Hidden and intermediate states of nucleons

U.V.S. Seshavatharam
DIP QA Engineer, Lanco Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, A.P, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com

Department Of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Vizag-530003, AP, India.
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

Nuclear planck energy is given by

where Gs is the strong nuclear gravitational constant [1, 2, 3] and is equal to N²Gc.
Here N is Avagadro number and GC is the classical gravitational constant.
In the previous paper [1] it is suggested that there exists 2 kinds of mass units.

They are observed and hidden mass units and their mass ratio is XE = 295.0606338.
XE can be called as the lepton-quark mass generator [1 – 4].
In this paper this idea is applied to the nucleons.

Hidden mass unit of nucleon can be given as

It is noticed that there exists an intermediate hidden mass state in between neutron and proton.
If nuclear stability factor is defined as

hidden mass of the intermediate state can be given as

Observable mass of this hidden intermediate state can be given as

If mec² is the rest energy of electron, this observable intermediate state gains a mass-energy of ½mec²  and transforms to neutron.
By loosing a mass-energy of 2mec²  transforms to proton.

Error is related with

Here Ec and Ea are the semi emepirical mass formula [1, 3, 15, 16, 17] coulomb and asymmetry energy constants.
Finally it is suggested that pairing energy constant of the semi empirical mass formula is

Asymmetry energy constant

Ec, Ea are related with XE as

Volume and surface energy constants are related as

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

350 comments to Hidden and intermediate states of nucleons

  • Andrea Rossi

    It will be of industrial class.
    Warm Regards,

  • S.

    The Ecat SKL you will make the presentation of this year will be a small think, like the Ecat QX I saw on “Googlr Ecat QX presentation Stockholm November 2017” and on
    , or will be an Ecat assembly of industrial class ?
    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    They have been not just ignored, but considered disturbances. Like what happened with the molds of Fleming: nasty dirt for the most, pennicillin for Fleming…who saved billions of lives.
    Warm Regards,

  • Cathie

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    I understand that your experiments with the Ecat have disclosed particle interactions that have been ignored by the mainstream R&D concerns: am I right?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Nida Kerkhoff:
    I value scientific testing and the important work that comes with validating those theirs through independent evaluation. I also think it is important to show how we can use science to solve problems. The existing tests for applied workof the E-Cat will be a considerable effort. It is important for both to continue, but the applied Research is now my focus.
    Warm Regards,

  • Hi!
    What do you think of all the scientific evaluation that is made in the world after the Lugano test?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Answer to both comments: yes, I think we can do it with profit. Of course we are interested to this issue.
    Warm Regards,

  • DTravchenko

    To complete my comment: if yes, are you glad if I try to put you in contact with the right persons in Russia?

  • DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    You think your Hot Cats could be useful to retrofit partially nuclear plants?
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Davet:
    Thank you for the information.
    Warm Regards,

  • davet

    do not know where to post so ….. but I saw the qeustion for a helium microscope.

    There is a commercial helium microscope for sale


    kind regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    no, it does not affect. We are close to present our 1 MW Hot cat, which will have a tremendous elasticity.
    I think that at Pordenone we will get some fun.
    Warm Regards,

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    Does the power rating of a module (1 kW, 5 kW, 10 kW) affect the time of startup or shutdown? If smaller or lower power modules heat up faster than larger ones (or vice versa), it might be possible to ramp up or rampdown a startup or shutdown by sequencing the startup or shutdown of several modules in order to avoid major power jumps.

    Joseph Fine

  • Bhagirath Joshi

    Mr. Sheshvartham and Lakshminarayana

    Interesting numbers.

    these 3.18 MEV , 11.96 MeV, 23.92 MeV … are these the lowest energy levels of Nuclei. Every one knows that the resonance Kinetic energy of cold neutron capture is what these number represent.

    Bhagirat Joshi

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gabriele B.:
    1- confidential
    2- confidential
    3- after some month of regular operation, provided the Customer will agree.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gabriele B.

    Dear Ing. Rossi,
    I apologize in advance if you already answered such kind of answers.
    1. How many 1MW e-cat plants did you sold so far?
    2. How many 1MW e-cat have been ordered and when they will be presumably delivered?
    3. When and how will we have some feedback from the first customers?

    Thank you very much.

  • Andrea Rossi


  • Steven N. Karels


    The Hot eCat turns water into 600C steam and drives a turbine and water is cooled back to 100C. The Carnot efficiency is 1.0 – Tc/Th where Tc is 100C and Th is 600C. This efficiency is about 57.3%. The turbine-to-alternator effciency, as you pointed out, is 70%. Multiplying these two together yields the 40% efficiency cited. It makes no difference the heat source, coal or Hot eCat, the efficency from 100C water to electricity is the same.

  • Malcolm Lear

    Dear Wladimir,
    Its highly unlikely the Hotcat uses ‘flyback’. Such a system would require electronics and a coil. The temperature of the Hotcat would make it impossible for electronics or an induction coil to be utilized and would be clearly visible in the photos of the disassembled unit. Therefore the idea of a self sustaining test should still be possible.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear gini:
    1- confidential until we publish it
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jane Gooders:
    Thank you very much for your kind attention. About the domestic: it is premature any design and, also, this is a product that for strategic reasons must be unveiled immediately before the diffusion. Consider that the certificators could require throughly modifications that , in a so small apparatus, can totally change the features.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Stefen N. Karels,
    Thank you for your suggestions, we will think about them.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If you have a simple demonstration of the Hot eCat, I would suggest the following:

    A horizontal cylinder configuration, supported by ceramic (non-thermally conductive) rods or similar support. The electric feed with inline monitoring (voltmeter and ammeter) showing the normal 1.6 kW of electrical input power. The Hot eCat on a table with a fence to keep people a safe distance away (e.g. 2 feet) and a remote temperature measuring unit (radiative) to measure the surface temperature.

    If only electrical power is heating the cylinder, assumed to be 330mm in length, 90mm in outside diameter and with a surface emmissivity of 0.96), then the surface temperature should be around 450C. If Excess Heat to a total output of 10 kW is being generated, the surface temperature should be about 880C.

    Even to the casual observer, the 450C object should appear dark while the 880C object should be a dull red.

  • Jane Gooders

    Hello Andrea,

    First, let me thank you for continuing to update and entertain us all during your journey to bring the E-Cat to market, it is much appreciated and allows us an insight into the inventing and development processes that we would not usually have. I check this site every day for each new piece of the puzzle to be revealed, and like most people I am very keen to see the 3rd Party Hot Cat test results.

    Second, as an eager would-be customer of one of your domestic units, I wonder if it would be possible so share some non-technical data ahead of its release. In order to apply for certification, you must have finalised a basic design, please will you share with us the likely dimensions, weight and rough positions of the water input/output feeds of the unit.
    Many Thanks

  • Ecat-ering

    Salve Andrea…forse la può interessare questo articolo circa la teoria che potrebbe
    spiegare le reazioni all’interno dell’eCat:


    saluti a tutto lo staff

  • gini

    Carissimo A.R.
    in Europa dove sarà realizzato il primo impianto da 1MW?
    Sarà realizzato già per un cliente di una Vs. licenziataria o è un Vs. cliente?
    L’installazione della Vs invenzione sarà sicuramente l’evento più importante del secolo e questo, dovete già prevederlo, porterà molta gente a esserne sia interesata che semplicemente curiosa.
    La società che ha comprato il Vs. dispositivo ha coscienza di tale eventualità?
    Grazie delle risposte.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Hank Mills wrote in October 2nd, 2012 at 5:07 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    I would like to humbly appeal to yourself, the directors of Leonardo Corporation, and the certificators involved in the testing of the technology to allow you to share data from a run of the hot cat in self sustain mode (steady temperature and power out put for at least an hour with no input) at the conference.

    Dear Hank
    I’m afraid Andrea Rossi cannot do it, because if he is using a flyback the Hot eCat cannot work with no imput, since the flyback requires a power.
    Without a power to suply the flyback, the Hot eCat does not work.
    If such hypothesis of mine is correct, the Hot eCat will work in the self sustained mode only when Rossi succeeds to convert heat to electricity.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    On recent findings showing that some fundamental principles are missing in Standard Nuclear Theory

    Ahead is an exchanging of emails between John Arrington and W. Guglinski, concerning the new experimental findings made in the Argonne National Laboratory, published in March-2012.

    From John Arrington to Guglinski

    Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:22 -0700
    From: johna_6@yahoo.com
    Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Dear Wladimir,

    I have seen some of your discussion, in particular in the context of my measurements of the EMC effect in light nuclei. I have not looked at your theory in any detail, in part because detailed nuclear structure is not my main focus, in part because I see no deficiencies with the present models, and in part because you appear to misunderstood the details of our measurements. Our results are completely consistent with standard calculations of nuclear structure. The surprise was in the fact that these structure effects, involving low energy scales, have such a large consequence in a high-energy scattering experiment probing the quarks of the nucleus. Several points made in trying to interpret our experiment in the context of quantum ring theory appear to be based on significant misunderstanding of our experiment and what it probes. Thus, in the context of my research, I see no issues which are not addressed by
    conventional nuclear structure calculations, and so have not spend time investigating alternate models.

    As for the paper in Nature, I should say that I feel very strongly about issues related to plagiarism and other issues related to ethics in science and publication. However, the idea of clustering in nuclei is decades old, and so simply examining clustering effects could hardly be called plagiarism. Similarly, the idea of non-spherical nuclei is well established, so I cannot tell what idea you feel has been plagiarized.
    However, as a general statement, my feeling is that if someone performs a calculation or experiment which yields some interesting result, then this is not plagiarism even if someone else has suggested or observed the effect before.

    Best Regards,

    Reply by Guglinski to John Arrington:

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: johna_6@yahoo.com
    Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
    Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:16:14 -0300

    Dear John Arrington,

    Concerning your words ahead, sorry to say that you are wrong:
    “… because I see no deficiencies with the present models,and in part because you appear to misunderstood the details of our measurements. Our results are completely consistent with standard calculations of nuclear structure.”

    They are wrong because:
    1- the experiments are showing that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form
    2- and from the current principles of Nuclear Physics it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why.

    Even if you consider the nuclei formed by clusters, however it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why the nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form.

    Take for example the oxigen nucleus 16O, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons.
    In 2010 Martin Freer published the paper “Clusters in nuclei”, where he wrote:

    A traditional description of the nucleus is one in which there is a roughly homogeneous distribution of protons and neutrons. However, even at the inception of nuclear science it was known that conglomerates of nucleons (nuclear clustering) were extremely important in determining the structure of light nuclei. In many cases a more appropriate picture of the nucleus is the one shown in Figure 1.

    The Figure 1 shown in his paper shows the nucleus 16O, with a SPHERICAL form.

    Why the theorists, along 70 years, always had supposed that nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair should have a spherical form?

    It’s easy to understand why, and let’s see it by considering the nucleus 16O, as follows:

    1- The resultant of forces (attraction and repulsion) on each proton actuates in the RADIAL direction (such direction is along a line which crosses the geometrical center of the nucleus)
    2- The same happens regarding to each neutron.
    3- Due to the actuation of radial forces ONLY, the distribution of protons and neutrons must be SPHERICAL.
    4- It’s IMPOSSIBLE, from the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics, to find a resultant of forces capable to form a nucleus 16O with SPHERICAL form

    In order to form a nucleus 16O with non-spherical distribution of protons and neutrons, there is need to have a NON-radial force on the protons and neutrons, within the nucleus 16O.

    And it’s impossible, from the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics, to explain such non-radial force actuating on protons and neutrons within the 16O.

    Other problem is that structure of the nucleus 4Be9 detected by your experiments. The unmatched neutron is 7fm far a way of the rest of the nucleus. Well, as the strong force actuates in the range of 2fm, it seems that the strong force, itself, is not able to get the aglutination of the nuclei (as proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory).

    You are trying to explain it by the addoption of an ad hoc hypothesis:
    “When nucleons get too close together, however, the forces that usually constrain quarks can get disrupted, modifying the quark structure of the protons and neutrons or possibly even forming composite particles from the quarks of two nucleons.”

    And suppose that the theorists accept your ad hoc hypothesis.

    Nevertheless, how will you explain why the nucleus 16O has a non-spherical form ?
    Probably you will introduce another ad hoc hypothesis.
    However your new ad hoc hypothesis must be able to suppose the existence of a non-radial resultant of forces within the nuclei (because it’s the unique way to explain the non-spherical form of the 16O).

    Therefore, even if the theorists accept your firs ad hoc hypothesis regarding the disruption of quarks, your theory cannot explain why the nucleus 16O is non-spherical.

    Dear John, in 1993 I started to study deeply the standard nuclear theroy, by considering the following points of departure:
    1- the principles of Nuclear Theory
    2- the nuclear properties
    3- the nuclear models

    And after a deep reflection, I arrived to the following conclusion:

    It’s IMPOSSIBLE, from the current principles of standard Nuclear Physics, to find a nuclear model compatible with the nuclear properties. There is need to introduce NEW PRINCIPLES in the standard Nuclear Theory, because some fundamental principles existing in the nature are missing in the theory.

    That’s why I decided to look for a new nuclear model, working with some new principles missing in the standard Nuclear Physics.

    Among many conclusions infered from my new nuclear model, one of them was the following:
    The light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form (and the reason is because in my new nuclear model there is a non-radial force actuating on protons and neutrons).

    Of course in 2006, when my book was published by the Bäuu Institute Press, all the nuclear theorists of the world (who had touch with my proposals) used to claim that I was a crackpot, and my theory was pseudoscientific, because (among other reasons) my nuclear model was absurd, because it contradicted the principles of the prevailing standard Nuclear Theory.

    Now in 2012 your experiments confirmed that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form, as predicted in my theory published in 2006.

    Therefore, beyond all those evidences which led me in 1993 to the conclusion that some fundamental principles existing in nature are missing in the standard Nuclear Theory, we have now in 2012 ONE MORE STRONG EVIDENCE: your experiments, which confirmed my hypothesis that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair are non-spherical.

    Sometimes I get astonished with the scientists, when I see that they refuse to use their logic. Because the logic concerning the nuclear physics is clear: by keeping the current principles of the standard Nuclear Theory, it’s impossible to get a theory compatible with all the nuclear phenomena.

    Finally, I wish to say that I am sure about the following: the new upcoming experiments will show that I am right.


  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If you are going to present data, I would strongly suggest having the prototype there (or full sized model). An even better display would be the Hot eCat in full operation, with suitable protection in place.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    If the data we have now will be confirmed, do not worry at all.
    Warm Regards,

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I would like to humbly appeal to yourself, the directors of Leonardo Corporation, and the certificators involved in the testing of the technology to allow you to share data from a run of the hot cat in self sustain mode (steady temperature and power out put for at least an hour with no input) at the conference. Such data would be tremendously useful to those of us who support your efforts, and want the world to recognize the absolute hard reality of the technology. Cynics can complain and skeptics can howl all they want, but they would not be able to dismiss the extreme significance of such test results. Everyone with common sense will recognize that a reactor with no input power cannot stay the same temperature for even a few minutes, producing kilowatts of output, unless nuclear reactions are taking place.

    I literally beg of thee, please share such data. It would do a lot to end the mumbojumbo that is being spread by your enemies.

    Thank you.

    Hank Mills

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    Your question is inspiring: well, I will not go to Pordenone to clean the tops of the Dolomites with the wax: it is possible that in the Pordenione convention I will bring the final results regarding the third party validation of the Hot Cat.
    It is not certain, some work has still to be done, but it is not impossible.
    ( He,he,he,he…)
    We are working like beasts on the Hot Cat, in the USA as well as in Italy, and we are making something quite useful.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    What’s up with a new E-CAT Meeting Scheduled for Pordenone, Italy on Oct 12.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    We do not give information regarding the internal events in the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    We will give diffused data when we will have terminated the tests. The Hot Cat is in perpetual evolution, day by day.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You previously posted that the center hole in the Hot eCat has been eliminated. Have the overall dimensions changed (length and outer diameter)? Has the thermal output level changed? If they have changed, can you tell us what they are?

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    1. Is the gamma radiation in the Hot Cat

    a) high-energy


    b) low-energy?

    2. Are the free neutrons in the Hot Cat

    a) fast


    b) thermal?

    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ville Kanninen:
    The control system is indipendent from other E-Cats, in this case.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,

    On 27th September Steven N. Karels asked:
    “Can you explicity state or confirm that when eCat is in a self-sustaining mode (ssm) of operation and virtually no electrical input is used to heat the eCat, do you still have a control parameter to “throttle back” the eCat upon demand?”
    … and you answered:
    “The answer is yes, but within the control system algorithm.”

    Do you mean control by using some other eCat internal input variable than electrical power ? Or do you mean control by using external forced cooling system ?

    kind regards
    Ville Kanninen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Manuel Cilia:
    I confirm that the COP is 6, also considering the s.s.m.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Guru:
    1- when I talk of fake comments, I mean comments in blogs published with my signature: they are true only if reported with precision from the blog of this Journal Of Nuclear Physics. A completely different thing are the interviews: I sometime make interviews, and to understand if they are fake or not, anybody can ask me here if they are true, as you correctly are doing now with your comment.
    2- Yes, I gave to E-Catworld that interview, therefore it is true. Let me be conservative: if electric power will arrive sooner, we all will be very glad.
    Warm Regards,

  • Guru

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I am totally confused. You warned us, that some fake comments appeared on web with your fake undersign, and only here at JoNP comments are genuine.

    At E-Catworld today appeared Q&A where person signed as Andrea Rossi wrote that no electricity from hot-cat will real for next one year.
    Is this comment genuine your or this is fake ?

    All folks believed that you want electricity not after one year, better much sooner.

  • Dear Mr Rossi,
    I my question has two parts and is fairly long.
    I my work I have had a chance of working with steam turbines and I have found that people do not understand how efficiency is measured with steam turbines. Most people quote the total fuel to electricity efficiency, e.g burning coal to produce heat then heating water to steam in a boiler then releasing the steam through a steam turbine that turns an alternator,this process is about 35-40% efficient for large turbines above 1Mw. The turbine to alternator efficiency is around 70%. If we presume that a hot Ecat is 100% efficient therefore a Hot Ecat could produce about 700Kw of electrical energy.

    I know that you have had problems with the certifiers with running the Ecat in self sustain mode which coming from a designers point of view is very important part of safety in having the ability to shut the Ecat off in case of emergency.

    If we presume a COP of 6 therefore the Ecat would require 166Kw of electricity to operate. As you can see above a Hot Ecat could produce about 700Kw, if part of its output was used to run the Hot Ecat we would have a surplus of 534Kw (lets say 500kw to keep the numbers simple), to turn the Ecat off we would simply disconnect the alternator. This would give us a Hot Ecat running in a form of self sustain mode but with the ability to shut it off at will (of course allowing for cool down time)

    Does the above make any sense or am I completely wrong.

  • Andrea Rossi


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    To make that kind of product is necessary a specific certification we do not have.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If you could scale down to the 50W to 100W area, here is a possible application – hand or body warmers. A typical electric warmer might give 4 hours of warmth using a 7.2V 2200mA-Hr battery. About 60Ws of thermal power.

    With a COP of 6, the same thermal output would last 24 hours. This would have application in military or sportsman activities.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    It is possible to scale down.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The current design, as I understand it, is each eCat modules can produce about 10 kW of power. I can understand because of thermal heat transfer issues why you cannot scale up the output of a single eCat to say, 100 kW or 1 MW. But why can you not scale down an individual eCat module to 1 kW or 100 Watts of thermal output power? Is it the surface area-to-Volume issue or is it another issue?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Herb Gills:
    I cannot comment this information.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    1- a)
    2- no
    3- no
    4- no
    Warm Regards,

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>