.
by
Tadej Bajda a.k.a.Tamal Krishna
das Krsko, Slovenia
.
.
Abstract
Description of a fictional device, cylindrical in shape, for starting a low energy nuclear reaction. Using an environment of hydrogen and nickel charecteristics, similiar to one in an E-Cat. Imagining hydrogen molecul as a spring resonant system and simply using frequency and power of electricity as a catalyst.
.
.
Dr. Rossi,
I present some thoughts, not really a question for you.
After the independent report is released, and accepted by a large percentage of the population, your next challenge will be to make certain that you have the capacity to produce what you have planned. You will do well at this I hope.
All the people on our Earth should be hoping for your success, if you succeed, every person and their descendants will succeed with you.
It is widely known that you have no interest in proving the validity of your E-Cats to skeptics and doubters, I understand and agree with you on this, however, your supporters and potential future customers will also benefit from the independent report that provides evidence that you are in fact making functional devices producing energy derived from LENR processes. These detractors are inconsequential and not worth considering in this regard. When the evidence becomes public, think how much good will and joy this will produce for your many supporters and do not consider so much the effect that this will have on the malignant and entrenched detractors. Our happiness for you and your invention will far outshine the doubters and deniers embarrassment at being publicly proven wrong, and besides that, who will be thinking of them, when a new and exciting form of affordable energy has been born?
When the E-Cat information goes world wide, the greatest good and benefit will go to those who have been backing you and defending you, not the ill motivated doubters hoping to delay and derail your efforts. Many large well funded entities are aware of your claims and they quietly wait for confirmation before committing to further action regarding this new LENR science. You are the originator, the inventor and owner of the E-Cat, you are the only one who has it for sale, the world will beat a path to your door, and I hope that you can capitalise on your position. I think we will see a world wide reaction as this new technology emerges into the open.
Industrial and Governmental-Military interests will try to reproduce, learn (or steal?) the inner secrets of your invention. Those who tried to stop you by denouncing your E-Cat will probably be among the first to try to produce similar technologies based on your design. Normally you would be able to protect your IP and reap the fruit of your invention, but this new energy source is so revolutionary and profound that normal conventions and protections cannot be relied upon. The money spent on the Apollo moon project will pale compared to what the planetary energy monopolies will spend to get or copy your technology. Your best defence in this situation is to maintain a lead in your technology, keeping a step ahead of the imitators and copiers, then as now, you will be the leader in the field, and you will be the best source of the original “Rossi LENR” technology.
Best Regards,
Nixter
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear gio:
No, it is not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in May 14th, 2013 at 8:11 PM in Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
Are the following events in the right order as per QRT:
A particle’s
1) intrinsic spin
induces
2) gravitational fluxes n(o),
which induce
3) an electric and magnetic field,
which induces
4) an intrinsic magnetic moment.
.
RESPONSE:
basically yes, for micro-phenomena.
In macro-phenomena the flux n(o) is induced by the orbits of electrons in the atoms.
This is shown in the page 181 of my book QRT.
Fig. 2.1 shows a loadstone.
The sequence of Fig. 2.2, 2.3, 2,4, 2,5, 3.3, 3,4 , 3,5 , 3.8, 3.11 show how the macro-electromagnetic fields are created.
The orbits of the outer electrons of the iron atoms get allignment, and such alignment induces fluxes n(o) in the same direction.
The flux n(o) induces motion of the electric particles e(+) and e(-) of the ether, which spins (aligned along the flux n(o) ) captures magnetic particles m(+) and m(-), so yielding macroscopic magnetic fields (the poles S and N of the loadstone).
regards
WLAD
Andrea,
All you need is a patent.
All the rest need patience.
My family, my friends and myself have all great expectations, and we support you with our heart and soul.
Kind regards,
Koen
Dear Ing. Rossi
about the mouse: is it fixed inside the cat ?
Warm regard
gio
To Ing Benedetto Schiavone
To Make it simple :
The average output of the 10kwh E-cat is 10kw per hour, considering the on time plus the off time.
During the on time (1/3 of the time, let’s say 10 minutes on 30 minutes), the temperature of the E-cat does not decrease to zero centigrades, but few degrees.
Similarly, during the off time (65% of the cycle, let’s say 20 minutes on 30 minutes), the temperature does not rise of hundreds degrees. Of course there is a fluctuation, but in the order of tens of degrees. Therefore the E-cat COP has to be calculated on the average of 10Kwh/h. Then you have to add The COP of the activator. But the only electric energy used by the device (Activator + 10 kw E-Cat)is that of the activator.
Eng Rossi delete the comment if useless
Thank you for your good work
Dear Paul:
1- yes
2- also
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ron:
Confidential,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrew Gemmell:
I do not understand exactly what you mean.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In a previous posting, you verified that SSM can last up to 2 hours and the start-up time from a cold start was up to 4 hours. Is this still correct even with the new Activator – Reactor (Mouse and Cat) architecture?
Dear Andrea Rossi, Your response to Frank Ackland May 12th is although direct is in complex terminology. Why not make it easy to understand because you are dealing with a difficult subject – keep it simple, Quote “when the mouse is turned on?. A mouse to to me has four legs and a tail. I know you don’t want to give certain information away but I am sure there is another answer than describing a mouse. I do not have clue as to what you are referring too. What I am guessing is that the E-cat produces an amount of heat energy that is surplus and able to be stored so as to be used to re-activat and maintain the process. Is this correct?. I think this subject should be kept technical, do not stray into grey areas using reference to cat and mouse otherwise you could lose readers. Maybe and I am guessing, you have so much credibility you are enjoying the cat and mouse scenario. As you are no doubt aware language is becoming none specific (using slang) This slant is I believe being used deliberately to hinder the communication of information. Anyway I am convinced you will win through with your technology and I do enjoy reading the recent posts especially ‘Electrical Catalyst’ as it comes as a necessary respite with regards a challenging subject. Best regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Andrea,
I believe you have recently tried stressed the importance of the “Gas cat”. If I am correct why is that?
Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Dr. Rossi, this is a question that got spammed a couple days ago – it doesn’t rehash the activator info, I don’t think you’ve already answered it. When you were using a resistance heater to modulate the ecat reaction, it didn’t seem like you could maintain the reactor in ssm as you can now. This makes me think that the activator contributes something to the process beyond heat. My question is simply, does the activator add anything to the process other than heat? I won’t ask anything more detailed!
Andrea,
Do you turn off the activator when the reactor starts to respond to its stimulus?
Or does the control system have a way of “turning on” the reactor after it turns off the activator?
Paul
Dear Todd Burkett:
We will maintain the cycle of 6 months for our fuel, so far. The material does not get depleted, but we prefer this cycle to control all the operation of the plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The CFO and President of NRG Energy sends a comment to the world through the Wall Street Journal as follows:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578376441015222064.html
Mr. Crane:
When the natural-gas industry grows up, it’s going to realize that they don’t need the power industry’s transmission and distribution system. They have a better distribution system—the gas pipeline into your house. All the natural-gas industry needs is a gizmo in the basement of your house to convert your natural gas into electricity. I have no doubt that within the next 12 to 24 months there’s going to be a technological breakthrough.
From Wikipedia: ( NRG sells heat, active in cogeneration)
Wholesale generationAfter the GenOn merger, NRG has 47,000 MW of total generation capacity, enough to power approximately 40 million homes. [2] Its nearly 100 power plants are located in 18 states in the Northeast, Chicago area, Gulf Coast, Southwest, Nevada, and California. [2] Generation facilities include mostly fossil fuel power plants powered by natural gas, oil, and coal; plus four wind farms (in Texas) and six solar farms (in California, Arizona, and New Mexico). [9] NRG also has a 44% ownership stake in the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station and a 37.5% stake in a coal power plant in Gladstone, Queensland, Australia. [9] Some facilities use cogeneration and the company also owns 28MW of solar distributed generation.
Warm regards,
Tom Conover
Dear Andre Rossi
Is the fuel charge designed to be depleted at the end of 6 months, or have you experimented with charges that last quite a bit longer by design. And I am confused about whether or not the original nickel material is depleted over time, Is the incoming hydrogen supplying the majority of the mass to be converted into energy? with only occasional fusion conversion of the nickel? If it is the hydrogen Providing the primary mass, in the future would you be able to run charges for possibly years at a time?
Joe wrote in May 13th, 2013 at 3:16 AM in Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
1. If the Least Action Principle does not apply to excited nuclei, how do you determine the placement and orientation of nucleons along n(o)?
RESPONSE:
Joe,
I dont know all the laws that connect the flux n(o).
It needs investigations, based on experiments.
I only know that, when energy is supplied for a non excited nucleus, it can change its status as follows:
1- by changing the spin of a nucleon regarding the flux n(o), as happens in the case of excited 6C12.
2- by changing the position of the nucleons, as happens when 5B10 is excited (see Fig. 25 page 35).
.
2. Do not spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign, since it is the spin that generates the magnetic moment? Why is the magnetic moment of D-2 not positive in Fig.4? Why does the flux invert the magnetic moment from positive to negative? And how does it do this while maintaining the exact same value for the magnetic moment (0.857)?
RESPONSE:
No, Joe,
spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign in CLASSICAL Nuclear Physics.
Faraday had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the macros-phenomena.
In QRT I had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the micro-phenomena, and I had discovered that the electromagnetic phenomena depends on the flux n(o).
regards
wlad
Dear Piers D:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hopefully the JONP will be a historical timeline for LENR. Many of the readers will probably agree that you have amazing energy to answer all our questions, and supply updates on the technology and forthcoming events. Perhaps once the validation has been completed and the your technology has been successfully peer reviewed, you will have even less time to provide updates as you will be busy with ramping up production via your partner companies, and dealing with the media inquiries and requests for interviews by all the leading broadcasters.
So here is one more important question for the historical timeline. This is a “what if” question, and I feel that it is important for interpreting the evolution of LENR from the lab to commercial production. If Fleischmann and Pons had submitted their work for peer review, and the results were not reproducible, it is possible that Cold Fusion could have remained purely a theoretical science. So perhaps their failure inspired people like yourself to continue with the research, and find a way of successfully turning the theoretical concept into a real world commercial product.
Anyway we all wish you luck with the next phase of your journey.
Dr. Rossi and readers.
Please Google:
CO2 PASSES 400PPM
Read the dangerous situation we are in, and getting worse
every day.
Dr. Rossi can help to save us !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
The reactor is already driven stable by the Activator, what you suggest is redundant.
Thank you for the attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dott Rossi,
when a reactor is running in SSM,could be possible use a part of the heat produced,with a modulator of injection, to keep stable the reactor?
But,it would be too much easy so it seems to me a stupid idea…here is 1:00 AM…
Good night G G
Dear Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
Please read carefully what I wrote,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ron:
Sorry, but I have nothing to add to what I have already written
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear giuliano Bettini:
1- no
2- I do not know
War,m regards,
A.R.
Dear Franco:
Please read what I have already explained,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
just two short questions,
1) How many MJ of energy this new E-Cat produces in total along a period of 100 hours of continuos working?
2) How many MJ of input energy from grid (electricty, gas or whatever) consumed in total by the system during the same working period of 100 hours?
Thanks.
Best Regards
Dear Andrea,
these are new questions” IMO.
1)The mouse / cat system is in closed loop? in the sense that the mouse is back-fed by (part of) the energy produced by the cat?
2)If not, you’ll work on this in the future?
Thanks
Giuliano.
This activator+ecat concept is driving people a little crazy. Perhaps a tiny bit more info will help. Is the activator always rated at 1 kW? In other words, can you drive a 10 or 100 kW ecat with a 1 kW activator? Obviously an activator with a COP of >1 will be a much more efficient and economical source of heat than a resistance heater, but if the activator draws a lot of power, the economics of it isn’t clear.
Sorry to take any more of your time on this, but this is so obvious to you but not to your readers, so some of us aren’t able to appreciate the scale of this new development, which is a shame. – Ron
Hello Mr Rossi,
The intersting number is the combined COP of the actuator and the E-cat over a full cycle.
You say the input to the actuator is 900 Wh/h during 35% of the cycle that is 900×0,35 =315 Wh/h as a cycle average. During the same time the output from the actuator is 910 Wh/h that is 318.5 Wh/h as a cycle average.
The output from the E-cat is 1000 Wh/h during 65% of the cycle, which gives a cycle average of 650 Wh/h.
The total output divided by the input is then (318.5 + 650)/ 315 = 3.07
On the single stage E-Cat the COP was around 6 but with the actuator the COP during a cycle is only 3.
Did you sacrifice COP for stability and higher temperature in order to get a better electric COP when a turbine is involved?
Best Regards,
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist
Dear Dott Rossi,
I understand that now is not important how much energy gives the economy of the system,because it is a prototype that is teaching to you the best way to drive the E-cat in SSM.
So,if I have understood well,all our (readers)computation are useless.
Regards G G
Gent.mo Ing Rossi,
ha perfettamente ragione, non può perdere tempo prezioso per ripetere le stesse cose.
Le scrivo giusto perchè dall’esempio fatto ieri, si ottiene un COP del sistema pari a circa tre….e della cosa siamo tutti un po’ spiazzati 🙂
Activator: “.. consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat”
E-CAT: ” …works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid”
in queste ipotesi ad esempio in 100 ore si ha
INPUT: 35h*900 Wh/h=31,5 KW
OUTPUT: 35h*910Wh/h + 65h* 1000 Wh/h=96,85 KW
COP=96,85/31,5=3,074
Cordiali saluti
Ing Benedetto Schiavone
To the Readers:
I am receiving many comments that continue to make the same questions regarding the system Activator-Ecat. Honestly, I have already explained I think very well what I can say about this issue for all I can explain, so I just invite to read what I have written in these last 7 days about it. I will not answer to questions equal to the ones I have already answered to for lack of time: in this period we are under strong pressure and I have the time only to answer to new questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andre Blum:
Every E-Cat has an Activator.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Does every Cat need its own mouse? Or can a squeak of a mouse awaken several cats?
If so, does it need to squeak louder, or just as loud as with one cat?
Best regards,
Andre Blum
Dear Frank Acland:
while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system. When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source. When the E-Cat is turned on ( about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat, while the E-Cat is turned off ( about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that irt is pays the energy that consumes by itself.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Please help me make sure I understand you correctly.
You say that the denominator is zero. Does this mean that there is no external energy coming into the mouse and cat setup? In other words, is the new configuration self-looping — the cat providing all the energy that the mouse needs?
Thank you very much,
Frank Acland
To the readers of JONP.
As previously mentioned, this is a follow-up to my part three information for consideration. Quark make-up as a structure with no fixed definite size. I believe that it is this none conformity of a fixed size that allows quarks to provide the material world with its phenomenons and phenomena. As previously mentioned quarks are composites of three aethers and three quarks form the structure of the atomic units. And like wise as quarks are formed by environmental radials so too are the atomic units. The two major dimensions are always diametrical and circumferential with regards any structure. The make-up with regards atomic units is different to that of quarks. Quarks contain no gravity as they simply occupy space. the units that quarks construct do contain gravity because quarks are independent units and unlike the quark, the atomic unit has a diametrical dimension that is composed of two radials not one. This configuration creates a space in the centre of the unit (on its diametrical dimension) and puts one quark in each position, top radial, bottom radial and circumference. To visualize an atomic unit draw a vertical and horizontal line to form a cross. Now draw a B. The horizontal divides the top and bottom of the B. The vertical represents the two radials of the B. which is the units diametrical dimension and upon which the unit spins. The two radials are two gates, Therefore slope each radial so that when the unit spins its radials form the shape of an egg timer resembling two inverted funnels. In the top funnnel, this being the north pole region place a quark and mark it positive/neg or quark of volume dimension going into a dimension of size. In the other funnel place a quark and mark it negative/pos or quark of size dimension going into a dimension of volume. On the circumferential dimension of the B. put two quarks, one on the bottom of the B.going negative/neg and on the top B. put one going negative/pos. These two quarks represdent a time dimension of one quark. In the middle of the diametrical dimension mark this as the positive gravity zone (positive/pos binding force) and in the gap on the horizontal line exterior to the B. mark negative gravity zone (negative/neg). Because this B. formation of three quarks spins on its diametrical dimension the quarks travel on helical trajectories. The dynamics of the helical trajectory is related to gyroscopic behaviour that maintains unity of velocity with regards a discrepancy of distance between two planes of an-at-one-ment. The unit as previously explained has two poles. The south pole is an expanding zone with regards its structure (not absolute but a gateway towards) and likewise its north pole is a contracting zone (not absolute but a gateway towards). Thereby the quarks responding to the absolutes of the structure career around the circuit in response to these two gravity values. The quarks leading edge is its south pole that seeks the positive gravity value of a size dimension. The circumferential quark has to satisfy the two powers of the unit. These positional powers of the unit (one positive and one negative gravity) pulsate and provide the driving force or the energy content of the unit. Thereby, as the quark circumvents on the bottom B. its south pole is attracted to the positive gravity at the central position causing the quark to become more of a size dimension. The top quark on the radial approaching from the gate of the north pole with its leading edge of its south pole is also becoming a quark of size dimension causing an act of repulsion with that of the approaching quark from the bottom circumference of the B. This results in the circumferential quark to be repelled and attracted by consequential similar and dissimilar forces. The north pole of the circumferential quark is attracted to the negative gravity of the outer position on the horizontal thereby transforming it into a quark of volume dimension. Whereupon, it then detects the pull of the north gate on its south pole. What the quark does is satisfy position with regards a value of gravity by its ability to adjust or you could say its ability to transform its volume dimension into a dimension of size or visa versa to suite all situations. Each quark on its route within a unit goes through two major transitions, from size major to volume major and from volume major to size major but it requires three stages to circumvent the two dimensions. The extra stage being the oscillation required to get from one gate to the other on its circumferential dimension between two major forces of gravity on the horizontal. The three quarks within the unit are in a constant transitional mode and the unit made-up of three quarks pulsates at its outer negative zone of negative gravity in sync with each transition of the passing circumferential quark. This cavity of negative gravity is present in the make-up of every structure other than the quark. This material is given as a possible overview of a complex subject and presented in skeletal form but is offered as an alternative explanation that I think could be more easy to understand as an introductory approach that obviously can be expanded upon. Part five will deal with the interaction of the atomic units. Hoping this information provides some helpfull thought on this abstruce subject. Best regards Eric Ashworth.
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
Nuclear scientists should always examine new alternative models because science is always progressing. This includes QRT. (It is odd that you condemn the possibility of a 5th force, since QRT introduces its own new force – REPULSIVE gravity.)
RESPONSE:
Joe,
there is a big difference between the proposal of mine on the repulsive gravity and the proposal of the nuclear theorists proposing the 5th force.
Look:
1- I had developed my theory along 20 years.
Step by step I was discovering the models and the laws that must rule their working.
Along the years I had faced many troubles, and had undertaken many efforts to eliminate the inconsistencies.
The proposal of the repulsive gravity had been a consequence of such effort of mine:
After long meditations, I finally had concluded that my nuclear model cannot work without a repulsive gravity.
So, that was a theoretical conclusion, required in order to get a coherent working of my nuclear model.
I even did not know that there are pear-shaped nuclei at that time.
2- Nowadays the theorists are thinking about a 5th force because their theories do not fit to the recent experimental findings.
For instance, the pear shape of high nuclei do not fit to what we expect from the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
So, the theorists today are not thinking about the existence of a 5th force from the theoretical viewpoint,
They are thinking about to propose the 5th force from an ad hoc viewpoint, with the aim to ADAPT their nuclear theory to the results of experiments.
An ad hoc solution is not desirable.
Because even if they succeed to adapt the pear shape to the results of the experiments by keeping the fundamental principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is possible such sort of solution will hide the true cause of the existence of the pear-shaped nuclei.
In QRT the nuclei with pair number of complete hexagonal floors have elipsoidal shape (for example, the 92U238)
But nuclei with odd number of hexagonal floors have tendency to be pear-shaped.
And if the nucleus has odd number of hexagonal floors and also incomplete hexagonal floors, the tendency to be pear-shaped is greater.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
For some reason your reply did not post to the Rossi Blog Reader, I will try to re-post it now. Thank you again, and congratulations!!!
— re-posted with the reply from Andrea Rossi —
Tom Conover
May 12th, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Dear Andrea,
The actuator would pay for itself if the turbine mounted on the 350C Tiger accepted the thermal output of the actuator as a source of thermal energy that is used to create the steam to spin the turbine. That would make the actuator “cost” equal to zero, if the energy from the turbine is used to power the Tiger.
Do I read your words correctly now?
If so, may I be the first to congratulate you on achieving the dream of Tesla?
Sincerely,
Tom Conover
Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Dear Tom Conover,
Yes, you got it, but the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because the heat made by the activator is usable too as such.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM, in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
1. I had asked you what causes the sign of the spin of a nucleon to change abruptly and work against the Least Action Principle. You asked me where this occurs. I now answer that it occurs in Fig.26 (page 37) in the excited 6C12. Can you explain why one deuteron suddenly changes its spin?
RESPONSE:
Joe, the 6C12 is excited.
The Least Action Principle cannot be applied, since the 6C12 receives additional energy, which breaks the conditions existent for the application of the Least Action Principle.
The principle is not applicable for excited nuclei.
.
2. The deuteron D-2 in Fig.4 (page 6) seems contradictory. It has a positive spin, yet a negative magnetic moment. How is this understandable?
RESPONSE:
Joe, dont you see the difference between D-1 and D-2?
You have to pay attention to the direction of the flux n(o) crossing the both D-1 and D-2.
Look:
D-1: it has i=-1, and the flux n(o) enters through the pole “+” (blue) of D-1
D-2: it has i=+1, but the flux n(o) enters through the pole “-” (red) of D-2
regards
wlad
PS: sorry the delay, I didnt see your comment because of the publication of the new article Electrical Catalyst.
Dear Tom Conover,
Yes, you got it, but the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because the heat made by the activator is usable too as such.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The actuator would pay for itself if the turbine mounted on the 350C Tiger accepted the thermal output of the actuator as a source of thermal energy that is used to create the steam to spin the turbine. That would make the actuator “cost” equal to zero, if the energy from the turbine is used to power the Tiger.
Do I read your words correctly now?
If so, may I be the first to congradulate you on achieving the dream of Tesla?
Sincerely,
Tom Conover
Dear Tadej Bajda,
I appreciated very much your interpretation of how hot-cat could work. Months ago I thought a similar conceptual model based on Guglinski z axis of atomic nucleum.
Regards
Silvio
Dear Silvio Caggia:
I did not participate to the peer reviewing of the article of Tadej Bajda: any comment about it must be addressed to the Author. I cannot comment. The authors are the sole responsible of what they write.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Which is the true meaning of the publication of “Electrical Catalyst” by Tadej Bajda (Slovenia) on your JoNP?
A) explaining how hot-cat works
B) distracting from hot-cat real working
C) kidding
Plagiarism in the journal Nature – AGAIN ???????
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: nature@nature.com
CC: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de; helayel@cbpf.br; jyeston@aaas.org; prc@aps.org; apr-edoffice@aip.org; cjp@fzu.cz; ver@cisp-publishing.com; pnj@bauuinstitute.com; johna_6@yahoo.com; chupp@umich.edu
Subject: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature: AGAIN ???????
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:27:24 -0300
Dear Dr Karen Howell
Senior Editor , Journal Nature
In 2012 the journal Nature had published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where there is a plagiarism of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, publihed in 2006.
Now it seems that the journal Nature had published a plagiarism again, in the paper of May-2013 entitled Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12073.html
Tim Chupp, one of the authors of the paper, gave an interview for the Brazillian blog Inovaçao Tecnológica, where he says:
”The pear shape is special. It means that neutrons and protons which compose the nucleus take positions a litle different along an internal axis“
Well, the existence of the internal axis of the nuclei is proposed in my book.
According to the new nuclear model proposed in my book, the nucleons gyrate about the z-axis (see the nucleus 46Pd in the page 13 of the article Stability of Light Nuclei, published by Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics):
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
According to my theory, deuterons form hexagonal floors about the z-axis.
In my email to the editor of the European Physical Journal I told him that each day the journals of Physics will continue to publish plagiarisms of my book, because as many experiments are suggesting that my theory is correct, then it is obvious that new experimental findings (which are coming to light now and will be coming in the future) will oblige the theorists to addopt the arguments of mine proposed in my book.
In 2013 the journal European Physica Journal had published a plagiarism of the idea of mine on the space filled by particles and antiparticles.
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3464&mode=&order=0&thold=0
Now the journal Nature had published the plagiarism of my argument that there is a central axis within the nuclei.
So, new plagiarism are coming, of course…
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski