

• Andrea Rossi

Monash J:
I agree upon the fact that also the control system is worth to be patented.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Monash j

Andrea,
If your control system is unique to maximise the Rossi effect, a patent on that control system alone would stop any serious open commercial competition.

• Paul

Andrea,

Does the improved ssm of the electric e-cat reduce the priority of developing the gas cat?

Paul

p.s. Sharpening pencils is not a pointless pursuit.

• Hank Mills

Dear Andrea,

You stated, “The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long.”

To be clear, are you using the acronym ssm for self sustain mode (long periods of constant temperature without input) or start stop mode (excess anomalous power but with a slowly falling temperature)?

Long periods of either would be very significant, but I think long self sustain periods are preferrable if control can be maintained.

• Andrea Rossi

Frank Acland:
Yes, the charges have been modified studying very carefully the results of the analysis made by the Independent Third Party. For us that report has been a gold mine.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Frank Acland

Dear Andrea,

It’s encouraging to learn of your pleasant surprises! Did the Lugano test report contribute anything to the evolution of the charge that you mention?

Many thanks,

Frank Acland

• Andrea Rossi

Paul:
Now we have 60 days at our disposal for the appeal.
I fully trust my patent Attorney. He told me we have wide room for a strong appeal. He will decide what to do. I have to think to the 1 MW E-Cat. Everybody has his role. I cannot be distracted from my job and the patent Attorney knows what to do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Steven N. Karels:
The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long. It has been a terrific surprise, due to evolution of the charge and to the control system. I am not permitted to publish numbers before the end of the test, but I must say that the final results can be positive, but also could be negative, so we retain the data until the test is finished. One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. We also have a new kind of gauge, which is the bill of the electric provider to our Customer, wherein are written the MWh he consumes per month ( the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads): the Customer makes a ratio between the thermal MWh we deliver and the MWh he pays for to the electricity provider and has the real COP. This is a measuring system not very sophysticated, but brutally true: the Customer is positively surprised from the results, so far, after a troublesome initial period. We hope the situation goes on likewise.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Steven N. Karels

Dear Andrea Rossi,

How long is the SSM?

a. Less than 5 hours?
b. Less than 10 hours?
c. As long as a day (24 hours)?
d. Longer than 24 hours?

• Robert Curto

Dr. Rossi, i enjoyed your response to Jackie.
I guess Jackie wanted to know why you don’t give away your invention free,
so other people could make a profit on your lifetime of dedicated work.
Then you could live in poverty, with your kind heart.

Alexander Graham Bell got a patent on the telephone.
He went on to great wealth. He helped many other Scientist’s with their work, he also did many other great things, including helping the Deaf, with their problem.

I predict Dr. Rossi will go on to great wealth, and will be a tremendous help
to the Cancer World.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA

• Paul

Andrea,

Will you be submitting run data to-date of the 1 MW plant in your reply to the patent office’s “Final” rejection?

Paul

• Andrea Rossi

Wesley:
1- we will continue to try to have the patent, there is room for it
2- we will continue our R&D and tests on the 1 MW plant and on the Hot Cat to arrive to a massive production of them that will defend the competitivity independently from the patent policy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andrea Rossi

Peter Forsberg:
Thank you for your kind comment.
The rejection is not the end: we have 60 days to present our reasons and the effort to obtain a patent will continue. Our Attorney says there is wide room to contrast the rejection. In the meantime I continue my work, together with my Team in the plant of 1 MW that has been installed in the factory of the Customer, patent or not patent. Surely our work will proceed also without a patent protection, but there is no reason not to try to have also a patent. Anyway: with the patent i have to work 16-18 hours per day. Without the patent I have to work 16-18 hours per day. There is not much difference.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. The plant is going well. Very long ssm periods. Very long.

• Wesley

Dear Dr. Rossi,

thank you very much for your hard work!
I believe that in the following months we will see revolutionary discoveries.
I truly hope in your success.

On the other hand, if you want be sure that all your hard work will be helpfull to the whole world, you may consider if it is really worth to patent it.
Patenting may be very profitable for you, but there are other forces, that can arrange that it will be hidden for many years.

You are fighting with Oil companies and people that can do everything, at least make your patents invalid or secret – unusable.

There is only one, correct solution – make your work open to all as fast as possible, until it is possible.

Yes, you can be very rich and proud. Nobody can imagine your hard work.
But you can also make life much better to our planet immediately, with zero cost. You can do so faster, than anybody else can register patents and/or hide the truth for Army usage.

Remember, even that something is open or open sourced, it can be still very profitable.
But for what are money? The most important thing, people’s life can’t be bought for any amount of money.

You can change the world overnight.

• Peter Forsberg

Dear Andrea,

I read the rejection reason of your patent application. A sad joke in my opinion. You are very smart, and I trust you will find a way to market the ECat with or without a patent.

Keep going

Peter

• Andrea Rossi

Jackie:
Of course I do ! And to make it real, and not just sitting room chattering, it is necessary defend the Intellectual Property, to allow the strong investments necessary to make my work properly distributed around the World.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• jackie

Dear Mr. Rossi, do you not believe that the benefits of your Wonderful work with Cold Fusion should belong freely to the World.