Prof. Lino Daddi
Retired. Earlier Professor at Naval Academy. Leghorn
Abstract
In this article the process is discussed by which an orbital electron happens to be on the nucleus and is captured by a quark up of a proton of the nucleus itself, which for what becomes a quark down.
It is assumed that the involvement of virtual particles allows the nucleus to determine whether, having enough energy available, the process, in which they are part the weak interaction and the strong interaction, can be completed.
A parallel process can be considered for certain types of observed reactions LENR, starting from the reduction of the hydrogen atom to the condition of “miniatom”.
From the orbital capture to some types of L.E.N.R. reactions
K – CAPTURE
The reaction of nuclear capture of one of two K-shell electrons by the nucleus NuZ,A can be written:
NuZ,A + e- = NuZ-1,A + ν. (1)
Denoting by MZ,A and MZ-1,A the masses of the initial and final nuclei, it will
E = [MZ,A – MZ-1,A] c^2 the available energy from the process. The energy of the emitted neutrino is:
εν = E + mec^2 – εk, (1′)
being εk the electron energy on the K orbital (which may often be overlooked in these assessments). If the energy E is insufficient, the capture (1) does not happen, so the nucleus does not undergo the beta decay of type K capture. This, however, is not directly observable, but:
1 – measuring the recoil momentum received from the nucleus, or
2 – observing X-rays following the rearrangement of the electronic layers.
It should be noted that the K electron should not be on the nucleus because it was attracted by the Coulomb force. This force is actually the one that “keeps” the electron in the orbital K. If this were to bring the electron to the nucleus it do make a work, and the electron would arrive with much more energy. But the energy remains that εk of the orbital K, because the electron moves to the nucleus by fluctuation of its distance from it, according to the probability admitted by quantum mechanics, according to the Uncertainty Principle (U.P.).
In ref [1] it is assumed that the probability of capture is the product of the probability f of an electron K be in the nucleus for the probability q that an electron, having attained the nucleus, is captured by the nucleus itself. The fact that there are very strong differences in the half-lives of the various nuclei that decay by orbital capture can be considered as an indication that q is very dependent on the nucleus structure.
Among the typical nuclei that show orbital capture we can remember 40K and 136La, which are very different examples of instability, as the 40K almost stable (half-life of billions of years) and 136La very unstable (half-life of 9.5 min). So the picture is more complex than could result from a simple positional fluctuation.
Recall that, according to U.P., two particles in contact, which by their nature should fuse but can not do so for lack of energy, may temporarily act as a virtual particle. The permanence in the life of the virtual particle is given by:
Δ t = ħ / ΔE (2)
where ΔE is the energy deficit.
Thus, if the energy is insufficient, the system of two particles in the left hand side of (1) can be considered as the virtual nucleus Nu Z-1,A.
Table 1 shows, from first to third line, the presumed evolution of the three phases.
In the phase 2 the (1) can be seen as a reaction
p + e- = n + ν (3)
of one of the Z protons of the nucleus. Until the mass difference is acquired between neutron and proton in the nucleus , the neutron can not be formed, and the system (p,e) of Fig.1 can be considered as “virtual” neutron. This can become real after the exchange of W bosons, made possible by having received the necessary energy ΔE. In the final phase of table 1 the electron is interacting with a quark up of a proton in the nucleus, converting it into a quark down. The Fig. 2 illustrates the situation at the level of quarks before the exchange of W. But now we’re talking about a different system: no more (p,e) subject to the Coulomb force, but (quark up,e) subject to the weak force.
Phases 2 and 3 of Table 1 can be viewed as one phase consisting of two processes.
In order to the K capture occurs, it is necessary that the rearrangement of nucleons (promoted by the strong interaction) makes available the necessary energy.
This is the chronological succession :
I) The K electron goes on the nucleus, but it is unknown whether the capture is energetically possible;
II) To explore the possibility of capture, the electron form a virtual neutron with a proton;
III) You may think that the nucleus to rearrange itself by replacing the proton with the virtual neutron as if this was real. So the nucleus NuZ, A would become the nucleus NuZ-1, A and the energy E would be made available by the rearrangement;
IV) If this is sufficient, the exchange of W bosons (not yet in the case of Fig.1 and Fig.2) takes place, and a neutrino is emitted (Fig.3).
But of course the final transformation is on Stage 3 of the Tab. 1, as illustrated in Fig.2.
It seems difficult to separate the effects of the strong and weak interaction. The hypothesis of the virtual particles, as an interim step, may reduce this difficulty.
This is, of course, a process which affects not only the nucleus, but involves the whole atom. The orbital capture, however, seems more likely event than the capture of an electron met by chance. When atoms are fully ionized (as in supernovae) the capture can not occur.
In the few cases (such as, for example, 64Cu and 74As) in which a nucleus can decay in three ways: beta minus, beta plus and orbital capture, its disintegration constant λ is unique. It is in fact equal to λ = λ1 + λ2 + λ3, λ1 being the constant of β- decay, λ2 the constant of β+ decay and λ3 that of the orbital capture.
But a temporary presence of a K electron on the nucleus is considered to be possible for the nuclei of all atoms. Ultimately all nuclei have the possibility of capture an orbital electron to convert a proton into a neutron, but only those able to obtain energy from the restructuring (as defined in the point III of the chronological order) have this type of beta decay.
THE CASE OF ‘HYDROGEN – THE MINIATOM
Even the electron of the hydrogen atom can be found in the nucleus, that is, on the only proton. This event has a low probability of occurring but this, according to CONTE [3], could be greater than you think. However it is suitable the atom be in unbound state. The atomic state (or nascent) hydrogen is rare in nature but can be achieved under specific conditions, for example when hydrogen is absorbed by metals that favor molecular dissociation. Nickel is one of them, but so are zirconium, titanium and tungsten.
The capture of the electron could be achieved as indicated by Fig.3; but that was designed meaning that p was one of the protons in the nucleus NuZ,A which undergoes K capture. But the presence of electron on the proton greatly reduces the atomic dimension, up to nuclear dimensions, so the atom becomes a “miniatom” (p, e). It is understood that the miniatom is still an atom, consisting of separate proton and electron interacting via the Coulomb force. It would be inappropriate to consider it now as virtual neutron. By itself, the miniatom has not the energy to become real neutron (the rearrangement of the three quarks is not sufficient). Since, however, the nucleus consists of a proton, the steps 1) and 2) in Table 1 coincide. It is essentially a neutral particle, able to approach a nucleus without suffering the Coulomb repulsion. If it encounters a nucleus NuZ,A may react with it, but its short life limits the likelihood of such reaction.
The nucleus NuZ,A could capture the entire miniatom in two different ways, A) and B).
A) as virtual neutron, pending the energy made available by rearrangement of NuZ,A+1 . This would be equivalent to the capture (n, γ) of a thermic neutron with the excess energy derived from the rearrangement of the nucleus NuZ,A+1.
B) with separate proton and electron capture. The steps of this mode are presented in Table 2.
The nucleus NuZ,A could confine himself (according to line 2) to capture the proton of the miniatom (p, e); that is generally an exothermic reaction. But (line 3-a) it can absorb the electron of the miniatom. Also this process would be equivalent to the capture (n, γ) of a thermic neutron
Finally, it should also consider the possibility that NuZ+1,A+1 is beta radioactive for K capture.
With the hypothesis of miniatoms and virtual neutrons some of the reactions LENR, such as those mentioned, for example, in a review of STORMS [4] could be justified. To keep in mind an article of MILEY [5] on the possibilities offered by virtual neutrons.
OTHER PROPOSALS OF MINIATOMS
The formation of a hydrogen miniatom may also occur in other way, different from the U.P.,giving access all the same to A) and B) modes as well as to phases 2 or 3 of Tab.2. Below are a number of the proposals.
According to STREMMENOS [6] do not hydrogen atoms, but protons are spread in the defects of crystal structures, in particular Ni. Thanks to the positive charge they capture electrons to form unstable miniatoms and would soon be absorbed by nuclei of Ni. Their size (<10^-14 m) allows a corresponding approach, to make up the predominant nuclear forces of cohesion.
The miniatom of MILLS [7] is called hydrino, and is expected by the Grand Unified Theory of Quantum Mechanics (CQM) developed by the author himself, who still denies a role of hydrino in cold fusion and LENR processes. The heat produced in its reactor would be due to hydrinos formation. The technique to produce hydrinos involves the use of a catalyst (potassium or strontium ions) and monoatomic hydrogen.
DUFOUR [8] instead has developed the hydrex, that would be formed in solids permeated of hydrogen under the effect of intense electromagnetic fields. It would be accounted by the weak nuclear force and its half-life would be a few days. A recent evolution of the virtual neutron concept was named “hypole”.
HEFFNER [9] calls “deflated state of Hydrogen” the miniatom. He proposed that there would be “briefly but frequently”. It could promote fusion process between two hydrogen nuclei, but also processes LENR between hydrogen and nuclei belonging to the solid. In the second case the interaction is weak, and it is rather infrequent, since the nucleus is unstable and its life is too short. But the rearrangement of the nucleus could give additional time the overall process.
WIDOM and LARSEN [10] presented a LENR theory based on the capture of an “heavy” electron by a proton. A neutron is generated of ultra low momentum “(ULM) and a neutrino. The ULM neutron is absorbed by a nucleus, resulting in a beta emitter.
Some of the cases here reported enable a miniatom life much longer than that assessed with U.P. Consequently, the frequency of LENR reactions may be greater and be compatible with a heat played more abundant. In particular could justify, at least in part, the exothermal reactions observed in Ni-H systems by PIANTELLI [11] and, recently, by FOCARDI and ROSSI [12] with theirs “Energy Catalizer”.
Even with deuterium, which can undergo the reaction
d + e = n + n + ν (4)
one may consider the formation of miniatom (d, e) and subsequent conversion into a neutron (first virtual, then real) of the proton in initial deuteron. The production of a temporary dineutron corresponds to an hypothesis formulated by RUSSELL [13] several years ago.
R E F E R E N C E S
[1] – L. DADDI – J.N.P. (Nuclear Experiments Blog) – March 2010
[2] – L.DADDI – Infinite Energy 47, 22 (2003) ; Proc.Workshop TESMI (Lecce 2002) page 1
[3] – E.CONTE – Proc.Workshop TESMI (Lecce 2002) page 50
[4] – E.STORMS – Library LEN-CANR Org (2003)
[5] – G.H.MILEY et al. – Proc. ICCF10 (2003)
[6] – E.STREMMENOS – J.N.P. (Nuclear Experiments Blog) – January 2011
[7] – R. L.MILLS – Infinite Energy 17 ,21 (1998) ; Fus.Technol. 28 , 1697 (1995)
[8] – J.DUFOUR – Fus.Technol. 24, 205 (2003) ; J.N.P. (Nuclear Experiments Blog) – April 2010
[9] – H.HEFFNER – J.N.P. (Nuclear Experiments Blog)- March 2010
[10] – A.WIDOM and L.LARSEN – Eur.Phys.J.C.DOI 10/1140/epje/S2006-02479-8
[11] – F.PIANTELLI et al. – Nuovo Cimento 107A,163 (1994)
[12] – S.FOCARDI and A.ROSSI – J.N.P. (Nuclear Experiments Blog) – February 2010
[13] – J.L.RUSSEL-JR – Ann.Nucl.Energy – 18 /2-75 (1991)
Dott.Rossi,
seguo da qualche mese la vs invenzione e spero proprio che sia quello che promette e che riesca a rivoluzionare in pieno il settore energetico (domestico in primis).
Le chiedo alcuni chiarimenti non tecnici:
1) la produzione avverrà anche in Italia? Anche se è una terra ingrata è la nostra terra, non scappi all’estero e in quota parte ci aiuti a risorgere da questo guano politico-morale-economico.
2) una delle illusioni che mi ero fatto era una “caldaia” da mettere a casa che funziona per tanti anni (5-10) ma poi sento 6 mesi e poi ricarica/sostituzione. E’ un motivo commerciale o tecnico? Ci guadagni, il giusto, magari anche un po’ oltre, ma si ispiri anche ai principi di equità.
3) c’e’ una speranza concreta per un cubo energetico casalingo che ci dia acqua calda ed energia elettrica con conversione diretta?
4) 300 elementi per 1 MW… mi fa pensare che non sia la produzione di massa la killer application ma la produzione distribuita. Corretto?
5) 1200-2000€/kW… sembra tantino mi puo’ dire quale sarebbe il ROI del cittadino acquirente?
6) quando sarà acquistabile da privati?
Continui a lavorare a questa alternativa fantastica, per la gloria, per i soldi e per il futuro dell’uomo.
Un grazie per le sue risposte. Buon lavoro e in bocca al lupo!
Gherardo
Hi,
Andrea
I already know the facts regarding you. I visited and read your site. I believe in you.
But, follow my advice, give as soon as possible an E-Cat to the Sveden university to make some indipendent tests. Before the “mud machine” starts.
A friend,
Claudio
Caro Giovanni Guerrini,
Grazie infinite,
A.R.
Mi aggrego calorosamente nella solidarietà e la ringrazio nuovamente per quello che sta facendo per tutti.
Continui così,dietro di lei c’è un esercito silenzioso che l’accompagna.
Saluti.
Caro Sig. Oddi:
Grazie ancora.
Andrea Rossi
Egregio Dott. Andrea Rossi
Egregio Sig. Claudio
Rinnovando la stima e il mio appoggio morale al Dott. Rossi torno sull’argomento per un’ ultima volta per precisare il mio pensiero.
Il mio post non era tanto per mettere zizzania tra la redazione di rainews e il Dott. Rossi, ma mi è venuto spontaneo il desiderio di dare allo stesso dottore una manifestazione di solidarietà per il passato ed eventualmente per difficoltà che si dovessero presentare d’ora in poi.Questo perché ho pensato che un po di supporto morale ,che lo rassereni , in questi momenti di lavoro intenso gli possano essere di aiuto per superare la fatica e lo stress.Quindi penso che tutti dovremmo manifestargli il nostro appoggio anche se non so se sia opportuno farlo da subito rischiando di dare troppo risalto alla cosa.
Per quanto riguarda la trasmissione penso che sia stata abbastanza neutrale (o cerchiobottista) spetta all’intelligenza di chi la guarda capire come stanno le cose, i personaggi nettamente ostili intervistati sono due , quelle a favore sono di più.
Cordiali Saluti.
Giuseppe Oddi
Dear Mr Claudio:
The journalist has been uncorrect because he has taken the chance of my present work to repeat the mud of 20 years ago. He ignored my defense: correctness wants that you listen both parties, if there is a litigation. In any case I take advantage of your precious comment to remember that my version ( which I tried to make as objective as possible) about my past are in
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi, this morning I watched on the Italian television the special regarding the E-Cat. Let me tell you that I disagree the opinion that the report was against you. The journalist does the journalist. It was normal that he made an investigation in your past. In the tail of the special we can see scientists speak about your invention as an important discover. So I don’t consider this as the “mud machine was starting”. In the interview you say “I made some mistakes”… My father said (and not only him): only who doesn’t work don’t make mistakes.
Salutations,
Claudio
Gent. Sig. Podestà:
Le ho già risposto che il reattore è di acciaio inossidabile; ovviamente, Lei non può vederlo nelle foto perchè è all’interno dell’involucro di rame.
Tutti i test sono stati eseguiti con reattori costruiti interamente in acciaio inossidabile, all’interno dei quali non possono accedere dall’esterno atomi di rame.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
Parlo nella mia lingua per esprimermi meglio:
La domanda sorge spontanea però.. Visto che è dentro al tubo, nessuno ha potuto ancora vedere, dire che è racchiuso dentro ad una cella di acciaio, come si fà? L’unico acciaio che si vede, è all’esterno del rame.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vhBmiFQTLss/TaSOP1-O7pI/AAAAAAAAEhk/U9Y3UY7a9Lk/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg
Se si guardano bene la foto, dove ci sono i tre “tubi”, due hanno una cella di acciaio, ma guardando l’altro, si nota che l’acciaio è una copertura del rame. Quindi, non è che quelle tracce di rame che hanno trovato nella polvere di nichel provengono da una contaminazione del “tubo” di rame? Mi piacerebbe fare un test con un “tubo” totalmete in acciaio inox a questo punto, per togliersi qualsiasi dubbio.
Dear Mr Enrico Maria Podestà:
The external pipe, within which runs the water, is made by copper. The reactor is made by stainless steel.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, first of all I want to be very honest, I admire what he’s doing, I feel that what he has discovered is something wonderful. I have only one question to ask, what material the pipe is made, so let’s call it, which makes your unit?
Caro Sig. Giuseppe Oddi:
Mi permetta di ripetere che per sapere come sono andate realmente le cose venti anni fa è opportuno andare su
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
dove le mie vicende passate sono spiegate dal mio punto di vista, ma, almeno, con completezza e sincerità, esponendo sia gli articoli scritti contro di me a quei tempi, sia le mie risposte, lasciando poi ad ognuno la facoltà di farsi un’idea obbiettiva. Nel servizio da Lei citato, che il giornalista ha fatto sfruttando l’attualità della mia nuova ricerca per parlare del mio passato, si intravvede in filigrana quella che sarà l’azione di discredito che è partita nei miei confronti. Facciano pure.
E’ logico aspettarsi che, di fronte agli sviluppi della mia tecnologia, ci saranno altri tentativi di discreditarmi come quello che Lei ha citato.
Io rispondo con i fatti e con il lavoro.
Le pagliacciate alla fine lasciano il tempo che trovano.
Fra l’altro, so perfettamente chi è il clown che le sta orchestrando: è l’utile idiota di gente a me ben nota.
Grazie per la Sua graditissima solidarietà :
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
raul heining
in my last post to you, the correct is:
the electron gets the velocity 0,92c = 92% of c = 300.000km/s
Dott. Rossi ,
ho appena seguito l’ Inchiesta di Rainews.
Di nuovo si è parlato delle sue vicende passate (ha parlato anche un personaggio non poco irritante).
Le volevo quindi esprimere la mia solidarietà.
Sapendo come vanno le cose in Italia (e non solo) mi sono fatto una certa idea in proposito.
Cordiali saluti.
Giuseppe Oddi
Dear Prof. Wladimir Guglinski:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm regards,
A.R.
p.s. We receoived a good paper from Wladimir Guglinski which has been approved after the peer reviewing. It will be published in June on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
raul heining
The hypothesis that spin has its origin in zitterbewegung was proposed by Schrodinger:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.2728v1.pdf
When the electron loses its spin, the energy of the zitterbewegung is transfered to the electron in the form of kinetic energy: it gets a velocity 0.92% of the light speed about the proton, and its mass increases according to Einstein’s theory. This is calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron (to be published here in upcoming June).
I did not use cosmological arguments in my theory. My theory proposes a new hydrogen atom, in which the repulsive gravity creates a repulsion proton-electron, with the same value of the Coulombic attraction between them, when the electron moves along a radial direction into the hydrogen atom.
If the repulsive gravity is used, or not, in cosmology, that does not matter to me.
The repulsive gravity works in my model of photon, in my hydrogem model, in my model of proton, and in my new nuclear model.
Perhaps the repulsive gravity can be neglected in cosmology. But it cannot be neglected in the atom.
Without the repulsive gravity the elementary particles would collapse.
There is not in Modern Physics any explanation why the electron does not collpase. Just because the current theories do not consider the repulsive gravity.
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi
There are many theories proposed to explain cold fusion. All they are ad hoc theories, because they try to explain cold fusion, but they neglect the knowledge we already got about the most ordinary phenomena.
A theory developed by ad hoc hypothesis cannot be correct, because when applied to other phenomena new additional ad hoc bandages will be required.
There are several ordinary phenomena that current Nuclear Physics cannot explain. If a cold fusion theory (developed by new principles missing in Nuclear Physics) is not capable to explain those ordinary phenomena not explained by current Nuclear Physics, then such cold fusion theory cannot explain cold fusion phenomena.
Quantum Ring Theory was NOT developed for explaining cold fusion. Quantum Ring Theory was developed with the aim to explain the ordinary phenomena not explained by current Nuclear Physics (and of course to explain also the old ordinary phenomena already explained by current Nuclear Physics).
So, Quantum Ring Theory is not an ad hoc theory, in which some concepts should be addopted to be agree with cold fusion occurrence only.
A model n=p+e requires general principles to be applied in any phenomenon, not only to the cold fusion occurrence.
In Quantum Ring Theory the phenomenon according to which the electron loses its spin is named spin-fusion.
It is applied to any particle, not only to the electron.
The spin-fusion occurs in general in Nature, not only in cold fusion.
Spin-fusion occurs in high energy reactions. That’s why in Particle Physics some ad hoc solutions were addopted, because some high energy reactions do not fit to the models of the Standard Model, since the spin-fusion is missing in it.
The theorists used to adopt ad hoc solutions because they did not discover the spin-fusion mechanism.
In the book Quantum Ring Theory it’s written the following:
<<As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is violated, they transferred the problem to the parity. Instead of: “the addition of spins is violated in the beta-decay”, they say: “the parity is not kept in the beta-decay”.
As said, the spin-fusion occurs in several high energy reactions, and it can explain some strange behavior of particles.
Consider, for instance, the mesons pi and the mesons Rho (they have the same structure, according to the Standard Model, but Rho are excited mesons):
The meson pi(+) has structure ud’ , its rest mass is 140MeV , and its time decay is 2,6×10^-8s
The meson Rho(+) has structure ud’, its rest mass is 770MeV , and its time decay is 0,4×10^-23s
The meson pi(0) has structure (uu’+dd’)/2^1/2 , its rest mass is 135MeV, and its time decay is 0,8×10^-16s
The meson Rho(0) has structure (uu’+dd’)/2^1/2 , its rest mass is 770MeV, and its time decay is 0,4×10^-23s.
Note the following:
1- The masses of pions pi(0) and pi(+) have a difference of 5MeV.
But Rho(0) and Rho(+) have the same mass 770MeV
Why ????
2- The pions pi(0) and pi(+) have different time decays: 2,6×10^-8s and 0,8×10^-16s.
But the mesons Rho have the same time decay: 0,4×10^-23s
Why ????
If we use an argument so that to explain the difference of mass 5MeV between pi(0) and pi(+), however the same argument would have to be applied to the masses of Rho(0) and Rho(+), and they would have to exhibit a difference of mass too. But Rho(0) and Rho(+) have the same mass !!!
If we use an argument so that to explain the difference of time decay between pi(0) and pi(+), however the same argument would have to be applied to the time decay of Rho(0) and Rho(+), and they would have to exhibit a difference of time decay. But Rho(0) and Rho(+) have the same time decay !!!
Such difference between the behavior of mesons pi and Rho can be explained by considering the spin-fusion.
Indeed, the structure of meson pi(+) can actually be pi(0)-e’ , i.e. a meson pi(0) tied with spin-fusion to one positron e’.
a) Such structure explains the difference of mass 5MeV between pi(0) and pi(+):
the mass of positron is 0,5MeV, but its presence causes a reduction in the binding energy between quarks, and so there is a growth of the pion mass.
b) It also explains the difference of times decay:
– the pi(0) with 0,8×10^-16s , with a short time because its structure is formed by quarks only.
– the pi(+) with 2,6×10^-8s , with a long time because its structure has a positron (causing a reduction in the binding energy).
Due to the spin-fusion between the positron and a quark of the meson pi(0), the meson pi(+) with structure pi(0)-e’ has a spin S=0, because the positron loses its spin 1/2.
The meson Rho(+) has not a lepton in its structure, that’s why Rho(0) and Rho(+) have the same mass and the same time decay.
Note that, as there is not a lepton in their structure, the time decay is very short: 0,4×10^-23s
Other example is the Strangeness. Such ad hoc hypothesis was proposed because there are some particles (as for instance the kaons K ) which decay would have to occur by the strong force, which magnitude has the order of 10^-23 seconds. But their decay has the order of 10^-8 seconds.
In order to explain such strange behavior, Gell-Mann proposed the Strangeness, which is not preserved in some decay (i.e., the Strangeness allows the violation of the strong interaction in some decay).
The time decay of kaons K can be explained without the need of the Strangeness, by considering the spin-fusion: the kaons K have a lepton hidden in their structure. And this lepton is responsible for their time decay in the order of 10^-8s.
Obviously the particle theorists could not suppose a lepton hidden in the structure of kaons, because as they do not know the spin-fusion, the decay of K would violate the angular moment conservation, if we consider such decay from the concepts of current Standard Model.
The decay of neutron is other example.
The quark structure of neutron according to Particle Physics is (d,u,d). Therefore the time of neutron’s decay would have to have the magnitude of the strong force, in order of 10^-23s, but the time of neutron’s decay is 15 minutes.
Such long time decay of neutron is explained by considering a structure n= u,d,u-e , where “u-e” is a quark u tied to the electron through the spin-fusion.
So, the spin-fusion is not an ad hoc solution for explaining the model of neutron formed by proton+electron. Actually the spin-fusion is present in several structure of particles, into which a lepton loses its spin when interacting with quarks.
In short, a cold fusion theory must be able explain phenomena not explained by the Standard Model, otherwise such cold fusion theory will not be able to explain cold fusion.
Where you read neutron spin you should read electron spin, in my post.
regards
raul
Wladimir,
How do you say that the anomalous mass of the neutron is explained making use of the
loss of zitterbewegung, assuming it is the sourse of neutron spin?
The loosing of sutch a porperty should decrease the mass of the electron. I do not see why
you need repulsive gravitons unless you agree with the introduction of the cosmological constant by Einstein
in order to make this universe stactic. An error he admited.
Regards
raul
raul heining
concerning you question: “do you have an alternative explanation?”
yes, I have.
Se my post to Prof. Lino Daddi in April 30th, 2011 at 6:52 AM
Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:
1- we consume about 1 gram og hydrogen in 24 hours
2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.
3- No, I didn’t.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
it is very exciting to read this website and follow the evolution of your project.
I’m not a professional in nuclear reactions theory, but I’m curious about the physical phenomenon, I’ve seen you measured the transmutation rates of Nickel into Copper over a few months now, have you also measured the consumption of gaseous Hydrogen in some of your trials?
Another question: I’ve seen many people talking of cold fusion/LENR and expecting neutron and neutrino emissons…what if the reaction happens in the reverse way by means of neutrinos emitted from the sun? Have you ever observed anisotropy of the reaction due to some effect of the cross-section of exposure to the neutrino flux from the sun?
Pardon me if I said something wrong, I’m not an expert.
Mauro
Errata:
in my previous post, the correct is:
HOT fusion occurs in the interior of the Sun, and also in the H-bomb.
Dear Paul Fernhout
There are two sort of fusion: the hot fusion, and the cold fusion.
Cold fusion requires resonance, while hot fusion does not.
Cold fusion occurs in the interior of the Sun, and also in the H-bomb.
For the understanding of cold fusion mechanisms, there is need:
1- a new model of hydrogen atom , in which works a repulsive gravity.
The hydrogem atom of Quantum Mechanics works well because Schrodinger discovered an equation that describes the most ordinary phenomena, which production do not require the action of the repulsive gravity.
However, repulsive gravity contributes for the cold fusion occurrence.
2- a new understanding of gravity , because nowadays it’s considered that gravity has a magnitude 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetism, but such belief is wrong.
Gravity is formed by interaction of attractive gravitons g and repulsive gravitons G.
The magnitude of interaction by the gravitons is the same magnitude of the electromagnetism.
However, the interaction by repulsive gravitons G is a little weaker than the interaction by the attractive gravitons g.
As the gravitational field is composed by gravitons g and gravitons G, the macroscopic gravity has a magnitude 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetism, because the macroscopic gravity is a “soup” formed by the two sort of gravitons.
However, in some phenomena into the atoms the repulsive gravitons G can work alone, and so it works with the magnitude of the electromagnetism. This helps the mechanisms for cold fusion occurrence.
Repulsive gravity also actuates into the structure of the photon, which is composed by a particle and an antiparticle, moving with helical trajectory.
As there is attraction between a particle and an antiparticle, they would have to merge, and the photon would collapse.
The repulsive gravity avoids the collapse of the photon.
There is not any model of photon in Modern Physics, because repulsive gravity is not considered in the current theories.
So, it’s impossible, from the current concepts of Modern Physics, to consider that a photon can have a physical structure.
In Modern Physics the photon is considered as something like a “ghost”.
So, it’s not a suprise that according to Quantum Mechanics some phenomena are “phantasmagoric”, as said Einstein.
A paper entitled How repulsive gravity contributes for Rossi-Focardi cold fusion experiment was sent to the Journal of Nuclear Physics. I hope it will be published in upcoming June.
wladimir, I agree if you should see the neutron as a proton plus an electron. I do not see it like that, but rather
as a particle with wave fuction coming indeed partly from the superposition of the wave funciton of the proton and that
of the electron less the one of the neutrin whitch garantees the conservation of spin, therefore no problems of the
neutron beeing spin 1/2.
do you have an alternative explanation?
Regards
raul
To WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
I agree to the data on spin, so the real neutrons have spin ½. But I do not need to speak of spin for the virtual neutrons.
Warm regards
L.D.
Dear Mr Eernie:
Yes, I did. The information about what I saw is confidential.
Warm regards,
A.R.
raul heining,
the emission of neutrino keeps the angular momentum, but there is need to satisfy another necessary condition: the neutron must have a spin 1/2 (as measured in experiments).
A neutron formed by proton+electron would have spin 0 (or 1).
Any theory with neutron formed by proton+electron must explain why the neutron’s spin is 1/2.
I cant see how the neutron in Lino Daddi theory may have spin 1/2.
A nucleus Cu63 has nuclear spin 3/2:
http://ie.lbl.gov/toipdf/mometbl.pdf
But a nucleus Cu63 having a neutron in the condition described in Lino Daddi theory must have nuclear spin 0 (or 1).
All the neutrons have mass 939.565560(81)MeV/c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Detection
Dr.Rossi; Have you ever observed the inside of your reaction chamber through a window of some sort when it is operating? If there is electron movement in the nickel from shell to shell there should be energy jumps which will produce visible photons.The area about the nickel should be illuminated.
Dear Mr Paul Fernhout:
I will think about your insight.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Wladimir, it looks that the angular momentum conservation is kept in the reaction throught the emission of a neutrino,
which is necessary. When you talk about a mass of 939.6 what were the conditions of the experiment? Were they high energy neutrons thermal or very low energy?
Regards
raul
Ing. Rossi-
Thanks for your previous reply to my question on varying electrical currents potentially effecting the reaction rate.
At the risk of venturing further from writing about the economics of abundance and open source technologies, which I have thought some about, let me put out a speculation about the actual physics of abundance, which is an area I have not thought much about. It builds on the kind of ideas as in Prof. Lino Daddi’s paper on virtual particles and quantum fluctuations.
The other day my child and I were talking about “x-rays” and making up the term “y-rays” and “z-rays” (related to playing with some stuffed animals that were getting pretend patents on better mouse traps and improved medical diagnostic imaging systems using y-rays and z-rays). Looking up y-rays in Google lead to stuff on gamma rays, and then gamma ray bursts (with nearby ones being possible causes of random extinction events, and there was an unprecedented big long distant gamma ray burst over the last few weeks). See:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/unprecedented-cosmic-explosion-spawns-intergalactic-mystery
Somewhere in searching there was a mention of work by Prof. Oliver K. Manuel about the “iron sun” theory in a comment on NASA’s observational work on gamma rays. His site on that:
http://www.thesunisiron.com/
I’ve seen that iron sun theory before and find it intriguing, even though I don’t know enough to evaluate it. Basically the idea is that just like the surface of the Earth when viewed from space is mostly air and water but the core is nickel and iron, the sun could also have a surface that was mostly hydrogen but at the core be the remains of a collapsed neutron star. In this model, the sun’s energy would be produced by neutron emission from the core as well as the interaction of hydrogen near the surface or potentially with the boundaries of that spinning metal core. Prof. Manuel has a chart there on how the iron sun theory may better explain some observation evidence about distribution of elements in our solar system.
Well, one may guess where I am going with this when I talk about metal-hydrogen boundary layer at the sun’s surface… 🙂 Maybe the Rossi/Focardi effect is not just what can produce LENR, but maybe it is also what a big part of what really causes the sun to shine? 🙂
Further, when I was looking into all this, I was thinking for some reason, Casimir effect, which was explained to me a decade ago by a researcher at IBM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Now, googling on the Journal’s site, I see only three mentions of the Casimir, two in comments, and one by Horace Heffner in his paper on “Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions”.
http://www.google.com/search?q=casimar+site%3Awww.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
But when I google on Casimir effect and cold fusion, there are results of people talking about the potential connection.
http://www.google.com/search?q=casimar+cold+fusion
“cold fusion is actually harnessing casimir cavities in skeletal catalysts”
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6352.0;wap2
Basically, the general idea of some is that something about the configuration of the metal lattice may be acting to create voids or plates which are at the right distance to have quantum-mechanical effects related to the continual flux of particles coming in and out of existence by quantum mechanics. The right sized plates or voids can in theory cause the net production (or maybe consumption) of energy and matter. Electricity might also be involved to stress the metal lattice in such a way to create the correct sized voids.
Some people even got a related US patent on the general idea of harnessing quantum fluctuations (despite some prior art, I’d say):
“U.S. Patent 7379.286 Quantum Vacuum Energy Extraction”
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6156.0;wap2
That patent is something to think about if you emphasize proprietary production. It may be one more reason to decide to share the ideas behind this technological breakthrough sooner rather than later.
So, I can wonder if something about the eCat makes it act essentially like an antenna collecting energy into quantum mechanical realm? Fusion might be going on, but the energy to initiate the fusion might be coming from quantum effects like the Casimir effect which in turn interacted with the hydrogen. Perhaps the use of hydrogen might be essential, as well as electricity to stress the lattice in some way, but what is really happening is the hydrogen is being accelerated by quantum mechanical effects which cause a high speed collision with the nickel? And then the usual observed decay products of such collisions, which would probably be mostly copper?
One might test for whether any other products were present, since by one interpretation of this theory, one might expect some hydrogen to hit copper and heavier nickel isotopes, and produce iron, and potentially even things heavier than iron. As well as maybe then a range of other lighter elements from decay of heavier things. So, have you checked for the presence of some trace amounts of iron or even other heavier elements (or lighter) after the eCat has run for a time? Could the eCat be basically a quantum mechanical particle accelerator on a microscopic scale?
And further, what if a similar thing is what may actually be happening at the surface of the sun? Quantum effects may cause the occasional release of neutrons at the boundary of an iron sun, where there might be a gravitational sorting to produce a nickel outer layer around an iron core, and those escaped neutrons turn into hydrogen atoms, and then many fall back on the sun to interact with the nickel in the boundary layer in a quantum mechanical way? So, perhaps the sun also acting more like an antenna for quantum energies and even more a net producer of hydrogen than a consumer of hydrogen?
I am reminded of what James P. Hogan wrote about in his novel “Voyage From Yesteryear”, as well as what Halton Arp writes about with his Electric Universe theory, about how mainstream physics looks out at the universe and sees collisions and deaths of stars, but you could also look at the same phenomenon and interpret some of it as the splitting and/or birth of new stellar objects. That has more than scientific implications, because it may effect the very attitude our society has about limits to growth and socioeconomics, which in turn can effect general cultural outlook.
Anyway, this is all speculation, which I have little idea of how to test, other than looking for trace amounts of iron in the eCat output. The bit about the sun is mostly thrown in just for fun. 🙂 And it is mostly just connecting a couple ideas other people have worked on for a very long time in isolation and with others with “Disciplined Minds” disparaging them.
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
I guess you can tell why I’m the kind of person who flunked Joseph Taylor’s Physics for Physics majors course at Princeton. 🙂 But I also got an A in Gerry O’Neill’s Physics for Poets one. 🙂
All the best.
–Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
To Wladimir Guglinski
The (1) is the K capture, namely the capture of an electron of the K-shell of the atom (Z,A) by the nucleus Nu (Z, A). Many beta decays occur in this way. Obviously in the nucleus Nu (Z-1, A) the neutrons have a mass greater than the sum of (m proton + m electron ), but for the balance we need compare the sum [M (Z, A) + M electron] with the final mass M (Z-1, A). Not (938.3 + 0.511) with 939.6.
In the orbital capture the lacking mass-energy is provided by the strong nuclear force in the rearrangement of the final nucleus.
Cordially
L.D.
Prof. Lino Daddy,
Schrödinger and Dirac were convinced that spin has its origin in the zitterbewegung (helical trajectory) of elementary particles.
In his article Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics
– a research program, David Hestenes writes in the Abstract:
“The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment”.
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf
Supposing that an electron can lose its zitter when it’s captured by a proton, then it’s reasonable to consider a model of neutron n=p+s , where “s” is the selectron (an electron which lost its spin), and so it’s solved the problem concerning the neutron’s spin 1/2.
The model of neutron n=p+s is proposed in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, in which it’s shown that all theoretical restrictions against the model of neutron composed by proton+electron can be eliminated by considering the electron’s zitterbewegung.
In the paper it is explained (and calculated) the anomalous mass of the neutron, by considering the model n=p+s.
In the Introduction of my book Quantum Ring Theory it’s written the following:
8. Anomalous Mass of the Neutron-
Among the several theoretical restrictions against the neutron model n=p+e, the unique truthfully fundamental is the neutron’s anomalous mass. Indeed, all the other restrictions are supported on the principles of Quantum Mechanics (as for instance the objection inferred from Fermi-Diract statistics). But several experiments are suggesting that QM is not a complete theory, and therefore it is possible that something is missing in the principles through which the theory has been developed. In this case, there is a chance that those objections against n=p+e actually do not represent insurmountable restrictions, since perhaps the principles of QM cannot be applied in some special conditions (such hypothesis is strongly suggested by the occurrence of cold fusion). As a conclusion of the reasoning, if new more extensive principles can be found for QM, then perhaps it is possible to eliminate the restrictions against n=p+e (and this is just one among the chief aims of the Quantum Ring Theory). Unlike, the neutron’s anomalous mass is not a restriction supported on the principles of QM. Thereby, if should be impossible to find a mechanism able to explain such an anomalous mass, then such restriction would be insurmountable, and by consequence the model n=p+e would be unacceptable, and we would have to give up forever in trying any theoretical effort with the aim of proving that the neutron is constituted by proton+electron. That’s why the author considers fundamental to find the mechanism that causes the anomaly in the neutron’s mass. The paper proposes such mechanism.
Prof, Lino Daddi,
what do you think about such assertion ? (according to which any model of neutron formed by proton+electron is UNACCEPTABLE if the model is not able to explain the anomalous mass of the neutron).
Prof. Lino Daddi,
according to your equation (1):
NuZ,A + e- = NuZ-1,A + ν. (1)
a proton becomes a neutron by the capture of the electron.
The masses in MeV/c^2 are:
proton = 938,3
electron = 0,511
Due to the packing loss, we had to expect that neutron’s mass, according to your theory, would have to be smaller than:
mass of neutron = Mn < 938,3 + 0,511 = 938,611
However, the experiments have shown that neutron's mass is 939,6
How do you explain such excess mass of the neutron, according to your theory?
Prof. Lino Daddi,
what happens to the electron’s spin when it is captured by the proton ?
Dear Mr Chris Masse:
If you mail your questions, we will answer you. Please mail to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm regards,
A.R.
Hi there,
My blog is read in the US, and I would like to publish a guest post or an interview from some scientist who would be able to explain the Rossi machine in terms that the economists and business people could understand. If there is someone who wants to talk (trade secrets excluded, of course), please e-mail me at chrisfmasse@gmail.com .
Thanks so much.
Chris Masse
Midas Oracle
TO MIDAS ORACLE
The most commonly adopted choice distinguishes “cold fusion” between nuclei of hydrogen isotopes from other low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).
It would seem obvious, however, consider cold fusion as special cases of LENR.
L.D.
[…] Rossi says it is not “cold fusion” but rather low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).Another scientist says here that cold fusion and LENR are 2 words for the same thing (also, […]
Non so come esprimere al meglio le mie congratulazioni e ringraziamenti per la più bella scoperta del secolo !
Sperando in un’Italia e in un Mondo Migliore,
Grazie e Buona Pasqua !
To HRG
The mechanism proposed by me is based on the analogy between hydrogen reactions and capture K. It not requires defects in the lattice, in which the miniatoms move like small neutral particles (arising from monatomic hydrogen). I have not ruled out other ways of producing miniatoms; some of these alternatives may be more efficient to produce LENR reactions . In particular I liked STREMMENOS theory.
Thank You. Warm regards.
L.D.
Dear Mr Godbole:
I assure you that we are able to do our work. We do not need “experts” that come to teach us to do our profession. Most likely they would come to make industrial espionage. We have certified experts that make the safety tests and the suggestion to test every module is obvious. Thank you anyway for your attention,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Respected Andrea
What I sugest is that as you produce your basic 10 kW modules you have to test each one of them individually before joining them into the larger 1 MW device. Let open-minded experts (physicists, nuclear and power engineers) in small new groups watch those factory-internal tests and ask questions – often new questions and doubts and also valuable feedbacks turn up. This will help clarify and pacify the situation even before October 2011, which is still very far away.
I know that you must be working very hard – but with some good organizational help it should be efficiently possible.
Dear Mr. V. Godbole:
Answer to both comments of yours:
1- I do not make more public tests because we already made them. I have to work hardly on the industrial production and I have no more time for demos. Besides, as I already explained, the tests fro now on will be made by the Customers.
2- The composition of our charge is confidential, as well as the operational mechanism.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr P.G. Sharrow,
It is wrong, no neutron are produced. I will release the theory ( which is at this point ready) in due time.
Warm regards,
A.R.
The Rossi Reactor seems to create stable copper from nickel and hydrogen. With No radioactive or unstable bi-products. Therefore only real neutrons are being created and only stable proton to neutron connections are being made in the nucleus, anything else would yield decay radiation. pg
Why it does not work with Pd-H or Pd-D or any other combination X-(1,2,3)H (where X stands for any lattice element and (1,2,3) H stand for proton, deuteron or triton) except Ni-H?
Why we can’t make it work for Si-H or Fe-H or Ca-H etc.? Take a look at the table of abundance of elements in the earth’s crust.
Prof. Daddi:
According to the miniatom proposal of Stremmenos, as you related it, some “defects” are required in the metal crystal lattice. Is there any direct experimental evidence that either the introduction (ie. by doping) or reduction of crystal lattice defects directly influences the rate of the reaction (ie. in the Rossi process)? It would seem that lattice defects must automatically be created in the Rossi process as Ni atoms are transmutted to other elements. Do you see any self-acceleration of the reaction due to the accumulation of such lattice defects? Thank you for your insightful article.
Regards; Herbert R. Gillis.