.
by
.
by
.
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri,
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
.
Introduction
In this paper by highlighting the following 28 major short comings of modern big bang cosmology the authors made an attempt to develop a possible model of Black hole cosmology in a constructive way [1-3].
From now onwards instead of focusing on ‘big bang cosmology’ it is better to concentrate on ‘black hole cosmology’.
Its validity can be well confirmed from a combined study of cosmological and microscopic physical phenomena.
It can be suggested that, there exists one variable physical quantity in the presently believed atomic and nuclear physical constants and “rate of change” in its magnitude can be considered as a “standard measure” of the present “cosmic rate of expansion”.
Michael E. McCulloch says [4]: For an observer in an expanding universe there is a maximum volume that can be observed, since beyond the Hubble distance the velocity of recession is greater than the speed of light and the redshift is infinite: this is the Hubble volume.
Its boundary is similar to the event horizon of a black hole because it marks a boundary to what can be observed.
This means that it is reasonable to assume that Hawking radiation is emitted at this boundary both outwards and inwards to conserve energy, and any wavelength that does not fit exactly within this size cannot be allowed for the inwards radiation, and therefore also for the outwards radiation.
According to Hawking, the mass of a black hole is linearly related to its temperature or inversely-linearly related to the wavelength of the Hawking radiation it emits.
Therefore, for a given size of the universe there is a maximum Hawking wavelength it can have and a minimum allowed gravitational mass it can have.
If its mass was less than this then the Hawking radiation would have a wavelength that is bigger than the size of the observed universe and would be disallowed.
The minimum mass it predicts is encouragingly close to the observed mass of the Hubble volume.
Thus it is possible to model the Hubble volume as a black hole that emits Hawking radiation inwards, disallowing wavelengths that do not fit exactly into the Hubble diameter, since partial waves would allow an inference of what lies outside the horizon.
According to Tinaxi Zhang [5-7], the universe originated from a hot star-like black hole with several solar masses and gradually grew up through a super massive black hole with billion solar masses to the present state with hundred billion-trillion solar masses by accreting ambient materials and merging with other black holes.
According to N. J. Poplawski [8-11], the Universe is the interior of an Einstein-Rosen black hole and began with the formation of the black hole from a supernova explosion in the center of a galaxy.
He theorizes that torsion manifests itself as a repulsive force which causes fermions to be spatially extended and prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity within the black hole’s event horizon.
Because of torsion, the collapsing matter on the other side of the horizon reaches an enormous but finite density, explodes and rebounds, forming an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) to a new, closed, expanding universe.
Analogously, the Big Bang is replaced by the Big Bounce before which the Universe was the interior of a black hole.
The rotation of a black hole would influence the space-time on the other side of its event horizon and results in a preferred direction in the new universe.
Most recently cosmologists Razieh Pourhasan, Niayesh Afshordi and Robert B. Manna have proposed [12] that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole – a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.
Gianino Ferro Casagrande:
You are asking how to contact me personally, here is the address:
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Egregio e stimatissimo signor Andrea la seguo da molti anni per dove posso e mi pare assodato pure che Lei mi conosca, perché mi sono presentato a Lei più volte e pure di persona a Pordenone ad esempio dove Lei teneva una conferenza su divulgazioni relative alle LENR , oltre che aver più volte aderito allo acquisto di 4 E-CAT di qualsiasi tipo . Mi sono pure espresso epistolarmente anni fa , quale Suo possibile aiuto per qualsivoglia bisogna (senza assolutamente tornaconto ) . Leggendola in continuazione sul Suo sito JoNP mi immagino pure nei miei pensieri , relativamente alla Sua persona , una qualche forma di simpatia parecchio consolidata . Complimenti . Ora io leggendo la Sua Risposta al sig, Nils del 30-03-15 , dove si esprime : “ e-mail privato “ , e pure : “ Ho preferito rispondere alla Tua domanda , in una sede diversa “ Le chiedo gentilmente se posso avere un suo recapito di posta privata . Amorevolissimi e cordialissimi saluti da Giannino di Udin , Suo fans assoluto !
Mark Saker:
I decided to publish a theoretical paper after a discussion with the scientist I wrote it with, five months ago.
Theory has nothing to do with patents. The theory is based on the results of the Lugano Report, not on the industrial secrets, for obvious reasons.
For the rest, let’s wait for the publication.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills,
Since Dr. Parkhomov’s experiment was controlling the power based on the sensed temperature, then by definition he was sensing the temperature and he was using a computer. If he had periodically recorded the temperature and the input power, then all needed information would be present for the analysis. The missing piece could be resolved by deliberately interrupting power for both the control (no fuel) and the fueled versions to observe the temperature decay at different stable temperature settings. So I see this as a procedural issue, not an experiment design issue.
Dear Andrea,
when did you decide to make a peer reviewed paper (to possibly publish in May). Will this help you to be granted a patent or are the two not connected?
Did the scientist get full disclosure of the Rossi effect and will there be new pictures 🙂
Nils Fryklund:
In your private email to the JoNP you asked if it is possible to stop a single module of the 1 MW E-Cat and make the maintainance of the single module, change the charge while all the other modules are in operation.
The answer is: yes, it is possible, if opportune.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. I preferred to answer here because your question maybe of interest also for others.
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your insight. In the last experiment it seems to me that Dr Parkhomov has addressed the issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your kind words and for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations on the extended SSM. It sounds like you have found where to rub the belly of your eCat to make it Purr.. It sounds like a non-linear control problem where there may be several “sweet zones” where optimal behavior occurs. Good luck as you map out these zones.
Dear LENR – Cold Fusion – Rossi Effect Community,
Alexander Parkhomov’s most recent test report and oral presentation clearly indicates he has once again replicated the basic Rossi Effect. Although additional replications from qualified experts utilizing all safety precautions would provide even more corroboration – his evidence seems very strong.
This post is not to dispute his positive findings; actually, it’s purpose is to discuss further evidence in support of the Rossi Effect that could have been captured but was not. His test – even though it has detected massive excess heat – did not measure heat after death. Both his report and oral presentation fail to mention any heat messurements taken after the point at which the resistor failed. Multiple groups and individuals have contacted him to ask about this issue. Parkhomov has answered.
I’ve personally read two email responses from Parkhomov that he sent to other researchers. I have forwarded one of them to Andrea Rossi in order to show the information I am sharing is authentic. Parkhomov states in the email that no data exists from the time period because he was not present and temperature data was not being recorded.
This does not negate his overall positive findings. But it makes determining if heat after death took place impossible. This represents a flaw in his experiment. This flaw does not impact the results that have been released, but the flaw allowed key data that could be used to measure HAD to go unrecorded.
We know his system was designed to keep the reactor at a constant temperature of 1,200C. This is factual according to his report. If this was the temperature at the moment the resistor failed, then we would need to know the drop in this value over time to create a slope on a graph. If the graph showed a constant temperature being maintained (self sustaining) or a slower drop in temperature than that of a control unit, then HAD could be detected. Since the temperature over time after the resistor failed is unknown, there is no way of determining id HAD was produced.
Inital Temperature + Unknown Temperature / Time = No Proof Of HAD
I am not attacking Parkhomov. I think he has done a great work by replicating when others were simply talking. However, I hope the entire community can learn the importance of setting up a data acquisition system so temperature data can be recorded even if a resistor fails. An amazing opportunity to possibly detect HAD was lost, and I hope this does not happen again.
Maybe this flaw in an otherwise tremendously successful experiment will be a wake up call for the community.
Mark Saker:
It is the SSM that has increased and, consequently, the driving time is decreased.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Apologies if I was not clear.
Is the increased SSM because it runs for longer periods in SSM or the periods when electrical input is applied have got shorter. For example, where previously it might have been 120mins SSM then 60mins control, perhaps now it is 120mins SSM then only 10mins control
Thankyou
Mark
JC Renoir:
1 hour to eat ( I am Italian). I eat once a day.
1 hour to go with my bike or to make jogging.
5 hours in bed.
30 minutes to wash.
30 minutes for shopping.
If called for an emergency, I run anytime to the plant, as does anyone of the Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Marco Serra:
Good question. The improvements are due mainly to the fact that for the first time we can operate for a very long period, 24/7 the 1 MW E-Cat Lady. We are learning to know Her better, using Her. We can operate changements using the regulation of the control system; surely, as you correctly say, we cannot make major modifications with the E-Cat in operation.
About the final results: honestly, I think that the final results could be positive, but also negative, even if the more we advance through the test path, the more the probability of a successful output increases; at the moment I give 50.1% positive chance, 49.9% negative.
I am 64 years old, working from more than 40 years, made about 1,500 plants of various kind, seen too many problems arise from new plants not to be worried of what from the next future will come. My foreseeable future is tomorrow: beyond that I need a cristal ball. That’s why I stay with Her 16 hours per day, included Christmas and Easter.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
a. we have air conditioned in the container where are the computers to operate the control system and wherein we mostly stay
b. High Efficiency Fluoreshent Tubes, Mod. General Electric Ecolux WM ( made in China).
c. we got cell phones, wi-fi, obviously computers ( enough to set up a computer shop…); no television ( so I will have not to suffer looking at the Red Sox).
d. desk and chair, standard office furniture. No bed.
e. drinking water, of course, refrigetator.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark Saker:
Can you rephrase your question? It is not precise enough to give an answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Is it that the SSM periods have got longer or the periods that the electrical input is required has got shorter? for example perhaps you have a 1hour SSM period followed by a 5minute control period or an even better ratio? 🙂
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since you work so many hours inside the 1MW unit, can you tell us something about the human experience?
a. Hot/Cold temperature – is the unit air conditioned or heated for personal comfort?
b. Lighting – LED, CFL?
c. Communications – telephone, computer, television?
d. Furniture – desk and chair? Bed?
e. Drinking water, refrigerator?
Dear Andrea
I wonder how can you obtain similar extensions in the ssm periods on a working device. One can’t change a tire in a running car. In my mind the only things you could change are some software parameters, to be propagated to a hundred of microcontrollers.
Are theese great results in terms of long ssm sons of your “actions” on the devicea or are you simply discovering a potential of your baby that you didn’t know yet ?
Scaramanzia a parte, do you still realiatically believe that the final results of the test could also be negative ?
I don’t. And I suggest humbly to start to think to the mass production. I predict a very large demand.
God bless you
Marco Serra
The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.
From inside the plant,
A.R., with Warm Regards
D. Travchenko:
Same answer as few minutes ago.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
D. Travchenko:
No, I am glad that Airbus is working on LENR inspired by our work: this gives evidence that all the ” I-Know-Everything” guys that aprioristically define LENR impossible to be sustained in serious concerns are wrong. I am honoured of the fact that our work has moved seriously Airbus, Shell, Lockeed Martin, Bill Gates …and many others I can’t say. In all the World. This happened because we made facts, not words.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
…also: are you worried in general that patents of others steal your technology ? After all the wonderful work you made are not you afraid that the fruits go to the gorillas?
Warm Regards,
D.T.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
I read the patent application of Airbus, it is obviously copied from your publications and the reports of the Independent Third Party. Are you worried that they can steal your technology?
Warm Regards,
D.T.
Dr Rossi:
How did work the 1 MW E-Cat this week ? What is the COP?
JCR
Andrea:
You say you stay in the container of the E-Cat 16 hours per day: can I ask you what do you do in the remaining 8 hours?
JCR
Steven N. Karels:
Interesting insight about the work of Dr Parkhomov.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
I cannot give information about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I recall your much earlier postings suggested that the so called Rossi effect required around 100 – 200 Bars of pressure for the non-catalyst nickel-hydrogen reaction. Yet Dr. Parkhomov indicates a COP of 2 – 3 at 5 Bars. Is this consistent with your experience?
His pressure profile of 5 Bars then decreasing to a vacuum of 0.5 Bars suggests perhaps loading (of the nickel?) is occurring. Also after the reaction start, additional hydrogen is drawn into the nickel or consumed? Any thoughts?
To all JONP readers,
Analysis of the Parkhomov Experiment – Gas Pressure
The Parkhomov reactor is described a cylinder 29cm in length. From the pictorial diagram, I estimated the inner diameter at 1 cm with an effective length of 7cm. Filler rods were used to decrease the air volume but there were some additional volume for test equipment. I therefore estimate a gas volume of 20cc.
Working Volume = 20 cc. = 0.02 liters
How much hydrogen is needed to support a pressure of 5 atm at 1473K (1200C)?
Using the ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T, where R = 0.082 liter * atm / ( K * moles)
n = P * V / ( T * R) = 5 atm * 0.02 liters / (1473 K * 0.082 atm * liters / (mole * K)
n = 8.3 * 10 ^-4 moles
2 grams of hydrogen in one mole, therefore hydrogen mass = about 1.7 milligrams
Assumption: LiAlH4 was used to supply both the hydrogen and the lithium to the eCat.
What was the required LiAlH4H mass?
Assume LiAlH4 can yield about 25% of its hydrogen when heated above 700C. So the hydrogen portion of the LiAlH4 must be 6.8 milligrams.
Total molar mass of LiAlH4 is 37.95 so the LiAlH4 mass = 6.8 milligrams * 37.94 / 4 = about 64 milligrams.
Dr. Parkhomov’s report indicated 60 mg so this is generally consistent with his reported results.
Ian Walker:
1- No, I can’t, because I never attended the experiments of Dr Parkhomov. I just am taking notice of his very interesting work.
2- Yes, we had temperature changes before finding the way to stabilize the operation, but I cannot know if the causes of this effect are the same in different situations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1) In Alexander Georgevich Parkhomov’s recent replication of the Rossi Reactor he noted some step changes in temperature, might you shed some light on the matter?
2) Have you also recorded such step changes in temperature?
Kind Regards Ian Glen Walker
Frank Acland:
Very interesting,
Thank you.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Have you seen this report by Dr. A G Parkhomov?
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2WWVmdHRjVmVHMDA/edit
He has shown the Rossi Effect in action for about 3 days.
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Eernie1:
As I said in my last answer to you, I cannot talk of the lines of our R&D regarding the Hot Cat. We talk of our products when they are ready for operational work. Thank you for your continue attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Wow!! Are you working on a propulsion system, a water desalination system or a direct hot cat to electricity system? Any of the three would instantly be useful to a large degree.
Regards
Steven N. Karels:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
This sounds like an ideal application for a new thermal production system… A constant load is an easier requirement than a highly varying load. The input electrical power is always there (as long as commercial power is available or while the UPS batteries last). You have either chosen very well or are very lucky in this application (or both).
Still it is a difficult task transitioning from a laboratory system to a commercial system. I doubt many readers really appreciate the technical challenges your team is addressing and have addressed. I trust your customer is flexible and a pleasure to work with… It would appear so by your work history with them.
Steven N. Karels:
a. We must deliver 1 MWh/h. There is no minimum: if we get short of it, they back up
b. If there are not problems, the output is constant
c. The question is too generic to answer. Depends on the cases and the reasons of the demand variations.
d. Our Customer provides UPS
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
No, your assumption is wrong. We already know that we can apply the Carnot cycle. Our Customer is not interested to the producion by the E-Cat of electric energy, because he needs heat to make his industrial production.
Our R&D on the Hot Cat is aimed to other issues I cannot disclose.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alexvs:
The Customer does not pay the 1 MW E-Cat plant to “evacuate” the thermal energy produced: the Customer uses the thermal energy for his industrial production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
Yes, but we have to work on the charge before using it in another reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Have you ever ran an E-Cat for a period of time, removed the fuel, and then successfully used the fuel in another reactor?
Dear Mr. Rossi
The energy generated by the 1Mw plant during 1 year test being
E = 31.536 Terajoules = 7.54 Teracalories (Am I wrong?)
is really impressive. How do you evacuate such an enormous heat amount?
Greetings
Dear Andrea,
You have stated that a test line for the hot cat has been established in the customers facility. I assume the tests are to determine if the hot cat can reliably produce electricity. If this is the case, does this mean the customer is also interested in using electricity along with the heat generated by the cool cat in its production process, or is it just allowing you to use its facility as a bonus to you?
Regards
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On your current 1MW eCat system, can you reveal the dynamic information for your customer’s load?
a. The range of power requirements (e.g., 1 MW maximum load; 0.01MW minimum load)?
b. Does the thermal output load presented to your unit remain relatively constant days at a time or is there a daily cycle (e.g., maximum during some hours, minimum during other hours)?
c. How quickly is your system required to respond to changes in demand (minutes or hours)?
d. Does your customer provide uninterrupted power service (UPS) for the input to your system? If not, are their any issues with your system should electrical power be lost?
Paul:
The 1 MW E-Cat has a specific and independent electric cable that supplies the energy, along which is measured the energy consumed by the plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
I hope you are not using the customer’s power to run the hot-cat tests. That would negatively influence the performance metrics of the 1MW plant.
Stay Self-Sustaining,
Paul
Steven N. Karels:
I cannot give this information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carloluna:
He,he,he,he…good idea, I will ask permission for it to the Customer!
Warm Regards,
A.R.