*by*

*Lino Daddi*

*Retired Earlier Professor*

*at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy*

**Abstract**

They are considered the roles of miniatoms and virtual neutrons in LENR reactions of hydrogen and deuterium absorbed in solids.

Has highlighted the role of virtual neutrons in restructuring of the nucleus, when the strong force provides the required energy for the virtual neutrons becomes real neutrons.

Some behaviors can be facilitated in hydrogen by alternation of the proton-electron system between the condition of miniatom and the condition of virtual neutron. This alternation could increase range and duration of the compressed system <p/e> to allow the proton to meet with a nucleus of the solid.

.

Read the whole article

Download the ZIP file

.

Frank Acland:

Sincerely: while I write this to you ( at 9.15 p.m.) I am working in the factory, as well as I will Tomorrow…and all my team with me ! We cannot stop the tests.

Thank you for your permanently kind attention,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Robert Curto:

Very kind, all my team has appreciated your wishes.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr. Rossi, thanks for the warm Thanksgiving Day wish.

I know what I am thankful for, it is that Dr. Rossi is in this World.

Because of you, billions of people all over the World, are going to

benefit from Clean Electricity and Heat, at a reasonable price !

Robert Curto

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

USA

Dear Andrea,

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Maybe a day to have a break from work for you?

Best wishes,

Frank

Herb Gillis:

I would say yes, even if we are still working on the computational modeling.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr. Rossi:

Although I realize you cannot go into great detail; I am quite curious to know if your understanding of the Rossi Effect is sufficiently advanced to enable effective mathematical/computational modeling of the phenomenon- – and reactors based on the phenomenon? Such computational modeling is very effective for other nuclear processes (ie. fission), and useful for the design of devices (fission reactors). Have you reached the point yet where highly reliable computational modeling of Rossi Effect devices is possible?

Kind Regards; HRG.

WE OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS WISH A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING DAY TO ALL OUR DEAR AMERICAN READERS !

Dr Joseph Fine:

I did not know that Norman Cook’s book is free online! Thank you for the information, surely useful for our Readers.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Andrea Rossi and readers,

I purchased the Norman Cook text before I realized that it is available for free online from the author. Perhaps, everyone can read the current edition or wait and purchase the 2014 edition.

Here are the links to the text and software.

http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/09%20NVSIndex.html

http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/42%20MAN.html

Best wishes for the holidays.

Joseph Fine

Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2013 at 2:15 PM

1) =============================================

Wlad,

Please clarify your logic. Are what you saying is:

a. “because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models.”

and

b. “Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value”

c. Means that the measured value therefore must have been zero?

What if they had different (non-zero) values?

==================================================

COMMENT

Then the nuclear tables would publish the both values, as happens with all other measurements.

Look at the measurements of the quadrupole moment for excited 8O18:

0.036(9) CER, R 1983 Gr28

0.02(3) CER, R 1981 Sp07

0.010(13) or +0.020(13) CER 1977 Vo07

0.07(3) or 0.05(3) CER 1977 Fl10

0.05(2) or 0.02(2) CER 1979 Fe06

2) ===========================================

What is the uncertainty of their measurements is what drove them not to publish results?

=============================================

COMMENT

The uncertainties are published between brackets “( )”.

regards

wlad

A Reader asked which is the Norman D. Cook book I referenced to in my last comment of November 25: it is ” Models of the Atomic Nucleus” ( Springer, ask the last edition printed in 2010), find it by Amazon. Cost: few dollars. Contents: priceless.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

The Ministry of Economic Development has presented an informative video on how to deposit trademarks, patents and designs.

The multimedia production, simple and direct, communicates through 3 animated characters all the necessary steps to deposit and registration of instruments for the protection of industrial property (trademarks, patents and design).

Watch the Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvjjvsbbSR0&feature=share&list=UUqXXz40p1IwBnLoIht-u5vA

international patents, European national

Wlad,

Please clarify your logic. Are what you saying is:

a. “because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models.”

and

b. “Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value”

c. Means that the measured value therefore must have been zero?

What if they had different (non-zero) values?

What is the uncertainty of their measurements is what drove them not to publish results?

New email sent to Dr. PietrallaFrom: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de

Subject: RE-2: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:14:35 -0200

Dear Dr. Pietralla

Prof. Andrew Stuchbery sent me an email where he told me the following:

===================================================

Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

From: andrew.stuchbery@anu.edu.au

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:33:26 +1100

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Dear Wladmir

The first 2+ state of 12C is very short lived. This makes measurements very difficult. In principle the g factor could be measured relative to 13C by the transient field method.

Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et alaround 1980 I think.There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall. These are tough experiments.Does this answer your question?

Regards

Andrew

====================================================

Therefore, Dr. Pietralla,

as there was a dispute between Dydbal and Speidel, then of course both them had measured the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12 with spin 2.

So, we have the following situation:

1) The magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2 is not quoted in the nuclear tables

2) Excited 6C12 with spin 2 has half-life in order of 60 fs.

3) Excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life 38 fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured to be +1,6

CONCLUSION:

As the magnetic moment for 6C12 with spin 2 had been measured by Dydbal and Spiedel, but it is not quoted in the nuclear table,

then we have to conclude that the measurements made by both them had obtained the value zero.So, Dydbal and Spiedel decided do not report the value zero for the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2, because a value zero cannot be expected from the current nuclear models. And that’s why it is not quoted in the nuclear tables.

What do you think about ?

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

James Bowery:

Nice question. Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology concept is based upon the ” epochè “, which , to make it easy ( the texts of Husserl are a very difficult kind of study) induces a human subject to suspend any given knowledge to return to the very roots that produced a known concept, or rule, or intersubjective cristallization. This attitude, that I absorbed as a foundation of my behaviour, makes me aggressive against anything that is given by certain. If anybody says ” LENR are impossible, because of this, and this given rule”, my instinct is to be aggressive against this attitude , make ” epochè”, analyse what the heck is the reason why I have to accept any rule, and, if I discover, as I did, that the sole sure knowledge in Nuclear Physics is that nothing is really well known, at that point my aggressivity against the given rules becomes revolutionary rage. This attitude has been useful in my work in the field of Physics. If you read the book of Norman Cook you can understand better what I am saying. So: obviously my phylosophical studies have nothing to do with Physics, but have to do with my methodology in my experimantalist job in the field of Nuclear Physics. I do not take in consideration any given rule or theory, unless I do not experiment it myself. I like the Galilean methodology ( think to Galileo against the rules imposed by the Inquisition). Everything ( also what I do) must be put in discussion, everything has to be subject to “epochè”, and, if you want, everything has to be attacked also because, paradoxically, if something is true, it has to be possible to falsificate it in some condition ( Popper, Fermat).

Edmund Husserl was a mathematician and a physicist, then became a philosopher. I made the contrary. To understand throughly Husserl, can read “Cartesianiche Meditationen und Pariser Vortrage” ( Den Haag, Nijhoff 1963), or the important book of my Doctorate Adviser, Prof of Theoretical Phylosophy of the Università degli Studi di Milano during my University period , Prof. Enzo Paci, probably the best student of Husserl in the world: ” Funzione della Scienza e Significato dell’Uomo” ( Milan, 1963)

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr. Rossi,

Would you say Husserl’s philosophy significantly contributed to your approach to your nickel-hydrogen energy work?

Thanks,

— Jim

And the mystery on the magnetic moment for the excited 6C12 continues=======================================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de

Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:18:55 -0200

Dear Dr. Norbert Pietralla

You had worked in the experiments which had measured the g-factor for several excited even-even nuclei, as 20Ne, 32S, 36Ar…

The magnetic moment for excited 12C of the state 2+ is not quoted in the nuclear tables.

In several papers where the g-factor had been measured for even-even excited nuclei in the state 2+ , the g-factor for 12C is missing

Do you know why there is no information on the magnetic moment and g-gactor for excited 12C ?

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

=======================================================

.

=======================================================

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:32:18 +0100

From: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de

To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

dear Mr. Guglinski,

the g-factor for 12C is difficult to measure.

This is because the level is with about 60 fs very short lived.

This is not much time for any precession measurement.

best regards

Norbert Pietralla

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

Professor Dr. Dr.h.c. Norbert Pietralla

Darmstadt Coordinator of the

Helmholtz International Center for FAIR

Coordinator of the DFG-Collaborative

Research Center SFB634

Director

Institut fuer Kernphysik

Technische Universität Darmstadt

Schlossgartenstrasse 9

64289 Darmstadt

GERMANY

phone: ++49 ([0]6151) 16 7441

fax: ++49 ([0]6151) 16 4321

email: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de

http://www.ikp.tu-darmstadt.de/pietralla/

=======================================================

.

=======================================================

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

To: pietralla@ikp.tu-darmstadt.de

Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:50:24 -0200

Dear Dr. Pietralla,

I dont understand.

Excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life

38 fs, and its magnetic moment had been measured to be+1,6, by the method TF, in 1983 (see Stone’s nuclear table).Therefore, I dont think the half-life about 60 fs can be the reason why the magnetic moment for excited 6C12 with spin 2 had never been measured.

regards

Wladimir Guglinski

=======================================================

Magnus:

Thank you: the ELFORSK Report is very interesting.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

Please inform you readers about the latest LENR report from ELFORSK in Sweden.

ELFORSK LENR Report

Best regards,

Magnus

Steven N Karels:

I cannot answer to this kind of questions, either in positive or in negative.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Have you considered adding or substituting Helium-3 for Hydrogen in eCat experiments? There might be some unexpected effects in the eCat operation.

Dear Andrea

in my last comment here on the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric method I wrote

“To the readers of the Rossi-Focardi Journal of Nuclear Physics”because I had the intention to post it also in the Zpenergy.The readers here know that I am speaking to them.

But there are several Journal of Nuclear Physics worldwide, and so I was telling to the readers of Zpenergy what JNP I was refering.

regards

wlad

Joe wrote in November 24th, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Wladimir,

In 3Li7, the ratio between orbiting neutrons and orbiting deuterons is 1:1.

In 4Be12, this ratio is 2:1.

Is there a general upper limit to this type of ratio in QRT?

==============================================

COMMENT

Dear Joe,

I dont know. I did never think about the matter

regards

wlad

Frank Acland:

Thank you for your continue attention to our work.

The work of validation by the Third Indipendent Party and the R&D and validation made by ourselves will continue for some months. As I said, we decided to retain any information until the end of this work, and I guarantee that the results will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be, beyond any reasonable doubt. The Third Indipendent Party will publish the results on a peer reviewed magazine. We are looking for a strong industrialization, not for amateurish sensationalism, and this process needs time, humility, patience and a high level of professionality and dedication that I found in the concern of our US Partner.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

I wrote the following editorial on E-Cat World that you may find interesting.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/11/the-promise-and-burden-of-the-e-cat/

Would you be able to provide a response from the perspective of your team?

Many thanks, and best wishes,

Frank Acland

Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method applied to Classical Nuclear PhysicsTo the readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics

I had already explained why Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method is not satisfactory so that to justify why two neutrons do not form a dineutron. Let’s us remember it in short words:

a) Two neutrons have a force of attraction due to the strong nuclear force

b) There is not any force of repulsion between two neutrons

c) So, two neutrons would have to form the dineutron, because by considering the Classical Nuclear Physics there is not any force of repulsion capable to win the strong nuclear force of attraction between two neutrons.

d) Heisenberg proposed the concept of Isospin, so that to justify why the dineutron does not exist. However only a

physical forceof repulsion would be able to win thephysica forceof attraction due to the strong force. The Isospin cannot create aphysical forceof repulsion, because the Isospin is only an abstract mathematical concept.And an abstract mathematical concept cannot separate two neutrons bound by the strong force within the dineutron.

The phantasmagoric scientific method inaugurated by Heinsenberg is often used in Physics when a new experiment disproves the current theories, and the theorists cannot find a satisfactory explanation so that to justify why.

So, the theorists use the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric everytime they cannot discover the physical cause responsible for a phenomenon which disproves the current models.

Here we will see how Heinseberg’s phantasmagoric method has been used in Classical Nuclear Physics, after the publication of two experiments, one published in 2011, and the other in 2013.

1) Pear shaped nuclei=============================According to the current nuclear models, the even-even nuclei have to have two sort of shapes:

A)

Spherical shape– when the quantity of prótons Z is the same of the quantity of neutrons N, Z=N.B)

Elispoidal shape– when Z << N .These two sort of shapes (spherical or ellipsoidal) have to occur for eve-even nuclei in Classical Nuclear Physics because

there is not any physical causewhich we could find in the current nuclear models, in order to justify any other sort of shape different of the spherical or the ellipsoidal.But experiments have shown that some even-even nuclei with Z<< N are pear shaped.

Then, how to justify it?After all, they would have to have an ellipsoidal shape.In 2013 the Professor Peter Butler of the University of Liverpool had proposed that nucleons (prótons and neutrons) are distributed within the nuclei

around a z-axis. So, in order to justify why some even-even with Z<<N (as for instance 88Ra224) have pear shape, he proposed the existence of a z-axis within the nuclei.However there is no way to justify why prótons and neutrons are distributed about a z-axis within the even-even nuclei, by considering the current nuclear models.

And the reason is obvious: there is no way to find a

physical causeresponsible for putting the prótons and neutrons distributed along a z-axis in the current nuclear models.Therefore, the

Professor Peter Butler had actually used the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method, so that to justify why 88Ra224 is pear shaped, by using a phantasmagoric hypothesis: the existence of a z-axis, which existence is impossible to explain by considering the current nuclear models.Look the z-axis proposed by Professor Butler for the 88Ra224 in the link:

http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

The distribution of prótons and neutrons about a z-axis had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006 (therefore 7 years before the proposal by Professor Peter Butler).

The existence of the z-axis is perfectly justified in the nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory because there is a

physical causewhich obliges the prótons and neutrons to take a distribution about the z-axis: in the nuclear model proposed in QRT there is acentral 2He4which captures the prótons and neutrons, in order that they take a distribution about the z-axis.That’s why the existence of the z-axis had been correctly predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory.

See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei 46Pd and U228:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

======================================================

.

2) Non-spherical even-even nuclei with Z=N====================Along more than 60 years the nuclear theorists had believed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape,

because from the current nuclear models we have to expect that they have to have spherical shape, because there is not anyphysical causefrom which a nuclear theorists could justify a non-spherical shape for those nuclei.For instance, in 2009 the nuclear theorist Dr. Martin Freer proposed the spherical shape for the oxygen 8O16 shown in the Figure 1 of his paper

Clusters in nucleipublished in Scholarpedia:http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

But in 2011 new experiments had detected that even-even light nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.

So,

Dr. Martin Freer and all the nuclear theorists had to change their mind, after more than 60 years of the nuclear theorists believing that even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape.That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper

How atomic nuclei cluster, where the authors consider several even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shapes.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

However, a question appears:

From the current nuclear models we have to expect that even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have spherical shape. Then how does to justify that they have non-spherical shape ??????

In other words: what should be the

physical cause, according to the current nuclear models, responsible for the non-spherical shape of those nuclei?Well, of course there is no way to find such

physical causefrom the current nuclear models. And the authors of the paperHow atomic nuclei clustercannot give anyphysical causecapable to explain the non-spherical shape of those nuclei.Therefore, actually Dr. Martin Freer and the authors of the paper published in the journal Nature

are using the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg, because it is the unique way so that to justify the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.The non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N was predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory (published in 2006, and therefore

6 yearsbefore the publication in the journal Nature.The non-spherical shape of those nuclei had been predicted and proposed in my book because there is a

physical causewhich oblige the even-even nuclei with Z=N to take that shape:the existence of a central 2He4in all the nuclei.It is opportune to remember that the journal Nature published a plagiarism of an argument proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, as I explain again here:

A) Even-even nuclei with Z=N with non-spherical shape cannot have null electric quadrupole moment.

B) But the experiments detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have null electric quadrupole moment.

C) So, how to justify that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, in spite of they have null quadrupole moment ?

D) In the page 137 of my book I had proposed the explanation: as those nuclei have nuclear spin zero and magnetic moment zero, they gyrate chaotically, and there is no way to align them along an external magnetic Field, so that to measure their quadrupole moment. Therefore, in spite of their quadrupole moment is not zero, however it is not possible to measure it.

E) I sent an email to Dr. Martin Freer, telling him that as the journal Nature published a paper where the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, they would have to exhibit non-null quadrupole moment. And I asked to him to explain why the experiments detect null quadrupole moment.

F) Dr. Martin Freer sent me a reply giving the

same explanationproposed by me in the page 137 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.===================================================

3) CONCLUSION =====================================

When new experiments defy the current theories, the theorists use the phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg because it is impossible to find the

physical causesresponsible for the phenomenon detected in the experiment.Of course it is easier to use such phantasmagoric method, so that to adapt the old current models in the results of new experiments which disprove those current models.

By such a phantasmagoric method the theorists simply use some abstract mathematic concepts, neglecting the missing of

physical causeswhich are the actual causes responsible for the phenomenon.And so obviously the phantasmagoric method hides some

physical causeresponsible for the phenomenon detected in the new experiment.In other words: the

truecause responsible for the phenomenon ismissingin the current models used so that to explain the phenomenon.And the crucial question is the following:

Is it possible to find a definitive theory by starting up from such phantasmagoric scientific method proposed by Heisenberg ?Suppose that there is indeed a central 2He4 within the nuclei (

as are suggesting the experiments published in 2012 by Nature and in 2013 by Professor Peter Butler).Then let’s do the question:

Will the nuclear theorists succeed in their enterprise trying to explain all the nuclear properties, by using nuclear models where it is missing the central 2He4 ?=======================================================

Regards

wlad

Wladimir,

In 3Li7, the ratio between orbiting neutrons and orbiting deuterons is 1:1.

In 4Be12, this ratio is 2:1.

Is there a general upper limit to this type of ratio in QRT?

All the best,

Joe

Joe wrote in November 23rd, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Wladimir,

In 4Be12, are the excess neutrons being held in orbit by the spin interaction that they have with the deuterons?

=================================================

COMMENT

Yes, I had explained it in my paper

Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in the JoNPThat’s why they have longer orbit radius, pulled out the centripetal force.

The deuterons also are pulled out by the centripetal force, but as the proton of the deuteron has attraction with the central 2He4, that’s why the neutrons take an outter radial position

regards

wlad

JR wrote in November 23rd, 2013 at 9:48 AM

1) =============================================

Detailed first principal calculations, which provide precise calculations of binding and excitation energies for dozens of ground states and excited states up to 12C, show that 8Be is not bound.

================================================

COMMENT

Calculations where ?????????????????

So, according to Mr. JR Dr Hans Bette, a Nobel Laureate, was an idiot, because he was unable to understand it.

2) ==============================================

The paper Wladimir points to shows a direct comparison of the data and the calculations, and they agree, so there is no discrepancy between experiment and conventional theory. The fact that Wladimir doesn’t believe conventional theory can explain the separation is the fact that he doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. It’s a textbook exercise to take an interaction with an arbitrarily short range and show that it yields bound states with finite size.

=================================================

COMMENT

As said Bohr: if a theory is not sufficiently crazy, it is not able to explain some quantum phenomena.

It seems sometimes there is need the author of the theory must be crazy too, as it seems to be the case of Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser

By addopting crazy solutions (disproved by the laws of Physics) it is possible to explain any experiment which disproves the current nuclear models.

3)========================================

While it is generally supposed that N=Z=even nuclei have spin zero. This is not the same as saying that they cannot have internal cluster structure or non-spherical components. Because they have no spin direction to define a preferred orientation, measurements observe and averaged, spherically symmetric structure.

===========================================

COMMENT:

Well,

then why did not the nuclear theorists discover it along 60 years ??????????????????????As Mr. JR claims that it is so easy to explain it by considering the current nuclear models,

then we had to expect that nuclear theorist would have to had predicted it many years ago, taking the current nuclear models in consideration.But the nuclear theorists had realize it only in 2011, and only because

new experiments had shown that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.That’s why the journal Nature published in 2012 the paper

How atomic nuclei clusterhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1244

Unlike, the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N had been predicted in my book Quantum Ring Theory and

published in 2006, thereforeFIVE YEARSearlier the experiments published in 2011 and 6 years earlier the paper published in Nature in 2012.4) =========================================

While Wladimir argues that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei, the quantity the experiment quoted actually measures was compared to predictions from conventional calculations which predicted the approximate size of the transition being measured. While they don’t predict the trend very well, the wouldn’t be compatible with the data if no octopole deformation were possible in conventional theory.

=============================================

COMMENT

No, I am not saying that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei.

I am saying that there is not any

PHYSICAL CAUSEable to justify the existence of the z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler.Look at the z-axis:

http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

Why the nuclear theorists did not predict its existence

BEFOREthe experiment published now in 2013 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????The answer is easy: it’s because from the current nuclear models there is no way to justify the existence of such z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler.

Unlike, from my new nuclear model the z-axis has a

PHYSICAL CAUSEwhich justifies its existence:the central 2He4which does not exist in the current nuclear models.That’s why he existence of the z-axis had been predicted in my Quantum Ring Theory.

See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see the z-axis for the nuclei 46Pd and U228:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

5) ===========================================

12Be ground state has spin zero. Since the magnetic moment is defined relative to the direction of the spin, it is zero, by definition. There can’t possibly be any mystery about the lack of magnetic moment for 12Be in any model whatsoever, it’s simply a matter of understanding the definition of magnetic moment.

===============================================

COMMENT

So, Mr. JR did not understand the question, and so I will resume it again:

1) Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser made an experiment published in 2012, which had suggested that there are

outerneutrons in the structure of ground state 4Be122) Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser proposed a structure for 4Be12 where

two outerneutrons andtwo innerneutrons have different orbit radius.3) The structure proposed by Dr. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser is UNACCEPTABLE, because:

a) the two outer neutrons and the two inner neutrons have

different values of the g-factorb) therefore the structure of 4Be12 proposed by Dr. Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser must have

non-nullmagnetic momentc) But experiments show that 4Be12 has

NULLmagnetic moment.That’s why his solution is UNACCEPTABLE.

6) =============================================

So none of these are actually examples of conventional theory failing to describe data. In addition, none of the QRT explanations appear to be real predictions (quantitative or qualitative).

As far as I can tell, they are simply ‘word pictures’ explaining how the observed behavior is possible within QRT, but not actually predicting anything.===============================================

COMMNENT

Dear Mr. JR

you actually do not understand the

fundamentaldifference between my new nuclear model and the current models of Standar Nuclear Physics.My new nuclear model has a

central 2He4This is a

physical structure, responsible forphysical causesmissing in the current nuclear models.That’s why my new nuclear model was able to predict several nuclear properties (

published in 2006),which had not been predicted along 60 yearsby the nuclear theorists, as for intance:A) The non-spherical shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N, published in 2012.

B) The z-axis proposed by Professor Peter Butler in 2013.

7) ============================================

Wladimir said “I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.” On this, we agree completely.

==============================================

COMMENT:

Of course.

As a central 2He4 is missing in the current nuclear models, many nuclear properties (now discovered by experiments made in the last 5 years) are not compatible with Standard Nuclear Physics, and

that’s why along 60 yearsthe nuclear physicists never predicted those nuclear properties, as for instance the non-spherical shape of even-even nuclei with Z=N, and the z-axis in the nucleiregards

wlad

Wladimir,

In 4Be12, are the excess neutrons being held in orbit by the spin interaction that they have with the deuterons?

All the best,

Joe

Since Wladimir is repeating several of his incorrect attacks on conventional theory, I wanted to summarize some of the earlier discussion on these points:

1) Detailed first principal calculations, which provide precise calculations of binding and excitation energies for dozens of ground states and excited states up to 12C, show that 8Be is not bound. So Wladimir is just blindly asserting that this is impossible to describe in conventional theory, despite the successful description in conventional theory.

Wladimir simply treats the trend that most light N=Z=even nuclei are bound as a rigid prediction for all such nuclei. This is a frivolous argument and applies equally well to QRT, if you believe that it makes sense to ignore the actual physics of the model you’re examining and just assume that observed trends are rigid rules. To distract from the actual physics, he has been obsessing about the fact that I provided a clear definition of binding energy (since his argument appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of this definition). He pretends that providing a clear definition so that we’re talking about the same thing is a circular argument: “it’s bound because it’s bound”. Since then, he has ignored every physics point raised on the topic, simply asserting that it its impossible under conventional theory and attacking me personally for attempting to “invert causality” (which is how he describes my attempt to clarify the definition).

2) The paper Wladimir points to shows a direct comparison of the data and the calculations, and they agree, so there is no discrepancy between experiment and conventional theory. The fact that Wladimir doesn’t believe conventional theory can explain the separation is the fact that he doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. It’s a textbook exercise to take an interaction with an arbitrarily short range and show that it yields bound states with finite size.

3)While it is generally supposed that N=Z=even nuclei have spin zero. This is not the same as saying that they cannot have internal cluster structure or non-spherical components. Because they have no spin direction to define a preferred orientation, measurements observe and averaged, spherically symmetric structure.

4) While Wladimir argues that an octopole deformation is impossible for N=Z=even nuclei, the quantity the experiment quoted actually measures was compared to predictions from conventional calculations which predicted the approximate size of the transition being measured. While they don’t predict the trend very well, the wouldn’t be compatible with the data if no octopole deformation were possible in conventional theory.

5) 12Be ground state has spin zero. Since the magnetic moment is defined relative to the direction of the spin, it is zero, by definition. There can’t possibly be any mystery about the lack of magnetic moment for 12Be in any model whatsoever, it’s simply a matter of understanding the definition of magnetic moment.

So none of these are actually examples of conventional theory failing to describe data. In addition, none of the QRT explanations appear to be real predictions (quantitative or qualitative). As far as I can tell, they are simply ‘word pictures’ explaining how the observed behavior is possible within QRT, but not actually predicting anything. If I’m wrong and these really are fundamental and rigid predictions of QRT, then Wladimir has already demonstrated that QRT is wrong since it says that the magnetic moment of 36Ar must be zero, but a non-zero value has been measured and appears in the most recent nuclear data tables.

Wladimir said “I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.” On this, we agree completely.

Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM

====================================================

Wladimir,

Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.

====================================================

COMMENT

5)

I forgot to mention the last experimental finding published by Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser 2012:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-magic-shell-beryllium-isotopes-invalidated.html

From the structure proposed by Dr. Nörtershäuser is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the magnetic moment zero for the 4Be12, because the two outer neutrons and the two central neutrons

have different g-factor.So, there is no way to explain the structure of 4Be12 detected in the experiment of 2012 by considering the current nuclear models.The structure of 4Be12 according to QRT is shown in the figure:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174562786074047&set=pcb.174562806074045&type=1&theater

The neutrons N-1,N-2 have an orbit radius longer than the deuteron D-1 because N-1 and N-2 are not submitted to a magnetic force of atraction with the central 2He4 (but D-1 is attracted with the central 2He4 by a magnetic force, because of the electric charge of the proton). So, due to the centripetal force, the neutrons N-1,N-2 get a longer orbit radius about the central 2He4

The same happens with the neutrons N-3,N-4 and D-2

Therefore, according to QRT it is possible to explain very well the existence of neutrons with longer orbit radius in the 4Be12.So, dear Steven

I cant see how my theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.

regards

wlad

Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM

====================================================

Wladimir,

Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.

====================================================

COMMENT

1)

Quantum Ring Theory explains why 4Be8 is not stable:

3.13-5- Two deuterons in the 4Be8, page 17http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

Unlike, from the principles of current nuclear models 4Be8 would have to be stable, like all other even-even nuclei with Z=N.

2)

From current nuclear models is impossible to explain the halo neutron with 7fm in 11Be, because the strong force does not actuate in a distance of 7fm (that’s why Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser had proposed a crazy theory, according to which the body of the neutron can be distributed along a distance of 7fm).

The halo neutron in 11Be is explained according to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory:

C) Interpretation on the 2009 experiment

, page 73, Fig. 55:http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

3)

Along 60 years the nuclear theorists suppoed that all even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, doing such prediction based on the principles that rule the behavior of nuclei according to the standard Nuclear Physics.

However in 2011 new experiments had showed that such prediction is wrong: those nuclei have non-spherical shape.

That’s why in 2012 the journal Nature published a paper, where the authors had addapted the nuclear models for the new experimental finding.

Unlike, in my book published in 2006 it is proposed that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, as confirmed by experiments in 2011 (page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory).

4)

According to current nuclear models, there is no way to explain the shape of the nucleus pearl-shapeed Ra224, measured in an experiment published in 2013.

Professor Peter Butler proposed that there is a

z-axiscrossing the nuclei.See the z-axis in the figure:

http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

However it is impossible to explain the existence of such z-axis by considering the current nuclear models).The existence of the z-axis is predicted in the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.See page 198 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, shown in the page 13 of my paper

Stability of Light Nuclei, where we see thez-axisfor the nuclei 46Pd and U228:http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

So, dear Steven,

I cant see how ny theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.

regards

wlad

Steven N. Karels wrote in November 21st, 2013 at 7:14 PM

===================================================

Wladimir,

I failed to make my point clear. There have been many tests with results. You have published them here.

To demonstrate that your theory is superior to the classical nuclear theory, you must first demonstrate your theory predicts the same results as those experiments with published results. As you previously posted, a single experiment result can disprove a theory.

=================================================

Dear Steven

sure you did not understand my discussion with Mr. JR.

Our debate was not concerning my theory (after all, Mr. JR is even not interested in my theory).

Mr. JR defended the viewpoint that there is not any experiment disproving the classical nuclear physics.

And I showed here that there are several new experimental finding disproving the current nuclear models.

And Mr JR tried to convince people here that those new experiments actually do not disprove the current nuclear models (however by using stupid arguments, like claim that the instability of 4Be8 is explained by the calculation of its binding energy,

clearly suggesting that the Nobel Laureate Hans Bette was a stupid scientist, because if he had be so smart like Mr. JR of course Dr. Bette would not waste so many years looking for an explanation.If Dr. Bette had be smart like Mr. JR he would simply explain the instability of 4Be8 by using the stupid solution proposed by Mr. JR).Sorry you did not underestand the discussion, dear Steven

regards

wlad

J.Lumar:

Info@leonardocorp1996.com

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I am interested in contacting you for business issues. Which email should I use to reach you?

Regards

J. Lumar

Duke Nukem:

I am very pleased to see that the tech I patented in 1977 ( obviously the patent is expired) is still used, this fact makes all the enormous problems I got in that period of my life ( see http://www.ingandrearossi.com) have not been useless. I am delighted to see successful epigones.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr Rossi:

I am reading http://www.phgenenergy.com : it appears they are using the technology you patented twenty years ago !

What do you think?

Duke

Steven,

While I very much appreciate your support, I don’t think that there’s much point trying to convince Wladimir that I simply misread what was said. I explained that it was a mistake, and if Wladimir doesn’t want to accept that or feels the need to try and convince people that I was trying to deceive him, that doesn’t bother me.

Hi Andrea, I like to elaborate that you can circulate the molten salt though the hot cat and store the excess heat in the insulated containers. When required, you can pump the salt back to stimulate the hot cat, IN this way, after the initial start up, no external energy is required- self sustaining. A sterling engine can be coupled to provide electrical power. Read John L- Test engineer, Melbourne

Wladimir,

I failed to make my point clear. There have been many tests with results. You have published them here.

To demonstrate that your theory is superior to the classical nuclear theory, you must first demonstrate your theory predicts the same results as those experiments with published results. As you previously posted, a single experiment result can disprove a theory.

Next you must demonstrate that your theory provides a correct answer for the observed experimental data while the classical nuclear theory fails to do so. Otherwise, your theory and the clasical nuclear theory can be said to be equivalent.

Regarding telling lies, I still contend that a good person who reports what he/she believes, although it is found later to be incorrect, did not lie but only spoke to his/her level of knowledge. Did a person before Columbus who spoke that the Earth was flat lie? No. So there is a difference between lies (deliberate) and one who honestly reports current theory or knowledge that he/she has.

John L:

Thank you for the idea.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Hi Andrea, you should consider molten salt as a thermal storage for the heat generated by the self-sustaining hot cat. Better efficiency can be achieved. 450C melting point Salt has been used in solar thermal farm.

Frank Acland:

We always did the due diligence.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

Thank you for your earlier response. Are you already in the process of doing due diligence on customers who want to use the E-Cat?

Best wishes,

Frank Acland

Dawg:

“Hobby scientist” is an oxymoron.

Warm Regards,

A.

Steven N Karels:

As I said, we are still waiting for an industrialized, reliable and off the shelf unit. First test, then talk.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

nchauvin,

You suggested a Sterling Engine with a 30% thermal-to-electric conversion efficency and an electrical output of 800W.

Suppose a 4kW eCat was powered using this engine with a COP of 6 (a number Andrea Rossi has used). Suppose also the electrical output of the Sterling Engine was fed to a power supply (AC-to-DC converter – 90% efficiency) and then to a battery which in turn drove the eCat.

With these assumptions and scenario, the 4kW output eCat thermal power could be split with 2.67kW going to the Sterling Engine (800W divided by 30%) and the Sterling Engine would produce 800W of electrical power. The sustained power reaching the battery would be 720W. The battery would have a continuous or average load of 667W. With a COP of 6, the eCat would output 4kW. There would be an excess thermal output of 1.33kW. There could also be an electric output of 53W, depending upon actual efficiencies.

This sounds like a self-sustaining eCat.

Steven N. Karels wrote in November 16th, 2013 at 6:13 AM

1) ————————————————

Wladimir – I suggest you take your theory and regressively apply all the known data with actual results and see if it produces equivalent results. Demonstration that current nuclear theory is incorrect or incomplete does not necessarily prove that your theory is correct or better.

—————————————————-

COMMENT:

The journal Nature had published two plagiarisms of ideas proposed in my book in 2006 (because new experiments published in 2011 and 2012 have shown that nuclear models considered as correct along 60 years are wrong, while the results of the experiments corroborate my new nuyclear model).

And the European Physica Journal published a plagiarism on the structure of the aether proposed in my book QRT.

If my theory is correct, new experiments will confirm it, and the theorists will be obliged to publish new plagiarisms.

I dont think I have to worry about to convince persons like Mr. JR.

The up comming experiments will decide what theory is right, and what theory is wrong.

2) ————————————————

I do not believe that JR intentionally tells mis-truths, therefore I do not consider him a lier. A lier, by definition, requires the intent to speak un-truths.

—————————————————-

COMMENT

JR interpreted said:

………………………………..

-Dr. Stuchbery did not tell you that the measurement of mu for the 2+ excited state of 12C had been measured.

He told you that he *thought* that they had been *attempted*…………………………………

But in his email Dr. Stuchbery said:

………………………………..

Such measurements were attempted by Dybdal et al around 1980 I think.

There was some dispute with Speidel et al about the transient field strength that was never resolved, as I recall.These are tough experiments.…………………………………

If JR’s interpretation had be correct,

in this case Dybdal and Speider would have not performed the experiments.And therefore they whoul have NOTHING so that to justify a dispute. Because nobody with good sense would have a dispute for NOTHING.

Do you think, dear Steven,

that it makes sense to have a dispute about NOTHING?

If you respond “YES, it makes sense to have a dispute for NOTHING”, then I agree that Mr. JR did not make his wrong interpretation

intentionally.Unlike, if you respond “NO, it makes no sense to have a dispute for NOTHING”, then you are agree that Mr. JR made his wrong mistake

intentionanallyregards

wlad

Hey Mr Rossi,

reflecting Frank Acland’s question concerning reverse engineering, I’m wondering how “difficult” it is to build an e-cat if I would have the blueprints.

Could this be done by hobby-scientists or is this “rocket-science”?

Thanks,

dawg