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
.
Rodney Nicholson:
nice!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I cannot vouch for this, but provide the link in case it might be of interest:
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/move-tesla-new-car-powered-salt-water-900-horsepower.html
JCRenoir:
1- gravitational field: the symmetries responsible for the force are changes of positions and changes in orientation in four dimensional spacetime
2- strong interactions field: the symmetry relates to the colors ( red, green, or blue) of the quarks, wherein colors are different quantic status of the same parton: it does not matter if we describe a quark as red, blue or green or any combination of these colors, therefore it is a simmetry
3- electromagnetic field: particles with electric charges come in matched pairs, one with a positive charge, one with a negative charge, because to get a charged particle is necessary to have two fields that can rotate into each other under the gauge symmetry of electromagnetism. A single field can’t be charged , since there’s nothing for the symmetry to act on ( This reminds me the dialectic between slave and lord in the Phenomenology of the Spirit of Hegel).
4- weak interactions field: we are talking of the W and Z bosons; they are connection fields born out of an underlying symmetry of nature masked by the Higgs field. The Higgs breaks the symmetry on which W and Z bosons are based and once that symmetry is broken these bosons lose their ” masslessness”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JCRenoir:
Quarks can be stable, but there are also virtual quarks. Valence quarks in protons and neutrons are stable, but in protons and neutrons there are also virtual particles like gluons and quark-antiquark pairs: in this case quarks are virtual. Note that in a proton we have always 2 up quarks more than the antiup and one down quark more than the antidown, while in the neutron we have always two down more than the antidown and one up more than the antiup.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
another question: are quarks stable or virtual particles?
JCR
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I read with great interest your explication about Symmetry. Can you explain which are the Symmetries responsible for the 4 foundamental forces?
JCRenoir
Rodney Nicholson:
Obviously we all have freedom of prediction!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea:
I predict that, while the original design (your ‘Bologna model’) had many E-cat units set up ‘in parallel’, the design of the newest industrial model has multiple E-cat modules set up ‘in series’, with the coolant temperature rising step by step as it passes each unit.
As an economist I enjoy predicting things. Of course my predictions are not always correct!
Rodney Nicholson.
Rodney Nicholson:
Thank you for the link, very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This may be of interest …. turning photons into electrons and positrons?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27470034
Rodney.
The contents of this article, if accurate, may turn out both to be important and have relevance to the development of the eCat:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html
It is surprising ‘news’ to me.
Rodney.
Rodney Nicholson:
All I can say is that no neutrons have been detected beyond the background outside the E-Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea: Please forgive me if this has already been answered. But are you able to disclose whether neutron emission has been observed when the device is in operation?
Rodney Nicholson:
Thank you for your trust.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea, you ask:
What if it becomes 2 cts/kWh ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
===================
Two cents per Kwh would be wonderful – just a little less wonderful than one cent per Kwh!
I see I omitted one zero when, in the following sentence, I said: “then $1000 being depreciated over 88,000 Kwh suggests a total cost per Kwh pretty close to $0.01.” I should have said 880,000 Kwh, of course. (10 years x 365.25 days in the year x 24 hours per day x output of 10 Kw = 876,600 kwh)
In addition there will be capital costs for the equipment converting the heat energy to electricity, which will also need to be depreciated over the life of the equipment. But even if that were as much as an extra $1000, the depreciation for the combined E-cat plus installation plus electrical generator – a total of $2000 – depreciated over 880,000 Kwh would be less than one-quarter of a cent per Kwh (if I got my arithmetic right this time!).
The depreciated cost for the six monthly recharge, assuming a retail price of $50 per recharge unit, would be 5000 cents divided by 43,200 Kwh (10 kw x 24 hours x 180 days = ~43,200 Kwh) which comes out at approximately one-tenth of a cent per Kwh.
Since the demand for these units will be huge when they become available for sale, it is unlikely enough of them could be manufactured to satisfy immediate demand. So, if I was running the business (and speaking as an economist), I would price the units at the level expected to see all the units produced sold, WITHOUT THE CREATION OF HUGE WAITING LISTS. Then, as manufacturing capacity increases year by year, the price would come down so that each year all the units capable of being produced are sold, again without creating huge waiting lists.
This way your up front costs of research, development, production facilites, marketing infrastructure, training and so on will be quickly paid off and then a lower unit price will become feasible. Longer term I suggest the unit price should be determined on the basis of generating enough cash flow internally to finance on going increases in capacity without having to go into debt – or raise equity – in order to finance expansion.
This way, if you are debt-free when competitors come into the marketplace selling comparable equipment, your company will be on a very strong position financially, without interest and debt repayment obligations, to take on the competition.
Rodney.
Rodney Nicholson:
What if it becomes 2 cts/kWh ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels: January 31st, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
While the consumable costs of a Nickel-Hydrogen system will be very small, perhaps $0.01/kWh? This does not mean the consumer will see rates at that amount. There are other costs… Look at Hydro-Electric power. Rates are not zero.
===============
Hi Steven:
Right. But most of the extra costs of conventional electric power are for construction, maintenance and administration (management, billing for example) of the transmission system. E-cats, at least eventually, will not require transmission lines. Almost all of us will be off the grid. Their costs will be the fixed initial outlay for the capital costs – the E-cat, plus installation to integrate it with the heating and electrical systems already in use – and then the six-monthly recharge capsule.
So, in that case, all that would need to be added to the $0.01 per Kwh running costs would be the depreciation of the capital costs.
Suppose the unit costs $500 and integration/installation adds another $500; that the machine generates at a power of 10 Kw continuously; it lasts ten years; generating a total of about 880,000 Kwh over that period; then $1000 being depreciated over 88,000 Kwh suggests a total cost per Kwh pretty close to $0.01.
I welcome correction if I got confused over my arithmetic.
Rodney.
Rodney:
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you, Andrea, for this post:
==============
Andrea Rossi
January 15th, 2014 at 5:23 PM
Martin:
It easy to share something that is worth nothing. It is impossible to share IP which has substantial worth with competitors. The rest is just hypocrisy disguised by fake humanitarism, aiming to get IP ( Intellectual Property) without making all the work, fatigue and investments made by others. Medicine would have made no progress at all should not the Intellectual Property of the medicines be granted to the industries that paid all the necessary R&D and validation for the drugs they invented. In the energy field the situation is the same, as well as in all the important fields of R&D. In the recent history we had a paradigmatic evidence of what I said: the communism; along the communist phylosophy ( the so called Marxism) everything had to be put in common and everybody had to produce sharing his capacities and skills with all the others, while the results of the global work had to be shared between all the men along their necessities: everybody had to work along his skills, everybody had to consume along his necessities…we all have seen what this phylosophy has produced after Lenin has given substance to it. Let’s not make confusion between humanitarism and greed. Last Sunday I was walking along the shore of Miami Beach and I observed an interesting scene: a gull was continuing to fly low on the surface of the sea, looking for food, while other gulls were seat on the beach looking at him; after a while he grasped a fish with his beak, but immediately all the other gulls got flying around him, attacking him to steal the fish, and, after a while, they succeeded, leaving him without the prey he had worked for.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
==============
Regarding your comment above: Well done. And you are ABSOLUTELY right.
Rodney.
Rodney Nicholson:
Again, thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
Further to my: “A design using two parallel plates, with the width between them the same as the length of an E-cat, with E-cats arranged at right-angles to the plates and between them, could accommodate as many E-cat modules as necessary to attain the desired coolant temperature.”
In addition, supposing you had six E-cats in series, then with three of them producing power and three requiring it, those producing power could feed power to those needing it, and the equipment, once operating, might then be independent of any external power source.
Another possibility: It might be found desirable to have the equipment set up so that, as in a six cylinder automotive engine, the ‘timing’ is organized so that each E-cat contributes its share to each cycle, one at a time, in sequence.
Rodney Nicholson.
Rodney Nicholson:
Thank you for your insight, we will pass it along to our heat exchange experts.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
Regarding your comment that: “We aim to make steam at 500 °C. To make steam at a temperature you need a wall at a superior temperature. The highest the temperature of the wall, the highest the flow rate: we all agree that the temperature of the secondary fluid is function of the flow rate and of the temperature of the primary.”
Of course there is nothing to prevent a design in which several E-cats are set up in series within the coolant flow, adjusting the flow rate until the coolant temperature is raised, step-by-step, as close as desired to that of the E-cat wall temperature.
A design using two parallel plates, with the width between them the same as the length of an E-cat, with E-cats arranged at right-angles to the plates and between them, could accommodate as many E-cat modules as necessary to attain the desired coolant temperature.
I expect you have already considered this.
Rodney Nicholson.
Rodney Nicholson:
I am not a financial expert, so I don’t know if what you say is true or not. For sure we are interested only to a real product, off the shelf, with a price competitive with the well consolidated technologies and with a competitive efficiency. We did not receive any offer, so far. When we will receive a real offer, we will buy a model to test it in our labs. All the other considerations are not of our interest. Clearly, the shares of a company that has not yet a product in the market are a high risk investment, as a general rule.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding the comments that Cyclone Power Technologies equipment might possibly find an application generating electric power from LENR devices, it may be worth noting that a few years ago the company’s stock was trading at prices between $100 and $200 per share, but lately has been trading below four cents per share. Either their engine has no hope at all of being a successful project, or the stock is a fantastic bargain at these levels.
I do not have an opinion as to which it is. But it must be one or the other.
Rodney.
Alessandro Coppi:
I will be able to answer to your question at the end of the rigorous validation cycle in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea, I read daily the news that, drop by drop, you release on this hystorical blog, but I am a little disturbed because often you underline this phrase for example today: “1- We are trying many different dimensions of the modules, and the final dimensions of the industrial plants will depend on the final choice we will make, based on the results ( that, remember, could be positive, but also negative)”.
Can you explain better this phrase? is it related to some details or you really believe that there is still a probability that the result of the tests could be negative for the demonstration of the Rossi effect?
Thank you
Alessandro Coppi
come on over!
TO THE READERS OF THE JoNP:
Today has been published on the Journal the interesting paper ” Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM – supergravity unified theory”, by Dr Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Toronto, Canada.
JoNP
Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes, you got it. Obviously, we aim to increase the power density of the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Thank you,
You answered part of my question, even if it is a question I didn’t ask. You said you are trying several design variations to determine which ones work best or perhaps determine which ones do not work as well or may be unstable. I was hoping you were doing both testing and industrial evolution – i.e. comparing several variants. Therefore, it is not only a test, it is a competition which will result in a better product.
As a side benefit, the specific energy (W-hrs/kg) will be higher as the test runs longer.
So time may not be a friend, but it is not an enemy either.
My hat is off to you for trying (and hopefully succeeding) at “herding cats”.
Timely regards,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
I feel guilty to treat you badly…but I hope you understand that our policy is not to talk of a product that is not mature for the market, because subject to a rigorous period of validation, during which we also are refining the technology. We are collecting an enormous amount of data that shapes the technology by the day, generating patent applications by the week. Anyway:
1- We are trying many different dimensions of the modules, and the final dimensions of the industrial plants will depend on the final choice we will make, based on the results ( that, remember, could be positive, but also negative)
2- respect the numbers you cited many things can change: maybe the dimensions will be the same, maybe smaller, but nothing is still defined
3- superior powers may be reached easily just putting modules together
Let’s atart the wishes period later: allow me the illusion to have more time at disposal for my work before the end of the year…time is faster than me, damn!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
I am sorry to repeat that in this validation and R&D Stage I cannot answer to these questions.
Warm Regards and Wishes to you
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Can you comment on the current dimensions and weight of the 1-MW Hot Cat?
Or of changes to the individual E-Cat (HT) module dimensions?
There has not been any information on this subject recently.
You said earlier that the volume of the plant was about 2 cubic meters. (Or less.)
And that the previous E-Cat module container had a diameter of about 1.2 meters (about 4 feet).
Also, that there were (about) 106 modules of 10 kW each.
Has anything changed with regards to the number of modules and power rating per module?
The independent report only discussed an individual module.
It may be possible there have been changes to the dimensions and numbers of modules since the last report.
Are you testing higher power systems, for example 3 – 5 MW?
Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy E-Cat New Year,
Joseph Fine
Frank Acland:
I am the chief scientist.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In your new organization, do you hold a position in a decision-making body — such as a board of directors — or are you now simply an employee of the organization?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Mark:
We are working also on this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladinir Guglinski:
As a matter of fact, we at the moment are very conservative when it turns to give information. This justifies the lack of attention regarding our work. This period for us is a validaton and R&D time, and we think the less we talk, the better is, until the work of validation is completed.
When it will be time to talk, either regarding commercial issues or technological and scientific issues, our specialists will talk, whatever the news, positive or negative as such news might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Every day we hear in TV and we read in newspapers many experts speaking about new alternative energy sources with the aim to reduce the use of the combustibles which increase the problem of heating of the planet.
All sort of sources are mentioned, as wind, sea waves, etc.
But they never mention the e-Cat technology.
I find it very intriguing, because the technology is in an advanced stage, but it seems that the experts had never heard about.
I dont understand their intention simply trying to neglect the existence of the e-Cat technology
regards
wlad
Dr. Rossi,
Have you and your team worked out a better method to control the Rossi effect (quicker to start up, shutdown and step control)?
Many thanks
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- I do not deal with commercial issues, being the chief scientist, not the commercial director; I suppose our commercial director will make a press conference
3- this does not depend on me, but my supposition is yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am trying to understand more clearly your comment below in response to Koen Vandewalle:
Do you mean that you will be publishing:
1. The results of your internal testing (positive or negative)
2. A report about the current status of your technology, and the future plans for commercializing the E-Cat
3. When this report is published, will we finally learn the identity of your new partner?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Koen Vandewalle:
We are working on the validation of the existing and on the R&D for the evolution of our technology. If the evolution will become so fast to be a revolution, we’ll see. We are working hard on validation and R&D, and the results, as well as the commercial implications, will be published at the end of this important work, indipendently from the results, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
AR.
Dear Andrea,
In the past you gave us a lot of news about revolutionary improvements, more than once a year. In january 2011, the e-cat was presented. Mid 2011, a self-sustained version was invented. A couple of months later, the Hot-cat became the new version.
Are there newer, more revolutionary versions of your technology ? Or does your team work mostly on the improvements of the existing ?
Kind Regards
Koen
Reply by Dr. Speidel
.
======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: speidel@iskp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 07:35:51 -0200
Dear Dr. K. H. Speidel
Dr. Andrew Stuchbery told me that in 1980 you had measured the magnetic moment for the excited 12C with spin 2.
However the value is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
May you tell me why ?
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
======================================================
.
======================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:02:08 +0100
From: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
we haven’t measured the magnetic moment of the 12C(2+) state. Our interest was in the transient field strength of carbon in iron. For this purpose we assumed the theoretical value g(2+) = 0.6 which is very likely the correct value since all other TF values in neighbouring nuclei at similar kinematic conditions show the same behaviour.
One relevant paper to this is Z. Phys. A302 (1981) 107.
If you have further questions please contact me.
With best regards,
Karl-Heinz Speidel
======================================================
.
======================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: speidel@hiskp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: g-factor and magnetic moment for excited 12C
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:06:10 -0200
Dear Dr. Speidel
I dont understand.
The understanding on the excited state of the carbon-12 is a necessary ingredient so that to explain the fusion of three alpha particles to produce carbonat stellar temperatures:
http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192501.pdf
The excited 12Mg24 with spin 4 has half-life 38 fs [a little shorter that that of excited 12C(2+) ] , and its magnetic moment had been measured, giving the value +1,6 .
So, one would have to expected that magnetic moment for excited 6C12 should be already been measured.
However the magnetic moment for excited 12C(2+) is not quoted in the nuclear tables.
You say that you assumed the theoretical value g(2+) = 0.6 for the excited 12C(2+) in your work. However, in the case the value g(2+) = 0,6 is not correct (because it has not experimental confirmation) the results of your work would be invalidated.
Dont you think is very important to measure the magnetic moment for excited 12C(2+) ?
Why it was not measured yet ?
regards
Wladimir Guglinski
======================================================
Duke_Nukem:
In this period, when I have free time, I am reading for the second time “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Roland Omnès, Princeton Series in Physics. I use to read a book at least three times, if good, while I severe the reading of a book if within the first 50 pages does not get my attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
A curiosity: can you tell us which book are you reading, not regarding your job, in this period ? I mean: your ‘livre de chevet’.
Duke
Joseph,
Carbon Dioxide looks very promising indeed, I readily admit. Thank you for the links!
Tom
Tom,
The previous link should be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TPKU4azKMs
“Steam Heat”
But why consider only steam? There is plenty of Carbon Dioxide to go around for use in heating and refrigeration (R-744 = CO2).
http://www.r744.com/
http://www.barber-nichols.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/images/supercritical_co2_turbines.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/csp_sunshotrnd_swri_exchangers.html
Joseph
Tom Conover:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea!
Thank you (and Joseph Fine) for referencing the wonderful book “Models of the Atomic Nucleus 2nd Edition by Cook”. It is absorbing and very well laid out, perhaps some day I will understand more of the math. Geometry I can handle though, so I will work on this more. 🙂 The link below will help remind you how to warm up your food if it gets cold.
http://www.youtube.com slash watch?v=6TPKU4azKMs
May God bless you and your efforts,
Tom Conover