.
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:
- An outer field Sn induced by the rotation of an inner field Sp must have rotation.
- 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.
- 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.
.
.
Dears Joe and Eernie,
beyond the puzzle of the null magnetic moments for the even-even nuclei with Z=N, there is other puzzle impossible to be solved by the Standard Nuclear Physics.
The nucleus 6C12 has spin 0 and magnetic moment zero. It means that:
a) each proton has a symmetric proton and they cancel each other their magnetic moment and their spins
b) each neutron has a symmetric neutron and they cancel each other their magnetic moment and their spins
But the excited nucleus 6C12 has spin 2 and magnetic moment zero.
This means that one deuteron in the excited 6C12 changes its spin, but the magnetic moment does not change.
It is impossible to explain the spin 2 and magnetic moment zero of the excited 6C12 by considering any nuclear model of the Standard Model.
Such puzzle can be solved only by considering the flux n(o) crossing into the protons and neutrons within the nuclei, as shown in the figures 28 and 29 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
Joe,
how do you think the nuclear theorist can solve this puzzle?
Eernie,
do you think is it possible to solve the puzzle by considering the statistical viewpoint?
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in March 2nd, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Wladimir,
In the distant past, rotation was only classical. We could change the rate of rotation by altering the amount of energy in the system. In the recent past, we discovered a new type of rotation – intrinsic spin – whose rate of rotation does not vary with the energy of the system. Logically, this new type of rotation is considered non-classical. Therefore, the concept of rotation was re-defined and a new theory of intrinsic spin was created.
—————————————————————
Joe,
I know that in quantum theory the concept of spin is non-classical. In my Quantum Ring Theory the non-classical spin of the electron is composed by the intrinsic-spin of the electron plus the spin due to the helical trajectory of the electron.
However the spin of a nucleus considered in Nuclear Physics is classical. The total spin of a nucleus is composed by the addition of the spins of protons and neutrons. For instance, the spin of 3Li6 is 1, resulted from the spin zero due to 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and a deuteron.
As I already said,
in the case the nuclear theorist try to explain the null magnetic moment for the even-even nuclei with Z=N through a non-classical rotation, however the same solution must be applied for the other nuclei.
They cannot propóse a solution only for the even-even nuclei.
The solution must be applied to all the nuclei. And the magnetic moment of the nucleus 3Li6 (for instance) must be explained by considering a classical rotation.
regards
wlad
Gil:
We supplied the apparatus and the Professors of the ITP made the measurements as they wanted. I was not present for most of the test and the instrumentation for the measurements was of their property. I do not know what they inspected and what they did not. Obviously they could not open the reactor’s containment body.
For all the rest, you have to read the report: the set up of the electric measurements has been described in detail and there is nothing I can add because I had nothing to do with their measurements.
On the same subject: the Russian scientist Alexander Parkomov has independently replicated repeatedly the apparatus made by us as descripted in the report of the Professors and the tests made by the ITP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdewHQxW4
and also see
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/more-details-of-russian-e-cat-replication-available
That’s quite interesting, isn’t it?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad,
That shrinkage would really be drastic. Right now they are puzzled by an apparently measured shrinkage of .035fm. A measured shrinkage of .2 to .5fm would indeed send everyone back to the drawing board looking for possible answers.
Regards.
Dear Andrea Rossi
I found yesterday a site where it was reported that in Lugano Report scientists were not allowed to check the control tool (control-box?) of the electric current incoming and outgoing.
Then I reread the Lugano Report but I have found no trace of such a statement which reported a direct statement of one of the signatories of the Test .
It ‘possible that physicists were subject to any other restrictions than that of not opening the reactor?
Warm regards.
Wladimir,
In the distant past, rotation was only classical. We could change the rate of rotation by altering the amount of energy in the system. In the recent past, we discovered a new type of rotation – intrinsic spin – whose rate of rotation does not vary with the energy of the system. Logically, this new type of rotation is considered non-classical. Therefore, the concept of rotation was re-defined and a new theory of intrinsic spin was created.
Another example is the following. Scientists claim that the trajectory of light bends in the presence of massive objects. But photons have no mass to account for this phenomenon. But due to re-definition, light trajectory is still considered straight but in a space that happens to be bent by the gravitational fields of massive objects.
All the best,
Joe
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for this important updating about the 3D printing of the Swedish company ARCAM.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Very interesting video, thanks.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you: Dr Parkhomov has definitely made a valid job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi , prof . Parkohomov was the best of all the scientists who are seeking LERN !
Parkohomov has achieved results similar to those that the independent third party has achieved in the test at Lugano, Switzerland published in October, 2014.
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/more-details-of-russian-e-cat-replication-available
Dears Joe and Eernie,
in the case the experiments of the MUSE Project measure in 2016 a value for the proton’s radius between 0,3fm and 0,6fm, as I expect, what do you think the scientists will change in the concepts of Physics so that to save the Standard Model?
Proton’s radius to be measured by MUSE Project (2015-2016)
http://www.zpenergy.com/
They can re-define the concept of radius, by proposing a new non-classical concept of radius.
Or perhaps they can allege that proton’s radius changes due to statistical causes.
What do you think?
regards
wlad
Hello Dr. Rossi to send a report Russian very interesting !
Russian Reportage on Cold Fusion (Alexander Parkhomov)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTsdewHQxW4
eernie1 wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 6:14 PM
Wlad,
That table has already been revised a number of times including a decrease of the reported moment of the proton and other reported moments as other refined adjustments are made.
As a suggestion,your conversations would be more enjoyable if you were not as defensive.
———————————————————————
Eernie,
but the spin never changes by refinments or adjustments.
The magnetic moments have refinments and adjustments because new methods are invented, and the technology advances.
But magnetic moments different of zero had never be detected form the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi, Frank Acland, JYD, Navdrew,
ARCAM (Sweden) can not yet print an entire airplane, but they can print turbine blades.
Some assembly required. 😉
http://www.arcam.com/wp-content/uploads/Arcam-Q20.pdf
http://www.additive3d.com/
http://www.additive3d.com/news1/inr2969.htm
The Arcam series of additive metal printers are products.
There are also a number of other manufacturers. This area deserves further attention.
Additive Regards,
Joseph Fine
Navdrew:
I totally agree. Thank you for the interesting link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JYD:
Thank you for the information. Still it is a prototype, anyway its development will be worth the while of a strong attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes, but this is an experimental prototype: they are not ready to sell a production system. It is very interesting and when in the market we will react.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Thank you, very interesting, but still prototipal. Not ready for the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
3D printing with metals is becoming more sophisticated.
Here’s an example: “Forget food and guns, the first 3D-printed jet engines have arrived” http://mashable.com/2015/02/25/3d-printed-jet-engine/
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
There’s more out there on 3D Metal printing, but here’s an interesting link. If you can print a Jet Engine, you probably can print an E-Cat.
Joseph Fine
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2890313/researchers-make-a-3d-printed-jet-engine.html
Dear Andrea Rossi, dear Franck Ackland
Concerning 3D printers and industry, I found this :
http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2015/02/26/deux-reacteurs-d-avion-reproduits-par-impression-3d_4583403_1650684.html
Sorry, it’s French paper, and my english is so poor!
Thanks and good luck for your works
Wlad,
That table has already been revised a number of times including a decrease of the reported moment of the proton and other reported moments as other refined adjustments are made.
As a suggestion,your conversations would be more enjoyable if you were not as defensive.
Regards.
Mr.Rossi:
I agree that 3D printing is now primarily useful for non=metal parts but work is progressing. GE is pursuing R&D in 3D printing for jet engine parts. See: http://www.ge.com/stories/advanced-manufacturing. I believe E-cats will be in production long before we see 3D printed high temperature structural metal parts in GE engines. But never say never. DoD has a major initiative is this area.
Drew
Dear Eernie,
perhaps you are right, and the nuclear theorists will solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei by proposing nonsenses (as a non-classical rotation suggested by Joe, or by claiming that the influence of the statistics in the results of the measurements is responsible for the null magnetic moment of those nuclei).
Maybe they even prefer to keep silent, in order to avoid to propose nonsenses, as they did up to now.
The physicists are not interested in the discovery of the scientific truth.
I posted a comment here in the JoNP, speaking about he lack of honesty among the scientists, but Andrea Rossi had spammed it because in his viewpoint I was insulting the work of the scientific community.
But I have a different viewpoint.
I think the physicists are insulting themselves, since they are betraying the scientific method by rejecting experiments which deny their theories.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
That’s an interesting question!
Obviously we have considered carefully the 3D printing technology. It appears to me that it is mature for objects made by paper, cardboard, plastic et similia, but still it is not mature for apparatuses made by steel or by other metals. Please correct me if I am wrong. Without any doubt 3D Printing can be a very interesting system to produce the E-Cats, provided it works with steel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in March 1st, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Dear Wlad,
What complicates the problem of nuclear magnetic moments is that since the nucleus is relatively massive, the magnetic moments are relatively small(1/1000th)of the moments of an electron. When I did electron spin work I was able to obtain significant effects with a relatively small magnet using a relatively high microwave frequency energy. Nuclear spin requires a much larger magnet along with much lower frequency energy for effect. Since the statistical treatment at the atomic level produced usable results for the SQM scientists, they would look at a statistical solution to your question and consider the question answered.
——————————————————————-
Eernie,
I suggest you to advise Dr. N. J. Stone telling him that his nuclear table is full of errors
http://www.psi.ch/low-energy-muons/DocumentsEN/nuclear-moments.pdf
Tell him there is need to change all the values of the nuclear spins measured by the experiments
regards
wlad
eernie1
March 1st, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Dear Wlad,
I did not say the solution of the null magnetic moments was easy. On the contrary what I am referring to is the difficulty of mathematically solve the problem.
—————————————————————
No, Eernie,
it is not difficult.
If statistically the mangetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N should be different of zero, then statistically the nuclear spin would be different of zero too.
Very simple.
regards
wlad
Dear Wlad,
I did not say the solution of the null magnetic moments was easy. On the contrary what I am referring to is the difficulty of mathematically solve the problem. What we are dealing with is a multi-body interactive situation(rotating nucleons and fields possessing charges)within a rotating nucleus interacting with each other. As you know mathematically solving a multi-body problem is impossible when the number of participating components are numerous. This is what drove the SQM scientists into a statistical treatment to obtain solutions. What complicates the problem of nuclear magnetic moments is that since the nucleus is relatively massive, the magnetic moments are relatively small(1/1000th)of the moments of an electron. When I did electron spin work I was able to obtain significant effects with a relatively small magnet using a relatively high microwave frequency energy. Nuclear spin requires a much larger magnet along with much lower frequency energy for effect. Since the statistical treatment at the atomic level produced usable results for the SQM scientists, they would look at a statistical solution to your question and consider the question answered.
Regards.
Dear Andrea,
What part do you think 3D printing might play in the future development and production of E-Cats?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wladimir Guglinski:
I have spammed your comment whose title was: ” The standard nuclear model is dead”.
Useless to explain why.
Please moderate your language within acceptable limits. Make your points, but do not insult the work of the scientific community, and, please, take in consideration the possibility that you could be wrong. I always do this. I know my limits.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 10:48 PM
3. You state,
“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.”
Of course it can. The whole purpose behind re-defining is to actually solve problems. Otherwise, why bother doing it?
————————————————————————
No, Joe, it cannot solve the puzzle
I already proved it to you.
And I repeat again:
1) Suppose the nuclear theorist re-define the rotation, proposing a non-classical rotation
2) The difference of 10% in the magnetic moment in the 3Li6 must be credited to the non-classical rotation (Hans Bethe said to be due to clasical rotation, but the nuclear theorists will say that it is due to non-classical rotation).
3) Therefore the non-classical rotation is able to induce magnetic moments
4) So, the non-classical rotation must induce a magnetic moment due to the non-classical rotation of the protons in the even-even nuclei with Z=N. And those nuclei cannot have null magnetic moment, even by considering the non-classical rotation.
CONCLUSION:
The non-classical rotation is not able to solve the puzzle
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
1. You state two categories: one of cause and one of effect.
CAUSE:
“Rotation is a phenomenon which you can detect with your eyes: a body having rotation.
“You observe the rotation by the CAUSE of the rotation: a body moving with rotation.”
EFFECT:
“Unlike, you cannot see the gravity. The existence of the gravity we DEDUCE only through the EFFECTS of the gravity.
Therefore, we have to measure the effects of the gravity, in order to define it.”
Question: is intrinsic spin “cause” or “effect”?
2. You state,
“There is not any theory of rotation.”
Question: does standard physics have a theory of intrinsic spin?
3. You state,
“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.”
Of course it can. The whole purpose behind re-defining is to actually solve problems. Otherwise, why bother doing it?
All the best,
Joe
eernie1 wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 7:42 PM
Wlad,
1) —————————————————–
Then there is rotation about an object(moon around the earth),the time rotation of an occurrence(once a day) the statistical rotation of events such as the appearance of an electron within a sphere about the nucleus at any given time.
————————————————————
Eernie,
in a previous comment I already mentioned the other sort of rotation, posting a link of the Wikipedia.
The nucleus has not any sort of rotation like the moon around the earth and rotation like an electron within a sphere etc.
The nucleus has only a rotation about its central axis, and so there is no need to consider other sort of rotations.
2) —————————————————–
Not to forget that fields can intertwine and rotate(Spinors) which produce particle spins which interact with other spin fields energetically. Your nucleons spin creating the magnetic moments which can add or subtract depending on the number of nucleons and their distribution(protons vis neutrons). SQM attempts to explain the observed values by statistical methods. They would say the null values observed in even-even nucli are a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
—————————————————————————
Eernie,
obviously you did not understand the puzzle.
The null values observed in even-even nuclei are ( as you said ) a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
However,
as the nucleus has rotation, an additional magnetic moment is created due to the electric charge of the protons moving about the center of the nucleus.
In order to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment, the following hypothesis would have to be considered:
a) the large number of created individual moments statistically results in a negative moment with value +X.
b) the rotation of the protons of the nucleus induce a positive moment with value -X.
Such a “coincidence” of having +X and -X equals in absolute values, for all the even-even nuclei with Z=N, is statistically impossible to occur, because:
c) the rotation of the nucleus is responsible for 10% of the magnetic moment of the nucleus. For instance, I already had explained to Joe that 3Li6 has magnetic moment +0,822, while the magnetic moment of the deuteron is +0,857.
d) the even-even nuclei with Z=N have spin zero.
Therefore, statistically, each proton has a symmentric proton and they cancell each other their magnetic moment, while each neutron has a symmetric neutron and they cancell each other their magnetic moment.
If, statistically this would not occur, then statistically the spin of the even-even nuclei with Z=N could not be zero.
e) Therefore in even-even nuclei with Z=N the result of the large number of created individual moments statistically cannot create a positive magnetic moment with value +X, as supposed in the item “a” above.
They have to create statistically a magnetic moment ZERO, since statistically the spin of those nuclei is ZERO.
f) And as the statistical moment due to indivifual protons and neutrons is ZERO, then the even-even nuclei with Z=N must have a non-null magnetic moment -X due to the rotation of the positive charge of the protons.
Besides,
dear Eernie,
if the solution of the puzzle would be so easy to be solved as you think, I am sure that all the nuclear physicist (who I had already invited to come here to solve the puzzle) would feel themselves very glad to come here to explain it.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Wladimir,
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?
——————————————————————–
Joe,
all the re-definitions were proposed with the aim of solving puzzles.
But the re-definition of the classical rotation cannot solve the puzzle of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, as I had showed to you yesterday:
—————————————————————-
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
——————————————————————-
Therefore,
it makes no sense to re-define the classical rotation, since any non-classical rotation is not able to solve the puzzle.
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
You are right: both are true.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wlad,
Your arguments about the meaning of rotation appear to be circular(little joke). When I think of rotation there are a number of scenarios that for me define rotation. There is the one you have discussed with Joe, rotation about an axis. Then there is rotation about an object(moon around the earth),the time rotation of an occurrence(once a day) the statistical rotation of events such as the appearance of an electron within a sphere about the nucleus at any given time. Not to forget that fields can intertwine and rotate(Spinors) which produce particle spins which interact with other spin fields energetically. Your nucleons spin creating the magnetic moments which can add or subtract depending on the number of nucleons and their distribution(protons vis neutrons). SQM attempts to explain the observed values by statistical methods. They would say the null values observed in even-even nucli are a result of the large number of created individual moments statistically adding up to the null values overall.
Regards please do not think I am attacking your theories. I think they are well thought out.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
All that expensive equipment to produce 1MW heat.
I hope that you have an awsome COP on the Rossi Effect.
Do you still have ideas and plans for improvements “orders of magnitude”, or do you have allmost the final product ?
Both can be true, of course.
Kind Regards,
Koen
Peter Forsberg:
Computer science is strongly present in the 1 Meg.
Thank you and, from inside the E-Cat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in February 28th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Wladimir,
1) ————————————————————
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.
—————————————————————–
No, Joe,
I did not define rotation.
Rotation is a phenomenon existing in the Nature.
There is no need to define it.
The Earth has a rotation about the axis which crosses its center.
Such rotation of the Earth exists, and nobody needs to define it.
What the men did was only to give a name to that phenomenon existing in the Nature. They called it ROTATION. Nobody had defined it.
2) —————————————————————
Here is another example of re-defining:
Classical (Newton) gravity has been replaced by General Relativity (GR).
——————————————————————-
Joe,
you cannot compare ROTATION with GRAVITY.
Rotation is a phenomemon which you can detect with your eyes: a body having rotation.
You observe the rotation by the CAUSE of the rotation: a body moving with rotation.
.
Unlike, you cannot see the gravity. The existence of the gravity we DEDUCE only thorugh the EFFECTS of the gravity.
Therefore, we have to measure the effects of the gravity, in order to define it.
The concept of gravity was defined as follows:
1- Newton defined gravity by making experiments, when he measured the universal constant G of the gravity.
2- Einstein re-defined the gravity because he realized that Newton theory of the gravity was not complete.
Unlike,
you cannot re-define rotation by claiming the following:
The phenomenon of the rotation of a body is not complete. We need to re-define rotation in order to get a complete theory of rotation.
There is not any theory of rotation.
Rotation is a phenomenon observed in the Nature.
You cannot re-define a PHENOMENON existing in the Nature.
3) ————————————————————-
Force has been re-defined as geometry (of space). Scientists believe that this is an improvement.
—————————————————————-
You cannot compare FORCE with ROTATION.
Rotation is a PHENOMENON observed in the Nature.
Rotation is a phenomenon existing in itself a priori. Rotation is INDEPENDENT of any theory and any concept.
Force is a CONCEPT defined in the Newton’s theory.
The concept of force was proposed by Newton, according to which F=m.a
You can re-define the concept of force, since force is defined in the equation F=m.a, because the concept of mass was also re-defined by Einstein.
Unlike,
you cannot re-define rotation, because rotation is INDEPENDENT of any concept and any theory.
Rotation is a phenomenon observed: a body moving about its axis. And this phenomenon does not depend on any other concept.
regards
wlad
Well, my main field of expertise is computer science and artificial intelligence; not pandas.
I wish you good luck with the 1 Meg plant.
Regards
Peter
Kay:
Good luck!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Morissey:
It is not me who gave names to all the reactors, have been the workers of the Team.
Some name is from their fiancèe, some from the movie stars…Windy and Cindy you already know, then we have Rambo, Angiolina and so on. Officially every reactor is listed by a matrix ( like EC 1, EC 2,…) but they preferred give real names, for fun. One that had given a lot of troubles at the beginning of the operation has been named “Mothersucker”. So it is not rare hear some of the Team say “how’s going Mothersucker?” and the answer ( presently) “not bad”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
With so many Cats in small space it must be hard to keep them all purring. You have given them all names. Can you list them?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
2016 it will be the revolution from Sunfire http://www.sunfire.de/en/
because they will go in big business to produce fuel and to reduce the CO2 !
maybe it is possible the ecat combination with it.
best regart
Kay
Curiosone:
All the boards, the informatics, the programmation, the electronics have been made inside our company by our Team. We just buy the elementary components and the microchips. We decided to do this to avoid to give to potential competitors the advantage to know the very complex regulation and control system. As I always said, the E-Cat is a much more complex system than it appears to be from outside.
All the control system is designed to resist to attacks from temperature and humidity, within tolerable limits, and is designed to make not too difficult the maintainance.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JC Renoir:
I am delighted by your very kind attention, but, to make it short, it is easier I get a heart attack if I stay far from the plant. I am taking advantage of the physical resistance I cropped being a marathonete when I was 45 years younger: that is a kind of training that lasts, as everything gained with hard work.
Again thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
DTravchenko:
I have no comments related to the person, but, as an Italian, I want to state this: Italian Guardia Di Finanza (Custom Police) is a glorious military Corp that for more than a century has defended our Country fighting and working with honour and sacrifice. We have 60,000 military of this Corp and at least the 99.9% of them are heroes that for a wage not proportional to their sacrifice risk their life to defend us. It is unavoidable, under a statistic point of view, that among 60,000 persons there is somebody not good, but I can assure you that in my career, when I worked in Italy, I have known many of them, and they were very, very, very decent persons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Here is the new story of the General Spaziante that in the nineties had started, organized and directed the action that put you in jail for crimes you have cleared of after years and in the meantime destroyed your life and your business: got it today from my informants:
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/02/28/confiscati-4-milioni-spaziante-usava-ufficiali-gdf-come-prestanome/1463319/
He was corrupted. He pleaded guilty for corruption and is in prison.
Comments?
From Russia, with love,
D.T.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I have seen the photos published on your personal website http://www.andrea-rossi.com and what I saw is impressive. Really impressive. Enlarging the photos I saw a remarkable number of connections , wiring, electronic and informatic components probably by the thousands. All this work has been made internally by your Team, or you had external specialists ? Is this gigantic amount of components reliable when in operation at high temperatures, humidity, etc?
I hope you can answer, thank you for your patience.
W.G.
Dear Andrea:
Take more rest, you cannot resist one year working 16-18 hours per day; sorry to say this, but you are 65 years old… you risk a heart attack. I am a phisician ( not a physicist) and I suggest you not to work more than 10 hours per day, in that situation of stress.
Gog bless you,
JCR