.
Abstract
Basic idea is – current cosmological changes may be reflected in any atom. At any given cosmic time, ‘Hubble length’ can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Some cosmologists use the term ‘Hubble volume’ to refer to the volume of the observable universe. With reference to the Mach’s principle and Hubble volume, at any cosmic time, if ‘Hubble mass’ is the product of cosmic ‘critical density’ and the ‘Hubble volume’, then it can be suggested that, each and every point in the free space is influenced by the Hubble mass. Clearly speaking, with Hubble volume and Hubble mass: quantum physics, nuclear physics and cosmic physics can be studied in a unified manner. In this new direction authors noticed some interesting coincidences. With reference to the present fine structure ratio, present value of Hubble’s constant is 69.53 km/sec/Mpc or 71.75 km/sec/Mpc.
Fabio T.:
I cannot give specific information, so far, about this issue. Obviously we are working to increase the power density.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Calaon:
1- all these data will be published in the report
2- just theoretical
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
may be this TED talk can add something in the discussion about why now sapiens is the only “civilization capable” species on this planet (it seems energy plays always a key role …):
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain
Back to the LENR energy:
– Do you know/can you tell us, for how long the H-cat tested by the third independent party has continuously worked?
– I am curious if you’ve made any step in the direction of the supercritical carbon dioxide turbine.
Best regards
Good luck
Andrea Calaon
To all our Readers:
Have a nice May 1st !
The Board of Advisers of the JoNP
Andreas Moraitis:
That is also a line for the R&D we are making. Batteries are very expensive, though, and their pay back period is not quite convincing. So far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
I apologize if this question has already been asked before, but I’d like to know if you did some experiments in miniaturization of the hot cat.
How small it could be? There is a sort of “critical mass” requirement to allow the reaction to start or it’s just an engineering issue?
Sincerely,
Fabio
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I’m sure that many of your readers would like to see a Hot-Cat that is producing its own electricity by a turbine or Stirling engine, at the same time loading a battery, which can provide the necessary input whenever the reactor needs a ‘break’. Did you already experiment with such a configuration, and if so, could you tell us something about the results?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Robert Curto:
Thank you: I strongly suggest our Readers to watch this movie, it is an inspiring masterpiece.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi and Readers,
You may want to Google:
LE CONCERT WIKIPEDIA
Click on:
The Free Encyclopedia
Robert Curto
Thanks Andrea
I haven’t been able to find a gas flow meter with certified K =4 with a small enough uncertainty for my Biophysics work. I ‘ll Keep looking.
Mark
Mark:
To measure the consumption of gas is very easy. There are thousands of certified gauges for this task.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thanks Andrea for the news
With the gas Ecat,it will be interesting to find out, how you would determine the COP eventually. I suppose with a known gas bottle volume,energy rating and pressure, one would accurately determine the total input energy.When the whole bottle is used up ,there is not much uncertainty. I would however, avoid Gas flow meter, which normally has high uncertainty.
Mark
Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you, yes I saw “Anadeus”, but the best movie I saw in my life is “The Concert” ( 2009)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
No.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Iggy Dalrymple:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You’re working and creating in the middle of the night.
Not sure if that is a good or a bad habit. It sounds as if you’re restless. A never ending flow of thoughts and creativity.
I must recommend the movie Amadeus.(1984)
Kind regards,
Koen
PS: in the very near future, when artificial intelligence is operational, along with genetic engineering, we, or better the artificial intelligence, will be capable of creating new species. Then, the same A.I. could learn us about the probabilities that these things happen(ed) in nature, and if positive, how it happened. This could be very negative from another perspective.
Interesting times are coming up. I hope we have all the energy we need for that.
Dear Dr Rossi,
New theory why some materials have thermoelectric potential.
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/04/solving-mystery-thermoelectrics?et_cid=3913885&et_rid=556728257&type=cta
Regards,
Iggy Dalrymple
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If an eCat reactor were encased within a steel shell (while it is inactive but fueled) and a hot temperature was applied to it as in a hydrogen torch, would an eCat reaction occur, albeit a runaway reaction?
@Daniel De Caluwé
“maybe he knows or maybe not”
The second, my friend… 🙂
“Silvio gave a description of the OSI-model (‘Open Systems Interconnection’ – model, with 7 layers, like X25) in telecommunication, isn’t it?”
OSI model inspired me, but it is about network communications. Here I describe a working computer stand-alone.
“Well, this model is very similar to what esoteric buddhists (like Alice Bailey) believe, because they also believe that there are 7 layers, of wich our visible world is only one (the lowest) layer.”
It’s not exactly my example. There is no specific number of layers, you can imagine other layers below transistors (material engineer, chemist, atomic phisics…) and above user level (looking inside info contents: this thread, this site…). No magic numbers (note: I used 8 layers). No special (i.e. lowest) layers.
I wanted only to say that we (individuals) are “structures”, made of many layers, and that we are part of other “structures” (family, firm, nation…) made of other layers. Many of these layers are invisible for many of us, but they exist.
Something similar to the Fredric Brown’s novel “the answer” 🙂
http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html
Dr.Rossi, you certainly are correct about the low price of natural gas.
The US has about a 100 to 200 year supply.
They want to export it, to ship it:
They change gas to liquid by cooling it to -260F it reduces the volume to
600 times less.
The European Union pays triple the US price, Japan pays 5 times as much.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea,
While waiting – I tripped over this Besler steam engine for airplanes and maybe you like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8
It would be a fun testbed coupled to a hotcat:)
There is one engine exposed in the Smithonian.
http://www.flyingkettle.com/besler1.htm
Kind regards,
Michael S
Mark:
We are working on a prototype. This night I was working on the design. Made many tests and corrections; is an important application, for obvious reasons, since gas price in the USA is quite low. I cannot say anything specific, of course, until the technology is mature for industrial applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea
Could you share some news on the gas E cat?
Mark
Satyam Brahma,
Yanam Brahma,
Anantam Brahma? 😉
Although the discussion about evolution is off-topic on this forum, I want to react on the latest message of Silvio Caggia, because maybe he knows or maybe not, but what he wrote is very close to what theosofists (and esoteric buddhists, like Alice Bailey) believe. And like atheïsts, they don’t believe in a God outside our world and ourselves, but they do believe that the universe is a living entity, and that it has (there are) several (etheric?) layers, of whom only one (our physical world) is visibel.
Silvio wrote:
My reaction: Higher, Silvio gave a description of the OSI-model (‘Open Systems Interconnection’ – model, with 7 layers, like X25) in telecommunication, isn’t it? Well, this model is very similar to what esoteric buddhists (like Alice Bailey) believe, because they also believe that there are 7 layers, of wich our visible world is only one (the lowest) layer. Think also about what I wrote about ‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’. Could it be that the evolution is driven by the higher (and invisible) ‘etheric’ layers, and that the universe is a living entity, giving us the posibility to gradually learn to know it and its secrets, and that it breaths in and out, so that we cyclically will experience periods of expansion and periods of contraction? (= Days and nights of Brahma, that take billions of years each) 😉
DTravchenko:
He,he,he, yes I am working and casually online in this moment to check the JoNP’s blog ( I can do this now and again, when I have some relax). We are working very well with our R&D in this period. But it is not 3.30, it is 3.03 a.m. In this very moment I am working on the gas fueled E-Cat prototype.
About the question: we are replicating all the experiments published from our competition, reproducing exactly what written in the patent applications or patents that are published. We are doing this work, with two our specialists, to check the worth ( the real worth) of our competition. Honestly, no results came out which could confirm the claims. So far. Obviously, the History teaches that sooner or later the competition will be born, but not so far, albeit we are not aware of the R&D of our potential competition whose results are not published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
In this moment in Raleigh, where you are, is 3.03 a.m.: I am curious to see if at this time you are working, if yes and you are online, please answer me now. I want to put you a question: are you worried of all the patents and publications that are growing by the day in the worls in competition with you?
KD:
You wrote: “For me is more important a question: Who we really are?”
Try to answer a simpler question: what is the computer that you are staring on now?
– An electronic engineer would see stuff like transistors, resistors and some capacitors…
– a digital electronic engineer would see stuff like logical-AND ports, logical-OR ports, flip-flops, logical-NOT ports…
– a microprogrammer would see stuff like microcode, registers…
– a kernel programmer would see stuff like assembler code, addressess…
– an operating system programmer would see stuff like processes, memory, devices, ports…
– an application logic programmer would see stuff like loops, branch, assignments, subprocedures, functions…
– a presentation logic programmer would see stuff like windows, fields, buttons…
– an user would see stuff like see features, infos, inputs…
There are many layers.
Each layer is based on the layer below.
The layer below is “machine” for the layer above.
The layer above is “spirit” for the layer below.
Each layer has it’s own rules.
Eache layer “exists” even if you can’t see it.
Now… Who we really are? 🙂
Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland and Bernie Koppenhofer:
Waitying for the results of the test of the Third Independent Party, whose results can be positive or even negative, we cannot give any specific information regarding your questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Understanding that R&D is a never ending process, there must come a time when a technology is considered ‘good enough’ to be used in the marketable products.
Do you feel that you have developed the Hot Cat to a point where it is now ready to be used in the marketplace, and it can be competitive?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
I have already stated that interactive causative effects would have changed the statistics of the homosapien event. What I was referring to is the change of the discussion from one involving statistics to one of cause and effect. This then brings topics of religion and creativity into the discussion which turns it into an entirely different question.
….Obviously I don’t think that universe will evolve like in the Asimov’s tale,I take it like a methaphor….
I am fool,maybe,but not so fool!
Regards G G
If there is a God’s plan,it could work througt a random mutation.
The result is the persistence of the most suitable with the enviroment.
So,is the enviroment that molds lifeforms.
So,if there is a plan (and I feel yes),and if it is in everything ,everything (enviroment) needs intelligence because it is a great evolutionary advantage .
But intelligence takes self consiouness,that is another advantage and it could be the way in whitch the plan gives eyes to the universe for watching himself.
In the Asimov’s tale the enviroment,at the end of the time,needs a solution to restart and it happens when all the universe gets self consiouness and there is completeness.
It seems to me this would be the greater advantage of everytime.
Regards G G
Andrea Rossi,
Here is a link to an essay on Evolution by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.
Perhaps you may agree with his viewpoint.
(Other reader’s comments may be either positive or negative.)
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx
Joseph Fine
This is an interesting synthesis between a trascendent and an immanent God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
Hi Teemu,
I think you got valid point that the earth can’t support more than one sapiens. There were the Neanderthals, Denisovans , Floresiensis early humans different sub species but they were out competed and absorbed. Now we can only find their fossil bones and some DNA strands within our population. There is evidence of violent confrontation between early sapiens and Neanderthals.
Mark
Dear Andrea,
In my last comment I already suggested a potential explanation of “time deus ex-machina” problem. A sort of Lamarkian rebirth… In which genetics play the role of long term memory, epigenetics play the role of short term memory, and SBS Programs play the role of trasforming necessity into intent within the individual lifespan.
Complementary to the “printed/photo-copied/hand-typed book analogy” you can imagine a “designer analogy”: SBS Programs draw an intentional sketch as a reaction to environment (i.e. I need a longer neck to eat higher leafs), epigenetics draws a drawning over the sketch (i.e. I transmit sperimentally to my childreen the information), genetics draws an indelible drawing over the drawning (i.e. I transmit over long time the information).
Why, then, only humans evolved to “Michelangelo”?
Some hints to this question:
– “Michelangelos” are rare, not all humans are “Michelangelos”, most are artistically more similar to animals
– “Michelangelos” are recent, there were no Michelangelos in far past, samples of last 30 centuries on a 65 millions years time-span is not representative
– we have “Michelangelos” animals, look on my facebook the video of an elephant making a self portrait with brush and colors!
– All animals have been exterminated to close to their extinction by the evolution of mankind… True, but only in recent times, and too quickly to see an evolutive answer
– who says homo is the ony sapiens on earth?
Termites build structures equivalent to a 5km high building! More you study free animals more you discover on them.
If you observe only animals in captivity is like looking for human culture in guantanamo prisoneers…
– some ancient traditions, and some heretic archeologist, tells us of ancient not-human species living on earth and now “emigrated” or extinguished…
– probably homo sapiens will soon do the same…
I think homo is not so sapiens as we feel, at least not so sapiens to perceive other species sapiensness. Our artistical expressions are often the expression of a lost ability to feel in communion with Nature, a temptative to compensate what animals do normally…
We need time for meditation and spiritual exerciting while animals do it naturally everytime…
Animalistic Regards
Silvio
Hi Andrea,
Early mammals were under developed and driven to near extinction too by the dinosaurs, which ruled the earth brutally with their big teeth . mammals only managed under ground and only came out after the asteroid hit. Evolution is absolutely mindless and blind. Our species rise also brings destruction to other species and so would be any outbreak of virus or bacteria but their number is dwindling quickly when resources or hosts ran out. Hopefully we can learn to better symbiosis like some other fugi-bacteria do.
Mark
Dear Mr. Rossi,
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The answers is hidden in our genes.
The DNA is the code of life. Everything on earth can be traced and linked to each other.
You said: ‘2-3 million years, we already humans, not monkeys.’
Yet, there are some clear difference and we do looked a lot more like our close relatives today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
You said: ‘only humans evolved to a level to allow them to make a sculpture as the Pietà of Michelangelo?’
This I find to be a anthropocentric view point. If you study really smart animals like, dolphins, some birds or apes closely you might see that they are that different. These creatures are highly intelligent, being smart is not just something for humans.
The late Carl Sagan is able to make a strong case for a Universe and human evolution without the need for a deity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8P1Y1a7-L4
Regards,
Bertus
Andrea,
The animals don’t have a choice in the evolution process, which is “blind “. Some viruses are considered to be immortal as a species because of their quick mutations and adaptability. Our superiority in science and art may be judged differently on that ground by another intelligent alien species. New bacteria species branch into existence from the other species of bacteria when environmental conditions are changed , observable all the time . Maybe god only did the laws of physics and step aside
Mark
Dear Andrea,
“why, then, in this relatively short time, only humans evolved to a level to allow them to make a sculpture as the Pietà of Michelangelo? A Reader said: ” because they did not need it”. Are you serious? All animals have been exterminated to close to their extinction by the evolution of mankind, because mankind, in competition with them, developed means to exterminate them, and you say they did not need evolution? They needed it brutally, but they could not.
Why?”
Mankind has only developed this capability over the last several thousands of years, and things are really starting to get into high gear now — the speed of our cultural evolution is far exceeding that of biological evolution. It’s “game over” for the other species at this point. Also, I believe you answered your own question: Earth could not sustain two sapient species, because one would very quickly kill the other in competition for resources.
And all of this is assuming that the creation of sapient life is common, and can easily occur given a long enough timescale. This is a belief without scientific basis, because there’s no control.
Best Regards,
Teemu
Silvio Caggia:
Darwin has explained in an absolutely clear and acceptable way how the characters more fit to survive have been selectet through the time: features not fit for the environment did disappear because the bearers of such features did not survive and, therefore, could not reproduce; on the contrary, bearers of features more fit for the changing environment lived well, reproduced their race and their features remained. Until here I share the Darwinism and consider it scientifically sustainable. But it is time, I hope, to re-think about the taumaturgic powers that commonly are conferred to Darwinism about the fact that, along the same process, an ameba can become a human… just it takes time. Here comes the first “deus ex machina”: time. As if time could be infinite. But it is not: evolution of the existing species had just several million years of time ! The humans of which we have fossil evidence are from 2-3 million years, and they were already humans, not monkeys. In three million years they just got nicer, but basically there is no substantial difference between them and us. Again: if we go back, we find dinosaurs. So, after the dinosaurs extinction all animals evolution started from the same point of application of time: why, then, in this relatively short time, only humans evolved to a level to allow them to make a sculpture as the Pietà of Michelangelo? A Reader said: ” because they did not need it”. Are you serious? All animals have been exterminated to close to their extinction by the evolution of mankind, because mankind, in competition with them, developed means to exterminate them, and you say they did not need evolution? They needed it brutally, but they could not.
Why?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
The Commercial Dept of Industrial Heat will produce all the necessary literature.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
additional:
feudalism has huge abilities to generate superior needs: bigger castles, more staff, advanced military, etc…
Dear Andrea,
When you say that you will give exhaustive information regarding the products that will be generated by your R&D — where and when can we expect this will be published? Will Industrial Heat have a web site with this information on it, or in some other means?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Monkeys have hands, and can manipulate objects better than other species. It may be possible that early forms of trade – do things for each other to obtain a reward- and a beginning of feudalism have appeared in monkey societies. It is seen that with Japanese macaques the females of the group decide that the most intelligent male leads the group. Intelligent does in this case also mean the best capacities for different kinds of social behaviour e.g. conflict solving. I learnt this as a tourist as a serendipity when I had the intention to entertain my children.
Maybe a beginning of some proof.
Maybe “software” evolution is exponentially faster than “hardware”.
With the destruction of our biosphere and its biodiversity, we destroy lots of capabilities for evolution.
Maybe intelligent life is meant to stay on one planet.
Maybe it is autodestructive. (It should, if it does not decide to seek equilibrium and harmony)
Otherwise E.T.’s A.I. would have decided that Homo Sapiens is a threat, and make sure to strike first.
Andrea Rossi
Teemu:
We are missing the core of the problem: why thousands of other animals did not make whatever it needs to evolve beyond the standard of the survival evolution kit?
Mr. Rossi
The answer to the question is the same, why the thousands of your e-cats design did not survive the testing process.
For me is more important question: Who we realy are?. The machine in form of material body or a real human as a spirit in human body (materialistic form) to be able to work and create in materialistic world.
If the theory of Big Bang is right (and I believe it is possible), some thing have to exist, to press the button to start the explosion.
Then the “evolution” is a natural process as it exists in our life, in science, in new technologies.
andrea rossi
a very good mess, i see
mechanical regards
domenico canino
Mark:
Same answer as to Teemu.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Teemu:
To say that no other animals evolved Beyond survival features because they did not need it is a sophism. The fact that they did not need it is because they did not evolve up to a superior mind able to generate superior needs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.