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.
.
.

533 comments to Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    You stated,
    “Rotation is NOT DEFINED.

    Rotation is a physical phenomenon: a body moving around an axis.”

    Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. You actually defined rotation.

    Here is another example of re-defining:
    Classical (Newton) gravity has been replaced by General Relativity (GR). Force has been re-defined as geometry (of space). Scientists believe that this is an improvement. (See “Tests of General Relativity” in Wikipedia.) But the most emblematic gravitational phenomenon – attraction between objects – can not be explained by GR. (Geometry does not impart impulse to objects.) So how can GR be an improvement in gravitational theory over classical?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    1- I think yes, because we have already the single modules and the control system is practically the same, “mutatis mutandis”
    2- Yes
    Anyway, I got what you want to say: send a detailed CV and your address, if you want, to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    I am curious.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    First and foremost, I am delighted to receive your comments as well as all the comments sent to this blog, and I learnt many things from all of you, so that many of you are part of our Team, even if they don’t know. I read very carefully the comments I receive, also when I do not answer.
    This said: some theorists claim that only a mediating space field can explain the results, some do not. Let me make up a model: Relativity and Quantum Theory are enormous and very massive buildings, wherein live and work thousands of persons since decades, but some nostalgics of the old times, before the construction of these enormous and massive buildings, insist to say that the buldings are not real, that the area is still as it was before. In the quest for evidence of their “theory” they search, search, search until they find a hole in a wall; they take picture across the hole to show evidence of the fact that in that very place, where the building was supposed to be, there is nothing, ” look at the photos!!!”.
    The problem is that a hole is not enough to give evidence of the non-existence of the buildings.
    About the 1 MW plant: positive results could be forhcoming, as well as bad results. Let’s put down at work: when I got important results it has happened only because I worked at the maximum of my possibilities. Now I am strongly helped by my magnificent Team, which makes things less difficult.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    You are precious: persons who agree with me are as rare as Chinese Pandas. I will propose you for an international protection apparatus organized by environmental experts. Do you mind?
    ( sorry, but I am on the plant today since 19 hours straight, because we had some problem and I need to joke, obviously not at you, but with you. The plant now is a magnificence, though).
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Patrick Ellul:
    Thank you for the interesting link.
    I must say that all these replications are totally independent from us and made with materials that have not been supplied by us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Patrick Ellul

    Dear Andrea,

    You might have already seen these or similar Electron Microscope photos of fuel for e-cat like reactors.

    Here is the link from the Martin Fleischmann Memoria lProject Page: https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/929920440371989

    Best regards,
    Patrick

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Even the pseudoscience cannot save the Standard Nuclear Physics

    Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
    ——————————————————–
    Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
    ——————————————————–

    Joe,

    the nucleus 3Li6 has spin 1. This means that two protons cancel each other their spins and magnetic moments, and two neutros cancel each other their spins and magnetic moments.

    So, the unmatched proton and the unmatched neutron have parallel spins, responsible for the spin 1 of the 3Li6.

    The proton has magnetic moment +2,793 , and the neutron has -1,913.
    The difference is +0,880
    But the 3Li6 has magnetic moment +0,822

    Therefore, if the 3Li6 had not a classical rotation, would be IMPOSSIBLE to explain the difference between +0,880 and +0,822.

    If you consider that the proton and the neutron form a deuteron within the structure of the 3Li6, we have the following magnetic moments:
    3Li6 = +0,822
    1H2 = +0,857
    So, again there is a difference, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the difference if we do not consider a CLASSICAL rotation of the nucleus.
    After all,
    we know that magnetic moments are induced by CLASSICAL rotations.

    This is the reason why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Hans Bethe said that the nuclei have CLASSICAL rotation. He said that about 10% of the magnetic moment is due to the classical rotation of the nucleus.
    So the difference between +0,857 and +0,822 in the 3Li6 is due to the CLASSICAL rotation of the nucleus.

    But let us suppose that those scientists who had re-defined the concept of rotation claim the following:
    The non-classical rotation proposed by us is also able to induce magnetic moments.

    Then we reply to them:
    In this case, the non-classical rotation also induces magnetic moment in the even-even nuclei with Z=N, due to the rotation of the protons.

    Therefore,
    dear Joe,
    even if the scientists re-define the concept of rotation to suit to their needs, however a new concept of non-classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z =N.

    As you may realize, dear Joe,
    it is impossible to solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N even by a solution proposed from a pseudoscientific attempt, as you had supposed to be possible.

    Sorry,
    even the pseudoscience cannot save the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I have to apologize for extending the discussion on the aether(the devil made me do it). I know that the time you spend replying to our blogs detracts from the time you can spend on your main project. However having spent time on an extended time test(continuous one month duration), I know that when the test is proceeding well, it becomes very boring just monitoring the instruments. My only excuse for doing it is that it may fill some time for you and your readers who religiously follow the JNP at this time when there is little new news published because of your commitments to your customer. These discussions do entertain me greatly while I wait for the good results of your program.
    One experiment I forgot to add to the discussion was the double slit results that seem to require a medium for the electrons to display the interference patterns they display as they pass through the slits. some theorists claim that only a mediating space field can explain the results.
    Now I will keep silent on this subject and await the positive results I am sure will be forthcoming.
    Regards with anticipation.

  • WaltC

    Dear Andrea,

    I have two very oddball questions, if you’re willing:

    I assume the plant design for a hot E-cat based plant will be different than the one you’re working on today because of things like water/steam temperature and pressure–

    1) If a 1MW hot E-cat customer came along next (after this current plant is delivered), is the 1MW hot E-cat plant design something that is ready to go?

    In the past I worked with people called “Manufacturability Engineers” (I was in R&D at Bell Labs, they worked for Western Electric). Their job was to make things easier & faster to manufacture and repair– e.g., by reducing part counts, assembly/disassembly steps, increasing mean time to failure, etc.–

    2) Does your team have anyone who’s experienced with Manufacturability of hot water/steam systems somewhat like yours?

    Thanks,
    WaltC

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM

    1) ———————————————————-
    Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
    ————————————————————–

    Joe,
    this is not Science

    this is not Physics

    By distorting the Laws of Physics a charlatan scientist can prove anything he wishes.

    By the re-definition of the rotation we can prove that Galileo and Copernicus were wrong, and Ptolomeu was right.

    What the scientists are doing nowadays is pseudoscience.

    A scientific theory is that one which can be proved or disproved by scientific experiments.

    A theory which cannot be disproved by scientific experiments (because the authors of the theory introduce changes and distortions in the well known Laws of Physics replacing them by ad hoc hypothesis so that to fit the theory to new experimental findings) is not a scientific theory, it is actually pseudoscience.

    regards
    wlad

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    I agree.

    Regards

    Peter

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM

    1) ————————————————-
    Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.
    —————————————————-

    Joe,
    rotation is NOT DEFINED

    Rotation is a physical phenomenon: a body moving around an axis.

    Only a PHYSICAL rotation is able to produce rotational spectra:
    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/26/2/10.1119/1.1996107

    Phantasmagoric fantasy rotation cannot do it.

    2) ————————————————————–
    You asked,
    “I don’t understand why there is need to name a rotation by the name classical rotation.

    After all, what a hell can be a non-classical rotation???”

    You answered your own question later.
    “[…] of course the scientists will solve the puzzle by proposing a phantasmagoric rotation, like Heisenberg proposed the phantasmagoric concept of Isospin.”
    ——————————————————————–

    No, Joe
    I did not answer.
    If you did not understand, that is only irony.
    I only showed how crazy are the theories of Modern Physics.

    The Standard Nuclear Physics is a scientific fraud

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    I think that we must make a relevant distinction between Mathematics and Physics. In Physics, after the Relativity and the Quantum Theory, the “infinite”, as you correctly say, is an error. In Mathematics the infinite exists, as well as the infinitesimal, because Mathematics can be based upon pure conceptual theory, while Physics has to confront with reality through experiments and in reality infinite and infinitesimal do not exist. Conceptually you can divide an apple by half infinitely, and Mathematics can help you to sustain this; in Physics you have to give experimental evidence of what you say, and you discover that you cannot divide infinitely an apple by half, so if in an equation from a Physics theory you end up with results that contain the infinite, you are in error.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    I suggest to avoid the word “certainly”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    Interesting that you bring up infinitesimal calculus. No doubt this has been a useful invention, but I think that it will come a day when it will be regarded as a big mistake. In reality there is nothing infinite or infinitesimally small. It is an approximation that violate reality, and it really is the root cause of the problems physics is in now in my opinion.

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Andrea Rossi

    It could be,certainly it is something.

    Regards G G

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    None of them.
    The problem is deeper and has its roots in the core of the know how. It is not a problem of heat exchange or of heat conservation. Otherwise, it could have been already resolved.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    It doesn’t mean that it is not either…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    ” The only thing I know is that I do not know” (Socrates).
    This said, in Philosophy there is not a distinction between empty space and filled- with- something- space. If in a certain space there is something, also between the components of this something there will be some space: remember the paradox of the turtle that will never be reached by the fox ? This brings to the infinitesimal calculus, that has been invented by philosophers. My personal opinion is that space and time are anthropocentric concepts: our brain needs the concept of space and time to formulate models that bring to new understandings.
    But again: ” The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    I’d say:
    between two objects there is space,space is “something”,but it does not mean that it is filled by something else.

    Spaced regards G G

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you discuss what some of the challenges are in going to a gas-fueled eCat compared to an electricity heated eCat?

    For example:

    1. The difference in time constant between the application and removal of heat between electric heating and flame?
    2. The difference in heat transfer for gas-fired versus direct electric windings?
    3. The difficulty in providing adequate ventilation for gas-fired system (incoming air)?
    4. The difficulty in exhausting the exhaust products?
    5. The energy efficiency of gas-fired (how much energy goes up the chimney)?

  • Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    You are learned in the field of philosofy. What do different schools of philosofy say about empty space? Is it not a contradiction of terms to consider space empty? When two object have a distance between them, must it not be something between them that separates them from each other? If there is nothing between the objects, should the distance between the objects not be zero as well?

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Scientists can define concepts in any way that works for them. Rotation can be re-defined to suit a scientist’s needs.

    You asked,
    “I don’t understand why there is need to name a rotation by the name classical rotation.

    After all, what a hell can be a non-classical rotation???”

    You answered your own question later.
    “[…] of course the scientists will solve the puzzle by proposing a phantasmagoric rotation, like Heisenberg proposed the phantasmagoric concept of Isospin.”

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    We are making R&D on it and I am convinced that soon we will have a gas fueled E-Cat.
    Thank you for the queston,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    ERRATA:

    Joe,
    I think the solutions 4 and 5 are best if they were the following:

    4- The scientists can avoid the classical zero (any zero value in the Standard Physics sometimes is not zero).

    5- The scientists can avoid the classical null magnetic moment (a null magnetic moment in the Standard Physics sometimes is not null).

    NOTE:
    SOMETIMES means: always when the theories of the Standard Model are contradicted by experiments.

    .

    And I also would suggest to add the 6th and 7th suggestions, Joe:

    6- The scientists can avoid the classical experiments (in the Standard Model a scientific experiment sometimes is not a scientific experiment)

    7- The scientists can avoid the classical scientific measurement ( in the Standard Model a measurement obtained by experiments sometimes is not a measurement).

    regards
    wlad

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    How is the gas-cat doing?

    Paul

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 26th, 2015 at 1:55 AM

    Wladimir,

    But scientists would then devise methods that would avoid classical rotation.
    ————————————————————-

    Dear Joe,
    I guess your suggestion is so much radical.

    There are other solutions not so radical as you suggested.
    For instance:

    1 – The scientists can avoid the classical monopolar nature of the electric charge

    2- The scientists can avoid the classical equal quantity Z of protons and N neutrons.

    3- The scientists can avoid the classical even-even nuclei

    4- The scientists can avoid the classical zero (any zero value in the Standard Physics is never zero).

    5- The scientists can avoid the classical null magnetic moment (a null magnetic moment in the Standard Physics is never null).

    .

    All the five solutions above make sense, and all they are more acceptable than to avoid the classical rotation.

    Dont you think so ?

    regards
    wlad

  • Could you make a guess how much money you will save for the customer who is using the heat? And could you share how many candidate companies were considered for the first installation? Thank you and bets wishes for future success.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    I agree upon the fact that it is necessary to maintain an open mind and give room to all the opinions. There is always to learn, also from mistakes. I learnt a lot from my very mistakes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 26th, 2015 at 1:55 AM

    Wladimir,

    Without the mechanisms of variable aether density and gravitational fluxes n(o) that are found only in QRT, all nuclear models that include a classical rotation of charged nucleons will find it difficult to describe even-even Z = N nuclei which exhibit a null magnetic moment. But scientists would then devise methods that would avoid classical rotation.
    ——————————————————————

    Joe,
    I dont understand why there is need to name a rotation by the name classical rotation

    After all, what a hell can be a non-classical rotation???

    There are two sort of rotation:
    “A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object always rotates around an imaginary line called a rotation axis. If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation about an external point, e.g. the Earth about the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation

    There is not such a thing named non-classical rotation

    A body can have rotation, or not.
    Experiments have shown that nuclei have the CLASSICAL ROTATION:

    Rotation of Elongated Atomic Nuclei
    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/26/2/10.1119/1.1996107

    In the Abstract is said:
    “Many nuclei exhibit rotational spectra much as molecules do.”

    Rotational spectra cannot be produced by some PHANTASMAGORIC “non-classical” rotation.

    .

    But I can understand that,
    as all the nuclear models based on the Standard Model are wrong, and therefore it is impossible to explain the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N by those models, of course the scientists will solve the puzzle by proposing a phantasmagoric rotation, like Heisenberg proposed the phantasmagoric concept of Isospin.

    .

    In resume,
    the Modern Physics is actually a scientific fraud.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Michael Schneider:
    The E-Cats are more compact than it appears. The reactors of the 1 MW plant have a combined volume of 1 cubic meter. All the remaining space is necessary for the heat exchange and the control system.
    For 10-20 kW units I think the volume will be smaller than in traditional heating systems, while the volume necessary for the heat exchange is the same of any other kind of heaters, since it is a matter of heat exchange surface calculations, independently from the heat source.
    All these problems are on the table of the R&D. The combination with ultra capacitors is interesting, but I do not think it will be something doable in a middle term.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    In the debate between advocates of an empty vaccum space and a space filled with some sort of existing entity, the advocates of an empty space(Einstein Relativists)continually try to negate any evidence used by the advocated of a filled space. There are many experimenters who have offered evidence of a filled space such as the Casimer Effect, Quantum entanglement(requires a medium to effect instantaneous connection between particles and waves), detection of superlumininal energy from distant galaxies and for arguments to explain dark matter and string theory. Dirac for one postulated a space filled with his famous epos each connected to every other existing entity to explain some of the mysteries of an imperfect quantum theory.
    Whatever the case, I’m afraid this debate will go on for a long time since each side has many intelligent scientists and the means to produce unquestioned experimental evidence is with the present day technologies not obtainable. The secret lies, IMHO, within the scope of a unassailable theory of gravity.
    Regards and keep an open mind.

  • Michael Schneider

    Dear Mister Rossi,

    I was wondering about the realistically achievable compactness of Ecat devices in the future. Today the production of 1 MW heat takes up the space of one shipping container. There probably is no need to rationalise space this beeing a fixed device in a probably rather big facility, and it is rather acessability for easy maintenance that matters.

    But have you started thinking about mobile applications and their inherent need for compactness ? Could a setup for electricity production (for mobile use with batteries and or ultracapicitors) or an ecat harnessed to a steamengine have the same order of total volume as today’s explosion engines ?

    Kind regards,

    Michael S.

  • Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    D. Travchenko:
    Fraudsters are everywhere: the mother of the imbeciles is always pregnant: this is a global symmetry and, as such, does not lead to new forces..
    I have enormous esteem for your Country, for Russia.
    When I was a teen ager I have plasmated my brain reading Tolstoj and Dostojevsky, Majakowsky…my mother introduced me to them. You have scientific schools correctly deemed to be among the most prestigious of the world.
    I worked with Russian scientists on the Seebeck effect in the nineties, and there was really to learn from them; I am in contact with top level Russian nuclear physicists and I had the delighting surprise to be informed of the very important work made by Dr Alexander Parkhomov.
    From Andrea, to Russia, with love.
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    I would say that thanks to our Team also the official scientific echelon has got a grip on the LENR issue, as the test of Lugano shows: consider that the scientist who made the independent third party test in Lugano belong to the scientific mainstream, as the history of their life gives evidence of.
    Yes, I agree: our Team does have the merit to have revitalized a sector that had been put apart and reduced to a sect. Honestly, this is the truth.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jack:
    Here is the issues hierarchy:
    1st: work
    2nd: complete the work
    3rd: make the plant confirm for at least 1 year that it works properly, reliably, continuously, without chattering too much, or, better, without chattering at all: our work needs working plants, not chatters.
    LENR will not be launched by sterile chatters moreless theoretical: they will be launched exclusively by a commercial breakthrough. Without it every imbecile will continue to chatter for nothing and theorize about nothing and stupidities said by guys that have nothing better to do will fill up thousands of void theories and innuendos.
    4th: ” assuming the best scenario”, at the end of this year during which I will have sustained work shifts of 16-20 hours per day, I will get rest.
    5th: all the following operations cited by you are the turf of commercial guys, not of me. Obviously we cannot talk on behalf of the Customer and cannot know what he will do about the issue you raised. All I know for sure is :
    a- if the plant will respect the guarantees, the Customer will pay all that is due
    b- if the plant will not respect the guarantees, the Customer will not pay and the plant will be returned.
    All the rest is TDA ( Tongue- Displaced- Air).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Curiosone

    After the Lugano test results many industries, governments, laboratories and universities have invested in R&D for LENR. Before your work LENR were considered from everybody not worth investments. Thanks to you LENR have got the headlines. How do you feel about these facts?
    W.G.

  • DTravchenko

    Dear Dr Rossi,
    I am very sorry of the fraud made by “indiagogo”, the fraudsters that put fraudolently for sale youe E-Cats. They are not real Russians, believe me, they are trash.
    Continue your important job, we all sustain you.
    Warm Regards,
    D.T.

  • JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Can you say now if the 1 MW plant is working? Is it already producing heat in the factory of the Customer ? Is the Customer making its production using the heat made by the 1 MW plant?
    Now, months after when you said the first time it has been delivered, I hope you can answer to this.

  • Jack

    Hello again Mr. Rossi,
    one more question for you.

    Assuming the best scenario for your 1MW plant, at the end of the tests and the R&D, do you think the Customer will come out of anonymity with a public statement?
    Do you have any agreement with the Customer about this?

    I ask this because having a big Customer supporting you and saying publicly that your 1MW plant actually saved them money would be a huge push for the adoption of your E-Cats.

    Thank you again.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Without the mechanisms of variable aether density and gravitational fluxes n(o) that are found only in QRT, all nuclear models that include a classical rotation of charged nucleons will find it difficult to describe even-even Z = N nuclei which exhibit a null magnetic moment. But scientists would then devise methods that would avoid classical rotation.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    tell us your opinion:

    1- do you think is it possible to solve the puzzle of the null magnetic moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N, by considering any nuclear model based on the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics?

    2- In the case your answer is NO,
    do you think there is chance to be correct any nuclear model based on the Standard Model?

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jack:
    I cannot give information about the particulars of this issue.
    When the tests and the R&D related to the operation of the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer will have been completed we will give the due information.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Jack

    Hello Mr Rossi,
    you said that “The Customer has a back up, just in case we’d have interruptions”,
    I am a bit curious… did any such interruption happen so far? If yes, how many times and for how long?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steve H.:
    I cannot give information regarding what happens inside the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steve H

    Dear Andrea,

    I have followed and admired your work since early 2011. I am interested in the role of electro-magnetic fields with respect to the Rossi Effect and wondered if you could elaborate on the following questions:-

    1. Do the magnetostrictive properties of Nickel play an important role in the Rossi Effect?
    2. If so, is 3-phase power preferred to single phase – in creating the magnetic field?
    3. If a/c magnetic field, do you see any difference when using European 50Hz to USA 60Hz?

    Best wishes,

    Steve.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The Customer has a back up, just in case we’d have interruptions.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    As you continue your year-long production testing on your customer’s site, is the customer able to carry on operations normally, or are you interrupting their production activity with your work?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in February 24th, 2015 at 4:29 PM

    Wladimir,

    2. Are you saying that the central area of the proton’s body-ring might have radius r = 0 in order to account for the lack of a varying aether density in Sp?
    ————————————————————

    No, Joe,
    obviously the central area cannot have radius r=0.

    I mean to say that there is a central area with radius in order of 3 or 5 fm along which the density of the aether is practically constant.

    A central area with radius r = 0 is shown in the figure ahead (the red line).
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Core_with_10fm_in_the_center_of_nuclei.png
    A density variation of the aether shown in the by the red line makes no sense.

    There is need to have a central area with radius different of zero like shown by the blue line

    regards
    wlad

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>