by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(I-SERVE)
Hyderabad-35, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
.
Introduction
Now as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were the first that leads galaxy growth. The implication is that the black holes started growing first. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes format their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms. This is a fundamental confirmation of N. Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of “different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size”.
This clearly suggests that: galaxy constitutes a central black hole; the central black hole grows first; Star and galaxy growth goes parallel or later to the central black holes growth. The fundamental questions are: If “black hole” is the result of a collapsing star, how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its center? Where does the central black hole comes from? How the galaxy center will grow like a black hole? How its event horizon exists with growing? If these are the observed and believed facts — not only for the author — this is a big problem for the whole science community to be understood.
Any how, the important point to be noted here is that “due to some unknown reason galactic central black holes are growing”! This is the key point for the beginning of the proposed expanding or growing cosmic black hole! See this latest published reference for the “black hole universe”. In our daily life generally it is observed that any animal or fruit or human beings (from birth to death) grows with closed boundaries (irregular shapes also can have a closed boundary). An apple grows like an apple. An elephant grows like an elephant. A plant grows like a plant. A human grows like a human. Through out their lifetime they won’t change their respective identities. These are observed facts. From these observed facts it can be suggested that “growth” or “expansion” can be possible with a closed boundary. By any reason if the closed boundary is opened it leads to “destruction” rather than “growth or expansion”. Thinking that nature loves symmetry, in a heuristic approach in this paper author assumes that“ through out its lifetime universe is a black hole”. Even though it is growing, at any time it is having an event horizon with a closed boundary and thus it retains her identity as a black hole forever. Note that universe is an independent body. It may have its own set of laws. At any time if universe maintains a closed boundary to have its size minimum at that time it must follow “strong gravity” at that time.
If universe is having no black hole structure any massive body(which is bound to the universe) may not show a black hole structure. That is black hole structure may be a subset of cosmic structure. This idea may be given a chance.
Rotation is a universal phenomenon. We know that black holes are having rotation and are not stationary. Recent observations indicates that black holes are spinning close to speed of light.
In this paper author made an attempt to give an outline of “expanding and light speed rotating black hole universe” that follows strong gravity from its birth to end of expansion.
Stephen Hawking in his famous book A Brief History of Time, in Chapter 3 which is entitled The Expanding Universe, says: “Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in which ever direction we look, and that this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found… We have no scientific evidence for, or against, the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe”.
From this statement it is very clear and can be suggested that, the possibility for a “closed universe” and a “flat universe” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of a “closed universe”.
Clearly speaking, from Hubble’s observations and interpretations in 1929, the possibility of “galaxy receding” and “galaxy revolution” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of “rotating universe”.
.
.
Peter Forsberg:
He,he..no, just a casual combination!
Nice to hear from you again,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in March 30th, 2014 at 9:00 PM
3. What classical electromagnetic law are you applying to justify a charged particle being attracted magnetically centripetally toward (the core of) a nucleus which has no magnetic moment? (Example, 3Li5 with its free proton spiraling toward 2He4.)
————————————
COMMENT
Joe,
forget the way of reasoning I was trying up to now.
If that way of reasoning would be correct, the 4Be8 nucleus would have to be stable. But it is not.
As I already said, the micro-laws within the nuclei have to be discovered from the interaction between the logic and the nuclear properties of nuclei.
In my paper Stability of Light Nuclei I had originally proposed the explanation for your question, but I forgot it, and your question induced me into error.
Now let us reconsider it again, as explained orginally in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, as follows.
1) When a particle as a deuteron, proton, or neutron enters within the field Sp of the 2He4, they are crossed by the flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) of the 2He4.
2) The flux n(o) of the 2He4 drags the particles, as follows:
a) The flux n(o) of the 2He4 starts to cross the body-ring of the particles
b) As the deuteron and the proton have a flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+), they interact with the flux n(o) of the 2He4 formed by gravitons g(+)
c) Then the deuteron and the proton are dragged by a force, and so they start to gyrate about the 2He4
d) Therefore the proton (or the deuteron) induces a magnetic field, because it gyrates about the central 2He4. For instance, a deuteron gyrating about the 2He4 in the 3Li6 induces the magnetic field of the 3Li6.
e) The magnetic moment induced by the proton (or deuteron) gyrating about the 2He4 applies a magnetic force on them. As the centripetal forece on the proton is small, the proton goes toward the central 2He4 in the case of the 3Li5. As the centripetal force on the proton equilibrates the magnetic force, that’s why 3Li6 is stable
f) The neutron has a flux n(o) formed by gravitons g(+) and g(-). So, it interacts weakly with the flux n(o) of the 2He4, and therefore the neutron is not dragged by the rotation of the 2He4.
g) The force which draggs the deuteron (due to the interaction between its flux n(o) and the flux n(o) of the central 2He4) is not strongly enough to keep them, and so the deuteron requires the action of the magnetic force so that to keept it gyrating about the 2He4.
4Be8 is not stable because (in spite of the two deuterons are dragged by the flux n(o) of the central 2He4) however the two deuterons induce a total magnetic moment zero, and therefore the magnetic force on the two deuterons is zero.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 8th, 2014 at 6:05 PM
2. In the second answer that you give, even if the magnetic moments induced by the excitation of the permeabilitons are equal and opposite (having them cancel each other), the magnetic moments induced by the two (positive) charges of 2He4 do not cancel since they are in the same direction with each other.
————————————————
COMMENT
Joe,
you are thinking classically.
The sign (positive or negative) of the magentic moment due to a positive charge with rotation depends on the interaction between:
a) the spin of the particle (in clock wise direction, or counter clock wise direction)
b) the rotation of the particle about the center of rotation (in clock wise directoin , or counter clock wise direction)
c) the direction of the flux n(o) which crosses the particle (vertically up or down, by considering that the ring of the particle, crossed by the flux n(o), is situated in an horizontal plan)
d) the spin of the gravitons g(+) of the flux n(o) (in clock wise direction, or counter clock wise direction).
As the structure of the 2He4 is perfectly symmetric, the rotation of the two deuterons do not induce magnetic moment.
The charge do not induce magnetic moment independently of the other variables mentioned above.
Therefore, the signal of the magnetic momment (positive or negative) indueced by the rotation of a deuteron does not depend ONLY on the direction of the rotation, as you are considereing classically, influenced by your understanding of the laws discovered by Faraday.
The signal (positive or negative) depends also on the variable mentioned above, not considered by Faraday in his macroscopic experiments.
.
Joe,
if you were right, the nucleus 4Be8 could not have magnetic moment zero, since it has four deuterons gyrating in the same direction. But it has magnetic moment zero just because its structure is also perfectly symmetric, and the magnetic moments induced by the charge of the deuterons in the side ANA cancell the magnetic moments induced by charge of the deuterons in the side DOUGLAS.
The classical laws discovered by Faraday are macroscopic laws in which the directions of the spins of the elementary particles and the direction of the flux n(o) do not have influence.
And you are reasoning by considering your classical understanding of the Faraday laws.
regards
wlad
Why so many Sevens?
7 Professors, 7 Physicists, 7 Universities. A holy number? 🙂
Regards
Peter
Dear Andrea Rossi,
“Wow”. Even if the results are “negative”, to have that level of important scientific review and credentials investigating your eCat technology is impressive. Regardless of the results, this is impressive in itself. You should be very pleased that the “Rossi Effect” has gained such a review.
That said, in my humble opinion, a “negative” result should have been readily discovered by such an impressive team of experts. Like the classical jury trial, the longer it takes to produce the result, I believe, the more likely the result will be “positive”. We all wait and hope for such a verdict, but not too soon. (LOL)
Frank Acland:
I do not know where the report will be published. I agree with you, though. The report will be written by 7 Professors and Physicists of three European Universities, who obviously review each other, and it will be further reviewed by other 7 Professors and Physicists of 7 Universities and Nuclear Physics Institutes of Europe, Asia, America before being proposed for publication. The report will be based upon millions of data collected by the measurement and registration instruments of the Professors and of their Institutes. The whole funded by an European scientific Institute.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Do you think it matters where the third party report is published? To my mind, it makes little difference whether it is published in a well-known journal, arxiv.org, or on any web site.
If the report is well-written, thoroughly documented, and signed by the various authors, it should be acceptable, whatever the publication venue in my opinion.
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Wladimir,
1. The first answer that you give is irrelevant since you are talking about intrinsic spins and their intrinsic magnetic moments, both being properties that are dipolar. Electric charges are monopolar; they are either positive or negative.
2. In the second answer that you give, even if the magnetic moments induced by the excitation of the permeabilitons are equal and opposite (having them cancel each other), the magnetic moments induced by the two (positive) charges of 2He4 do not cancel since they are in the same direction with each other.
All the best,
Joe
Einstein, the greatest crackpot of the Physics
After the publication of his Special Relativity in 1905, Einstein became the greatest crackpot of the Physics. But in order to understand why, we have to learn what the name “crackpot” means when it is applied in the Theoretical Physics.
In 1998 Rabbi Shlomo Riskin had defined what the designation “crackpot” means when it is applied to a theorists, saying the following: “When you’re one step ahead of the crowd you’re a genius. When you’re two steps ahead, you’re a crackpot.”
So, first of all we have to understand what means one step in Physics, and what means two steps.
Concerning to his scientific method of investigation, Newton said: “I do not do conjectures”. Then let us understand what the conjectures represent in the scientific method.
Newton did not do conjectures because he used to prove his assumptions , via mathematics or by experiments.
But the Newton’s discoveries were concerning of the macroscopic world, in order that he was able to conceive his assumptions based on observations and doing conclusions about them by using the logic. As the laws of the macroscopic bodies follow the logic, Newton was able to develop a theory by doing good conjectures which he was able to prove. And conjectures cease to be conjectures either when the author proves them to be correct, or when later experiments prove it.
The genius in Theoretical Physics is the theorist who uses the Newton’s method, and his discoveries make the Physics to advance one step. He did not allow himself to do conjectures which he cannot prove. Therefore his discoveries are limited to the limitations of the Newton’s method, which was successful for the discovery of the laws of the macroscopic world, but is limited for the discovery of the laws concerning the elementary particles as quarks, photons, electron, etc.
This is the step ahead experienced by the advancement of the Physics thanks to the contribution of the genius.
Now let us speak about the two steps ahead which advances the Physics due to the contribution of a crackpot.
In the 19th Century the physicists believed in the existence of the aether, and Michelson and Morley made an experiment with the aim to detect it, by considering that the speed of the Earth would have to change the speed of the light. But they did not succeed to detect any influence of the speed of the Earth in the light speed, and then in the end of the 19th Century the Theoretical Physics faced a breaking of a paradigm.
When an old paradigm in science is broken by a new experiment, many “crackpots” start to make conjectures, so that to solve the puzzle.
Einstein was one among many “crackpots” who were trying to decipher the puzzle of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and he faced a problem so much more complex than those solved by Newton, because the Michelson-Morley experiment deals with the photon. And the photon is an exotic particle which follows laws that cannot be discovered via the method used by Newton.
Einstein was considered by the scientific community a crackpot when he published his Special Relativity in 1905. And he himself confessed to be a crackpot, because he wrote an imaginary dialog with Newton, where he said: “Newton, forgive me, because I was unable to avoid to do conjectures”.
So, the own Einstein was shamed for his betrayal of the Newton’s scientific method, and he was aware that, by doing conjectures that he was unable to prove, he had accepted to become a crackpot, and that’s why he asked forgiveness to Newton .
But of course Einstein had betrayed the Newton criterion on do not to do conjectures because he already had tried all the attempts avoiding conjectures, and finally he arrived to the conclusion that it was impossible to solve the puzzle of the Michelson-Morley experiment without to do conjectures. Therefore, Einstein decided to become himself a crackpot because after exhausting all the attempts without conjectures he finally realized that only a crackpot could be able to solve the puzzle of Michelson-Morley experiment, by betraying the Newton’s criterion on do not to do conjectures.
Nevertheless it’s obvious that Einstein had proposed conjectures because he was hopeful that his conjectures would be confirmed later by experiments.
So, we have to consider two sort of “crackpots” in Theoretical Physics:
1- The crackpot whose conjectures are not proven being correct. He continues to be a crackpot.
2- The crackpot whose conjectures are later proven being correct. He becomes a super-genius.
However, a crackpot can propose a theory with many conjectures, and some of them can be proven later being correct, and other being wrong.
Many of the Einstein’s conjectures had been proven correct along the years, and so he became a super-genius of the Theoretical Physics. But he also proposed a wrong conjecture: the empty space, which became a dogma along one century, but finally it was proven being wrong in 2011, by a new experiment published in the journal Nature:
Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons
As we realize, when the conjectures of a crackpot are confirmed, and he becomes a super-genius, of course along the years the scientific community forgets that he was a crackpot, because the physicists consider a shame to admit that to get two steps ahead in the Theoretical Physics is possible only because a crackpot decided to do conjectures unacceptable from the viewpoint of the scientific method. The physicists did not realize yet that two steps cannot be overpassed by a simple genius. Two steps ahead requires a super-genius: a crackpot.
Nowadays the Theoretical Physics is experiencing the most grave crisis of its History. Recent experiments along the last 5 years are requiring a New Physics, with new foundations missing in the current theories. Some physicists are proposing theories developed strictly according to the scientific method, trying to advance one step ahead the current theories. If one among them will have his theory confirmed by experiments and recognized by the scientific community, the physicists will consider him a genius. Other ones are proposing conjectures which surpasses the current theories two steps ahead. They are crackpots. If one among them will have his conjectures confirmed by experiments and accepted by the scientific community, he will become a super-genius.
Joe,
in my last commment, instead of:
d) As the spins of the gravitons g(+) in the flux at the side ANA is contrary to the spins in the side DOUGLAS, therefore they cancell each other, in order that the permeabilitons are not excited by the rotation of the flux n(o) due to the rotation of the 2He4.
the correct would be to say:
d) As the spins of the gravitons g(+) in the flux at the side ANA is contrary to the spins in the side DOUGLAS, therefore they cancell each other, because in spite of the permeabilitons are excited by the rotation of the flux n(o) due to the rotation of the 2He4, however the permeabilitons induce magnetic moments with contrary signs in the side ANA and DOUBLAS, and so they cancell each other.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 7th, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Wladimir,
While it is true that the intrinsic magnetic moments (and the magnetic moments that are induced through their rotation) of the deuterons would cancel, the two magnetic moments induced by the two (positive) charges of the deuterons would not cancel since they would be rotating in the same direction. That, of course, would contradict a nuclear magnetic moment of zero for 2He4.
————————————————-
Joe,
you have also to take in consideration the spins of the gravitons g(+) of the flux n(o).
Look at the Figure 3 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
a) The deuteron at the side ANA is crossed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) which direction is vertically DOWN
b) The deuteron at the side DOUGLAS is crossed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+) which direction is vertically UP
c) So, the spins of the gravitons g(+) crossing the deuteron at the side ANA are contrary of the spins of gravitons g(+) at the side DOUGLAS.
d) As the spins of the gravitons g(+) in the flux at the side ANA is contrary to the spins in the side DOUGLAS, therefore they cancell each other, in order that the permeabilitons are not excited by the rotation of the flux n(o) due to the rotation of the 2He4.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in April 7th, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Wladimir,
While it is true that the intrinsic magnetic moments (and the magnetic moments that are induced through their rotation) of the deuterons would cancel, the two magnetic moments induced by the two (positive) charges of the deuterons would not cancel since they would be rotating in the same direction. That, of course, would contradict a nuclear magnetic moment of zero for 2He4.
———————————————–
COMMENT
No, Joe.
Consider for instance an electron, moving in an orbit with radius R, inducing a magnetic field. We can have the following 4 situations:
1- The electron has spin-up and moves in clock wise direction. Let’s consider that it produces a negative magnetic moment, with the North pole in the position up and the South pole in the position down (pole N-up, pole S-down).
2- It has spin-up and moves in counter clock wise direction. Then its magnetic moment is contrary of that considered in the item 1 (pole N-down, pole S-up).
3- It has spin-down and moves in clock wise direction. Again, its magnetic moment is contrary of that considered in the item 1 (pole N-down, pole S-up).
4- It has spin-down and moves in counter clock wise direction. So its magnetic moment is the same of that in the item 1 (pole N-up, pole S-down).
.
The magnetic moment of a particle (regarding to another external magnetic moment) depends on the combination between the spin and the direction of the motion of the particle, with regard to the external magnetic moment.
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
While it is true that the intrinsic magnetic moments (and the magnetic moments that are induced through their rotation) of the deuterons would cancel, the two magnetic moments induced by the two (positive) charges of the deuterons would not cancel since they would be rotating in the same direction. That, of course, would contradict a nuclear magnetic moment of zero for 2He4.
All the best,
Joe
RicT:
Yes, I liked it: Mats Lewan is a scientific journalist able to explain difficult concepts in a way that anybody can understand and at the same time get fun. Like the Jazz of Armstrong. Besides, the text is sincere, honest and professionally structured.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Did you read / like the new Mats Lewan book?
thank you
Joe wrote in April 4th, 2014 at 4:11 PM
Wladimir,
The nuclear magnetic moment of 2He4 is zero. That means that, since the magnetic moments of the two deuterons already cancel, 2He4 can not be rotating about a central axis between them. Otherwise, a magnetic field (and therefore a magnetic moment) would be induced by the positive charges. So the question is, if 2He4 is not rotating, what is the cause of the rotation of the gravitational fluxes n(o) about 2He4 that are induced by the two deuterons?
———————————————-
COMMENT
Joe,
one of the deuterons of the 2He4 has spin-up, while the other has spin-down. That’s why the 2he4 has null spin i= 0.
As the 2He4 is rotating about its center, the deuteron with spín-up induces a positive magnetic moment , and the deuteron with spin-down induces a negative magnetic moment , and therefore the total magnetic moment is zero.
regards
wlad
Steven N. Karels:
1. yes
2. no
3. variable, regulated by the control system
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
With your “Cat and Mouse” design, when the eCat reactor is in a self-sustaining mode,
1. is it possible to control the thermal output
2. or are you required to wait for the end of the self-sustained mode to control the thermal output
3. When in a self-sustained mode, how long (minutes?) does it take to shutdown an eCat?
Frank Acland:
My philosophy is “small is better”. With small modules you can make big plants, with big modules you cannot make small plants.
Many cats are far less dangerous than a single tiger.
Our research is oriented to make big plants with assemblies of small modules, and the teleology is to go toward even smaller modules. Brick by brick has been made Rome. With quarks and leptons has been made the Universe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hermano Tobia:
a) partially yes
b) their activity right now is measurements, but the results, if the so called “Rossi Effect” will be confirmed, will unavoidably imply a theoretical follow up, I guess.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’d have two questions:
a) will the theory that you and your team developed about the so-called “Rossi Effect” be disclosed (fully or partially) together with the new TPR publication ?
b) are the Professors also involved in theory assessment ?
Thank you,
Best Regards
Hermano Tobia
Dear Andrea,
Interesting discussion. What do you think is the advantage of small modules as opposed to large modules?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Mark:
We already have studied the safety limit and I do not think downsizing the reactors can give us more information. For technological reasons, at the moment it is not possible to downsize the reactors more than we already did so far. Good question, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
You mentioned sometimes ago that you had carried out destructive test of the reactors to study their safety limit. Do you think that, at least in theory, you would be able to release more thermal energy, if you could have a series of miniaturised and simplified reactors to the size of the antibiotic pills and let them “explode” in a safe and controllable chamber with heat exchanger, one by one, say one a second? Their ashes would be melted and vaporised.
Mark
John Anderson:
I am not able to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Would that be integral efficiency vs time from starting point unity until falling back-to unity again?
John Anderson
Don Witcher:
I think an integral of the efficiency vs time will be done.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam Wilson:
Thank you for your kind words. I am really worried. Anyway, the work goes on.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I have followed your work for the past 3 years. I have greatly admired your tenacity, dedication and scientific spirit. I have also admired your openness and honestly. Every time that you have said that the tests could be positive or negative, I thought that you were doing so with a hidden smile. I did not think that you were hiding behind an NDA or intentionally lying to us, so much as winking at us. After reading your recent reply to Marco Serra, I realize that you were being what you have always been. Open and honest. I thank God for you, Dr. Rossi. It is my belief that He is using you to bring Shalom (well-being/peace) to this world.
Sam Wilson
Dear Andrea Rossi
You have written that “The Third Indipendent Party Test in course is a long run test, never made before from anybody.” Since you indicate that the test is still ongoing is it possible that the Third Party may run the Hot Cat until fuel depletion? That kind of action would provide a most impressive data point. If that were to be the case could you give us an estimate of how much longer the test might run to achieve that goal? This assumes that the Hot Cat has run in a reliable and stable manner during the course of the test and would continue to do so until fuel depletion. It would be understandable of course if you don’t wish to comment based on the assumption.
Warm regards
Don Witcher
Marco Serra:
By my nature, I am an optimistic person. Should I not be, I wouldn’t dedicate my life to an enterpreneurial scientific task. Nevertheless, I always said that this work is extremely risky, and that this enterprise is a warship, not a cruiseship. The Third Indipendent Party Test in course is a long run test, never made before from anybody. In this scientific endeavour there is not a history to sustain you when you make something new: every time you, so to speak, have to cut your way through the jungle with machetes. It is always risky, and you always are, or HAVE TO BE, very conservative: conservatively optimist. The test in course is very severe, as no tests before have been and I cannot be sure that the calculations that will be made upon the operation of the Hot Cat, second by second, will be positive. The Professors are collecting millions of data, I do not know the kind of complex calculations the Professors are doing and will do. They have more science than I do and, beyond the hilarious comment of our friend Orsobubu, which obviously made me smile, I am really afraid of the results. After the Arxiv publication I said that a long test run had been scheduled to better understand and this implies that the play was still open. As a logic consequence of these considerations, if I today say that the results can be positive, but also could be negative, I really mean it.
Thank you for your permanent attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
I think everyone who is following you from the beginning have noted a shift in your statements about the existence of the Rossi Effect. Before the current 3P indipendent test you were firmly sure of the good quality of your discover. Even after the first report on arXiv.org you stated your great satisfaction for the confirm you received.
But as the running 3P test started you begin to put some doubts about its possible result. As Orsobubu hilariously pointed out, since then you never forgot to remember us that the result “can be positive or negative”.
Obviously you are right in saying so. But I and maybe others are wondering if you really loose your great certainty showed before. Nobody can predict the how final result will be, but … under your conservative position is your optimism unchanged ?
Really hoping you succeed.
Marco
Orsobubu:
I hope your optimism will bring good luck, but nothing is certain. Really.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
I see…thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr.Rossi, in regards to my post below.
I don’t know how to send an article I receive in a Newsletter.
So I should say go on Google and type in:
Italian and US navies sign agreement
Click on that story on Google, you can then read the article.
Robert Curto
WARNING, this communication is important, in relation to the previous comment of Andrea Rossi, dated April 4th, 2014 at 10:46 AM
“Bob:
1 – let’s first see if the Third Party Independent work (Which is still in course, and is not finished yet) finds an effect, Eventually we will go into the details as possible. ”
I want to complete Rossi’s statement, specifying that such report will be made indipendently from the results, which could be positive or negative.
Wladimir,
The nuclear magnetic moment of 2He4 is zero. That means that, since the magnetic moments of the two deuterons already cancel, 2He4 can not be rotating about a central axis between them. Otherwise, a magnetic field (and therefore a magnetic moment) would be induced by the positive charges. So the question is, if 2He4 is not rotating, what is the cause of the rotation of the gravitational fluxes n(o) about 2He4 that are induced by the two deuterons?
All the best,
Joe
Anonymous:
Sorry, I lost your comment for a wrong click, but here is the answer you requested:
The test of the Third Indipendent Party is not yet finished and I do not know when it will finish.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
you forgot the link to the article.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr.Rossi, you and your readers may be interested in this article.
Google
Italian and US navies sign agreement
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Bob:
1- let’s first see if the Third Indipendent Party work ( which is still in course, and is not finished yet) finds an effect, eventually we will go in the possible details.
2- we have always made tests with many combinations of different materials
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. As we await the results of the independent evaluation report, are you able to say whether the so called “Rossi Effect” has been found to occur with other element combinations in addition to Nickel, Hydrogen and catalyst?
2. Are you actively evaluating any other combinations at this time?
Thank you again for your patient attention to the questions posed by JONP readers.
Bob
Damiano:
You are right, we are late, but probably it will take still time before we can get a safety certification for the domestic E-Cats, as I explained many times; while we obtained the certification for the industrial plants, because they are operated by certified technicians in certified industries, the domestic E-Cats will be operated by laymen, and this makes the issue very difficult for a LENR device without a history. Now, the configuration is that of a snake ( …not “that ” snake) that bites its tail: we cannot have a history if we do not sell them, but we cannot sell them if we have not a history. How to break this closed circle? With the history of industrial plants. It will take time. This is the reason why we did not accept money with the pre-orders we received from People like you. We still have the list of pre-orders and we conserve it, but we cannot engage in any promise of delivery date.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka Janhunen:
I think that the main points of the Third-Indipendent-Party- test- protocol will be described in the report because of the fact that they are among the basics of the experimental set up.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea
Quite a while ago I did subscribe to the “request” to buy a house E-cat
Just wondering if there is yet a timetable for prduct delivery
Thanks, Damiano
Dear Andrea,
I think that it would be good if the main points of the agreement that you have made with the testing team would also be described in connection with publishing the report. You have already revealed many bits and pieces of such agreement in this blog (I mean: results published regardless of positive/negative, neutral testing location, other measures taken to guarantee independence, 3-day period etc. etc.), but it would be good if this information would also be confirmed by the testers and if they would collect it in one place so that it is easily accessible. Perhaps it could be an appendix to the report that they will publish or a separate file … it doesn’t matter, as long as it’s accessible to all, gives a complete and truthful picture of the agreement, and is signed by the testers.
regards, /pekka
To the Readers:
I have been informed that around some blogs there are “rumors”, “whispers”, “innuendos”, “voices” et similia about the results of the long term experiment made by the Third Indipendent Party. I can guarantee that these noises are just certified stupidities. I myself do not know what is in the data collected by the Professors, and they did not give me a bit of such data. They have retrieved the hard disks to avoid any possible manipulation and demanded that everybody who attended the test had to sign a very strict NDA about the fact that no bit of information can be given to anybody before the publication of the report. Such report will be made indipendently from the results, which could be positive or negative. As a consequence of this, any noise made by “rumors, whispers, voices” and acustics of various kind, coming from “Italian” or whatsoever source,are nothing but useless air displacement operated by idle tongues.
The results will be given first to me 3 days before the publication to give us the time to organize a defense in case of negative output, then they will be published so that everybody interested will have them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
We have started to think about the integration of the E-Cats with jet engines, but we are at a very early stage of R&D. The temperatures reached by the Hot Cats and their energy density make it worth to study, but it is too early to talk of details. As you correctly wrote, we are at the beginning of a theoretical stage.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Chris Johnson:
Thank you for the information, is interesting.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Eng. Rossi
Since you are looking at using the eCat for air conditioning, have you looked at the Broad Group in China? They appear to be a world leader in absorption air conditioning.
The company was started by a single person, Zhang Yue, and is very environmentally conscious. See http://www.theclimategroup.org/who-we-are/our-members/zhang-yue . He seems like someone with the same outlook on the world as you.
This is the same company that was able to build a 30 story building in 15 days. See http://www.wired.com/2012/09/broad-sustainable-building-instant-skyscraper/
Best Regards,
Chris