by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, India
e-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03,India
e-mail:lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Introduction
Unification means: finding the similarities, finding the limiting physical constants, finding the key numbers, coupling the key physical constants, coupling the key physical concepts, coupling the key physical properties, minimizing the number of dimensions, minimizing the number of inputs and implementing the key physical constant or key number in different branches of physics.
This is a very lengthy process. In all these cases observations, interpretations, experiments and imagination play a key role. The main difficulty is with interpretations and observations.
As the interpretation changes physical concept changes, physical equation changes and finally the destiny changes.
Universe is a very big laboratory and its life span is very large. Modern physics is having only and hardly 200 years of strong scientific background. Strong motivation, good reasoning, nature friendly concepts, simplicity and applicability are the most favorable and widely accepted qualities of any new model.
Note that in the atomic or nuclear physics, till today no one measured the gravitational force of attraction between the proton and electron and experimentally noone measured the value of the gravitational constant.
Physicists say, if strength of strong interaction is unity, with reference to the strong interaction, strength of gravitation is 10^-39. The fundamental question to be answered is: is mass an inherent property of any elementary particle?
To unify 2 interactions if 5 dimensions are required, for unifying 4 interactions 10 dimensions are required. For 3+1 dimensions if there exists 4 (observed) interactions, for 10 dimensions there may exist 10 (observable) interactions. To unify 10 interactions 20 dimensions are required. From this idea it can be suggested that with ‘n’ new dimensions ‘unification’ problem can not be resolved.
As the culmination of his life work, Einstein wished to see a unification of gravity and electromagnetism as aspects of one single force. In modern language he wished to unite electric charge with the gravitational charge (mass) into one single entity. Further, having shown that mass the ‘gravitational charge’ was connected with space-time curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of space-time structure. For Einstein the existence, the mass, the charge of the electron and the proton the only elementary particles recognized back in 1920s were arbitrary features. One of the main goals of a unified theory should explain the existence and calculate the properties of matter.
Stephen Hawking – in his famous book – says: It would be very difficult to construct a complete unified theory of everything in the universe all at one go. So instead we have made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or approximating them by certain numbers. (Chemistry, for example, allows us to calculate the interactions of atoms, without knowing the internal structure of an atomic nucleus). Ultimately, however, one would hope to find a complete, consistent, unified theory that would include all these partial theories as approximation, and that did not need to be adjusted to fit the facts by picking the values of certain arbitrary numbers in the theory. The quest for such a theory is known as “the unification of physics”.
Einstein spent most of his later years unsuccessfully searching for a unified theory, but the time was not ripe: there were partial theories for gravity and the electromagnetic force, but very little was known about the nuclear forces. Moreover, Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its development.
The first step in unification is to understand the origin of the rest mass of a charged elementary particle. Second step is to understand the combined effects of its electromagnetic (or charged) and gravitational interactions. Third step is to understand its behaviour with surroundings when it is created. Fourth step is to understand its behaviour with cosmic space-time or other particles. Right from its birth to death, in all these steps the underlying fact is that whether it is a strongly interacting particle or weakly interacting particle, it is having some rest mass. To understand the first 2 steps somehow one must implement the gravitational constant in sub atomic physics.
Dr Rossi,
Which of the following entities does the control unit alter in a CYCLICAL manner?
a) pressure
b) temperature
c) fields
d) charge flow
All the best,
Joe
Very interesting!!
Excerpt from an interview to Dr. Rossi taken fron here:
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Limitless-Potential-of-the-E-Cat-An-Interview-with-Andrea-Rossi.html
>Oilprice.com: Have there been any recent developments you are able to share with us?
>Andrea Rossi: We are very close to completing a 1MW plant in the US which will soon be opened to the public.
>Oilprice.com: How many 1 MW plants have you currently made and sold?
>Andrea Rossi: One 1 MW plant has been made and 13 are under construction. We would like to consolidate the first 14 before expanding. The oak must grow proportionally to the roots, otherwise hostile winds will sweep everything away.
Dear Mr Rossi, From my own reasoning there are atoms in nature with extremely high positive gravity values. These atoms I consider gravitate around positive gravity to control disintegration of structure. They are true neutrals with no magnetic field. What I believe they do is pulse and transform energy from short wave to long wave. These atoms are the inert noble gases. Perhaps 10% of Argon with the hydrogen could produc heat from any excessive ray activity. Just a suggestion. Best regards Eric.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are right, this is why we are making all the necessary certifications.
Anyway, the problem of stabilization is not for E-Cats that have to make thermal energy, because up to 260 celsius the E-Cats are perfectly stable. The problem arises when we have to reach higher temperatures to get higher efficiencies in the production of electric power. Anyway, from the pre-orders we got I experienced that millions of People has perfectly understood that the E-Cats do not pose any problem under the safety aspects. Then the diffusion and safe operation of the E-Cats will spread. Remember that when trains have been invented there were many persons, even phisicians, whe said that trains were very dangerous for health, because a speed of 40 miles per hour could damage seriously the heart of persons…
Certifications are in course, anyway, also because the law demands them.
About what happens if temperature goes out of control: nickel melts, then it is no more powder, then the E-Cat shuts down. It is intrinsecally safe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
At some point, you will need to release verifiable technical data on how the eCat is controlled and stabilized for the public to accept its use. I ask myself, “Would I allow a heating system to be installed in my house, warming my family, if I was uncertain as to the power generation mechanism and safety”. Certification from independent and government organizations help to ease one’s concern. But herein is a possible nuclear fusion mechanism and the words “nuclear” strike fear in most hearts. I have asked others and their comments were, to the effect “How big will the crater be when it goes unstable?”. We both know this is nonsense but it is a fear that your opponents will use.
Dear Steven N.Karels:
We are resolving the stabilization problems, to a level that will allow the production of steam able to get good efficiencies from turbines to produce electric power. As I said, we are resolving the problems with the new Siemens tirbines. What you say, by the way, is right. About the other comment of yours: we are working very well in our factory in the USA, ignore the stupidities of the pippet snakes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have been following the development of eCat for the last year. I was happy to see your technical progress as the COP went from single digit numbers to a self-sustaining condition. My concern for the self-sustaining mode of operation is stability. With no electric (heating) input, how is control maintained? Have you considered controlling the hydrogen pressure as the mechanism to “close the loop” around the Ni-H reaction. Since very little hydrogen is consumed at any one time, it should be possible to rapidly change the pressure and effect the desired reaction level. I know that when you wish to terminate a run, you remove any electrical heating and release the hydrogen, from published reports. Looking forward to your response.
Dear C.Fenton:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Eric Ashworth:
The problem has been that our steam is not enough hot. But now we reached 260 Celsius, so the application of industrial turbines made by Siemens is possible, We are reaching the target.
Anyway, if you have suggestions they will be totally welcome.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi, I am aware that your e-cat cannot generate electricity because of the quality of the steam not being sufficiently dry. Is the e-cat unable to get to the required temperature or is it that if it does the reaction becomes too violent and unstable?. If it does become too violent there may be a method to stabilize the reaction. Best regards Eric
Dear Mr. Rossi,
My poorly illustrated point was directed at the over-all energy production and consequential (non-recycled) nickel consumption. Heat or the by products of heat, it doesn’t appear that nickel consumption will be an issue. Given some fraction recycling, then even less a concern for nickel.
May God grant you every success in this endeavor.
Regards,
Chuck
To the Readers:
I received some worried comments from our Readers regarding the fact that the Patent Law in Italy demands that the object of the patent is manufactured and sold within 4 years from the application. We have totally no problem about this issue: we have already manufactured the E-Cats, and we have officially registered sales contracts, both things made well before such term, which would expire on April 9th. By the way, the law is different, as my Attorney explained well to me: what the law demands is not that the apparatus is manufactured ad sold, but that the apparatus has been actually made. Nevertheless, we manufactured, sold made .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Greg Leonard:
My robotized line is already in construction, but not in operation.
The 1 MW plants are made under a different concept, therefore the robotized line is not useful for them
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hermano Tobia:
1- I think we will give a useful tool to the scientific development
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rob:
Boron is part of the shielding system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Will the commercial e-cat also contain Boron, as described in you patent?
Would it be possible exclude the use of Boron in the e-cat concept?
Kind regards,
Rob
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I would like to ask you what will be, in your opinion, the consequences of widespread diffusion of the e-cat from a scientific point of view, and if the science behind the e-cat is fully understood.
Thank you
Hermano Tobia
Dear AR
I am full of admiration for the speed of progress you are making.
It is good to hear that your robotised production line is already in operation.
Is it also able to make parts for your bigger 1 MW reactors?
Keep up the excellent work
Greg Leonard
Dear Robert Tanhaus:
Very interesting, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
During the activation of the reactor there is an endothermal phase.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear C.Fenton:
Please do not forget that so far we can produce only thermal energy, even if every day we go closer to the electric energy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joseph Fine:
You are right, I think.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Since your product does not produce any Carbon Dioxide (or Monoxide), you can easily comply with various rulings by world governments (including the USA) to limit or eliminate the production of Carbon Dioxide/(or Monoxide) to the atmosphere.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-usa-carbon-idUSBRE82Q0W120120327
So far, there is no rule against producing Copper.
Best regards,
Joseph
Steven N. Karels, Speculation: If 1,000,000,000 eCats were in use at 10Kw each, presuming full power use, the output would constitute 2/3 of the total world energy consumption of 1.5 terawatt in 2008 (this also presumes Wikipedia’s figures are accurate).
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In CERN, Celani showed also Japanese slides (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433866, slide 34) where Kitamura and Takahashi had found, besides exothermal Ni-H reaction, also endothermal Ni-D reaction. Just thought that if such endothermal reaction could be made repeatable and strong, one could perhaps use it as a nuclear heat sink with E-cat and thereby have an electricity producing device which produces no waste heat at all. Perhaps you could tell if you have seen any endothermal reactions with nickel and deuterium?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
an interesting theory that might be useful for you.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5556.pdf
Best wishes,
Robert Tanhaus
Dear Steven N. Karels ( second comment):
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Yes, the Nickel it recycled, therefore the impact on the production is irrilevant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Checking your last post, if 1,000,000,000 eCats were in operation, and assuming each eCat required 50 grams of nickel every 6 months (ignoring any recovery), in one year, 100,000 metric tonnes would be required. The annual world production is about 1,300,000 metric tonnes are produced. So the additional nickel impact would be about 8% (roughly) which should not impact price in a significant way. Of course, one assumes some nickel re-cycling could be done on the spent “fuel”. Interesting!
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I did not make myself clear in the previous post. The example of the Patterson device is not of a competitor. They were unable to produce in large quantities the “fuel” needed for their approach. You have stated you use nickel powder plus a proprietary catalyst. So the question is can you produce your “fuel” in large enough quantities in a timely manner? I know that nickel is a highly abundant material on the earth. And hydrogen is also abundant from water and other means. What could present a problem to your approach is preparing the “fuel” from the raw materials. This was the contect of my question. I assume you can easily scale up your “fuel” production to meet anticipated growth. Any comment would be appreciated,
Thank you,
Dear Steven N. Karels:
As you know I never comment the work of the Competitors. Regarding our fuel, the problem of the availability of the fuel’s components does not exist, we make use of so tiny amounts of material, that even one billion of E-Cats could not pose any fuel- availability issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Luigi,
Good question: the E-Cat will not have a pump, we will take advantage of the existing heating circuit pump.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Antonella:
We know perfectly who some puppeteers are: our intelligence system is working together with the Law Firm we have engaged for this issue. We are collecting and analyzing every single phrase the Puppets, Snakes (and Clowns) are publishing in paper press and in Internet. We prefer not to sue puppets and puppeteers ( and Clowns) so far because we will be stronger when our working plants will be public: at that point we will give to the Court all the necessary evidence to win both on criminal and in civilistic fields this battle. For now we are just preparing all the necessary publications, comments, evidence, documents, addresses, etc, etc. I start the battles when I am sure to win. So far they had the sensation that our Group can be libelled for free: it is not so. All the proceeds that we will earn from these trials will be donated to families we have already selected that need money to cure the cancer of their children.
If you are interested to this issue or have information for us, please contact
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carissimo Dott. Rossi,
tra amici stiamo fantasticando sulle identità dei burattinai, e ci stiamo chiedendo se lei le conosca con sicurezza.
Buon lavoro, l’Universo la protegga.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
do you know who the puppeteers are?
Dear Rossi,
I read that the domestic e-cat will have dimensions of 33x33x6 cm.
It sounds a bit small for include a water pump inside.
Just curious to know if the pump is included in the unit, this will have some implication on the design for introduce the e-cat in the home heating system.
Thanks
Luigi
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Another device is the Patterson device that used nickel spheres in a salt solution and an electric current to generate excess heat. They failed because they could not mass produce the fuel (spheres). Have you been able to mass produce your nickel+catalyst fuel in large quantities in a production manner? How long does your fuel production process take? Weeks? Months?
Thank you.
S. N. Karels
Dear Joe:
To make the reverse engineering will be impossible, in an economically viable way. You will see. Also for the clowns that are saying around that they have copied us. Not only we will defend in Court our intellectual property, but also we will sell the products at a price that will make impossible to copy and produce it with profit.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Technology always improves. And today, it improves faster than ever. When the E-Cat is finally on sale in the mass market, many parties will involve themselves in reverse engineering the E-Cat and trying to improve it. Some will succeed. And rather quickly too. They will try to market their version of the E-Cat. The market demand will be too great for these upstarts to worry about potential lawsuits from Leonardo Corporation. And if there are too many such competitors, you – Dr Rossi – will be spending most of your precious time and your valuable resources trying to fight them. And I fear that it will be a losing battle since governments and courts are too slow to move in protecting patents. Therefore, my question to you is, would you consider creating a plan to entice future successful innovators to sell their improved technology to you for a lump sum or significant share in your company?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Rob:
It is impossible to look inside the reactor during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Did you even observe generation of visual light in the core during operation?
Kind regards,
Rob
Dear H.Hansson:
As you correctly say, when a new factory is started up many unforeseeable issues grow up while working. So far our work is going on regularly, along the scheduled timing. There are factors that do not depend from us, for example the time to receive all the requirements from the certificators: being our production at a very high level of robotization, we cannot complete the software before we know exactly what we have to do. Many other factors can change, this is a battle, my friend and when you go to make a battle you engage with a global strategy in mind, then get dynamically fit to win the difficulties in a changing situation.
Start ups in Europe and America have basically the same kinds of difficulties, as I am experiencing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thanx for you answer. I understand that you decline to elaborate on security related issues.
But can you tell us more about your concerns as a entrepreneur regarding the factory?? Usually entrepreneurs experience bottleneck after bottleneck managing a start up. In your statements you have been flexible regarding the production date,.. indicating that you have several factors that you are not in full control of. Are the problems different comparing to a start-ups in Europe??
Dear Mario M.:
Thank you for the interesting link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
here below you can find a link to the interesting – and quite “revolutionary” for mainstream physics and physicists – CERN Colloquium on “Progress in LENR”, held in Geneva on March 22, by Francesco Celani (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati, Italy) for the experimental background, and Yogendra Srivastava (University of Perugia, Italy) for the theoretical background. In the linked page, there are slides and videos you can see as they were broadcasted live. Your E-Cat and its remarkable performances have been largely cited by Celani in his long talk, so it could be interesting to see for your readers:
https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379
Kind regards,
Mario M.
Dear H.Hansson:
The real public is all but interested to where and how our factory is. They are interested to our products, not to where and how we make them. Wannabe competitors are interested to this information, to put hurdles (as they tried to do already).
I thank you very much for your suggestion, which is based also on good sense, but I prefer to stay undercover.
The more info the puppeteers have, the more will create disturbments. So far they are just making ” much ado for nothing”, as Shakespeare would say.
Real Customers don’t care if the E-Cats are made on the Moon, Jupiter , Disneyland or wherever…thay want a product that pays back itself in few time and that works well. All the rest is my business.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Much of the last weeks headlines and posts have been related to the “million unit factory”. The picture appearing in many minds is a car factory or oil refinery sized operation, something not be easily camouflaged. It also seems that the “million unit factory” information have not been connected to the information that your e-Cat have become much smaller with a compact design.
I think it would be beneficial if you gave us some key info.. like approx. square meters and the projected number of staffs required to operate the plant (stores, processes, management). That would kill most of the speculations and get this back, ..the “puppeteers” will run out of ammo.
Dear Luigi Mazzanti:
I have forwarded your address to our Poland Licensees.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
New experiment seems to confirm the nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, according to which there is a 2He4 in the center of the whole nuclei.
The new experiment undoes the image of the nucleus considered up to now in current Nuclear Physics:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nova-imagem-nucleo-atomo&id=010115120324
Dear Ing. Rossi,
I would like to know if you have already a reseller for the domestic eCat for Poland.
I have sent you an email over your email “info@leonardocorp1996.com”, for submitting you my “application” as reseller for Poland.
I believe I have the right location and connections for maximize your business here in Poland.
BR
Ing. Luigi Mazzanti
Dear Mr.Rossi,
I would like to ask for an opinion. What do you think about this interesting theory concerning Cold Fusion writen by this physicist Stoyan Sarg Sargoythev (York University Toronto, Canada).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf