Anomalous mass of the neutron

by Wladimir Guglinski Mechanical Engineer graduated in the Escola de Engenharia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- UFMG, (Brazil), 1973 author of the book Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion, published in 200

Direct download

A new model of the neutron n=p+s is proposed, where s is the selectron, a particle postulated by the Supersymmetry.  The model n=p+s belongs to the author’s “Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion”, which is composed by 26 papers  published in a book form in 2006 by the Bauu Institute Press.
The Nuclear Physics works with two models of the neutron.  The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages (the most grave is the violation of the mass-energy conservation, although the theorists tried to justify it through the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), because his model cannot explain some phenomena.  The quark model (d,u,d) also cannot explain other sort of phenomena, and then the theorists use the two models, sometimes they use the Yukawa’s model, and sometimes they use the quark model.  However, they are two incompatible models, and it is difficult to believe that Nature works through the use of two incompatible models for the production of phenomena.
The old Rutherford’s model of neutron has been abandoned by the theorists because it seems that it cannot be reconciled with some principles of Quantum Mechanics.  Nevertheless, herein it is shown that Rutherford’s model can be reconciled with the principles of QM when we introduce the hypothesis of the helical trajectory.

Keywords:  new version n=p+s of Rutherford’s neutron, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments, Natarajan’s helical trajectory incorporated to n=p+s, Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments suggesting a new Planck’s gravitational constant, deuteron’s quadrupole moment, neutron’s magnetic moment, deuteron’s magnetic moment.

This paper was submitted to several peer reviewed journals of Nuclear Physics.  All they rejected it.  In the last journal, the referee rejected it by claiming that a neutron cannot be formed by one proton and one selectron because the energy required to form a selectron is of about 20GeV.  However, 20GeV is the energy required from the current theories, which do not consider the helical trajectory of the electron.  So, a neutron formed by proton and selectron is impossible when it is considered by the current Nuclear Physics, but it is not impossible if we consider a model of electron with helical trajectory.

The model of neutron proposed in the Quantum Ring Theory does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as it is explained as follows:

  1. In the present theory it is proposed that the elementary particles move through a helical trajectory (HT).
  2. In the author’s paper [1], numbered No. 4 in his book,  it is shown that the HT has a property named Zoom-effect, according which the radius of the HT decreases with the growth of the velocity of the particle.  When the velocity is near to the velocity c of light, the radius of the HT tends to zero (which means that when an electron moves with relativistic speed, its motion approaches to a classical trajectory in the sense of Newton).
  3. In the author’s paper [2], numbered No. 5 in his book, it is proposed that the spin of the particles (in the sense of quantum theory) is a result of the intrinsic spin of the particle combined with the rotation of the particle about the line center of its HT.
  4. So, as due to the Zoom-effect an electron with relativistic speed does not move through the HT, then an electron with relativistic speed becomes a boson, because it loses its quantum spin (which is a property of the HT, which vanished with the relativistic motion).
  5. In the present paper it is calculated the velocity of the electron about a proton, within the structure of the neutron. Its velocity is 92% of the light speed, which means that within the neutron’s structure the electron becomes a boson.
  6. In the Supersymmetry it is postulated the existence of a particle with the same mass and charge of the electron, but with a null spin.  They call it selectron.
  7. So, we can consider that in the present theory the structure of the neutron actually is n=p+s, that is, the neutron is formed by one proton and one selectron.  Therefore the neutron actually is structured by one fermion (the proton) and one boson (the selectron).
  8. Then we realize that it is vanished the most grave restriction against the neutron formed by proton and electron, because now we can consider that the electron becomes a selectron within the neutron’s structure.  Thereby such new structure fits to Fermi-Dirac’s statistics, since in the new model n=p+s the neutron is formed by a fermion combined with a boson.

So, as from the model of neutron n=p+s there is no violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, and since the other restrictions against n=p+s are eliminated in the present paper, then the theorists have no reason anymore for rejecting a model of neutron formed by one proton and one selectron.
The mechanism according which an electron becomes a selectron within the structure n=p+s has been named “spin-fusion” in the author’s theory.  Any lepton is subjected to be tied to a quark through the spin-fusion mechanism (within a structure with quark-lepton interaction we would rename the lepton by calling it “selepton”, which spin is zero).
A theoretical quark model of neutron n = (u,d,u-s) has been proposed by the author in a paper published by the Journal of New Energy [3], where it was shown that several paradoxes of Physics can be eliminated through the adoption of the new model.  As for example:

  1. From the proposal of the “spin-fusion” phenomenon the cause is found for the violation of the parity in beta-decay. NOTE: The spin-fusion mechanism is proposed in the author’s paper “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory”[2], and it is based on the property of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles, as proposed in the author’s paper “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom”[1].
  2. From the new comprehension of the cause of violation of the parity, it is possible to propose a new interpretation for the temporal reversion (an interpretation of Christenson’s discovery concerning the decay of some pions), in order that it is possible to eliminate the very strange hypothesis of temporal reversion in physics.

The new model of neutron (u,d,u-s) can also supply theoretical backgrounds for the explanation of several questions arisen from new experimental findings, as we may mention for instance:

  • a) Taleyarkhan[4] experiment cannot be explained from the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics, since the Suslick-Didenko[5] experiment has shown that the greatest portion of the energy of the sonoluminescence phenomenon is wasted in chemical reactions, and therefore the remaining energy is unable to yield hot nuclear reactions.
  • b) New astronomical observations [6], described in the journal Nature, are suggesting that Planck’s constant can have variation.  Such a hypothesis implies the breakdown of Quantum Mechanics, unless we show that for distances shorter than 2fm there are non-Coulombic interactions performed through a new sort of Planck’s constant, which nature is gravitational.

Before the acceptance of the model n=p+s by the scientists, there are several questions to be answered. Obviously the theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e can also be applied to the model n=p+s (excluding the Fermi-Dirac statistics, as already explained before).  So, let us remember what are the restrictions against the model n=p+e.
One of the solutions proposed herein is concerning the anomalous mass of the neutron.
The repose mass of the proton and electron are:

Proton:  mP = 938.3 MeV/c²
Electron:  me = 0.511MeV/c²
Total mass: mT = 938.811MeV/c²

A structure of the neutron n = p+e would have to have a mass mN < 938.811 MeV/c², since there is a loss of mass.  However, it is known by experiments that neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6MeV/c².  This fact is one of the stronger reasons why the majority of the physicists do not accept the model n=p+e, although several experiments have shown that neutron structure is indeed n=p+e.  So, herein we will show why the neutron with structure n = p+e has such an anomalous mass mN>mp+me.
Another restriction against the model n = p+e comes from the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: such a model requires a force with magnitude 10³ stronger than the strong nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the nuclei.  Herein we propose a solution able to eliminate such a restriction.
Considering the model n = p+e, the paper also exhibits the theoretical calculation for:

a)  the magnetic moment of the neutron
b)  the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
c)  the magnetic moment of the deuteron


  1. The helical trajectory of the elementary particles was proposed by Natarajan[7].  According to his proposal, “When we consider a particle at rest in the laboratory frame, it has no external motion (vCX = 0).  The internal velocity, however, is given by vIN= c (Postulate 4).  On the other hand, if the particle is observed to be moving with a uniform velocity v in the laboratory (vCX = v),  then vIN should be vIN = (c² –  v²)½  so that the result of these two velocities is still c (Postulate 3 and 4).”
  2. The helical trajectory appears in the Dirac’s theory of the electron.  In their book[8] Lindsay and Margenau say: “The only possible resolution of this apparent paradox is to assume that the electron performs, in a classical sense, a rapidly periodic movement with the speed of light, while it progresses uniformly along x in conformity with (12).  Schrödinger was the first to point out this peculiar trembling motion;  its actual significance is not clearly understood”.
  3. There is not any similar theory in the world.  The reason is obvious:  all the attempts of other theorists are made by considering the fundamental principles of quantum theory.  Nobody tries a model with a corpuscular electron, because all they consider that a corpuscular electron is incompatible with the Schrödinger’s Equation.

Unlike, within the neutron’s structure proposed here the electron is a corpuscular particle that moves through the helical trajectory, and so there is not any model of neutron similar to this model proposed herein.
OBS:  in the author’s paper [1] it is shown that a corpuscular electron that moves through the helical trajectory is compatible with the Schrödinger Equation.  This is the reason why the author can propose a model of neutron n=p+e where the electron is corpuscular, but other authors cannot do it.
Dr. Rugero Santilli and Dr. Elio Conte have proposed a model of neutron n=p+e, but in their theory the electron is not corpuscular.  Their models are unable to explain fundamental questions that arrive when we try to propose a model n=p+e, as for example the violation of Fermi-Dirac statistics, the anomalous mass of the neutron, the magnitude of the neutron’s magnetic moment (it would have to be in the same order of the electron’s magnetic moment).  These questions are explained from the model  n=p+s.

Anomalous uncertainly principle
According to current Particle Physics, the structure of the pion po is (d,d’), where d is a quark (d)–1/3 and d’ is its antiparticle (d’)+1/3. The pion po can have two sorts of decays:

χº → γ + γ
χº → e+ + e- + proton       (1)

The time decay has the order of 10ˆ-15s.
Let us calculate the binding energy necessary to pack together these two quarks d and d’, considering the following:

a) The quarks have a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass
b) The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle      Δx.Δp ~ h (2)

Consider the two quarks d and d’ into a rectangular well with a radius “a,” where “a” is the distance between the two quarks into the structure of the pion χº, in order that the uncertainty in the value of position is Δx ~ a.  From Eq. (2) the smallest possible value of Δp is given approximately by  Δp~h/a. So, the quarks placed in the potential well of radius a≤1fm would have kinetic energies, at least in the order of magnitude

T ~ Δp²/2µπ ~ h²/mπ.a² ~ 80GeV      (3)

where µπ = mπ/2  is the reduced mass of each quark.

Let us expound the matter in another more precise way, by considering the conditions necessary for the appearance of a standing wave. For the rectangular potential well of the radius a, this condition is:

2a = λ/2     (4)

where λ is the de Broglie wavelength. Substituting  λ = h/p ,  we have

2a = h/2p = h/2(2µπ T)½ = h/2(mπ T)½     (5)

where T is kinetic energy of the quark in the well.  From Eq. (5), with a ≤1fm, we have

T = π²2h²/4mπa² ≥ 180 GeV      (6)

Since the two quarks are into the potential well along a time with the order of 10ˆ–15s, it is necessary a depth of a well Uπ , as follows

Uπ = T =  180 GeV     (7)

Let us compare it with the depth of potential well UN of deuteron nuclei, since we know that into the deuteron the proton and neutron are tied by the strong force.  The depth of the well UN is:

UN = 40 MeV     (8)

Since Up /UN = 4×10³, this means that, for keeping the two quarks along the time 10ˆ–15s, it would be necessary to have a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Even if we consider the structure of the proton (u,d,u), two quarks ‘u’ cannot be packed by the strong force into the potential well with radius a = 1fm.  It is necessary a force thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.
Undoubtedly, this fact suggests that something is wrong with the uncertainty principle Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with radius a≤1fm .
Besides, the decay shown in Eq. (1) shows that the bound state to the two quarks cannot be 180 GeV, and this suggests that something is wrong with the relation  Δx.Δp ~ h when we apply it for a potential well with radius a£1fm.
We will see ahead other fact suggesting that we cannot apply  Δx.Δp ~ h into a potential well with a≤1fm .
Gravitational quantum of energy
There are two experiments where the model  n = p+e has been obtained.

In the 1980s, the physicist Don Borghi [2] et al. made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from protons and electrons at low energy.  At the end of the article they say, “Hence we may conclude that this experiment seems to confirm the possibility of observing directly the assumed non-Coulombic interaction between protons and electrons.”
In 1999 the physicist Elio Conte, together with Maria Pieralice [3], made an experiment where they obtained neutrons from the cold fusion between protons and electrons.
So, we have two different experiments where the researchers confirmed the structure n=p+e for the neutron.
The mass of the electron is approximately the same mass of a quark d, both having a mass approximately 1/2000 of the proton’s mass.  This means that, into the structure n=p+e, the electron would have to be confined into a potential well with depth Ue = 180 GeV, that is, if we consider that we must apply the Heisenberg’s relation (2).  And then it would require a kind of force thousands of times stronger than the nuclear force, in order to keep the electron in the structure n=p+e.
So, we have a dilemma:
  1. On one side, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle  Δx.Δp ~ h imply that it is impossible a structure n=p+e.
  2. On the other side, two experiments are showing that n=p+e is the structure used by the Nature.
What have we to keep? We have two alternatives:
  1. We keep the relation Δx.Δp ~ h, and it means that we must reject the experiments. This is a betrayal to the scientific method.
  2. We keep the experiments, and this implies that we must analyze what happens with Heinsenberg’s uncertainty principle into potential wells with a≤1fm, because we must realize that something unknown by the physicists happens into regions with a≤1fm.
It is well to remember that in the beginning of the 20th Century several experiments suggested the structure n = p+e, as for example the neutron’s decay → p+e+ν’.  But Heisenberg rejected these experiments.  Since the Mathematics suggested that the structure n=p+e is impossible, Heisenberg decided to reject those old experiments.
But now new experiments are showing that n=p+e is indeed correct. We cannot neglect the experiments anymore, like Heisenberg did.  This indicates that we must propose a new interpretation for the Heinsenberg’s principle into a potential well with radius a≤1fm.
First of all, let us remember that Planck’s constant h =  6.6×10ˆ–34J-s  has electromagnetic origin, since he made his experiments with photons into a black body.  But into a potential well with radius a≤1fm, we have to consider the strong force. Then it is possible that Planck’s constant must be replaced by a new constant hG , by considering that hG is a smallest quantum of energy due to the interactions by the nuclear force.  In the last item we will show that electron’s bound energy into the neutron must have on the order of 0.1 MeV.  So, by considering that electron’s binding energy has the order of  0.1MeV, then, by introducing a correction, from Eq. (6) we get:
hG ~ [ h²/(180.000/0,1) ]½ = 1,3×10ˆ-37J-s     (9)
One argument against this proposal is to say that the electron has no interaction by the strong force. However, in past papers the author will show that there are evidences suggesting that the strong force has gravitational origin, when we consider a dynamic gravity (different from the static gravity of current Physics).
So, if we consider the quantum vacuum constituted by electromagnetic particles and by gravitons, through such a consideration it means that Planck’s constant h is due to interactions by electromagnetic particles of the quantum vacuum, while the constant hG is due to interactions by gravitons.
Pay attention that we are proposing here the constant hG through the same way as Planck proposed the constant h.  Indeed, Planck has been constrained to adopt the hypothesis of the constant h because that was the unique solution able to solve the paradox of the ultraviolet catastrophe into the black body.  By the same way, today we have two experiments, made by Borghi and by Conte, and these two experiments are showing that the neutron’s structure is n=p+e.  The unique way to explain this structure, obtained by the experiments, is through the adoption of the following hypothesis:
for a potential well with radius a1fm,  Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is   Δx.Δp~h ,  where hG~1.3×10ˆ–37J-s  is the gravitational quantum of energy.
How to get the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
Magnetic moment of the electron is by three orders of magnitude larger than that of the neutron.  So, at first glance, it seems that the neutron could not be performed by the structure n= p+e.  However, as is shown in the author’s other paper [7] , the magnetic moment of the electron depends on its helical trajectory into the electrosphere of the atom.  In another paper [8] , the author shows that the radius of the helical trajectory has vanished when the electron’s speed approaches light speed c.  So, in the structure n=p+e the electron’s speed is 0.92c , as we will calculate herein, then into the neutron the electron loses its helical trajectory, and by consequence its magnetic moment into the neutron is very small, justifying the present theoretical calculation for the neutron’s magnetic moment.
Therefore the method of calculation is very simple:
a) The electron turning about the proton can be considered like a small spiral
b) The m of  neutron will be :  mNEUTRON =  mPROTON + mSPIRAL
Proton’s magnetic moment we get from experiments, µ = +2,7896µn
Spiral’s magnetic moment we have to derive from calculation. We need to know two data about the electron’s orbit:
  1. Spiral’s radius – we can get it from electron’s orbit about two protons , starting from the electric quadrupole moment Q(b) of deuteron. From experiments,  Q(b) = + 2.7×10ˆ–31m² , and from here we will get the radius R of the spiral.
  2. Electron’s speed – we can get it from Kurie’s graphic for beta-decay of neutron.
Proton’s radius
We will need proton’s radius with more accuracy than Nuclear Theory can give us. And we will get it from recent interpretations about recent experiments. From Nuclear Theory, we know two important facts about the nucleus:
  • 1st fact – protons and neutrons have the same distribution into the nuclei. This conclusion had been inferred from interpretation about the empirical equation shown in the Fig. 1.
  • 2nd fact – from the empirical equation, the physicists also concluded that all the nuclei have the same shell thickness  “2b” = 2 x 0.55F = 1.1F
From these two facts we can suppose that the protons and neutrons distribution into the nuclei is like shown in the Fig. 2, and thus we can get proton’s radius:
4 x Rp = 1.1F  →   Rp = 0.275F      (10)
The radius Rp = 0.275F is corroborated by the proton’s distribution of load, obtained from experiments, shown in Fig. 10.
We will verify that Rp = 0.275F can lead us to very good conclusions, according to the results of experiments.
Well-known calculation used by nuclear theory
Let us remember a theoretical calculation of electric quadrupole moment Q(b) used by Nuclear Theory.

Fig. 3 shows a nucleus composed by a  [ magic number  +  1 proton ].

For example, it can be the 51Sb123 = 50Sn122 + 1 proton. The magic number 50Sn122  has Q(b)= 0, because its distribution is spherically symmetrical.
The 51Sb123 will have
Q(b) =  ∫ρ [ – (r’ )² ].dτ =  -(r’ )². ∫ρ.dτ      (11)
∫ρ.dτ  =  + 1      (12)
because the ring (Fig. 3)  has 1 proton , and “ρ” is measured by proton’s units of load.
Q(b) =   -(r’)²     (13)
This is a well-known traditional calculation. The nuclear physicists know it very well.
Application to the calculation of Q8b)
Let’s apply this sort of considerations to the model of 1H2 shown in the Fig. 4, with one electron turning about two protons.
The two protons have Q(b) = 0 , because theirs distribution of load is spherically symmetrical. The electron can be considered like a proton with negative load, with punctual concentrated configuration, and therefore the electron produces a ring like shown in Fig. 5.
If a proton with positive load yields  ∫ρdτ  = +1 , the electron with negative load yields  ∫ρdτ  = -1. By consequence, the  electric quadrupole moment of  1H2 will be :
Q(b) = -(r’ )²∫ρdτ = -(r’ )².(-1) = +(r’ )²      (14)
But  r’= 2Rp (Fig. 4) , and Rp = 0.275F is the proton’s radius obtained in (10).
Q(b) =  +(r’ )² = +(0,55F)² = +3,0×10ˆ-31m²      (15)
But the radius Rp = 0.275F is not exact, because it is obtained by experiments ( b = 0.55F ).
If we consider  Rp = 0.26F, we will have  r’ = 0.52F, and then:
Q(b) = +(0.52F)Q(b)² = + 2.7 x 10ˆ-31m²      (16)
like inferred from experiments, and therefore we can take R = 0.26F (spiral’s radius).
NOTE:  Of course Yukawa’s model cannot explain Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m² of deuteron, because the two protons have Q(b) = 0, and the meson’s oscillation cannot be responsible by  Q(b) = +2.7 x 10ˆ-31m².  A deuteron performed by (u,d,u).(d,u,d) of current Nuclear Physics also cannot get the result Q(b)= +2.7×10ˆ-31m² of the experiments.

Electron’s speed
We will get electron’s speed from the neutron’s beta-decay (Fig. 9).

Electron’s repose energy ( E = m0.c² )  is  0.511 MeV.
From Kurie’s graphic interpretation, electron’s kinetic energy KeMAX when emitted in the beta-decay, corresponds to the binding energy 0.78 MeV , that is, electron’s kinetic energy turning about the proton.
0.78MeV > 0.511MeV,  by consequence  EKINETIC > m0.c², and therefore we need to apply Einstein’s Relativistic dynamics if we want to know electron’s “v” speed in the spiral.
The relativistic kinetic energy is  :
E = m0.c²[ 1/( 1 – v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (17)
Thus, we have:
0.78MeV = 0.511MeV[ 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ -1 ]      (18)
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½ =  2.5264      (19)
1/( 1- v²/c² )   =  6.383      (20)
6.383 – 6.383.v²/c²  = 1       (21)
6.383 × v²/c²  =  5.383      (22)
v = c (5.383/6.383)½  =  2.746×10ˆ8 m/s   ~   91.83% c     (23)
A spiral with area “A” , a current “i” , and radius R , produces
µ = i.A = q.v.π.R²/ 2µR  =  q.v.R/2
and with relativistic speeds
µ = q.v.R      (24)
The magnetic dipole moment µSPIRAL of one relativistic spiral will suffer a correction proportional to:
λ = 1/( 1- v²/c² )½     (25)
because if  v→c  ,   then    µSPIRAL → ∞.
µSPIRAL = q.v.R/[ ( 1- v²/c² )½ ] ,   when   v → c     (26)
R = spiral’s radius  =  0.26F   (27)
q = -1.6×10ˆ-19C      (28)
v = 2.746×10ˆ8 m/s      (29)
µSPIRAL =  λ.[q.v.R]     ,    λ = 2.5264  in the present problem     (30)
µSPIRAL = 2.5264 x (-1.6 x 10ˆ-19C) x 2.746 x 10ˆ8m/s x 0.26 x 10ˆ-15m     (31)
µSPIRAL = 2.886 x 10ˆ–26 A-m² =  -5.715µn     (32)
Calculation of the magnetic dipole moment of neutron
The proton has µ = +2.7896mn , and then the magnetic dipole moment of neutron will be:
µNEUTRON = +2.7896 – 5.715 = -2.9254µn      (33)
and the experiments detected -1.9103mn.
This result is coherent, if we consider:
  1. The radius R= 0.26F has been obtained from the calculation of electric quadrupole moment, and therefore it is necessary to consider an external radius due to the electron’s orbit around the proton,
    Rext = 0.26F      (34)
    because the external radius is responsible by the measurement of  Q(b).
  2. In the spiral’s area responsible by the magnetic dipole moment, it is necessary to consider the internal spiral’s radius,
    Rint = Rext – Φe  (Φe = electron’s diameter)      (35)
    because the “internal area” of the spiral produces the flux of magnetic dipole moment.

The experiments already detected electron’s radius, which magnitude is smaller than 10ˆ-16m , and also proton’s radius, in order of 10ˆ-15m . Therefore, we can conclude that the density of their masses is approximately the same, because the relation between their masses is:

983.3MeV /c² / 0.511MeV /c²   =   1836     (36)
and the relation between theirs radii is:
Rp / Re = (1836 )ˆ1/3  =  12,25  ~ 10ˆ-15 /10ˆ-16m     (37)
Rp ~ 0.26F  →  Re ~  0.26 / 12.25  =  0.0212F     (38)
Thus, electron’s diameter is Φe = 2 x 0.0212F = 0.0424F  ,  and the internal radius of spiral will be:
Rint = 0.26F – 0.0424F  =   0.2176F     (39)
The correct magnetic dipole moment of electron’s spiral will be:
µSPIRAL = -5.715 x 0.2176 / 0.26 = -4.783µn     (40)
and we get
µNEUTRON = -4.783 + 2.7896 = -1.9934µn     (41)
which is a very good result.
Magnetic dipole moment of deuteron
The proton has µρ = +2.7896µn, and the neutron has µN = -1.9103mn.  Then let us see what magnetic moment for the deuteron we would have to expect from the current theories of Physics.
  1. From Yukawa’s model, as the meson has oscillatory motion between the proton and the neutron, it cannot produce any additional magnetic moment.  Therefore from Yukawa’s model the magnetic moment of deuteron would have to be mD = +2.7896µn – 1.9103µn = + 0.8793µn.
  2. From the model of Particle Physics (u,d,u)(d,u,d) there is no reason why an additional magnetic moment can be created.  Then we also would have to expect µD = +0.8793µn.
But the experiments show that the deuteron has magnetic moment µD =  +0.857µn.  So, from the models of neutron used in current Physics is impossible to explain the magnetic moment of deuteron.  Let us see if we can explain it from the present model of neutron n = p+e. In the formation of the deuteron, there are two protons with the same spin, so the spin due to the protons is i=1.  In the First Part of the paper New Model of Neutron [1] we already have seen that electron’s contribution is null for the total spin, as consequence of the spin-fusion phenomenon.  Therefore the deuteron has nuclear spin i=1.
Calculation of µ.
Fig. 6 illustrates the method:
  1. There are two protons each one with mp= +2.7896µn.
  2. We already obtained spiral’s  µS= -4.783µn.  But we will consider µS= -4.7mn , because 0.083 is due to error in the accuracy.
  3. When the electron of the structure n = p+e is situated between the two protons of the structure of the deuteron (see Fig. 6), it is submitted to three forces:
    a) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton into the neutron’s structure (proton at right side).
    b) The centrifugal force expelling the electron in the direction of the proton at the left side.
    c) The nuclear force of attraction with the proton at the right side.
Then there is an increase of area ΔA due to the electron’s deviation in the direction of the proton at the left side, which is responsible for an increase of Δμ .
We can approach the area ΔA of Fig. 6 from a rectangular area, as shown in Fig. 7, and the total magnetic moment will be performed as indicated in the Fig. 8.
We know that electron’s SPIRAL has a radius R = 0.26F.
Let us consider that ΔA is a rectangular area with dimensions 0.52F and 0.002F.  Then the area is:
ΔA = 0.52 x 0.002 = 0.001F²     (42)
The area of electron’s spiral is:
A =  p.0.26² = 0.212 F²     (43)
If the spiral with area A = 0.212 F²  produces m= -4.7µn , then an area  ΔA = 0.001F²  will produce:
Δµ = -4.7 x 0.001/0.212 = -0.022µn     (44)
and  the theoretical µ of  1H2, obtained from the model n = p+e, will be:
2.(+2.7896) – (4.7 + 0.022) = +0.857µn     (45)
Anomalous mass of the neutron
We will show that neutron’s anomalous mass is due to the growth of the electron’s mass, since the electron has a relativistic speed into the neutron, as we will calculate here. So, let us calculate the electron’s increase of mass.
The electron’s mass into the neutron n=p+e  is:
m = mo.γ      (46)
where γ we already obtained in (30):   γ = 2.5264
m = mo.γ = 0.511 x 2.5264 =  1.291 MeV/c²      (47)
Considering the electron’s increase of mass, the proton and the electron perform the total mass:
mp + me = 938.3 MeV/c² + 1.291 MeV/c² = 939.591 MeV/c² ~ 939.6 MeV/c²     (48)
Since mp + me ~ 939.6 MeV/c² , and the neutron’s mass is mN = 939.6 MeV/c², we realize that neutron’s binding energy is approximately zero, and this explains why it suffers decay.  However, with more accurate experiments, perhaps it is possible to discover the correct binding energy of the neutron.  So, by more accurate experiments, we can get the correct value of hG obtained in Eq. (9).
The first reaction of a physicist against the proposals of the present paper probably would be to claim the following: “It is hard for me to believe those difficulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale.  Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant.”
We must analyze such an argument from five viewpoints, as follows:
  1. First viewpoint: Up to know the theoretists have neglected the Borghi’s experiment, and this is just the reason why they never tried such a new theoretical alternative. Indeed, the proposal of a new Planck’s constant, proposed herein, is required by the results of two new experiments, made by Conte-Pieralice and Borghi. Even if the present new proposal is not a definitive solution, nevertheless any other different solution must be proposed by considering the results of Conte-Pieralice-Borghi experiments.  By neglecting their experiments is impossible to find a satisfactory solution.
    Moreover, it is well to note that the proposal of a new Planck’s constant is not able to solve the theoretical problems itself.  That’s why such an idea has never been proposed by the string theorists, since such new proposal actually must be proposed together with other new proposals, like the spin-fusion hypothesis, the helical trajectory, its zoom-property[8], etc.  The new Planck’s constant is not proposed here alone, actually it belongs to a collection of new proposals that performs new principles (which are missing in Quantum Mechanics).
  2. Second viewpoint: The recent new experiment made by Taleyarkhan, published by Science, has been explained by the scientific community as follows: “Theoretical explanations for the observation of neutrons in line with conventional theory do exist. Sonoluminescence is an observed and understood phenomenon. It is generally considered to be theoretically possible to generate fusion temperatures in imploding bubbles using sound. As for tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier at low temperatures, so as to achieve fusion at low temperatures, this could have been possible in principle, but experts who did the calculation say that, unfortunately, the rate will be far too slow to be observable, let alone be of any practical importance“. Nevertheless, Suslick and Didenko have repeated the Taleyarkhan experiment, and they have shown that the greatest portion of the sonoluminescence energy is wasted in chemical reactions. Therefore it is not possible to suppose that there are hot nuclear reactions in Taleyarkhan experiment. And since he obtained emission of neutrons (and therefore the existence of nuclear reactions is out of any doubt), we realize that these nuclear reactions cannot be explained by the old concepts of Quantum Mechanics. We must explain Taleyarkhan experiment from the hypothesis of non-Coulombic interactions, detected by Borghi’s experiment.
  3. Third viewpoint: In the present paper a new gravitational Planck’s constant has been proposed, taking in consideration the Borghi’s experiment.  A paper published in the journal Nature in August-2002, by Paul Davies corroborates such a hypothesis, in which he says that a new astronomical observation can lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Relativity may be wrong. The observation considered by Dr. Paul Davies is concerning the interaction between electrons and photons, and the results led him to consider two alternatives, as follows:
    a) FIRST HYPOTHESIS: The light velocity “c” is not constant
    b) SECOND HYPOTHESIS: The Planck’s constant can have some variation
    Well, it is possible that such a variation in the Planck’s constant, mentioned by Paul Davies, can be actually due to the interaction with the  new gravitational Planck’s constant proposed herein.
  4. Fourth viewpoint: It must be taken in consideration that the “spin-fusion” hypothesis is able to open new theoretical perspectives for the Particle Physics, through the establishment of a new Standard Model, as shown in the author’s paper “New Model of Neutron-First Part”,( 1 ) published by JNE, where it is shown that the lepton’s spin is not conserved in the beta-decay. Since the leptons are tied to the quarks through the spin-fusion, as proposed by the author, such a new proposal represents a new fundamental concept to be applied to Nuclear Theory and to Particle Physics.
  5. Fifth viewpoint: The theorists are trying since 1950 to find a satisfactory theory able to conciliate the several branches of Physics. Several genii as Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, and others, devoted their life to the attempt.  The problem has passed through the hand of several prominent physicists, among them several ones awarded the Nobel Prize and devoted their work to the question of the unification, as Salam, Gell-Mann, Weinberg , Glashow, t’Hooft, and others. All they have supposed that the rule of addition of spins, adopted in current Nuclear Physics, is the correct theoretical way. However, it is hard to believe that a satisfactory solution should have escaped the scrutiny of all those prominent theoretists, if such a solution should be possible by the way that they are trying (up to now there is not a satisfactory Standard Model in Particle Physics, which is incompatible with the Nuclear Physics, a theory itself not able to explain several questions). If a satisfactory solution via the Yukawa model should be possible, of course that it would have to be found several years ago.
A new model can replace an old one only if the new one brings advantages. The Yukawa’s model has several disadvantages, but the author considers that the most serious is the fact that in Modern Physics the description of the phenomena must be made through the consideration of two incompatible models: some phenomena must be described by the quark model of neutron, and others must be described by Yukawa’s model, but they are incompatible. It makes no sense to believe that in the Nature two incompatible models must describe the phenomena.  The author’s model (u,d,u-e) is able to describe all the phenomena and properties of the neutron, and perhaps this is the greatest advantage of the model.
Finally, we have to consider that, when a new experiment has a result that does not fit the current prevailing concepts of an old theory, the scientific criteria prescribes that the theoretists must try to find a new theoretical solution able to explain the result obtained by the new experiment, through the proposal of new concepts. This is just what the author of the model (u,d,u-e) is trying to do.  Nevertheless, nowadays the theoretists are trying to keep the old prevailing concepts of Quantum Mechanics by rejecting the Borghi’s experiment, and such a rejection does not fit the scientific criteria.
  1. W. Guglinski, “New Model of Neutron-First Part,”  J. New Energy, vol 4, no 4, 2000.
  2. C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, “Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma,” American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.
  3. E. Conte, M. Pieralice, “An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron,” Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.
  4. R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, “Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation,” Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).
  5. Y.T. Didenko, K. S. Suslick, “The energy efficiency of formation of photons, radicals and ions during single-bubble cavitation,” Nature, vol 418, 394 – 397 (25 Jul 2002) Letters to Nature.
  6. P.C.W. Davies, Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver, “Cosmology: Black holes constrain varying constants,” Nature, vol 418, pp 602 – 603 (08 Aug 2002) Brief Communication.
  7. W. Guglinski, “Stern-Gerlach Experiment and the Helical Trajectory” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2.
  8. W. Guglinski, “Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom,” J. New Energy, vol 7, no 2, 2004.

759 comments to Anomalous mass of the neutron

  • stipus

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations for your hard work and for the personal energy you put into this technology 🙂
    470 Kw is an amazing result for a first test and your E-Cat is the hope of all mankind…

    I wish you all the best for the next steps.

    Best regards,


  • Devis

    Andrea Rossi sei un grande!
    Ricordati di noi 🙂

  • Dusty

    By God, Mr. Rossi, I think you have done it!

  • Ron Cisco

    Also there seems to be no info on steam pressure.

  • Ron Cisco

    Why does your spreadsheet not include measured electrical energy input or water flow rates? It makes it very difficult to interpret your results without flow and electrical data.

  • […] This is Rossi’s blog, where he expected to post hourly updates. He approves posts there, and he’s been too busy to do that. Rate this: Share this:StumbleUponDiggRedditTwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  • Bravo Rossi,

    Well done! Avrei voluto esserci, ma vorrà dire che la foto ricordo la facciamo la prossima volta.

    Un abbraccio

  • Mario Voltaggio

    Che dire? Complimenti.

  • Peter Chwiecko

    Congratulations Mr. Rossi!

    This has been most interesting to follow and I wish you all the best.

    Peter Chwiecko

  • Rick Meisinger

    CONGRATULATIONS on your successful test!

    With much appreciation and support.

  • Andrea Rossi


  • cimodanax

    till tomorrow morning I’ll forget Berlusconi exists!!

    tks mr. Rossi

  • Kim Patterson

    Godbless you Andrea Rossi

    New Age and New Fire.

    470 Kwh, its a good place to start!

    The Genie is out of the bottle

    Rest up my Friend.


  • Tim Richmond


    This technology will certainly leap us over the initial power generation issues the world currently has, but make no bones about it, amasing as this technology is, it is still dependant on a resource to function, namley nicol…

    Now nicol is abundant, but a finite resorce it still is.

    What this technology does is gives us a chance to develop truely unlimited energy generation.

    I wish Dr. Rossi and team all the best,

    Warm regards,

    Tim Richmond.
    Armchair Physicist

  • Todd Burkett

    Congratulations Mr. Rossi, you’re changing the world for the better. My father worked for NASA from the ground up through Apollo 17, he managed the QuickLook program, after leaving NASA he became a world-renowned author and teacher on biblical principles of finances, changing many lives for the better, when he got cancer he researched current technologies and information’s and found them lacking, so my father and I started a Cancer research foundation (Larry Burkett Cancer research foundation) where we went out and found new technologies new treatments, and helped the doctors and researchers to write the research papers, deal with hospital bureaucracies, deal with the state legislatures to get some of the laws on experimental treatments changed, and so on until my father’s death, which was from heart failure not the cancer. He would’ve been just as interested and excited by this new technology! I’d like to send you one of the books he wrote on dealing with cancer, what is the address I should send physical copy to? Again congratulations! PS I have a large 8000 ft.² home with 3 central heat and air systems and I would love to be a beta tester for your home units when they generate heat and when they generate electricity ! To anything I can do I would love to help!

  • david

    Report of the test of the 1MW E-cat made on the October 28 in Bologna

  • Antonio

    Caro Rossi,
    la tua invenzione e’ l’unica speranza per ridare un sorriso al nostro futuro.

    Saluti e auguri per tutto


  • Reid

    congrats on preliminaries from what i’m hearing so far. godspeed on your success

  • Hergen

    i think this is from Sterling Allan:
    Q&A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later.

    — SilverThunder 11:07, 28 October 2011 (PDT)

    Congratulations Mr Rossi!!!!!

  • fabiosanzani

    Buonasera Ing.Rossi,
    senza volerla tediare, io e come credo altri frequentatori della rivista di cui siamo ospiti, siamo in spasmodica attesa di notizie del test di oggi, ovviamente, appena avrà il tempo disponibile.
    Buon lavoro

  • Congratulations and God bless you, Andrea. Your historic contribution to mankind is in the great tradition of Volta and Marconi, among may others. It is our hope that your home units will soon be every home on Earth, bringing light and freedom to billions who siffer in the dark smoke of fossil fuels.

    Joe Shea
    The American Reporter (hydrogen)

  • Gustavo

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I just hope my grandchildren will read you name right next to Marconi in their textbooks. Last nine months have been really exciting. Keep the good work! Wish you the best! Ah… I almost forgot, I hope you get as rich as you deserve, we are tired of people getting rich at the expense of others getting poorer.

    Best Regards,

  • Hampus

    That is great news. Happy E-day!!!

  • SIlvano Mattioli

    Good luck !

  • Nick Pourmi

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    “Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” Winston Churchill.

    Today the destiny of humankind may be at stake.

    I know we will be rewarded for the hope so many of us engage in you.

    Seven billion thanks!

    Nick Pourmi

  • Marc Fouchi

    1MW working and self-sustaining in front of the AP! Wow – this is incredible! This is one of those days I will remember forever.
    Go go go!!!

  • Tolona Brown

    Dr. Rossi

    It is my sincere hope that things go well for you, and the human race, today. As you undoubtedly know, this will make the Earth an entirely different place. Some changes will be awesome, in the true sense of the word, and others will be nothing short of catastrophic. Our world is predicated on change, or progress, being a good thing. We all spend our lives trying to make things different and a little better than they were. I think that this will eventually go a good way to making this planet we live on a much better place to be. But, anyone who can’t see the downside needs to meet a man who makes his living on an off shore oil rig or a coal miner. No wonder conspiracy theorists think that the Powers That Be have covered up this discovery again and again. It is going to topple the status quo and they don’t want that. I, contrary to the Powers That Be, think that our human race has lived through many such changes and that we will adapt and change right along with technology. I feel that I am living on the literal edge of a new world. Thank you for that and you have my support and my best wishes!

    Tolona Brown

  • Andrea Rossi


  • Steve Hemmady

    Wishing you all the best for the E-Day. Your invention has the potential to change almost all industries & we may come out of global recession faster. Like someone said before – “This one small step for e cat, one giant leap for mankind”.

  • […] No live reporting will be allowed except by Rossi, who will be posting hourly updates on his blog. We will be posting updates along the way as well as our synopsis after the […]

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Is God mathematician or engineer ?

    Sometimes the scientists use the word God in their speach, as Einstein often did. When a scientist use such word, he is not using it in the same sense of that used by the religious people. The scientst uses it only as a way so that to expose a personal conviction on how he believes the Universe works. Actually he is only replacing the word “nature” by “god”.
    Here I will do the same.

    The Nobel Laureate Jacob Bronowsky resumed in few words the current understanding of the world where we live:
    “An objective of physical sciences has been to give an accurate image of the material world. One of the accomplishments of the physics in Century twenty was to show that the objective is unattainable”.

    In another words, the physicists believe that the Universe where we live has not a physical structure. We can describe its working only by mathematics, and not by physical mechanisms following laws of Physics.
    If such vision of the physicists is correct, it means that God is a mathematician, and He did not conceive the Universe by using physical mechanims. He created it by using the Mathematics only.

    Why did the physicists arrive to that conclusion ?

    When the physicists were developing Quantum Mechanics in the begginning of the 20th Century, they tried to find physical mechanisms for the atom’s working. However they discovered that it was impossible to find a model working with the known laws of Physics.
    To find physical mechanisms was an enterprise that involved so many conjectures and speculations. It was possible to propose a lot of mechanisms. But how to know what should be the correct ?
    In order to solve that dilema, it was established the following procedure: they had to rejected the known classical laws, and to undertake a new task:
    1- first step: to describe the phenomena by using the mathematics only.
    2- second step: to discover the new fundamental laws required by that mathematical treatmet.
    Such procedure is known as the criterion of simplicity, adopted in the scientific method.

    What the physicists want to discover today with the experiments made in the Large Hadron Collider is just to confirm that God is indeed a mathematician, as the physicists believe. In the case the LHC confirms the current theories, this means that God is a mathematician.

    Consider a gasoline motor. It’s a comlex machine, where mechanical engines as pistons, cilinders, valves, etc. work together with electricmagnetic engines.
    What is the best method so that to describe the gasoline motor working ?

    We can try to describe it by two ways:
    1- First method: by using the mathematics only
    2- Second method: by using drawings showing the peaces and describing what principles of Physics rule their working, together with the use of the mathematics

    The engineer uses the first method. In the case of the gasoline motor, it’s possible to use the second method because such machine works according to the classical laws of Physics. Even a physicist uses the second method.

    But when we consider the elementary particles as the quarks, the proton, the electron, the photon, the atom’s nucleus, and the atom, we cannot use the second method, because we dont know the structure of those particles, and we dont know the laws that rule the working of their structure.

    The big problem we have today is the discovery if God did not succeed to create an Universe as a machine working with mechanims and suitable laws that rule the working of such mechanisms. In the case God did succeed to do it, he is an engineer (but the physicists did not succeed to discover how God did it). And in the case He did not succeed to do it, then the physicists are right: God is a mathematician.

    In another words, what we have to discover is whether God addopted the criterium of simplicity used in the scientific method when He created the Universe, or He did not addopt such criterium.
    If He did not addopted it, in this case it’s impossible to discover the true structure of the Universe by using the current philosophy of the scientific method.

    For instance, ponder the following:
    1- Suppose that among the many solutions addopted by God, He decided to use the helical trajectory of the elementary particles, and together with he attractive gravity He has also created the repulsive gravity.
    2- As the physicists nowadays do not consider the helical trajectory and the repulsive gravity in the prevailing theories, is it possible to discover a theory working with mechanics and laws, like that conceived by God ?

    Of course the answer is NO.
    The experiments made in the LHC will tell us if God is either a mathematician, as the physicists believe, or engineer, as the good sense suggests to any sensible person.

    However, in the case the LHC tells to the physicits that God is not a mathematician, the big question is: will the physicits understand what the LHC is telling them ? Will they change their method of investigation? Or will they continue to beat their heads against the wall, insisting on the same old method that already failed?

    This is the big question. What the physicists will decide after the LHC will decide the future of Theoretical Physics and our chance to understand the true working of the Universe.

  • Marco Bonifacio

    Attendo aggiornamenti con il fiato sospeso.

    I miei migliori auguri per una buona riuscita dell’esperimento.

    A Lei, che il suo nome rimanga nei libri di storia, e all’umanità tutta, che NON utilizzi l’energia promessa dall’eCat per rimandare di qualche decennio la multicrisi da overshoot/esaurimento delle risorse/cambiamenti climatici, aggravandola.

    Marco Bonifacio

  • Enrico

    Good luck, Andrea. And thanks.

  • Saju Abraham

    Dear Mr.Rossi,

    All the best wishes and success to your new 1MW plant nwhich will save the mankind from energy crisis. We all are eagerly waiting for the results from India.

    Saju Abraham

  • Brian Miles

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I wish you success in your upcoming test today, and I would like to congratulate you on all the success you have had so far. I know it hasn’t been easy. As a fellow electrical engineer, I know how “some” scientists can sometimes be somewhat difficult to deal with.

    I have followed this field from the beginning, and have been disturbed at how science has ignored this field for too long even though so much evidence has been accumulating over the years. Even if the effect only resulted in an increased understanding of our world and the physics that governed it, research by the mainstream science community should have been done.

    Considering that the effect was far more important and could result in the solving of many of the world’s most severe problems, I believe, it is the mainstream scientific community that should be called pathological; that they will have to answer for their behaviour as to why their actions could have resulted in the death of a field so critical to our future. I find it ironic that a product will be sold that main stream scientists say is impossible, and that they will have to purchase in order to re-learn certain areas of physics.

    I believe that the various people, like yourself, that have dedicated so much in order to pursue this field while dealing with so much opposition were being reasonable when they asked the mainstream science community to just look at their experiments with an open mind. Generally speaking, that didn’t happen.

    So again I would like to wish you success, and let you know that your enormous sacrifice for such a cause that is so important for the future of the world is enormously appreciated.

    Hopefully people will follow your example and become more dedicated and creative in order to solve the many problems that our world faces.

    Thanks again,
    Brian Miles
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  • maz this the real life, or just a Fanta-sea? 🙂
    Good luck Mr. Rossi – some people deserve it and now it’s time to show some serious balls.

  • Maximilian Rossi,non si faccia fermare,vada fino in fondo.

  • Martin6078

    Dear Andrea Rossi and colleagues:
    Best for your big day!
    Best regards:
    Martin Schwingenheuer

  • Marco

    Mr. Rossi Thank you for your determination and persistence, you have worked hard and soon the world will be a better place because of your passion. The time is right on time.

  • Max

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Will the name of the 1MW E-Cat customer be ever published, and if yes, when?

    Keeping my fingers crossed for the success of tomorrow’s test!

    Kindest regards,


  • D. Hanson

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Best wishes for the test and future, you are truly our Hero ^^

    Warm Regards
    D. Hanson

  • Wheeler GoreDove

    Here’s to saving the planet! Cheers and good luck tomorrow!

  • Dear Ing Rossi,

    Best of luck tomorrow, I feel in my bones you will have great success. To coin a phrase from a historic moment that moved me into Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering I would say ” This will be one small New Fire for Rossi, but one giant New Fire for mankind”

    Best Regards

    Eng. Newell

  • aureliomustacciuoli

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I’m a mechanical engineer with a master in business administration in bocconi. I spent the last years working in the financial sector but I kept the passion for physics and for new energy sources. I’ve been following your extraordinary work and I really admire you. Recently I worked as entrepreneur and I faced how difficult is to innovate and develope something new in Italy if you have to count only on your skills. But your tenacy and strength inspire me.
    I think your work is crucial for the entire world and I would like to contact you in order to check if is possible to give all my experience and support for the growth of your company. Anyway, I’m your fan and I wish you the best.

    Warm regards,
    aurelio mustacciuoli

  • Mattia Battistich

    Dear Ing Rossi,
    No matter the results of tomorrow’s test you have been and I suspect you will always be an inspiration to inventors and researchers worldwide. Good Science, intuition and hard Results beat boardrooms, banks, prejudgement and smoke jugglers. I will carry this little message with me, I venture to think you may feel the same. And always always “lavolale, lavolale!!!” thanks for what you are doing, and…may the COP be with you.
    Hot steamy regards
    Mattia Battistich

  • Mario Voltaggio

    Auguri per domani!

  • Philip Quarles

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Our planet is headed for disaster because of climate change, mass extinction of species and depletion of marine resources.
    Your invention could give 7 billion people hope for a brighter future. It is my deepest heartfelt wish that tomorrow will mark the beginning of a new era for people everywhere.

    Godspeed to you and your team!

    Philip Quarles

  • eernie1

    Dear Eng.Guglinski,
    If you think the general theory of relativity needs revision,how about the current big bang theory of our universe’s formation.I think this theory was compiled by a group of drunken cosmologists who were trying to pull a joke on humanity.First,the observed universe seen from all the latest astronomical instruments appears to be an expanding flattened sphere(like a pancake)having a diameter of 10^11 light years and containing a relatively consistant density of visible and invisible(dark)matter and energy.The density of dark to visible material is in the ratio of approximately 7 to 1 as calculated by observed gravitational effects.Instead of the expansion slowing as their theory predicts,recent measurements of infra red spectrums indicate accelerated expansion taking place.This eliminates the oscillating universe model,which was predicted by this theory,of periodic expansion and contraction to its primal space.However the most unbelievable aspects of their theory are:(1)the initial existence of all the energy and matter of our universe both dark and visible in a volume of space smaller than an atom,and(2)the expansion, after being triggered by some unknown mechanism, almost instantaneously from this minute space to a flattened sphere having a diameter of our present universe.These parts of their theory are contradicted by real life observations that the maximum velocities that we see are the speed of various energy packets(photons,gravitons,etc)and the fact that when matter densities reach a certain level we see effects such as supernovas and black hole instabilities both the result of gravitational forces.I have compiled an alternative theory that starts with the existence of a large number of spheres comprised of basic dark energy forms in equilibrium within the spheres.They possess 0 Entropy and therefore cannot react with each other.The spheres have a size comparable with the size of our universe(10^11 light years)and move throughout an almost infinite volume of otherwise empty space.When the sphere encounters another sphere of approximately the same size,the collision triggers the interaction of the involved energy forms and creates a configuration possessing a large Entropy value creating the formation of energy forms that can then be observed and manifested as visible energy and matter.Like two ballons that collide,the interaction surfaces appear to be a flattened sphere.If only 1/7th of the mixed energies react,the remainder of the energy is dark.This is a simplified analogy of my theory but seem to be more logical to me than the present analogy accepted by mainstream science.Your idea that space is filled with various packets of energy is consistent with my thoughts.My analogy does not require that energy or matter densities need to be as large or that instantaneous expansion be required as the energy interactions occur at the same instant throughout the spherical encounter surfaces and volumes.

  • Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,

    This is to send you my warm wishes of success tomorrow. Congratulations for the courage, creativity, resilience and hard good work.

    Best and kind regards

    Diego Rapoport

    Head of the Advisory Board
    Telesio Galilei Academy of Science

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>