.
by
Bhagirath Joshi
M.Sc. Solid State Physics, Gujarat University M.S. Computer Engineering
University of Lowell (UMass Lowell) Doctoral Research, Physics
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
Anomalous thermal neutron capture cross-sections that span millions of barns—such as those belonging to 135Xe or 157Gd—pose a historic challenge to deterministic nuclear theory.
The benchmark MIT open-access study by Hussein, Carlson, and Kerman (2016) addresses these anomalies through random matrix theory, categorizing them as extreme statistical fluctuations occupying the chaotic “tails” of a scattering matrix
distribution.
This paper presents a complete, non-probabilistic alternative by integrating the Excess Neutron Shell (ENS) Model (Joshi, 2011) with a newly derived subatomic effective gravitational constant.
Through both classical boundary matching and quantum potential derivations, we demonstrate that nuclear gravity scales upward by exactly 35 orders of magnitude inside the subatomic domain.
By replacing stochastic “statistical doorways” with a deterministic function of Core Vacancy Debt and Shell Gap Compression, we re-evaluate the MIT findings.
We prove that the “chaotic fluctuations” observed at low energies are the predictable geometric consequences of a localized quantum-gravitational field projecting through a hollow np-mantle to an absolute center n=0 neutron anchor.
Bhagirath Joshi:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi and Dr. Barry
For clarity I have replaced the name of the constant from G-effective to Nuclear Strong Force constant NSFc. In ENS model this is more appropriate for established Nuclear physicist to check my mathematics.
Paul Dodgshun:
The Organic Rankine Cycle does not have enough efficiency below the thermal power of at least 1 MWt: we are studying thoroughly the possible application of the ORC to obtain also through it the SSM, exploiting the COP of the non-SSM Ecat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Joshi Bhagirath,
Thank you for your detailed answer here on the Journal of Nuclear Physics,
Barry
I cannot see any reason why an Airsquared 1kW electrical plug-play-micro-orc[1:], supplied with heat from an Ecat non SSM, cannot be avaiable in the short term. IMHO this setup needs a test run asap [3:].
An Ecat non SSM can only connect to resistors that produce heat.
The resistors could be bulky and installed in bricks[2:] to safely cope with high temperatures.
The bulk and bricks would supply thermal inertia to mitigate the spicky electrical output of the Ecat non SSM.
Perhaps heat exchange pipes could be built in to the Night Storage Heater to improve heat transfer. The heat exchanger ORG fluid circuit must remain intact.
The heat can be supplied to an ORC cycle by the evaporator heat exchanger.
The ORC thermodynamic cycle can generate work, some of which must drive an internal ORC fluid pump.
The work can be supplied to an expander that mechanically drives a generator of any description(DC AC 2-phase or 3-phase) that could be built into the ORC.
The low temperature waste heat must be discharged to a heat sink, as part of the thermodynamic cycle.
In this view of the Ecat SSM, there is just an Ecat non SSM supplying heat to an ORC cycle that generates electricity.
At domestic scale, all the engineering components would be supplied in a micro-ORC manufactured by Airsquared [1:]
The micro ORC can also supply heat at low temperature and must discharge this low temperature heat continuously as part of the thermodynamic cycle. Domestic space heating, domestic hot water and air conditioning by absorption coolers would be available from the ORC waste heat. Over a year, I spend as much money on space heating as I do for electricity, so electricity and waste heat are of equal value.
[1:] https://airsquared.com/news/introducing-plug-play-micro-orc/
Electrical Power Output: 1 kW
Generator: 120 V AC, 60 Hz, Single-Phase
Overall ORC Efficiency: 10-12% (implies 9kW of low temperature waste heat)
Maximum Heat Source Inlet Temperature: 750 ºC
Working Fluid Temperature at Expander Inlet: 250 ºC
[2:] Electric storage heaters (also known as night storage heaters) store thermal energy in an internal ceramic or clay brick core during off-peak hours (usually overnight) and release it throughout the day.
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/advice/electric-storage-heaters/
[3:] Possible Domestic Equipment Shopping List
Ecat non SSM – Electricity to Night Storage Heater
Nght storage heater, possibly with heat exchange pipes built in – Safe High Temperature Heat to ORC
ORC cycle – 1kW Electricity Generator built in
Electricity Connections
Waste Heat Sink
Space Heating
Domestic Hot Water
Absorption Air Conditioning
Dr Rossi:
Thank you for publishing
http://www.drandrearossi.com
It contains precious information,
Nicole
Engineer 48:
Please find the rigorous answer in my paper “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions”; you can find it on
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Find this paper in the publications list in the right column of the home-page,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
As your ECat draws energy from the zero point field, what is the effect of drawing this energy from the zero point field on the wider environment?
Using energy always has an effect on the energy source. There are no free lunches.
Dear Dr. Barry
I have prepared a long abstract here for APS special seminar I am giving in Washington DC at College Park on Wednesday October 21, 2026 at 1:30 PM EST. Here it is.
Abstract
A Geometric, Deterministic Quantum Gravitational Framework for Nuclear Structure, New Materials, and the Origin of the Universe
The Excess Neutron Shell (ENS) model fundamentally reshapes our understanding of nuclear physics, bridging the gap between quantum mechanics, structural geometry, and macroscopic cosmology. By defining the atomic nucleus not as a probabilistic liquid drop or an orbital cloud, but as a deterministic, rigidly structured geometric lattice governed by localized quantum gravity (G_effective), the ENS model resolves anomalies that standard physics cannot explain.
Beyond its theoretical triumphs, the ENS framework offers profound predictive power. By charting the exact geometric tension, spatial vacancies, and structural limits of the nuclear lattice, we unlock unprecedented pathways for applied science—from designing hyper-efficient new materials and super-magnets to understanding the origins of the universe itself.
Here is a comprehensive overview of the ENS model and its transformative applications.
1. The Core Mechanics of the ENS Model
Standard nuclear physics relies on the Strong Nuclear Force and quantum wave probabilities to hold the nucleus together. The ENS model replaces this with a deterministic structural geometry driven by G_effective— a localized, amplified state of quantum gravity generated by a single anchoring particle.
The n=0 Singularity Anchor: The primordial universe, along with every stable atomic nucleus possessing a neutron core (excess neutrons), is anchored by a single neutron situated at the absolute geometric center of the structure ( n=0 ) . While perfectly symmetric, light elements (e.g., Carbon-12, Calcium-40) achieve baseline stability purely through their balanced np-mantles, any lattice containing excess neutrons requires a central anchor. Because this initial core neutron sits at the exact spatial origin, it exerts zero lateral torque, acting as a perfect, immovable gravitational fulcrum for the surrounding structure.
Parity Locking and Spin-Shear: Around this anchor, additional excess neutrons form the active core shells (n>0). To prevent the localized gravity from tearing the core apart via internal spin-shear (torque), these active neutrons must pair perfectly in Clockwise and Anti-Clockwise (CW/ACW) configurations. When an even number of excess neutrons creates an unpaired “spin-shear” state, or when a geometric shell contains massive spatial vacancies, the nucleus becomes a localized gravitational vacuum—leading to extreme phenomena like the 861,000-barn neutron capture cross-section of Zirconium-88 or the 2.6 million-barn cross-section of Xenon-135.
The L-Gap and The Mantle: Surrounding this dense neutron core is a strictly maintained spatial boundary called the L gap (L=1000 units). Beyond this gap lies the atomic mantle, composed entirely of geometrically locked neutron-proton (np) pairs. The interaction between the extreme gravity of the core pulling inward, and the Coulomb repulsion of the proton-rich mantle pushing outward, dictates the ultimate stability and binding energy of every element on the periodic table.
2. Implications for Cosmology: Eradicating the Singularity and Cosmic Inflation
Standard Big Bang cosmology suffers from a mathematical crisis: if you reverse the expansion of the universe, temperature and density curve toward infinity, creating an impossible “singularity.” Furthermore, to explain the uniform temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), standard models must invent “Cosmic Inflation”—a magical epoch where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
The ENS model eliminates both mathematically impossible artifacts.
Exothermic Cleavage: Under the ENS framework, the universe did not begin hot. It began at absolute zero as a perfectly ordered, macroscopic distribution of neutrally charged ENS macro-clusters. As localized G_effective compression exceeded the structural limits of the lattice, these macro-clusters shattered simultaneously. The immense heat of the Big Bang (T ~ 2.156×10^10 K) was generated entirely by the E=mc^2 mass defect of this geometric cleavage—specifically the formation of perfectly parity-locked Helium-4 (m=1) and dense heavy-element cores.
Because the heat was generated as a byproduct of the elements forming, the universe possesses a strict, finite thermodynamic ceiling. There is no infinite singularity. Because all primordial macro-clusters fractured geometrically at the exact same G_effective limit, the thermal shockwave was released simultaneously everywhere. There is no need for Cosmic Inflation to spread the heat; the heat was instantiated uniformly.
3. Applications in New Material Design and Nanotechnology
By proving that the nucleus has a distinct physical shape, surface vacancies, and localized gravitational gradients, the ENS model provides a new blueprint for nanotechnology and material science.
Standard chemistry treats the nucleus as a point-charge, relying solely on the electron cloud for bonding. However, the geometric shape of the ENS mantle and the tension of the L gap subtly influence the spatial orientation of the innermost electron orbitals.
Isotopic Metamaterials: By selecting specific isotopes with highly asymmetrical ENS core vacancies (like Xenon-135 or Zr-88), engineers can design metamaterials that possess “gravitational anchor points.” These customized lattices can manipulate thermal neutron cross-sections with extreme precision, allowing for the creation of ultra-thin, hyper-efficient radiation shielding or targeted neutron-doping semiconductors for quantum computing.
Nuclear Clocks: The ENS model flawlessly explains the anomalous ~8 eV isomeric state of Thorium-229. Because its perfectly paired n>0 core sits within a highly vacant m_c=4 shell and its L gap is hyper-compressed, a frictionless spatial shift of a core pair causes the nucleus to imperceptibly “breathe,” requiring only the energy of an ultraviolet laser. This strict geometric mapping allows scientists to identify other viable candidates (like Uranium-235) to build ultra-precise nuclear clocks that are immune to electron-cloud interference, vastly outperforming current atomic clocks.
4. High-Temperature Superconductivity
Standard BCS theory relies on electron “Cooper pairs” moving through a vibrating atomic lattice (phonons) at ultra-low temperatures to achieve superconductivity. The quest for room-temperature superconductivity has stalled because thermal vibrations inevitably shatter these delicate pairs.
The ENS model offers a radical new approach: Isotopic Resonance Tuning.
Superconductivity is not just an electron phenomenon; it is dictated by the rigidity of the L gap. If a material is constructed using isotopes with perfectly parity-locked ENS cores and filled m_c boundary shells, the internal G_effective achieves a state of absolute equilibrium. The L gap becomes a massive shock absorber, drastically dampening the phonon vibrations of the atomic lattice. By doping standard cuprate or pnictide superconductors with these specific, rigid-core ENS isotopes, we can artificially stabilize the lattice against thermal decay, maintaining Cooper pair cohesion at vastly higher ambient temperatures.
5. Advanced Magnet Design and the Zero-Vibration Lattice
The ENS model reveals that macroscopic magnetic fields are not merely the product of orbiting electrons; their stability is deeply tethered to the internal structural stillness of the atomic nucleus.
In standard physics, permanent magnets—such as Neodymium (Z= 60) rely on the alignment of unpaired f-orbital electrons. However, standard models cannot explain why magnetic coercivity degrades at higher temperatures beyond generic thermal agitation. The ENS framework provides the mechanical root: internal nuclear vibration. When an isotope possesses an unpaired active core (spin-shear), the nucleus generates a microscopic internal jitter. This nuclear vibration propagates outward through the L gap, continuously perturbing the electron orbitals and making the magnetic moments highly susceptible to thermal disruption.
The Zero-Vibration Super-Magnet: A superior magnetic lattice requires absolute structural stillness. By analyzing Neodymium under the ENS model, we find that the bulk of its naturally occurring isotopes (Nd-142, 144, 146, 148, 150) possess unpaired active cores that generate internal spin-shear. However, the isotopes Nd-143 and Nd-145 possess exactly 23 and 25 excess neutrons, respectively. When one neutron occupies the n=0 singularity anchor, the remaining 22 or 24 active neutrons form perfect Clockwise/Anti-Clockwise (CW/ACW) pairs.
Because both the 60-unit np-mantle and the active core of these specific isotopes are perfectly spin-balanced, the nucleus achieves a “Zero-Vibration” state. There is no internal spin-shear to agitate the electron cloud. By isotopically enriching magnetic alloys with exclusively spin-balanced ENS nuclei, material scientists can completely eliminate baseline nuclear jitter. This frictionless structural locking of the electron orbitals will allow for the creation of next-generation permanent magnets that maintain extreme coercivity at vastly higher operating temperatures, revolutionizing electric motors, fusion containment fields, and magnetic levitation transit.
Hyper-Magnets: By applying the ENS structural equations, materials scientists can synthesize new alloys using isotopes specifically chosen for maximum internal core spin-shear combined with a highly asymmetric mantle Vacancy Debt (V_D). These “hyper-magnets” would possess a coercive force significantly stronger than current rare-earth magnets, enabling a new generation of ultra-compact, high-efficiency electric motors, frictionless magnetic levitation transit, and compact fusion containment fields.
Conclusion
The Excess Neutron Shell model is a profound paradigm shift. By replacing the probabilistic chaos of the standard model with the deterministic, geometric elegance of localized quantum gravity, it solves the deepest mysteries of the universe—from the origin of the Big Bang to the anomalous physics of the atomic nucleus. As we continue to chart the exact structural coordinates of the elements, the ENS framework provides the mathematical bedrock for the next century of advanced engineering, cosmology, and quantum material design.
I hope this will help. If possible please attend the seminar on zoom. Dr. Ing Andrea Rossi will post it today. Thank You.
Dear Barry.
Thank You for your analysis. The ENS model is not recognised yet because it is the model proposed by me. It’s a robust model. The Gravity is not Newton’s ordinary G. THe G-effective calculated with a reverse logic. What force would be required to keep the neutron in (10^-18 r) orbit. The Reason for introducing the G-effective is that The nucleus is envisioned as Two concentric shell, The core shell made up of excess neutral neutrons only. THe outer shell at radial Gap L is chiefly made up of np pairs. Since the core is neutral only, force it could express is Gravitational and hence the constant derived is G-effective. You could give it any other name but G-effective is appropriate. It happens that the value of G-effective when plugged in to the force equation yields the value of Strong Nuclear Force.
The two shells are quantum shell and follows the same prime orbitals and sub-orbital rules of electronic shells with one exception that the core holds first excess neutron if any at the absolute center occupying n=0 quantum state.
The model simplifies the visualization of spin, wobble, shape and stability. Just by looking at the geometric arrangement many properties can be deducted outright.
I have done extensive quantum analysis on this system.
You will be easily able to figure out why majority of odd stable elements in the periodic table has only one stable isotope. Please pick any one odd stable element isotope and arrange geometrically using ENS principle and you will realize the power of ENS.
N-ex = A – 2z is the formula for excess neutron.
Core is arranged n=0 1 neutron, n=1 2 neutrons, n=2 8 neutrons, n = 3 18 neutrons
The mantle np pairs are arranged in similar electronic shell rules.
Looking forward to your reply.
Barry:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Les sections efficaces “géantes” comme celles du ¹³⁵Xe ou du ¹⁵⁷Gd sont effectivement des anomalies historiques, mais la littérature nucléaire mainstream ne les attribue pas à une modification de la gravité à l’échelle subatomique.
Dans les modèles reconnus (R‑matrix, théorie des résonances, statistiques de Porter‑Thomas, matrices aléatoires), ces sections efficaces extrêmes proviennent de résonances neutroniques très étroites, d’un fort couplage au canal de capture, et d’une densité d’états élevée dans les noyaux lourds.
Ce sont des phénomènes quantum‑chaotiques, mais entièrement reproductibles dans les cadres standards.
Quelques points techniques importants :
1. La gravité n’intervient pas dans la physique nucléaire
Même si on augmentait la constante gravitationnelle de 35 ordres de grandeur, elle resterait des millions de fois plus faible que :
la force forte (QCD), la force électromagnétique, la force faible.
La gravité est négligeable dans les interactions neutron‑noyau.
Aucun modèle validé n’utilise un terme gravitationnel pour expliquer les sections efficaces.
2. Les “queues chaotiques” des distributions matricielles ne sont pas des artefacts
Les travaux du MIT (Hussein, Carlson, Kerman) ne prétendent pas que les fluctuations sont “inexplicables”, mais qu’elles sont statistiquement rares, ce qui est cohérent avec :
la théorie des matrices aléatoires (GOE),les fluctuations de Porter‑Thomas, la structure complexe des niveaux excités.
Ces modèles sont expérimentalement validés dans des centaines de noyaux.
3. Le modèle ENS (neutron excess shell) n’est pas reconnu dans la littérature nucléaire
Il s’agit d’une approche spéculative, intéressante conceptuellement, mais : elle n’est pas utilisée dans les codes de calcul (TALYS, EMPIRE, GNDS), elle n’est pas validée par des mesures de sections efficaces, elle n’est pas compatible avec les données RIPL‑3 ou ENDF/B.
Les sections efficaces géantes sont déjà correctement prédites par les modèles de résonances neutroniques.
4. Les “ancrages neutroniques au centre absolu n=0” ne correspondent à aucune structure nucléaire connue
Les noyaux ne possèdent pas de “centre absolu” où un neutron serait gravitationnellement ancré [url=https://equipement-solaire.fr/batterie-solaire-gel-victron-energy/]baetterie solaire gel[/url].
La structure nucléaire est décrite par :les orbitales nucléaires (modèle en couches), les interactions résiduelles, les couplages spin‑orbite, les résonances composées. Aucun terme gravitationnel n’est nécessaire pour reproduire les données.
Conclusion technique
Les sections efficaces anormalement élevées sont un phénomène quantique‑chaotique bien compris, lié aux résonances neutroniques et à la densité d’états dans les noyaux lourds.
Les modèles gravitationnels subatomiques ne sont pas nécessaires, ni compatibles avec les données expérimentales.
L’idée est originale, mais elle ne s’inscrit pas dans les cadres théoriques ou expérimentaux utilisés en physique nucléaire.