.
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.
Andrea Rossi:
Do you know that the article about the 1 MW E-Cat on Science & Vie has been read in many schools and that many comments are made in France about it?
JCR
Nicola
I don’t know enough about the mechanics of heat generation, but my understanding is that nuclear power plants use enormous quantities of water at high pressures/speed passing through the reactor so that the water is only heated up to 450 degrees, which is something you wouldn’t need for an hot-cat heating at 600 or 1000 degrees. I don’t know how easily it would convert to another cooler heat source. It’s also my understanding that nuclear doesn’t have especially high operating costs (though non-trivial ones), once the capital costs of construction are made, since the fuel costs are small.
I’d have to think that coal plants or natural gas plants, with their high ongoing fuel costs would be more likely targets. Who can say?
Nicola Cortesi:
This is quite an issue. You know what? This is the classic case in which to make the papers is far more difficult than to make the technology.
In principle, I agree with you, I always sustained that many cats are more convenient and safe than few tigers, or lions. This principle has been recently taken in consideration also in the highest echelons of astrophysics: the future astronomic observation stations will be made by many very small mirrors interconnected instead of big mirrors, because the clouds of microscopic mirrors are far less expensive ( by two orders of magnitude) than the big ones used today.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carlo Marcena:
It is interesting and Airbus is a serious concern, but we are talking of experimantal prototypes, far to be of use in industrial production. Obviously a direct production of mechanic power with an efficiency of 35% should be extremely interesting for LENR, but to say “should I have a thermo-acoustic engine with an efficiency or 35% I could apply it to LENR” is equivalent, as of today, to say ” should I have 6 balls I could be a pinball”.
As soon as such a device will really exist, be sure, we will buy it and make tests.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hugh De Vries:
Fly down. Step by step, brick by brick.
We are working hard to get the confirmation that an industrial plant can produce heat reliably. We still have not a confirmation of this fact and the results can still be either positive or negative.
We are making a house, let’s do it before thinking to be able to make all the skyscrapers of New York City.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, Dear Fyodor,
do you think current ~1 GW Nuclear Power Plants could be reconverted to E-Cat Power Plants of equivalent power with ten of thousands of 10-KW E-Cat running in parallel? (An E-Lion or E-Dragon?). Nuclear Power Plants are ultemately big thermal power stations, converting steam at ~450 C in electricity with an efficiency of 30-32%. As you know, using E-CAT’s steam, which is above 1000 C, the efficiency of the Carnot cycle increases up to 40-48%. Not bad for a totally safe, cheap and carbon-free 1-GW Power Plant!
Hot Regards,
Nicola
Dear Andrea,
Though thermo-acoustic engines (TAEs) has always been largely disregarded, up today their efficiencies compare with advanced internal combustion engines, with an outstanding advantage given them from being external combustion engines. I do not know about Airbus programs for its TAEs, but last March a manager from this Company, in Milan, launched a kind of challenge that sounded more or less this way “given a working LENR heat source, we are willing (and ready) to couple it with our TAE to produce electricity … 35% (or more) efficiency”. ???
Regards,
CM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The following quote is from:
UPDATE #8 (April 17)
Alan Smith, April 16 2015
“Speakers at this conference have increasingly talked about transmutation of ‘fuel’ into a startlingly large variety of elements. This leads one to hope that maybe 10 years in the future we will be able to make one element into another as we wish- analogous to the way that biotechnologists are finding methods to produce complex proteins- using living systems as manufacturing systems.”
It would seem that the study of LENR will proceed on two different but related paths of development–energy production and element transmutation. I guess then “E-Cat” can mean either “Energy Catalyzer” or “Element Catalyzer”.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Carlo Marcena:
I saw, but it is an experimental prototype. When it will be in the market, if ever, we’ll test it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carlo Marcena:
Interesting.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You may be interested in looking at this paper that has been published at E-Cat World. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/19/a-possible-explanation-for-observed-lenr-heating-behavior-and-transmutation-using-simple-physics-principles-stephen/
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea and Fyodor,
about heat conversion to electricity, I find quite interesting the thermoacoustic engine patented (reportedly) by Airbus: no moving parts, lightweight, heat conversion to heat @ 35% efficiency, in the kW range.
Did you hear about it?
Regards,
CM
Fyodor:
Now is clear.
We can do nothing about the costs of the systems to convert heat into electricity. Their costs obviously are the same independently from the source of the steam.
Direct conversion system have too low esfficiency, so far.
Warm Regards
A.R.
My point, which I articulated poorly, I guess, is that it seems that modern heat to electricity systems are still very expensive.
You’ve suggested that you hope to eventually mass produce e-cats such that you can sell the products at $100/KW thermal, which would obviously be a fantastic value.
But the existing solutions I’ve seen for thermal to electricity conversion seem to be much more expensive. I’ve seen solutions in the multiple dollars per watt range (or several thousand dollars per kilowatt). I know that Dean Kamen is hoping to eventually get the per unit manufacturing cost of his system down to $1000/KW, which would be higher after capital costs, profits,advertising, etc.
Thus it seems that even if you push the cost of the e-cat down quite a bit, the system cost will be dominated by heat to electricity conversion equipment (though obviously still cheaper than coal or natural gas because there is no fuel cost).
I was wondering if the economics of this was something you had investigated as part of your work and had any ideas as to how to do more cheaply convert heat to electricity.
Fyodor:
Please review your numbers, because your comment is senseless. Probably there is some typo.
Please correct to allow an answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you’re well.
This may be a bit far afield, but I’m wondering if you’d done any investigation into the economics of heat to electricity conversion and how it might be done efficiently. I think that you’ve suggested that with mass production you might get the costs of heat down to $100/KW, but it looks like this would be dwarfed by the costs of existing heat-to-electricity conversion systems, which run $1500-5000/kw. Has there been any business investigation into the economics of potential solutions?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and for your generosity with the community here.
Hank Mills:
Cats do not kill tigers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I think there is a common mindset in the scientific community that all the discoveries that could result in major advances – changing our civilization fundamentally – have either already been made or will require huge sums of money, gigantic research projects, and many years of work. The notion that there are still breakthrough technologies that can be discovered and engineered into practical devices for relatively small amounts of money in small labs is sacrilege to these scientists. They are used to huge budgets and giant devices – not reactors the size of soda cans. I think the Ni-LiAlH4 hot cat will be just one of the discoveries made in coming years. Since it will provide an ideal source of energy, maybe the next breakthrough will be in propulsion. Harold White of NASA Eagle Works is attempting to produce and detect the world’s first space-time modifying warp bubble. I would love to see a faster than light space-craft one day use an E-Cat power core!
Italo R.:
Retrothought: you write somebody is complaining the E-Cat are not yet in the market after “so many years”.
This is bizarre.
First, one 1 MW plant has been supplied to a Customer who is using it to make his production using the energy produced by the same 1 MW E-Cat.
It is true that it is under R&D and test, but it works, at least so far. Now, as probably somebody knows, the French magazine “Science & Vie” ( probably the most prestigious scientific magazine of France, which is a nuclear power) in the issue of April 2015 has published an article regarding LENR against Hot Fusion and the parallel is interesting. The article is written with intelligence, professionality and without bias. It also contains the sceptic comments ( but made with intelligence) toward us.
ITER and NIF – respectively the european and the US hot fusion concerns- cost tens of billions of dollars, started about 50 years ago, and their results, that in the sixties were waited for within 20 years, have now been delayed within the next 20 years. Normally, every 20 years they are adjourned to the next 20 years, at a price of several tens of billion dollars per batch, entirely paid by the Taxpayer.
I think that the scientists that work on those concerns are top level Physicists and I am convinced that their work must be sustained. What is difficult to me is to understand what follows: why ITER and NIF are considered positively ( as they merit to be) even if they cost to the Taxpayer billions and billions per year and since half century have produced nothing, not a mere COP 1.1 and foresee to produce something ( as they did 20 years ago) in the “next 20 years”? And why, in contrast, they consider my LENR impossible because what we made ( without a single cent paid by the Taxpayer) is under test ( at our expense) for 4 years ? They say: ” Because the Coulombian Barrier bars the possibility of LENR”, and with this mantra that they repeat since 30 years ago they think to have resolved the problem.
“Ipse dixit”, or, better, “Ipsi dixerunt”.
But I want to ask them a question:
QUESTION: is it more irrealistic the tunnel effect ( obtained and measured in hundreds of peer reviewed experiments) or to confine a hot nuclear fusion’s energy ( the same of a small hydrogen bomb) with an intrinsecally instable magnetic field ( never obtained anywhere from anybody), as they need to do in the donut of the EATER ( oh, pardon the typo, I meant ITER), or ( in the case of NIF) to confine in the volume of a nutshell the energy produced by tens of high power lasers that shoot all their energy in fractions of seconds focused on the nutshell to obtain the fusion by means of the recoil energy? This is like to try to build a house hitting the bricks with a baseball bat instead of positioning the bricks patiently, brick by brick, in the right position to make a wall. Nobody has ever been able to make a successful experiment with these two principles, but enormous concerns have been made ( at the expense of the Taxpayer) without a successful experiment with a small prototype, like if a big concern has to work better than a small prototype ( the contrary is true, obviously). The confinement of the supposedly produced nuclear fusion by means of magnetic fields is a terrific problem, much bigger than the Coulombian barriers: hot fusion happens at millions of K degrees, can you imagine what happens to any possible material the reactor is made with at these temperatures ???? The magnetic fields are unstable and unreliable in these situations.
Is somebody enough honest to answer seriously to this answer? I repeat the substance of the question: is more difficult to overcome the Coulombian barrier or make in a donut or in a sphere magnetic fields so much stable to avoid any contact, anytime between the elementary particles and the walls of the reactor, whatever the shape or the material?
Have been calculated the parameters that affect collective models at millions K and their consequences on the magnetic fields? I made some math about this, and appears that the probability that the magnetic field holds are of one order of magnitude less than the probability to overcome the Coulombian barriers in LENR: so, why all this yadda yadda about LENR supposed impossibility to happen ?
You, dear Italo R., ask me if they have an agenda: noooooo! To think bad is bread of the devil you know? So, let’s try to understand why they prefer to pay with their taxes things that have a very low probability to work ( very low does not mean zero, anyway, therefore their work is not useless) instead of look without bias and with respect the work of ours, that doesn’t ask money from the taxpayer and in four years is arrived to an operating industrial plant: I am inside “Her” in this very moment listening her Voice: so why they do so? Agenda? Nooooooo! Hyperbolic deonthological syndroms? Nooooo! Masochism? Maybe.
P.S. This said, Italo, you have not to look only at the small lake of the frogs, look at the big fishes in the Ocean: NASA, Lockeed Martin, Airbus, Elforsk, MIT, Cherokee ( Industrial Heat), Bill Gates, the scientists that performed the Lugano Test, Prof Norman Cook, the Nobel Prize laureate Brian Josephson, the great Sven Kullander, Chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and many, many, many other mainstream scientists in USA, Russia, China, India, Europe etc etc have broken the “Coulombian barrier” of the bias and approached the LENR as a proton that approaches a 7Li atom, to make energy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
I think the time of chatters is over, we are at the “moment of truth”: either the 1 MW plant test will have a positive result or it will have a negative result. Facts will count, not chatters.
Honestly ( …I still do not remember the number of the F, damit!) I must say that the results can turn out to be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
as you know, there are blogs where patho skeptics are continuing till today to deny the existence of LENR and, of course, obsessively continue to write that the E-Cat is not working and has never worked. They say that it has been told many years ago that the placing on the market would have been imminent but it hasn’t yet happened after so long time.
As those patho skeptics cannot be so blind or so stupid to not see what is really happening, it seems that they have an agenda.
So I wonder why this agenda,or who is inspiring it…
Perhaps the best thing is thinking, as a great italian poet said:
“…non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa…”
Best Regards,
Italo R.
Marco Serra:
Sorry, but I have too many real scenarios to be aware of now, to be able to think to hypothetical scenarios.
Let’s complete all our R&D on course, whose results could be either positive, or negative.
When the R&D and the tests on course both on the 1MW E-Cat and on the Hot Cat ( very innovative), we will focus on commercial issues and all their implications.
Thank you for your continuous attention to our work,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
Thank you for your insight. I am studying on this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Patrick Ellul:
As Edison said: an invention is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration.
We have the air conditioner, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
This is a hypothetical scenario. Let suppose Dr. Parkhomov managed to make his replica of ECat stable and safe. Let suppose again that Russia was more “open” in authorize its domestic usage. Do you think Parkhomov could start a business selling electric heaters that simply save 66% of electricity consumptions ? Why not ?
Today the most advanced heat pumps can convert electricity into heat with a COP < 5. In the previous scenario (stability, safeness and authorizations) would your 10KW ECat be ready to hit the market and compete with heat pumps ?
God bless you
Marco Serra
Hi Andrea,
So you have at least one hot-cat that you are testing inside the control container of the 1MW plant.
Does it create much heat? Hopefully it doesn’t make you sweat, literally and metaphorically.
Regards,
Patrick
Sorry,
Correction, “the forward movement of the expanding universe thus lengthening the wavelength of the emitted photons”.
Dear Andrea,
I am anxiously awaiting the mathematical treatment of your and DR Cook’s theory which involves the Mossbauer effect in reverse to convert gamma energy to heat energy through the inelastic mechanism of transferring some of the emitted gamma energy to kinetic energy. My experience with the Mossbauer effect always involved relatively small losses whether the emitter was either bound in a matrix or not. My understanding was that the energy difference was mainly caused by a Doppler effect where the recoil just increased the wavelength of the emission thus lowering the photon’s energy.( The red shift in cosmology is caused by the forward movement of the expanding universe thus shortening the wavelength of the emitted photons.) Shifting the energy spectrum down from KeV to the eV level requires that the effective mass of the emitter is reduced greatly to enhance the recoil energy.
I can understand the many hours of mathematical research you and Cook have spent on this problem.
Multibody Regards.
Frank Acland:
The modifications I am making in these days on the Hot Cat have been inspired by the new reading I am making of the book of Prof. Norman Cook, and from our discussions during the making of the paper published on Arxiv. The results are important, but before talking of data I prefer continue the test that is on course in the container of the computers, here in the factory where the 1 MW E-Cat is working. I think the results could be even better, but we need a long work of R&D on it.
Besides: the results of all this endeavours could also be negative… ( I don’t remember the number of the “F”…)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
It’s good to hear the 1MW plant is stable. About the progress with the Hot Cats: is COP for them similar now to the low temperature E-Cats?
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea:
Padova also showed two interesting movies on LENR …
http://fusionefredda3.com/novita/padova-iccf-19-le-lenr-in-un-film
TPaign:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
Yes to all.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark Saker:
Thank you for the link: Marianne Macy has made some interview!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Herb Gillis:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Having observed and compared some the recent difficulties and successes in replicating the Lugano test, I would like to put forward for consideration the possibility that a refractory material which exceeds the MP of nickel might be needed for the LENR effect, at least in devices of the Lugano type. For example, traces of metal oxides or carbides present in fuel. Pure nickel did not appear to work as well (someone correct me if I am wrong). Since the core temperatures in Lugano type devices (Hot Cats) exceeds the MP of nickel it is hard for me to see how a lattice can be present to catalyze the LENR effect without traces of residual refractory materials. This raises the possibility of deliberately adding such refractory materials (ie. refractory particulates) to see if they may improve performance. Could these be the nuclear active sites in devices like those used in Lugano and later by Parkhomov? Perhaps some of the unsuccessful attempts to replicate these devices were because the fuel was “too clean”?
Regards; HRG.
Dear Andrea,
The link below contains an interview by Marianne Macy with Tom Darden. Within Tim speaks of high regard for you, it is a nice interview.
http://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
Dear Andrea,
You wrote in reply to Paul:
“In the meantime I am re-reading again the book of Prof Norman Cook “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” ( last edition, Springer 2010). Anytime I read it I add notes handwritten of improvements of the IP inspired by it. There are so many notes, that I think nobody could be able to read the text through my notes…”
Does it happen that you dismantle from time to time an E-Cat module from the 1MW, and replace it temporarily in order to do analysis of the charges ?
Or is dismantling unnecessary, and can you interpret the “voice” of the E-cat in operation, in order to add your handwritten notes ?
That book with your original handwriting will be of great value, when you will be ubiquitous. Will you donate it for a good purpose ? Anyway it should never be lost (or hidden) to mankind.
Kind Regards,
Koen.
In regards to 7Li3 in an endothermic reaction, with 2He, a neutron, and tritium as a product, there is some history. Could this be just one step of a few occurring within the Rossi reaction, accounting for the reduction of 7Li3 in the fuel ash from the Lugano test? High-energy neutrons can produce tritium from lithium-7 in an endothermic reaction, consuming 2.466 MeV. This was discovered during the 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test. Here’s a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Cause_of_high_yield
Quinton Heri:
I want to complete my answer with an update regarding Dr Parkhomov.
Yesterday I, for the first time, had a direct conference with him on Skype. He was in Italy for the ICCF with his niece Ecaterina ( nomen omen: Ecat-erina) who translated from Russian to English for him.
He explained to me the scheduled replication he is organizing with more reactors he is preparing and I have been positively impressed by his professionality and his intellectual honesty. He is humble, doesn’t speak too much, has all the signs of a strongly working person. Typical Russian. He honoured me inviting me in Russia, where I will go as soon as I will have completed the 1MW E-Cat test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul:
Of course it is safe for me to travel in Italy, as it is for anybody, as it is in all the Countries of the world, with obvious exceptions for the Countries where there is a war on course!
Italian Territory is well and efficiently controlled by our Police, Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza and anybody can go there with absolute safety.
I am not travelling for the simple reason that I have to stay 16 hours per day, every day, no exceptions, inside my 1 MW E-Cat, which is working here, in the USA.
Update: She is working nicely, stable in these days. The work on the Hot Cat here is going on also, with a R&D that is substantially improving its efficiency.
In the meantime I am re-reading again the book of Prof Norman Cook “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” ( last edition, Springer 2010). Anytime I read it I add notes handwritten of improvements of the IP inspired by it. There are so many notes, that I think nobody could be able to read the text through my notes… I really strongly suggest to read it and to the professionals I suggest to read it in parallel with the boook of Greiner-Maruhn “Nuclear Models” ( Springer 1996), to integrate the collective model calculations with the single particle’s.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Is it safe for you to travel to Italy?
(Or am I being paranoid on your behalf?)
Paul
Quinton Heri:
Yes, I have been informed about Dr Parkhomov and it confirms my impression that the work of Parkhomov is very important. He has in common with me the fact to be a hard worker.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
In the ICCF 19 of Padua the most interesting things were the posters of Cook-Rossi and of Parkhomov. Did you hear of the presentation of the Parkhomov experiment?
Paolo:
In a comment didn’t pass the filter of the robot, you asked me why I was not in Padua together with Tom Darden at the ICCF 2015.
As well known, I am 16 hours per day inside the 1 MW E-Cat, every day. Notwithstanding my endeavours to get the faculty to be everywhere at the same time, trying to exercise in the experimental application of a personal global symmetry, I am still unable to be in two different places at the same time; I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not ubiquitous…yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dan C.:
1- yes
2- he,he,he
Warm Regards,
A.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Aside from collecting data for the overall COP of the 1Mw plant, do you have the means to monitor the individual reactors. I was just thinking that if you had some reactors that perform very well & some that perform poorly, They could be analyzed at the end of the test to determine the cause. This would be useful for quality control when mass production begins.
Another question I’m sure everyone wants to know. This is Really Important. 🙂
Do you have a macro key like pressing F9 that automatically inserts the following to all your responses here at JONP.
“I must add that the results could be either positive or negative.”
Wishing you grand results.
Kind Regards,
Dan C.