Prof. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
Introduction
Estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] masses of up and down quarks are 1.3 to 3.3 MeV and 4.1 to 5.8 MeV respectively.
Standard model assumes that proton constitutes 2 up quarks and one down quark. Neutron constitutes 2 down quarks and one up quarks.
In any way their estimated or phenomenological [7, 8] mass sum is not matching with the nucleons rest mass.
In any way their sum is not matching with the nucleons rest energy.
There should be some reason for this mismatch. This clearly indicates that there is something missing from the standard model.
In standard model there exists 8 gluons having `color’ charge with no rest mass and in between the quarks strong interaction is mediated by these gluons.
If gluons has no rest mass and up and down quarks mass sum is small (compared to the nucleon rest mass) how to generate the existing nucleon rest mass? To over come this difculty [1] it is suggested that there exists integral charge quark fermions, integral charge quark bosons, integral charge (massive) quark fermi-gluons and integral charge (massive) quark boso-gluons.
Note that fermi-gluon means massive gluons having fermion behavior and boso-gluon means massive gluons having boson behavior.
(Effective) fermi-gluons play a crucial role in baryons mass generation and boso-gluons play a crucial role in mesons mass generation.
Joe wrote in August 24th, 2012 at 2:03 PM
“Wladimir,
In QRT, why does the proton not lose its helical trajectory like the electron does when both of them form a neutron from a H atom?
All the best,
Joe”
Dear Joe,
because the proton does not move about the electron.
regards
WLAD
Wladimir,
In QRT, why does the proton not lose its helical trajectory like the electron does when both of them form a neutron from a H atom?
All the best,
Joe
==========================================
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:31:30 +0100
Subject: Re: The higgs bosons of strong interactions
From: eef@teor.fis.uc.pt
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Sorry, I looked for Borghi in the text of the page
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695#comments
but, it was not found!
Hence, I can not find your comment and also I never heard of Borghi experiment. So, how can I boycot something I never even seen and cannot find now?
Eef van Beveren
=============================================
=============================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: eef@teor.fis.uc.pt
Subject: RE: The higgs bosons of strong interactions
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:48:15 -0300
Dear Eef
My comment is awaiting moderation, it will be available in the next hours (Andrea Rossi looks at the blog from times to times)
You may see Don Borghi experiment here:
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/09/experiment_yields_neutrons_fro-print.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229
http://www.i-b-r.org/Rutherford-Santilli-II.pdf
http://www.scientificethics.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf
http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdf
The fact that you never had heard on Don Borghi experiment reinforces the evidence that there is, indeed, a conspiracy of the academic physicists so that to boycot it.
Regards
WLAD
=============================================
Dear Paul Heath:
Maybe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe:
Thank you for the suggestion.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer,
I cannot give this kind of information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi: Do you think Edmond Storms is on the right track explaining reaction?
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2365
Luis wrote in August 23rd, 2012 at 11:06 AM:
New particle Light E(38) Higgs particle for strong interactions, not complaint with STM and QCD.
http://cft.fis.uc.pt/eef/stronghiggs.htm#evidence
It’s hard to believe any theoretical work which do not consider the Don Borghi experiment, and also Conte-Pieralice experiment. They both show that neutron is formed by proton+electron (and not by the quark structure proposed in the Standard Model).
A neutron formed by proton+ electron requires a New Physics, with new fundamental principles not considered in standard Particle Physics. For instance, there is need to explain why a neutron formed by proton+electron have spin 1/2, because from the current laws of Particle Physics we would have to expect a spin 0 or 1.
In his article the autor Eef van Beveren wrote:
“I believe in down-to-earth physics which has a close connection to what can be observed in experiment. Hence, I consider mathematically consistent frameworks which extrapolate too far beyond where experiment can falsify its predictions, as a lot of fun, but not to be taken too seriously. There exist many examples, the Standard Model for particle physics is just one of them. Deep in my heart I pray that the Creator had a bit more imagination, way beyond our horizon, when she cooked up nature”.
Yes, Mr. Beveren, God had a bit more imagination when she cooked up nature: She decided to build the neutron by using a proton+electron, and by using some different principles of those considered in current Particle Physics.
And we have experimental evidences: Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments.
Then, why do you not consider them? After all, you claim to “believe in down-to-earth physics which has a close connection to what can be observed in experiment.”
By continuing to neglect the Don Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments, the particle theorists will never succeed to find a satisfactory theory, because the two experiments require new foundations different of that considered by them in their theoretical search.
It’s very sorry seeing such conspiracy of the academic physicists in their blind refuse of considering Don Borghi experiment.
Physicists are playing hide and seek with Physics
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Dr Rossi,
A solution may be to have a heat sink in the form of diamond rods radiating from an insulated pipe carrying fluid that was heated by the E-Cat. These rods would penetrate the needed areas and naturally draw heat from the pipe. Diamond has a very high melting temperature and a very high thermal conductivity. A duty cycle of 100% might be necessary in order to have the appropriate buildup of heat in those spots, but at least the E-Cat would then be a self-runner.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
We live in interesting times. The world around us is a bit crazy with wars, economical crisis and political inadequacy. I hope your e-cat (or Kitty as I like to call it) will bring us as a planet time to re-evaluate how we should live together and make it a better place.
Regarding your hot Kitty, can you tell me if the fuel consumption reduces at extremely high temperatures and the COP increases? Some commens from Cures seem to suggest this. (http://www.cobraf.com/forum/postsbyauthor.php?authorid=3233)
Live long and prosper,
Paul Heath
Ciao Andrea,
ci credo che non sia facile costruire dal nulla tale ragnatela di servizi.
Sono convinto che riuscirete a fare tutto bene anche su questa necessità.
Ho appena letto l’articolo postato da Antonella e sono rimasto senza parole.
Le esperienze rafforzano sentimenti, allargano le spalle su cui gli avvenimenti
si poggiano, affinano le astuzie ma per un attimo la calma e la professionalità lascia
spazio alla rabbia….speriamo che con E-CAT sia diverso.
Saluti
Dear G.Luca from Italy,
What is really difficult is the construction of working plants that astisti Our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Daniele Passerini, Antonella, Italo R.
Yen, this tech derive s from my patent of 1978, but I prefer not to’ return to’ those says.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Emanuele Perugi:
we Are studying also this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
I’m a your passionate follower, and I am very excited by developments in the E-CAT technology.
Many congratulation for you great Job, i’ve no dubt the E-CAT will be a hope for the world.
Recently i was thinking about the heat-electricity conversion problem, and i was wondering if you had ever considered the ThermoPhotoVoltaic technology, i know an industry based in the USA that produce models with about 75-80% net performance in heat-electricity power conversion, instead of the normal TPV technology with 45-50% of performance (always more than the cinematics machines based on Carnot/Stirling cycles).
This technology in my vision could be very usefull if combined with an E-CAT, becuse it’s very efficent, green, and durable and needs only an heat source exactly like E-CAT.
Thanks and regards.
New particle Light E(38) Higgs particle for strong interactions, not complaint with STM and QCD.
http://cft.fis.uc.pt/eef/stronghiggs.htm#evidence
Sto lasciando questo commento nei siti che riportano la notizia sul petrolio dai rifiuti.
Nel 1978, Andrea Rossi, lo “Sceicco della Brianza”, aveva inventato un procedimento per trasfomare i rifiuti in petrolio. Fu tenuto in carcere per qualche anno prima di essere assolto, giusto il tempo per provocare la sua bancarotta e costringerlo a portare il suo brevetto in America. Eccone i frutti.
Ora Andrea Rossi ha messo a punto una nuova invenzione, una rivoluzione energetica, una macchina in cui metti energia 1 e ne escono 6. Inutile dire che i poteri forti italiani stanno cercando di fargli fare la stessa fine di trent’anni fa, ma ora c’è la Internet, NO PASARAN! ww.ecat.com
Finalmente la notizia ufficiale! “noi” che crediamo in Andrea l’abbiamo sempre saputo.
http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/green/articoli/1057139/carburante-dai-rifiuti-a-40-centesimi-al-litro.shtml
Dear Andrea,
I think you will like to read this news:
From waste: gas at 40 cents / liter
by Idropirolisi hydroconversion technology and Integrated
(ANSA) – ROME, 20 AUG – A ’40 euro cents per liter’ clean fuel from waste it’s possible. It has been proved by the experts of the American Gas Technology Institute during a session of the meeting of the American Chemical Society, being held in Philadelphia; they have already made ’the first pilot plants able to convert all organic waste into diesel and gasoline.
The technology, called Idropirolisi and hydroconversion Integrated, uses a series of chemical catalysts, already patented, to produce hydrogen from raw material, which can be any biological substance, ‘wet’ waste, seaweed, and then converted it into gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. The process has already been evaluated by the DOE, which estimated the cost of fuel resulting in about two dollars a gallon (just 40 cents per liter). “The results that we had got tell us the process is credible – explains Martin Link, one of the designers – by 2014 we will have industries capable of producing up to 80 thousand liters of fuel per day, and in a short time we should reach 1.2 million liters.”(ANSA).
Caro Andrea,
penso che ti farà piacere leggere questo:
http://wwww.ansa.it/web/notizie/canali/energiaeambiente/energietradizionali/2012/08/20/Energia-Usa-rifiuti-benzina-40-centesimi-litro_7360077.html
Dai rifiuti benzina a 40 centesimi/litro
con tecnologia Idropirolisi e Idroconversione Integrata
(ANSA) – ROMA, 20 AGO – Un carburante pulito, ottenuto dai rifiuti e al costo di 40 centesimi di euro al litro è possibile. Lo hanno dimostrato gli esperti dello statunitense Gas Technology Institute durante una sessione del meeting della American Chemical Society in corso a Philadelphia, che hanno realizzato già i primi impianti pilota in grado di trasformare tutti gli scarti biologici in gasolio e benzina.
La tecnologia, chiamata Idropirolisi e Idroconversione Integrata, utilizza una serie di catalizzatori chimici già brevettati per produrre idrogeno a partire dalla materia prima, che puo’ essere costituita da qualunque sostanza biologica, dai rifiuti ‘umidi’ alle alghe, e convertirlo poi in benzina, diesel o carburante per jet. Il processo è già stato valutato dal Dipartimento per l’Energia statunitense, che ha stimato il costo del carburante risultante in circa due dollari al gallone, appunto 40 centesimi di euro al litro: “I risultati che abbiamo avuto ci dicono che il processo è credibile – spiega Martin Link, uno dei progettisti – entro il 2014 avremo degli impianti capaci di produrre fino a 80mila litri di carburante al giorno, e in poco tempo dovremmo arrivare a 1,2 milioni di litri”.(ANSA).
Buon giorno Andrea,
mancano ormai pochi giorni all’8 settembre e mi chiedevo quali fossero le Sue sensazioni all’avvicinarsi di tale evento.
Se tutto quanto avete realizzato manterrà le aspettative di quanti credono nelle LENR, l’8 settembre sarà veramente una rivoluzione. Sarà l’avvio di una nuova era che, speriamo, l’uomo saprà sfruttare non per creare più consumismo, ma per salvarsi dalla catastrofe in cui si sta gettando.
Quali sono i Vs. pensieri e le Vs. sensazioni?
Saluti dal lago.
Dear Rémi ANDRE:
1- the Zurich Convention of 8-9 September will be in part public, in part reserved to the Leonardo Corp. Licensees and sub Licensees.
To have information, please contact adolf.schneider@vtxmail.ch
2- no plants will be put in action during the convention
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Thomas Florek:
I am delighted to listen your music, and honoured too.
You merit success: good luck!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hermano Tobia:
I do not think so, because our reactions are too slow to be applicable to a weapon ( luckily).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
as far as you know, could the science/technology behind e-cat be used to build new kind of weapons ?
Best Regards
Hermano Tobia
Hello Andrea,
We have a new song inspired by your work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEmDA9iBlYs
We hope that you find it enjoyable.
(Tom and Doug..from the Tom and Doug Radio Show).
Dear Mr Rossi,
I don’t know if this question has already been asked but I would like to know if your presentation in Zürich (in the beginning of next month) will be public or not ? As I live near Switzerland I’d like to know if it will possible for me to see your plant in action.
Thank you.
Best regards
Dear Joe:
I know very well lasers, I designed high power lasers in the USA in 1998-1999. Lasers have a very low efficiency ( about 5%).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Would the use of a pulsed laser rather than a gas burner be more cost-effective when directing energy to the sensitive sites within the reactor?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Helmut H.:
I have to repeat that I do not know the problems that the E-Cats could meet in air and space applications. I am not able to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
if mobile, aerospace and space applications are in question because of the heavily changing or even missing gravity: have you thought about putting the E-Cat into a rotating mechanism to keep the Ni-powder fixated at the bottom of the E-Cat?
Dear Stefano:
We already gave enough demonstrations. Now we have to make plants, working plants, not demonstrations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jossarian:
I have not knowledge of rockets applications, honestly: I do not know what to say about this application, but I think that many years will have to pass before we will be ready for air and space applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Eng. Rossi,
I would like to suggest something. Some time ago I’ve asked you about possibility to replace RTG reactor plutonium 238 core with E-Cat:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=9#comment-72014
Today I’ve spotted such nice article about why this is so important:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/mars_rover_curiosity_its_plutonium_power_comes_courtesy_of_soviet_nukes_.single.html
Taking into consideration your recent progress with Hot-Cat cores it seems to be a must have for whole space industry. Don’t think you will need any kind of certification process for this. Just acquire standard RTG case, put a Hot-Cat core inside of it and make profit selling it to NASA, other space agencies and military. The only problem is that refuelling every 6 months is not possible in case of deep space probes or Mars rovers, but I believe you will be able to find a solution for this.
Best regards,
Joss
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Thank you, correct.
Warm
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I was not suggesting the Hot eCat was unsafe. You have posted many times about the intrinsic safety of your technology and how, if the nickel melts, the reaction stops. If my estimate is correct, then it looks to me like the highest temperature for a Hot eCat is around the 1250C regime as you are within 100C of the melting point. A great accomplishment, to be able to operate so close to the melting point.
Dear Robyn Wyrick:
Actually, our Effect has nothing to do with what Fleishmann and Pons made, but they ignited the research in this field with their work. This is their merit.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
The intrinsic safety of the E-Cats stays in this: as soon as the temperature reaches the melting point of Ni, the powder becomes liquid and intrinsecally is imossible for the reactor work. The operation stops immediately, in microseconds, this is what we tested many times.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The following is an estimate of the internal temperature of the Hot eCat based on the previously posted heat transfer values. The radiative heat transfer from the inner core (at 1250C) was estimated at 1.721kW. The exterior surface (at 850C) total heat transfer was estimated to be 8.257kW for a combined heat transfer of 9.978kW.
Assuming the same thermal conductivity material for each path, we can compute the reaction temperature by the relationship (X – 1250) * C = 1.721kW and (X – 850) * C = 8.257 where C is a thermal conductance. Ratioing the two equations, we eliminate C and X is computed as 1354.5C. Note the melting point of nickel is 1453C.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Like many who follow developments in LENR, I read with deep sorrow about the passing of the esteemed (and tragically, much maligned) Martin Fleischmann on August 3rd.
It broke my heart to know that he will not be with us when the phenomenon he (arguably) first discovered, and for which he was so vilified, finally arrives with products on the market.
He will now not be eligible for the Nobel Prize that he should no doubt have received.
I would love to hear your thoughts on what appropriate recognition might be posthumously awarded him (aside from the world-wide adoption of the technology he helped pioneer.) It seems a great loss that he will never know the gratitude the world owes him.
All my best,
Robyn
Dear Stefano:
We already reached that target.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Guru:
b) is better.
Warm Regards,.
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
last few months I carry in my mind this question:
a) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is equivalent to sum of all transmuted materials plus all energy inputs ?
or
b) A sum of output energy from E-Cat is many times bigger then equivalent of all transmuted materials (in fuel) plus all energy inputs ?
I have this heretic hypothesis, that b) is in order.
Dear Dr. Rossi
thank you very much for your work in the hope to see as soon as possible a definitive demonstration. I was talking with one engineer about thr 1MW plant. He is expert in installing gas hrating systems in large buildings and farms such as hospitals. Although he said the ecat seems very interesting the selling price seems to him by far too expensive considering that a similar heat capacity costs 50k with a normal gas heater. Moreover still ecat needs power to work and maintenance. The real revolution to open the market would be to sell thr 1mw at 4-5x the cost of a normal heater. No more..
Best regards.
Stefano
Dear ivan:
We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707. With all respect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- yes
2- that’s our target
3- this depends on many factors and is an integral of the double function ecats installed vs time vs gas demand
4- yes, where possible of course
5- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi, Benedetto Schiavone,
The latest Industrial E-cat and Home E-Cat versions use Natural Gas or Thermal inputs (and do not have to use electrical power inputs).
You (A.R.) said the E-Cat has a Thermal output of 3 to 6 times the Thermal input. Based on prior discussions, I think the drive (thermal or electric) continues to be applied an average of 50 % of the time.
That is, in standard operating mode, using a drive of 2 kW-Th, the output would be 6 kW-Th for a Gain Factor of 3. In Self-Sustain-Mode, the input would be 0 kW-Th, but the output would still be 6 kW-Th. The average drive power is 1 kW-Th and the average/(or constant) output would be 6 kW-Th.
1) Is that what you meant by thermal/(thermic) gain factors of 3 and 6? (6 is the Gain Factor averaged over both normal and self-sustain modes; 3 is the Gain Factor only when the thermal drive/(gas burner) is applied.)
2) With a thermal gain/COP of 6, does that mean you obtain the same heat from using only 1/6th the amount of gas used before adoption of the E-Cat? In other words, your gas bill is 1/6th as much as it had been plus the cost of recharging the reactor every six months.
3) If the Home E-Cat reduces residential heating/Natural Gas demand significantly (e.g. in Europe Canada, Northern states of USA, Antarctica, etc., will that put downward pressure on the price of Natural Gas?
4) Can you use a heat pump and a natural-gas driven E-Cat together to obtain greater efficiency in heating/cooling? That should be useful. Or maybe it is redundant.
5) If an E-Cat operates at 10% normal power, can it be used ten times longer before recharging the fuel module? (Five years versus 6 months.) This might be useful in a heat pump operation where the E-Cat is used to warm outside air or supply water going to the heat pump. (Or, maybe, the heat pump warms the outside air or supply water before going to the E-Cat.)
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Mr Rossi, We all now familiar with the 10KW module you have to build the 1MW reactors. This means 100 modules per reactor, with all the control and ancillary….
But if you already have 10KW industrial modules? why not sell it like that. There is millions more customers that need 10KW industrial modules than 1MW modules. then their experiences in the industrial field will serve to the certification of a 10KW home module.
Thanks for your work. We are inpatiently waiting for your september report and validations.
God bless you.
Ivan
Dear Chris Johnson:
We cannot supply domestic plants until they are safety- certified.
Once certified, you resolve the problem with 10 modules of 10 kW each.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eng. Rossi,
My company is renovating an old 1950s vintage brick factory in the Northeast US that will use gas hot water heat. It seems to me that we could use 1/3 to 1/6 as much gas to heat the building if we used a Hot Cat based system instead of a standard gas boiler. With projected heating costs of about $5000/year, the savings would be significant.
The main problem is that only about 100Kw – 200Kw is required. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a modular version of the system that allowed a customer to vary the size and thus cost of the system? Your market would be significantly increased. The cylindrical Hot Cats modules could be the “fuel rods” in the modular heater.
Best Regards,
Chris Johnson
Dear Marco:
Yes, you are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.