by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.
Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.
Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.
The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.
Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as
where for the DD fusion
Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression
that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:
Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):
Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be
this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.
The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,
Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:
Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.
Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.
Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.
Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.
References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).
by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Dear Mr Rossi, I have had an enquiry with regards a new design in steam turbines. I do have a patent that covers a new steam turbine design with specific advantages. The person making the enquiry stated ‘I believe the Rossi E-Cat will produce steam at a low temperature, how do you think your linear turbine will combine to conventional ones at low temperature?. My question is :- Do you see the E-Cat as a boiler for a hot water system only or does/will your E-Cat produce high temperature steam to power a turbine to generate electricity?. If the E-Cat is or will be one day, designed to power a turbine to generate electricity let me know and I shall forward the details of an improved turbine design that may compliment the E-Cat with regards size and power output. All the best in your venture. Regards E.A.
Gentile sig. Rossi. Il mio nome è Mauro e ho 26 anni.
E’ dalle prime fasi della vicenda che la seguo, dai primi articoli sul web. Avevo un gran bisogno di complimentarmi e ringraziarla per l’impegno e la volontà che sta mettendo per rivoluzionare questo nostro marcio mondo per il quale credo ci sia ancora speranza. Volevo farle un in bocca al lupo per il test(sono sicuro andrà perfettamente) e per l’ecat, il quale spero vivamente venga al più presto commercializzato.
Se posso permettermi vorrei chiederle se nell’immediato futuro presenzierà un qualche meeting o conferenza da poter assistere per poterla incontrare e avere l’opportunità di conoscerla.
In ogni caso la ringrazio ancora e le ricordo che, non sembrerebbe, ma siamo in moltissimi a fare il tifo per lei.
Cordiali saluti,
Dott. Mauro Agostini
Since, in fact, no evidence of cold fusion, nor revolutionary energy gains relative to current techonlogy, have been published, I sympathize with the vast amount of scepticism toward your machine. I sincerely hope that the dreams of the faithful people of this site are not crushed in october, and it would be prudent with a less public dialogue until evidence has been shown because of the, alleged, business proceedings. It is vulgar to accept acclaim ahead of time.
I am follwing the topic with intense interest.
Best Regards
JCA
Andrea, how long exactly are you planning to run your test on October the 6th?
Wladimir,you can consider a model in which, according you, the neutrino is not matter but, even so,
going at a speed above light speed in vaccuum, it could take information and that is unacceptable to the
theory. Personally, I do not believe in the results from CERN and even they are suspicious.
Regards
raul
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have just seen the marvelous video at ecat.com.
Is this the new household “H-Cat” that will be
introduced this month? This is interesting!
Best regards, Vinnie Jones
The article of Wladimir Guglinski will be online soon on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
A.R.
Caro Beppe:
A novembre daremo prezzi e conti.
Comunque, IO NON SONO PROFESSORE!
Cari saluti,
A.R.
prof. Rossi la sua invenzione la ritiene commerciabile ex
per avere mw di energia ci vogliono circa 50kw di potenza
la macchina potrebbe funzionare per 24 ore al giorno ??
e per quanti giorni in un anno
proviamo a fere un conto economico :
1 mw termico mettiamo circa 700 kw elettrici
quindi 700 X 24 ore al giorno per 300 gg anno X circa 0,08 ricavo vendita energia prodotta
totale anno di euro 400000,00
costo manutenzione 10% anno = 40000,00
costo di un alternatore da un mw con caldaia 1400000,00
la sua macchina circa 500000,00
sito permessi progetto lavori complementari circa 200000,00 ( combustibile compreso nel prezzo di manutenzione)
totale investimento 2100000,00 +40000,00 anno (manutenzione)
punto di pareggio a 5/6 anni
costo totale 2100000,00
ricavo in 6 anni 2400000,00
spese in 6 anni 2340000,00
se la sua macchina costa una cifra inferiore e’ conveniente in caso contrario noo
quindi deve avere un costo non superiore a 600,00 euro a kw
mi faccia sapere
1th OCTOBER !!!!
A new era in the history of mankind begins !!!!
Wellcome the eCat new era !!!
Only Quantum Ring Theory can save Einstein’s Relativity
It’s interesting to note that only Quantum Ring Theory can save Einstein’s relativity, in the case in the upcoming years it will be confirmed definitivelly that neutrinos can move faster than light. Indeed, if the theorists accept the model of neutrino proposed in QRT, Einstein’s theory is saved, since according to QRT the neutrino is not matter, and therefore it is not submitted to the laws that rule the behavior of matter, considered in his relativity. So, as according to QRT Einstein’s equations cannot be applied to the neutrino, his theory is saved.
The text above belongs to my new book The Missed U-Turn, the duel Heisenberg vs Schrödinger – from Newton to Rossi’s eCat, to be published in 2012 by an important publishing house in London.
Dear Luca Salvarani:
1- probably will be possible to extend the self sustained mode
2- The steam swoosh you saw is from a 10 kW module
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. For gum chewers: please go to a dictionary and search:” Irony”.
Dear Albert Ellul:
Thank you,Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
Wish you all the best of success for the October launch. May God be with you and may the snakes retreat to their holes in the ground and stay their for ever. The world will be a better place after October 2011.
Le faccio un grossissimo in bocca al lupo per il prossimo test e sono sicuro che andrà bene convincendo gli scettici in buona fede, gli altri meglio ignorarli.
Le faccio solo 2 domande:
1. Quanto è possibile migliorare ulteriormente l’efficienza degli e-cat, adesso che il processo fisico sottostante è chiaro?
2. L’incredibile flusso di vapore (immagino dell’impianto da 1 MW) che si vede nel video del sito ecat.com è stato filmato dal vivo? Se cosi fosse sarebbe pazzesco, meglio delle mie più rosee aspettative e a quel punto non ci sarebbe più scettico che tenga!
In bocca al lupo e un grosso abbraccio! E si riposi ogni tanto!
Dear Julian Londono,
My work is just useful as the work of everybody. I am just doing it at my best.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi
I wish you the best in the world, your work is liberating for the human race.
My best regards
Julian Londono
Dear Steven Ouellet:
All will be automatic, the maintainance will be made by our agents. Of course due manual will be given to our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Artioli Cesarino:
Prima di tutto grazie per la Sua attenzione.
Non è possibile estendere gli inviti, per motivi di sicurezza. Questo non è un test pubblico.
Troverà in rete ampi reports.
Cordialissimi saluti,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi, Good fortune to you in your planned October 6 trials. Our project places high value on sustainable Technologies and the methods used to create sustainable frameworks at micro and macro economic levels.
I wish to express our interest in your work, and where possible we would be pleased to lend support to your efforts. Add us as your NGO friends list, so to speak, working where we have “access” to the Developing World.
Andrew Loxham
Buona sera Sig. Rossi
Vorrei farle un in bocca al lupo per il Test del 8 Ottobre!
Sperando vivamente che certe serpi smettano di improvvisarsi scienziati cercando di farsi un nome sulla pelle di chi si impegna nel cercare di fare la differenza!
Io abito molto vicino a Bologna e devo dire la tentazione di chiederle se sia possibile essere presenti al Test e’ così forte da non potermi esimere dal farlo…… Anche se immagino che la risposta sia negativa e ne comprendo le ragioni….
Mi chiedo comunque se non sia possibile poterla seguire in Streaming Video… Sono sicuro che farebbe la felicita’ di molti!
Un Saluto Artioli Cesarino
Hi Mr.Rossi,
Pardone me if it has already been discussed before, but my question is about the E-Cat maintenance once bought and used by a domestic customer, for house.
Is there any kind of measurment, monitoring or maintenance? If so, what are the regularity of these maintenance. What could happen if no maintenance are done? Etc..
Thanks a lot for your answer and work. You have all my support.
Steven
E’ molto tempo che seguo lo sviluppo e i test della vostra invenzione.
Il prossimo mese sarà decisivo, spero tanto che abbiate successo.
In bocca al lupo.
I follow the development and tests of your invention, for long time.
The next month will be crucial, I really hope you succeed.
Good luck.
Dear K. Dobrolecki:
The mass differences are irrilevant,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear David Roberson:
We will check your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Mr.Rossi
12 or even 100 hours of testing is not enough test everything.
I am curious, if you check after six months of work of the reactor, how much it changed by weight, the total of nickel, plus the catalyst, plus the hydrogen pumped in and consumed by the E-Cat, and how much.
Best regards
K.Dobrolecki
Joseph Fine quoted Santilli’s theory in September 29th, 2011 at 12:59 PM:
“This is due to the fact indicated earlier that the proton is about 2,000 times heavier than the electron, “
Dear Joseph,
1-
Such explanation sounds very strange, since the conservation of the angular momentum does not depend on the mass of the particles.
Santilli’s model of neutron violates the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
Indeed, in the instant of neutron’s decay, n-> p+e+v’, we have:
A) as according to Santilli “p+e” has spin 1/2, the antineutrino cannot have spin 1/2, because the total spin of p+e+v’ is 1/2+1/2=1.
B) so, according to Santilli’s theory, before the decay the neutron has spin 1/2, and in the instant of the decay the total spin of p+e+v’ is 1.
2-
The proton has mass 938.3 MeV/c²
The electron has mass 0.511MeV/c²
Total mass = 938.811MeV/c²
Due to the packing loss, the mass of the neutron would have to be m < 938.811 MeV/c² . But the mass of neutron is 939.6 MeV/c² .
How does Santilli’s theory explains it ?
3-
In Quantum Ring Theory, the spin of particles is a property of their helical trajectory. So, in QRT we have:
A) The free electron has spin 1/2
B) When the free electron is captured by the proton and they form the neutron, the electron loses its helical trajectory, and so it becomes a boson with spin zero. In this instant a neutrino with spin 1/2 is emitted. And the spin of neutron is 1/2.
C) In the neutron’s decay, when the electron recovers its freedom, it gets its helical trajectory again, and so it gets its spin 1/2 again. In such process, a neutrino with spin 1/2 is emitted.
Fermi-Dirac statistics is never violated.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
In an earlier posting you mentioned that all of the energy released during the operation of an ECAT is of gamma or X-Rays. Then you pointed out that the radiation energy was converted to heat within the coolant and lead shielding. A thought came to me concerning the design of your ECAT which seems to suggest a modification that might be helpful.
Is it possible to place a modest thermal insulator around your steel reaction chamber which is transparent to the radiation? This insulator would perform as an escape path into the coolant for heat from the heating element as well as excess heat generated incidentally during the reaction. With this arrangement, the required energy to excite the ECAT could be reduced significantly. Also, the temperature gradient throughout the nickel mixture would be much less. The stability of the ECAT should not be impacted to a great degree since there is little thermal energy released within the nickel core, per your post, as the output power ramps up.
It appears that the nickel powder, hydrogen, and catalyst mixture is an ideal energy source. You are able to separate the radiation generation region (nickel core) from the heat generation region (coolant). Positive feedback can thus be minimized and an excellent explanation for the large stable output heat to input energy ratio is obtained.
D.R.
Dear Don Sprague:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea-
I would not loose any sleep over the snake. Within days he will be forced back under whatever rock he came from. Many of us are curious about his (obviously sinister)agenda.
You have far more important issues to deal with as the tests and commercial endeavors get under way.
I certainly hope your partners are up to the tasks ahead.
Best of luck and warm regards, Don S.
Dear Eernie1:
To make the analysis you describe means to give information that so far we cannot give.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
Santilli says that the neutron has spin of 1/2.
I think he explained the neutron properties well. (Not accepted in mainstream physics, but, so what. )
Respectfully,
Joseph Fine
Excerpt:
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-scientific-discoveries-6.php
6.3C. Nonrelativistic, exact and invariant representation of the neutron spin.
The 1990 paper then considers the initiation of Rutherford’s compression of the electron within the proton in singlet coupling, as illustrated in Figure 6.11. It is evident that, as soon as the penetration begins, the electron is trapped inside the hyperdense, much heavier and spinning proton, thus resulting in a constrained orbital motion. This is due to the fact indicated earlier that the proton is about 2,000 times heavier than the electron, as a result of which the proton can be assumed in first approximation as remaining at rest and un-mutated in its intrinsic angular momentum, while contributions from the proton mutations can at best be of second order or of relativistic character.
In this way, Santilli reached the conclusion in the 1990 paper that, under the geometry of Rutherford’s compression, the electron is constrained to have an orbital angular momentum equal to the proton spin, namely an angular momentum with the value 1/2, yet opposite to the electron spin. Therefore, the spin of the neutron coincides with that of the proton.
Dear Ing.Rossi.Has anyone made metallurgical tests on the copper nickel alloys you produce in the cat cores?It would be very interesting to know what are the melting points,hardness,crystal configurations,thermal and electrical conductivities and tensile strengths of the various different alloy percentage ratios you produce.(depending on the time of core usage).These values could help you determine the best configurations for long duration performance.Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois has probably the best metallurgical department in the US and should be very interested in a joint research program.
Dear Alessandro Casali:
Not yet,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
Thanks a lot for your exhaustive replay.
Should we conclude that the 2nd test (not the one on October 6th) with the small e-cat will be done at a NASA facility?
Warm Regards,
ac.
Dear Enzo:
I will disclose the name of our Customer as soon as I will be allowed to do this.
Real applications are not only ready for the 1 MW plants, but also for the 10 kW modules, which wee will put on the market. While others cvhatter, we go to facts.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Alessandro Casali:
1- It will be ready by the end of October for the test. We are making corrections.
2- Yes, but they prefer to test our Cats in their Facilities in the USA
3- No, they will buy the modular E-Cats to check if this technology is useful for their purposes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bruno Galvan:
Please read FOCUS, issue of August 2011.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
you wrote:
“NASA’S DENNIS.M.BUSHNELL HAS SAID PUBILCLY THAT NASA WILL BUY AN E-CAT AS SOON AS IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TEST IT”
There exists a link were this declaration can be found?
Thank you
Dear Dr. Rossi,
First of all let me congatulate you for your decision to set up the October 6th test with a closed loop, i’m really looking forward.
I would also like to ask you a few questions:
1) How is it going with the 1MW plant? is it completed?
2) Did you invite people from NASA to the October 6th test?
3) Is NASA the big customer of your first 1MW plant?
Warm Regards,
ac.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
the selling of the first 1MW plant will be an historical event, can you tell us what kind of application will the client do with it?
Am I far from truth if I think that the main purpose of the first plant sold will be to show the world that your technology has real applications?
Enzo.
WARNING:
THE SNAKE HAS WRITTEN IN HIS BLOG THAT NASA MADE A NOT POSITIVE TEST WITH US. THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. I AM BOUND FROM A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND I CANNOT GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT I CAN SAY THAT:
1- WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH NASA, WHO WANTS TO TEST OUR ECATS TO TEST THE POSSIBILITY TO MAKE THEM USEFUL FOR THEIR PURPOSES
2- NASA’S DENNIS.M.BUSHNELL HAS SAID PUBILCLY THAT NASA WILL BUY AN E-CAT AS SOON AS IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TEST IT
3- OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NASA IS TOTALLY POSITIVE
IN A SEPARATE STATEMENT, A SNAKE’S ACCOLITE WROTE THAT THE TEST WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THE 6TH OF OCTOBER WILL BE ALWAYS MADE WITH STEAM. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU SPEAK WITH THIS PEOPLE YOU DEAL WITH PERSONS THAT HAVE REAL DIFFICULTIES TO UNDERSTAND A TITLE OF A NEWSPAPER IF THEY ARE AT THE SAME TIME CHEWING A GUM, BUT, JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION I REPEAT THAT:
THE MEASUREMENTS WILL BE MADE ON LIQUID WATER. WE WILL HAVE THE STEAM PRODUCED FROM THE REACTOR THAT WILL WORK IN A CLOSED LOOP, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT, AND THE STEAM ITSELF EXCHANGES HEAT WITH THE LIQUID WATER IN A SECONDARY CLOSED LOOP, SO THAT THE WATER IS HEATED BY THE STEAM THROUGH THE WALLS OF A HEAT EXCHANGER. WE WILL MEASURE THE ENERGY TAKING THE DELTA T OF THE WATER, THE WATER, THE WATER, NOT OF THE STEAM NOT OF THE STEAM, NOT OF THE STEAM, THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE STEAM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOT IMPORTANCE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT MEASURE THE ENERGY FROM THE STEAM !!!!!!! WE COULD PUT IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT STEAM DIATHERMIC OIL, GLYCOLE, COCA COLA: IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRILEVANT WHICH IS THE FLUID IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT AS FOR CONCERNS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY BECAUSE WE MEASURE THE ENERGY ONLY MULTIPLYING THE CUBIC METERS OF WATER FLOWING THROUGH THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT IN ONE HOUR BY THE DELTA T OBTAINED SUBTRACTING, FROM THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER (LIQUID) OF THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT AT THE EXIT FROM THE HEAT EXCHANGER, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SAME LIQUID WATER AT THE INPUT OF THE SAME HEAT EXCHANGER.
ANDREA ROSSI
Caro Vitto5:
Mi contatti a Novembre, quando inizieremo l’attività commerciale
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
Gent. Ing. Rossi
Prima di tutto complimenti per la sua magnifica invenzione che ho potuto scoprire su vari articoli
e video trovati su internet.
Sono un farmacista che si occupa anche di fornire ospedali (che ritengo possano essere uno dei
primi e validi clienti per il suo e-cat ) sarei molto interessato nella mia regione alla prossima commercializzazione del suo prodotto , nella forma commerciale che lei ritenesse più opportuna .
Inoltre sarei onorato di prendere parte della sua compagine azionaria anche in seguito ad eventuale start up aziendale .
Gradirei che mi fornisse la sua e-mail per contattarla direttamente .
Dott. Agostino De Sotgiu
Dear Sean True:
I like this “agora’ “. And I am learning from it, more than you can imagine, in all senses.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe Bonner:
I thank you for your proposal, but we cannot exchange confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Martin:
In November we will give the commercial informations regarding the marketing of the E-Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear mr Rossi,
In Holland we also like the ecat. Can we also buy the ecat in 2011/2012?
Best regards,
Martin
Mr. Rossi,
I have been following your progress for some time and want to wish you great success in your upcoming tests. I have an idea on how to maintain a stable reaction in self sustain mode. Feel free to email me for information.
Regards,
Joe Bonner
Stimato Ing. Rossi (che è tutto il mio italiano) –
I’d like to thank you for patiently and kindly answering so many questions for those of
us who have followed you over the last year. It’s been a remarkable combination of teaching,
advocacy, and viral marketing.
Speaking for myself, and possibly for others here, I would understand if you decided to
spend less time and energy on us for the next few weeks. After 9 months of development,
there is often a little bit of crisis at the delivery!
— Sean