by
Will Schmidt
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Introduction
The purpose of this article on radioactivity is to explain and describe the following subjects:
.
• What radioactivity is
• How radioactive decay processes work
• When radioactive decay is initiated
.
Radioactivity is like the atomic nucleus speaking.
This article is really about the neutrino. How can such a small particle with no electric charge and very little mass (if any) control the destiny of the world and all living things?
Listen, the radioactive nuclear atom will tell you. This article will explain how the neutrino works and what it does. What the neutrino really is, has not yet been discovered.
There are three types of neutrinos: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. They will be mentioned in examples below.
There are three major classes of radioactivity processes:
.
• Radioactive beta decay
.
• Radioactive beta decay
• Alpha particle decay
• Decay of proton particles
.
These radioactivity processes will be described below and include:
.
• Radioactivity decay of the free neutron.
.
These radioactivity processes will be described below and include:
.
• Radioactivity decay of the free neutron.
• Radioactivity decay of the proton (if any)
• Pion particle decay
• Muon particle decay
.
By these radioactivity processes, nuclear structure is unfolding.
.
By these radioactivity processes, nuclear structure is unfolding.
H. Becquerel discovered the ionizing effects of radioactivity radiation in 1899, and Rutherford showed that alpha particles were emitted as well as beta electrons.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You mentioned some time ago about observing a direct electric generation within the eCat, or something similar. Can you enlighten us as to what you are seeing or observed?
Dr. Nicholas Stone, Editor of the nuclear table published by the Oxford Physics, did not reply my last email, where I had shown that we have strong evidences supporting the hypothesis that 4Be7 has quadrupole moment very near to zero (an IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis, according to current nuclear models).
The email ahead had been sent to Dr. Attila Csolo.
====================================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu; n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: effort to get 4Be7 quadrupole moment
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:48:53 -0300
To: Dr Attila Csolo
cc: Dr. Nicholas Stone
Dear Dr. Csolo
The Standard Nuclear Physics have been successful for the development of technology.
But there are nuclear phenomena which do not fit to what we expect from the current nuclear models.
In particular, the current nuclear models cannot explain the behavior of some light nuclei. And it seems that the quadrupole moment of 4Be7 is one among several nuclear properties which do not fit the current nuclear models.
As I have shown along a series of emails exchanged with Dr. Nicholas Stone, it’s hard to believe that Q for 7Be had not been measured yet. And as it is not quoted in nuclear tables, we have to conclude that Q for 7Be is very near to zero, and this is the reason why it had not been detected in any experiment, unlike had happened with 9Be, which Q had been measured to be 0,053barns.
As a value near to zero of Q for 7Be cannot be fit to any of the current nuclear models (shell model, core model, cluster model, etc), then obviously there is need to look for a new nuclear model, capable to explain such bizarre nuclear property of 7Be.
A new nuclear model is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.
http://www.bauuinstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22:quantum-ring-theory-foundations-for-cold-fusion&catid=8&Itemid=103
The reason why 7Be has Q near to zero is shown in the page 48 (Figure 37) of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei , published by Rossi’s blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
Of course you do not need to consider that my new nuclear model is correct.
But you need to consider it from the following very important viewpoint:
——————————————————————
the possibility of conciliating a value of Q very close to zero for 7Be , if we consider a new nuclear model working with some new principles missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
——————————————————————
Dear Dr. Csolo,
of course it is more comfortable to neglect the existence of any experiment which disprove the current nuclear models, and to continue trying to explain the nuclear phenomena by keeping those current models, with the hope that one day in the future the theorists will succeed to conciliate their models with all the results of experiments.
However it’s hard to believe that this sort of procedure will lead the theorists to a successful end. Science cannot be developed by such a way.
So, it’s mandatory to face the reality, undertaking an effort so that to eliminate the controversy regarding the value of the quadrupole moment of 7Be , because if its Q is really very near to zero, then the theorists need to recognize that we need a New Nuclear Model, working with some new principles missing in the current Standard Nuclear Physics.
If we do not undertake such effort, some theoretical nuclear paradoxes will never be eliminated, and the Nuclear Physics will be forever lying on false principles and wrong nuclear models.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
====================================================================
Reply by Dr. Stone
=========================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:48:54 +0000
Just to say that IF a measurement had been made, it would certainly have been published.
==========================================================
My reply:
==========================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk; csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:58:07 -0300
Dear Dr. Stone
Suppose that an experimentalist had measured the Q for 7Be, and the experiment had detected nothing.
Would the experimentalist report the value Q= 0 ?
4Be7 has A= 7 (odd), and therefore it cannot have Q= 0 , by considering the current nuclear models.
Then , instead of to report the value Q= 0, probably the experimentalist would rather interpret the value zero due to some imperfection of the measurement.
And from such interpretation he decided do not report the result.
After all, as 9Be and 7Be have practically the same radius, I cant see any reasonable explanation so that to justify why 9Be had been measured and 7Be had not.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
==========================================================
ERRATA sent to Dr. Stone
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu; n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: errata: FW: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:52:59 -0300
Dr. Csolo had calculated the value of Q for 7Be in order of 0,07barns
AND THEREFORE THE MYSTERIY OF 7Be CONTINUES:
My question to Dr. Stone:
==========================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:31:27 -0300
Hi, Dr Stone
I suspect that 7Be has Q very near to zero, that’s why it is not quoted in nuclear tables.
I suspect that the experimentalist already had tried to measure it, and they had expected to measure a value near to the value of Q for 9Be (0,053 barns).
As the experimentists did not succeed to get a value far away from zero (and as they know that from the theoretical viewpoint 7Be cannot have Q very near to zero) then they did not report the results of experiments.
Dr. Attila Csolo had calculated theoretically that Q for 7Be must be in order of 7barns.
I have my suspiction because of the following:
9Be is stable
7Be has half-life of 53 days
Both them are very small
Q for 9Be had been measured by atomic beam, and got 0,053 barns.
———————————————————–
CONCLSUSION : why cannot the Q for 7Be be measured by atomic beam ?
———————————————————–
So, I suspect that Q for 7Be had already been measured by atomic beam (like done for 9Be), but the experiments had NOT detected a value far away of zero (as expected theoretically).
Do you think that my suspiction can explain why Q for 7Be is not quoted in nuclear tables?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
==========================================================
Trying to discover the quadrupole moment for 4Be7
The exchange of emails is between me and the editor N. J. Stone, of the nuclear table published by Oxford Physics, Clarendon Laboratory
============================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:36:01 -0300
Dear Dr. Nicholas Stone
The Nuclear Table published by Clarendon Laboratory gives the nuclear spin and magnetic moment of the nucleus 4Be7, respectivelly 3/2 and -1,398:
http://faculty.missouri.edu/~glaserr/8160f09/STONE_Tables.pdf
But the quadrupole electric moment of the 4Be7 is not quoted.
May you tell me why ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
============================================================
============================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 10:22:09 +0000
Dear Dr Guglinski,
To give you a quick answer – I have no record of a measurement of Q for 7Be. Do you have a reference to a publication? I am aware of the magnetic moment result PRL 101 212502 Okada et al and of the more recent one by Nortershauser et al PRL 102 062503.
Yours,
Nick Stone
============================================================
============================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 08:53:14 -0300
Dear Dr. Stone
No, I dont have any reference.
Actually I dont understand why there is not a record of Q for 4Be7, because along 20 years some theorists have enphasized the importance of getting its measurement.
In the paper Solar Neutrinos: Where We Are, What We Need , published in 1998 byJohn Bahcall , he explains the importance of the measurement of the quadrupole moment for 7Be for the understanding of the sun shines by nuclear fusion reactions among light elements in its interior.
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Groningen/paper.pdf
In the paper he says:
“A measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment would help distinguish between different nuclear models for the 7Be(p,g)8B reaction (see 38) ”.
38. A. Csoto, K. Langanke, S. E. Koonin, and T. D. Shoppa, Phys. Rev. C. 52 , 1130 (1995)
Csolo and Langanke had published several papers along 20 years, where they explain the importance of the measurement of Q for 7Be. In a paper publihed in 2008 they write in the page 6:
We also note that a precise measurement of the 7Be quadrupole moment or radius could test the self-consistency of our conclusions.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9408001.pdf
So, I dont understand why we dont know the Q for 7Be yet.
Is not possible to measure it in the Clarendon Laboratory ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
============================================================
============================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:37:54 +0000
Hi, Quadrupole moments are particularly hard to measure in light nuclei since they are small and so produce small energy splittings which require very high resolution. The 9Be Q was measured by atomic beam which has the highest resolution. Laser spectroscopy would probably not be good enough.
============================================================
============================================================
From: n.stone1@physics.ox.ac.uk
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: quadrupole electric moment of 4Be7
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 12:41:37 +0000
Further, theoreticians can call all they like, but it doesn’t provide a method for the measurement.
I’m now retired. There is no experimental group at the Clarendon that could attempt the measurement.
Your best bet would seem to be the Japanese groups with some variant of beta NMR, but I haven’t checked if there is suitable beta decay in 7Be.
============================================================
Giuseppe:
As I said, E-Cat is still in a phase od research and development, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my work,I will not be able to respond to each specific question.
Warm Regards,
A.R,
Ciao Andrea,
May you give us an update regarding the big surprise you mentionent some month ago, is it still developing or its status is now “complete”!
And also, what about the sterling turbine you was locking for, your last information, if i remember well, was that no one fit your expectations.
Are you now developing some good one with some partner to fit ecat, or this item is in second priority now?
Regards
Giuseppe
Frank Acland:
Thank you, very appreciated!
Nikita Alexandrov: here is help for your question.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
For reference, here is a link to the reading list you provided.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/andrea-rossis-reading-list/
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Nikita Alexandrov:
I already gave a list of books in this blog recently.
In these days I am reading again the book of Cook: every time I read it I learn something. There are many not written things you get at every passage. Is a gold mine ( for me).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have been following your story for many years, you can see my comments when this website first started.
I recently attended ICCF18 and all of the top figures silently tipped their hat to you.
It is very exciting to see you come such a long way in a short time!
My question:
In the past you have mentioned Cook’s and Fermi’s books.
Could you list maybe 5 or 10 books for a scientist in this field for understanding the theory of the Rossi Effect?
We will call this Rossi’s book club, you will knock Opera out of the water!
Steven N Karels:
Yes, this is a good point.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giuliano Bettini:
We must make a distinction.
We are working on all our lines of products, to test and validate them with a rigorous work.
The long term third indipendent party validation is related to a battery of Hot Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joseph J:
This is not time for awards, this is time to work hard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Speaking of district heating; going you or your US partner to compete this year’s Global District Energy Climate Awards? Or maybe next year? http://www.districtenergyclimateawards.org/
Best Regards
Joseph
Dear Andrea,
in Italy, these guys take it for granted that the “6 months long validation test” relates to the Hot Cat.
But I am not sure.
You said:
“The E-Cats under test have been manufactured completely in the USA, in the factory of the US Manufacturer, indipendently from me…” Hot Cat?
The test “is in the USA factory of a Customer.” Hot Cat?
http://www.nextme.it/scienza/energia/6232-fusione-fredda-hot-e-cat-test-usa
Warm Regards,
Giuliano Bettini
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A while ago, you discussed eCat technology divided into two sub-groups: “Warm” with nominal 110 deg C temperatures and “Hot” with a temperature output around 350 deg C.
Have you considered a hybrid approach for large industrial applications such as electricity production where the eCat converts water into steam (either 110 deg C or 350 deg C) and then existing fossil fuel heat sources (coal, natural gas) move the steam to the working temperature of the electricity production (say around 600 deg C)?
Using this approach removes much risk on the part of potential customers but could provide significant savings in fuel cost as most of the thermal energy is required to turn water into steam. An electrical utility could then “buy into” eCat technology without risking a plant based solely on an “unproven technology”. Environmentally, the benefits would be less CO2 emissions as less coal or gas would be used.
Gherardo:
No, is a different thing. Condominium is a domestic building, it is a domestic application, even if extended to tenths of apartments of a big condominium. District heating is a centralized heat distribution system in a district. In this case it is not a domestic application, but an industrial facility, which sells the heat to all the houses and the condominiums of a district. A district is a section of a town.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
“…district heating and district air conditioning…”
This really looks like what we spoke about (Condominio) a looong time ago’.
Good 🙂
Andreas Moraitis:
I cannot give information of this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi wrote in September 5th, 2013 at 4:59 PM
1-
————————————————
Wladimir Guglinski:
You are right to say that the sole valid way to give evidence that a process works are positive experiments, but let me say that the sole real validation of a product is its breakthrough in the market.
————————————————-
COMMENT
Yes, this is just what I mean to say.
You are able to put your product in the market just because your experiment is positive, and therefore your technology works.
————————————————-
2-
————————————————-
Besides, the Scientific Community is giving to us an enormous help, since all the Scientits ( most of them University Professors) I am in contact with are giving to us important information by the day.
————————————————-
COMMENT
I understand the Scientific Community which is giving you an enormous help as a community formed by dissenting scientists who do not share the conspiracy of the Academic Scientific Community.
The dissident scientists are really loyal to the scientific method, unlike happens with the academic scientists.
Fleischmann and Pons had also the attention of such Scientific Community of dissident scientists.
However, along 20 years, they did not succeed to change the mind of the academic scientists, so that to have their experiments to be taken seriously, because they did not discover a technology suitable to be putted in the market, as you have succeeded.
If cold fusion had not be able to be put in the market (as you are doing now), the technology would never be accepted by the Academic Scientific Community.
Regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Did you ever consider using a 3D (laser sintering) printer for the production of nickel samples? The latest models (for instance: http://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/production/spro-125-direct-metal#.Uimc4n9GPSh ) seem to reach resolutions below 50 micrometers. This might not be enough to obtain the necessary “fine structure” of the surface, but it could be possible to create a geometry which allows both the supply of hydrogen and the removal of heat in an optimal way.
Keeping my fingers crossed…
Best regards
Andreas Moraitis
To the readers of JONP and of course Andrea Rossi. This was written before September 5th reply by Andrea to Wladimir and I do understand both positions but here is what I think. With regards the current accepted principles in physics I find it difficult to understand why if an experiment proves an anomaly with regards these principles then the experiment is deemed flawed, rejected and denied further verification in the presence of trained physicists. Something is very definitely wrong and needs correcting. Anyway, all things aside. Maybe the atomic model needs consideration from another angle. The coulomb barrier (law 1780) is often mentioned as a hurdle that for some reason must be overcome. Coulomb law: If the two charges have the same sign, the force between them is repulsion, if they have different sign, the force between them is attraction. This can be verified by two magnets and will always be found to be true. However, I believe this law is technically incomplete, attraction and repulsion only occurs within a given distance. Outside of a given distance no action will occur. This I consider to be an important point because the sign being a charge occupies a specific space. This activity with regards Coulombs law is I believe due to competition of a given environment consisting of two unequal spaces or two equal spaces with regards particle activity within each space. When the spaces are equal due to particle activity/density there is no competition and thereby repulsion when the spaces are brought into close proximity. Whereas when the two spaces are unequal with regards particle activity/density within each space then there is a competitive element by the constricted particles to gain equal space from those particles occupying a less constricted space when they become within a range of detection. Restricted space due to particle confinement provides for a positive charge to be displayed which indicates a degree of latent energy. Unrestricted space due to particle activity provides for a negative charge to be displayed which indicates a degree of kinetic energy. When positive charge gets within range of a negative it will by its latent energy (this being confined kinetic), jump into the negative space which will then subsequently collapse into a space of neutrality which can be measured as a degree of both heat and light and after which the potential of the neutral will subsequently retract back into the space from which the positive charge previously occupied which is referred to as grounding because positive charges will always be found at a level of density. This Coulomb law is directly related to gravity which encompasses electrical phenomena. Also the atom being of an electrical origin also is governed by this law which involves understanding space as an integral part of the law.
So lets take a look at the atom with what I refer to as its balance of power (hydrogen excluded being an unstable negative structure with lots of kinetic energy) or you could say its two absolute inverse states due to a central inner cavity of restriction that dispels latent energy of positivity going kinetic and the outer position that dispels kinetic energy of negativity going latent. I believe there is a binary system of energy with regards the two potentials of power. The inner positive potential as a balanced unit is comprised of proton and neutron that surrounds an inner gravity value. The outer negative potential is as a balanced unit comprised of an electron with its outer potential of aether structure surrounded by an outer gravity value that contains a quantity of free aether. The inner gravity value is inverse and thereby attracts the proton. The proton is in reverse format to the neutron with regards quark structure. It is this reversal of structure that maintains identity between these two potentials by both attraction and repulsion. Attraction by polar potential but repulsion by the orbital sign of each quark on their respected circuit. The same applies to the electron and its accompanying aether structure that maintains an identity of their potentials. Between these potentials that are responsible for the power due to the inverse gravity there is a space, this being between the neutron and the electron, reverse format plus the two powers of gravity maintain an identity of the structure midway between the two powers of the atomic mass.
Under normal circumstances with regards the evolutionary transmutation of the elements with regards the environmental changes that are encountered by progression of material substance into more negative zones of the environment (material substance being latent energy is created in the fusion environment/polar region from the fission environment/polar zone of kinetic substance (polar zone of the solar system) and consequently this material substance, by gravity is drawn back to its place of origin, being the fission environment. The fission environment contains more space and thereby more kinetic energy with regards free aether. Here is where Coulombs law plays an important role with regards transmutation. When kinetic aether is highly charged it occupies a space that equates as a negative charge in comparison to latent aether that equates as postive charge. Consequently, the electron potential together with its aether potential are drawn into the surrounding more highly charged gravity zone by competition of the free space. Upon gaining more free space the electron shell displays more negativity that provides the atomic unit with more negative power. Power potentials of an atomic mass have to be equal so as to keep the mass stable. Where does the proton go to display more latent energy which requires it to take up less space?. There is only one place it can go and that is to descend moreso with regards its activity into the central cavity which initially transforms the element into an isotope after which it will eventually transmute into another element when the proton destructs by compression due to the quarks taking up the same space, becoming the same sign and thereby responding to coulombs law. I do not see the coulomb barrier as a hurdle when you apply the law as described. Of course, if you artificially adjust the exterior environment by applying lots of kinetic energy purposely around the central cavity then you will pull out the electrons together with the aether structure and cause the protons to collapse to almost the dead centre of the cavity causing a total release of the two units of power. Hydrogen serves as a source of kinetic energy providing a necessary negative environment causing the electrons together with the aether structure to compete with this environment by the law of attraction which produces a more negative power potential of the subjected atomic unit. Need I say more. This theory is worth considering. I hope Andrea it can in some way help you along in explaining the working principle of the e-cat with regards Coulombs law. Tried to be as brief as possible, all the best, Regards Eric Ashworth.
Herb Gillis:
Yes, you are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
Are district heating and district air conditioning among the industrial applications that your R&D team are testing? It seems to me these are the sorts of industry applications that could be exploited the most quickly (short term).
Kind Regards; HRG.
Wladimir Guglinski:
I understand you, but I do not share your absolute pessimism: I know peer reviewed magazines that work with correctness and sincerity, without bias.
Besides, the Professors that made the tests on our reactors, as well as the Professors that are continuing to make tests, as well as the hundreds of Scientists with whom I have contacts are integral and high level part of the Scientific Community, as well as many of the unbiased and honest skeptic Scientist, while many of the imbeciles who talk of this effect without knowing what they say are not . It is normal that a system resists against radical innovations, but in time and with the diffusion of products that work the problem is always resolved. You are right to say that the sole valid way to give evidence that a process works are positive experiments, but let me say that the sole real validation of a product is its breakthrough in the market. Besides, the Scientific Community is giving to us an enormous help, since all the Scientits ( most of them University Professors) I am in contact with are giving to us important information by the day.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jan.Gustavsson:
Thank you for your defense of the truth, very appreciated.
You are absolutely right regarding the peer reviewing considerations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
You must put a distinction between the third party indipendent tests ( that are totally indipendent from our commercial strategy) and the tests related to our internal R&D. I can speak only for our internal R&D, about which,as I said, the uses and operation of the E-Cats remain in the development phase. We are utilizing a number of controls and testing a variety of uses, this is a very rigorous process, made by expert scientists. It is simply too soon to speculate on what the results of our work will be. I remain confident in our work and our team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the explanation of this test — very interesting!
Are your commercial operations dependent upon the results of this testing? In other words, are you waiting for this test to conclude before you launch commercial products?
Best regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Wladimir,
I know that you are searching for a 100% theory of the physical world. I find that highly laudable. But even a high level theory that is not 100% correct can be useful.
For example Einsteins break throughs in physics made possible to build hydrogen bombs. What an incredible achievement (though of course not very good for the world as it turns out).
In a similar way, Frank’s theory says that LENR should be possible. But not only that, it should also be possible to manipulate the gravito magnetic field. Just as an iron core can boost a local electro magnetic field, there could exist a similar material (bose einstein condensate vibrated properly) that can boost a local gravito magnetic field.
Would that not be neat?
Regards
Peter
Frank Acland:
As we said, a 6 months long validation test had to be made, and I repeated that validation of the E-Cat is in course. As always, I will not give any specific information regarding the validation test in course, with exception of the fact that this test will last more than 6 months. The results will be published after the test will have been completed, whatever the results, positive or negative.
I do not know where the publication will be made, because it does not depend on me. Also this long run test is being performed by an indipendent commettee, financed by institutions totally indipendent from us. Obviously the location in which the test is in course will be disclosed in the publication that will be made. I can only say that it is in the USA factory of a Customer. The E-Cats under test have been manufactured completely in the USA, in the factory of the US Manufacturer, indipendently from me: therefore also the manufacturing has been made by an indipendent- from- me party.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
After the 3rd party report was published in May, there was discussion here that a 6-month E-Cat validation test would be performed. Is this test going forward, and if so, has it already started?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Jan.Gustavsson wrote in September 4th, 2013 at 11:29 AM
————————————————————
Dr Rossi:
Recently the blog “Realclearscience” has published a not true information regarding your work. In particular, in an article where has not been put the name of the author and without possibility to answer, the anonimous author wrote that:
i- your work has never been published by a peer reviewed magazine
ii- your patent has not been approved
About these statements, I want to answer here, because there they do not publish comments, what follows, not to defend you, but to defend the truth:
————————————————————–
Dear Jan,
a publication on a peer review journal is a guarantee of nothing.
Just because the referees of the peer review journal have not a laboratory into their head, so that to repeat an experiment, and decide if its results are correct or not.
What decides if a theory is correct or wrong are the results of experiments.
There is a conspiracy supported by the scientific community, as follows:
1- When an experiment defies the current theories, the peer review journals reject to publish any paper concerning that experiment.
2- Because the experiment had not been published by any peer review journal, such missing of publication allow the physicists to claim that the experiment cannot be considered seriously.
3- By this way the scientific community convince the layman that the experiment does not merit credibility.
As I said, what decides if an experiment is correct or not are the results obtained. This is what prescribes the scientific method.
The scientific community is not considering the Rossi’s experiments via the scientific criterion.
They are considering Rossi’s work via the strategy of the conspiracy which considers the peer review publication as the final veredict which decides if an experiment is correct or not.
It’s a conspiracy against the development of the science.
regards
wlad
Peter Forsberg wrote in September 4th, 2013 at 1:25 AM
——————————————
Dear Wladimir,
I am not a physicist, and realize that I am in deep water, but I have some more questions to you regarding Frank Znidarsic’s claims.
If Frank’s theory is nonsense, can you then explain how Frank can calculate the energy levels of the Hydrogen Atom. And can you explain how he can derive Planck’s constant. And he is only using classical physics in a new way.
Frank does not claim to have found a grand unifying theory, only that he has found classical explanations for the quantum phenomena at low energies.
———————————————–
Dear Peter,
I dont know what exactly happens.
Perhaps the interpretation by Frank concerning his own theory is not correct.
Maybe the numbers which he thinks are coming from the wave sounds have other origin.
Besides, with suitable considerations it is possible to fit a theory to some results of experiments.
There are some interesting coincidences in the History of Physics.
For example, according to the Standard Model the bozon W mediates the weak interaction.
According to the theory, the neutron decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino occurs via an intermediate heavy boson W.
Such interpretation would make sense if the neutron would have the quark structure n= (d,u,d), proposed in current Nuclear Physics.
However the Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments are showing that the neutron is formed actually by proton+electron, and therefore the interpretation that the boson W mediates the neutron’s decay cannot be correct.
But the experiments had confirmed the existence of the boson W, as predicted by the Standard Model.
So, how does explain such “coincidence” predicted by the Standard Model ?
Well, I suppose that when the neutron decays a boson W is created (like the antineutrino is also created).
From this new interpretation, we explain why the Standard Model predicts correctly the mass of the boson W (because, as it is created during the neutron’s decay, the phenomenon happens as if the boson W would be mediating the decay).
Therefore, in spite of the boson W exists, its existence does not mean that it mediates the decay of neutron, as wrongly interpreted by the particle theorists.
regards
wlad
Dr Rossi:
Recently the blog “Realclearscience” has published a not true information regarding your work. In particular, in an article where has not been put the name of the author and without possibility to answer, the anonimous author wrote that:
i- your work has never been published by a peer reviewed magazine
ii- your patent has not been approved
About these statements, I want to answer here, because there they do not publish comments, what follows, not to defend you, but to defend the truth:
1- it is not true that the Rossi Effect tech has not been published in a peer reviewed magazine: just Google ” Arxive Physics Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”
2- the peer reviewing is intrinsic when an article is written by 7 Prof., since they automatically review each other, but also the article has been further peer reviewed and the list of peer reviewers is in the acknowledgements : Prof. Pierre Clauzon of CEA (Commissariat pour l’Energie Atomique of Paris) , Prof. Ennio Bonetti ( University of Bologna), Prof. Loris Ferrari ( University of Bologna), Prof. Laura Patrizii ( INFN), Prof. Bjorn Galnander ( University of Uppsala); the report has been written after an indipendent test financed by Alba Langenskiold Foundation and by Elforsk AB, which are entities totally indipendent from Andrea Rossi, with whom they never had any kind of relationship. The magazine where the report has been published is Arxive Physics, of the Cornell University: it is the magazine where most of the important publications in Physics are made from Professors of all the world and where is impossible to publish a paper unless a peer reccommends its publication.
3- the examiner of the first European patent application of Andrea Rossi ( that has been granted in Italy, anyway, in 2010) was an engineer that works for ITER, ( dubbed EATER), the concern that has received tens of billions of dollars of the taxpayer to make research in the nuclear fusion… every comment is useless. Andrea Rossi made a commercial breakthrough, installing plants that are working in some industries, without getting a single cent from the taxpayer, while the ITER ( EATER) has produced nothing ( but some article here and there, for example, maybe, on Realclearscience).
Jan.Gustavsson
Here is another short segment from the interviews recorded with Andrea Rossi earlier this year:
https://vimeo.com/73434865
The complete set of interviews can be found here:
http://www.thomasflorek.com/thomas/AndreaRossi.html
Reply by Dr. Csolo
===============================================================
> From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
> Subject: Re: CONTE-PIERALICE experiment RE: measurement of the 4Be7
> To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:15:33 +0200
>
> So, Santilli simply forgot to mention in his “scientific”
> paper, that a neutrino must be present, just as in standard
> physics. I see.
===============================================================
My reply:
===============================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: CONTE-PIERALICE experiment RE: measurement of the 4Be7
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:45:54 -0300
Dear Dr. Csolo
the result of an experiment does not depend on theoretical justifications.
One experiment is simply an experiment, and we have to accept its results, no matter what they mean.
What the result means is another question.
The experimentalist has not the obligation of explaining, from the theoretical viewpoint, the meaning of the experiment.
Obviously he can try to do it by proposing a theory.
But we have not the obligation of accepting his theory, mainly if we do not consider his theory satisfactory.
Santilli’s theory is unacceptable from other viewpoints either. For instance, his model of neutron is unable to explain why the neutron has spin 1/2, since the a model n=p+e would have to have an entire spin 1 or zero, from the viewpoint of the current principles of the standard nuclear physics.
The same we can say about Rossi’s Effect.
Andrea Rossi had discovered it.
And he tells us that he has a theory capable to explain it.
But we dont know if his theory is correct,
But even if Rossi’s theory is wrong, however the important is the effect discovered by him.
In the same way, the important in the Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments are the results themselves, and not the fact that such results do not fit to the current theories.
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
===============================================================
Dear Wladimir,
I am not a physicist, and realize that I am in deep water, but I have some more questions to you regarding Frank Znidarsic’s claims.
If Frank’s theory is nonsense, can you then explain how Frank can calculate the energy levels of the Hydrogen Atom. And can you explain how he can derive Planck’s constant. And he is only using classical physics in a new way.
Frank does not claim to have found a grand unifying theory, only that he has found classical explanations for the quantum phenomena at low energies.
Regards
Peter
Dear Wladimir,
By the speed of sound Frank means the speed by which a vibration travels through a medium, such as a bose Einstein condesate.
Regards
Peter
Peter Forsberg wrote in September 2nd, 2013 at 1:44 AM
———————————————
Dear Wladimir,
I find your quantum ring theory very interesting. Another theory I have found interesting is Frank Znidarsic’s theoretical explanations for the quantum transition and the implications of this on LENR and gravito magnetism.
What is your opinion on Frank’s theory?
———————————————-
Dear Peter,
in the link posted by you
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Miscellaneous/Download/954
it’s written:
“The result (1) is the speed of a longitudinal sound wave Vt
, across atomic distances, within a gas that is
dissolved in a metallic proton conductor.”
To me, it’s hard to believe that there is any connection between nuclear phenomena and the speeed of a sound wave
It’s obvious that some principles of current Theoretical Physics need to be replaced by new ones.
However, in order to develop a New Physics based on new principles there is need to keep our feet in a solid ground, so that to avoid fantasies and nonsenses.
Such filling from some author is what makes the difference between what is an acceptable theory and what is not.
regards
wlad
reply by Dr Attila Csolo on Conte-Pieralice experiment
Reply 1:
==============================================================
> From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
> Subject: Re: CONTE-PIERALICE experiment RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole
> To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:11:55 +0200
>
> I can only repeat myself: read the papers of physics journals
> to learn how to put together a scientific experiment, and how
> to report its results. Those people did not measure any p+e=n
> process, they just speculated about it, without any evidence.
> As I said before, physics has passed this level 400 years ago.
================================================================
But Dr. Csolo felt that his response was not satisfactory from the scientific viewpoint, and so he sent a second reply:
Reply 2:
=================================================================
> From: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
> Subject: Re: CONTE-PIERALICE experiment RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole
> To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:24:54 +0200
>
> In the case of the p+e=n process, a scientific experiment
> means, that you must detect individual processes, measuring
> the energy and momentum of the proton and electron going in,
> and of the neutron going out. You have to do this, in order to
> prove, that energy conservation is really violated, that angular
> momentum conservation is really violated, that lepton number
> conservation is really violated.
=================================================================
My reply:
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: csoto@matrix.elte.hu
Subject: RE: CONTE-PIERALICE experiment RE: measurement of the 4Be7 quadrupole
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 19:51:26 -0300
Dear Dr. Csolo
1- energy conservation is not violated.
There would be energy violation only if the space should be empty, as proposed by Einstein.
However, an experiment published in 2011 had proved that the space is not empty:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm
In another paper published in 2013 it is proposed that space is filled by fermions and anti-fermions:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1
So, the excess energy in Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments comes from the non-empty sapce.
2- angular momentum conservation is not violated.
Because when the proton and the electron fuse and the neutron is formed, a neutrino is created, in order that there is conservation of the total angular momentum:
p + e -> n + v
3- lepton number is not violated
Because in the reaction p + e -> n + v we have:
0 + 1 = 0 + 1
regards
wladimir guglinski
Yet some more interesting reading about Frank Znidarsic’s theory:
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Miscellaneous/Download/954
Regards
Peter
Valery Tarasov:
I cannot deal of this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joseph J:
Is a prototype, far from what we are looking for.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in August 31st, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Wlad,
In 1953 Miller and Urey at the U of Chicago put a mixture of atmospheric gasses into a glass container fitted with electrodes and proceeded to cause an electrical discharge to be formed in the container. The results showed that the foundation of organic life(amino acids) was created. Miller received the Nobel prize for this work. Do you suppose that Atilla does not consider this to be a scientific experiment?
Dear eernie1
Miller experiment had obtained a result agree to current believes on the mechanisms responsible for the evolution of life (in order to justify Darwin theory).
Dr. Atilla do not consider scientific experiment those experiments which do not fit to the current foundations of Physics.
A neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron, according to current principles of Physics.
For instance, a neutron formed by proton+electron could not have spin 1/2, as detected by experiment.
There are other several theoretical resctrictions against a neutron model n= p+e.
That’s why Dr. Csolo had claimed that Borghi experiment is no scientific.
However, the scientific method prescribes that any theoretical controversy must be eliminated by EXPERIMENTS.
According to the scientific method, the EXPERIMENTS have to decide if the model n= p+e is correct, or not.
In the case the model n=p+e be confirmed definitivelly by Borghi experiment , then obviously the theoretical restrictions against the model n= p+e are wrong.
The scientific method does not allow that any experiment can be rejected (or neglected) because if defies the current theories.
This is the reason why Dr. Csolo had claimed that Borghi experiment is no scientific.
Because he knows that the scientific medhod does not allow to reject a scientific experiment.
Then Dr. Csolo had used the strategy of descrediting the Borghi experiment (which is absurd, since his experiment had been performed according to standards of the scientific method).
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea
Perhaps this Sterling is suitable?
No idea if someone has already mentioned it.
http://www.whispergen-europe.com/
JJ
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I just would like to give you some ideas to consider for an explanation of the energy source in e-cat like devices. From my theory (it is out of mainstream physics) the energy is coming from the fission of the protons. Effective conditions for such fission process are likely to be connected with the formation of cavities between the packed Ni particles, having size of micrometers. These cavities serve as the rooms where protons, emitted from the surface of Ni particles, are colliding with each other. In such process, one proton will decay into one positron and a pair of electron-positron. The produced positrons interact with electrons of Ni particles and gamma rays are produced. As side effects, all possible transmutations should be registered from interactions of protons decay products with Ni. Of course, all above does not fit to theoretical modern physics, but only experimental data and predictions leading to positive experiments are counted.
Best wishes,
Valery
Andrea Rossi
September 1st, 2013 at 10:25 PM
KD:
At the age of 105 not yet able to walk ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
It’s America. It is danger to cross street by walking.:))
KD
Dear Wladimir,
I find your quantum ring theory very interesting. Another theory I have found interesting is Frank Znidarsic’s theoretical explanations for the quantum transition and the implications of this on LENR and gravito magnetism.
What is your opinion on Frank’s theory?
For reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzwkP8xfa0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGwnOmp8gA
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html
Regards
Peter