.
by
by
Jacques Chauveheid
If quantum mechanics can provide quantitative expressions of forces in conformity with the work of Erhenfest and the principle of correspondence, recognized quantitative expressions for nuclear and weak forces do not currently exist. In addition, the four basic forces do not depend on temperature, since measured in vacuum between particles.
In one of his books, Abraham Pais recalled a comment by Rutherford during the 1914-1919 period: “the Coulomb forces dominate if v (speed of alpha particles) is sufficiently small”, evidencing by these words the velocity-dependence of the strong-nuclear force. However, since Rutherford did not apparently refer to temperature, optimal conditions for nuclear fusion do not necessarily arise in disordered configurations characterized by extremely high temperatures, such as those encountered in stars like the sun. Even compared with galaxy formation, hot fusion in many stars seems the slowest and most inefficient physical phenomenon in the universe, because the sun’s ten billion year lifetime has an order of magnitude similar to the age of the universe, this circumstance having been highly beneficial for the life on earth.
Although not based on equations, Rutherford’s conclusion constitutes the essence of the “cold” approach to nuclear fusion and reactions starting from moderate energy levels, instead of extreme temperatures hardly controlling with precision the physical parameters ruling nuclear phenomena. In this view, a better theoretical understanding of these parameters will help nuclear technologies.
.
.
B. Theoretical antecedents
Eddington mentioned the concept of asymmetric affine connection in 1921 and pointed out applications in microphysics, but he did not pursue this idea [5]. In 1922, Elie Cartan introduced geometric torsion, as the antisymmetric part of an asymmetric affine connection. In May 1929, Cartan wrote a letter to Einstein in which he recommended the use of the differential formalism he developed, but Einstein did not follow Cartan’s advice.
Between 1944 and 1950, J. Mariani published four papers dealing with astrophysical magnetism and introduced an “ansatz” structurally similar to that used in the present theory. The German word “ansatz”, used by Ernst Schmutzer (correspondence), refers to a supposed relationship between fields of distinct origin, for example geometric contrasting with physical. Einstein also used an ansatz when he identified gravitation with the 4-space metric, but he did not put it in the form of an equation, presumably because being trivial.
The organization of the paper is the following: Section II details the Lagrangian formulation and the calculus of variations. Section III is about field equations and quantitative expressions of forces. Section IV introduces the short-range force between charged particles, first referred to as strong-nuclear between nucleons. Section V is on Yukawa and complexity. Section VI details the short-range forces in both systems electron-proton and electron-neutron, evidencing a weak nuclear mechanism in LENR technologies.
When not stated otherwise, mathematical conventions are those of reference.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Curiosone:
Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To all our USA Readers:
Happy July 4th and remember that July 4th is not just a barbecue chance, but is maily to remember the fight to get Independence from any oppression. Freedom is not for free, also freedom from the oppression of persons that do not understand a revolution.
Andrea Rossi
Pietro F:
Yes, Arthur hit the coast, but the effect has been not so strong inland, where we work. Thank you for your feeling!
Warm regards,
A.R.
Did I understand well? Did you say that this blog is useless to you? As I said, you are the worst enemy of yourself.
D.T.
I also would like to know if it is different from the 1 MW plant that has been tested in Bologna in October 2011
W.G.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Has the 1 MW plant been built in the USA in the factory of Industrial Heat of Raleigh, North Carolina?
I hope this is not confidential,
Godspeed,
W.G.
Un tempaccio da quelle parti, ho letto che l’uragano Arthur sta arrivando sulla Carolina del nord, forse era meglio Miami!!! Buon lavoro ingeniere (per meriti).
A bad weather in those parts, I read that the hurricane Arthur is coming on North Carolina, it was better to Miami! Good job engineer (for merit)
Pietro F
Bernie Koppenhofer:
I think that can be an interesting application.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Below is an article about Dean Karmen and his sterling engine. 1) Do you think your E-Cat could effectively supply the heat? 2) Have you met Dean Karmen to discuss? If not, do you think a meeting with him would be productive? Thanks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/07/02/dean-kamen-thinks-his-new-stirling-engine-could-power-the-world/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
BroKeeper:
I can say that this blog is very useful for an exchange of information. I learn very much from the comments made here, in general, but it is very difficult to find a specific link to the epiphany of the E-Cat, also because, as you know, I never exchange information about the operation of the reactor. Information exchanged here is very useful in general, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
As I said many times, I am sure all the energy sources will be integrated for the good of all.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert Curto:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi you can also Google:
The men who built America
And watch the videos
Robert Curto
Dr. Rossi I live in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on Channel 116 H2 they have a program called:
The men who built America, with serval parts, all good.
The one that I think is very good is:
Changing the Game. J.P. Morgan.
When he wanted to bring electricity to America, John D. Rockefeller tried to stop him, because he was selling kerosene to provide light.
He knew the electric bulb would put him out of business.
I was wondering if the people who provide Coal, Nuclear Power, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, etc. are worried that the ECat will provide electricity with less expense and zero emissions ?
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea,
You have a multitude of followers that visualize your contribution to society as an epoch of industrial and social revolution. Because of this many have offered helpful ideas, suggestions and innovative contributions within this JoNP. Have any of these instilled an epiphany to you for E-Cat and its peripheral application? If so, could you provide any insight as to what those may have been and any significant role to its evolution? If not now, could you provide those insights after the public industrial demonstration? Thank you.
Best regards,
BroKeeper
Layman:
Your comment makes sense, but there are many other formulas that can protect the IP against reverse engineering. The contracts we make with our Customers protect us adequately, combined with the due diligence we make upon our Customers, their real need of the energy produced by our plants and upon the history of their activity.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea
You can just sell the thermal energy only and not the unit and keep the IP secured . Seeing the unit in operation making money for your customers in long term, no Tip report can equate that.
Jacques,
You have stated that electron capture from K L M orbitals occurs in neutron stars. In a number of blogs concerning LENR, I have proposed an ansazt that includes the capture of these orbital electrons or electron fields in NiH systems. Fermi showed that this event in some elements, produced the emission of B+ or B- particles and corresponding neutrinos. In lighter isotopes(more protons) the emission is B+, in heavier isotopes(more neutrons) the emission is B-. In the heavier elements such as Nickel, this process is enhanced because of the attractive influence of the larger nuclear coulomb field causing the inner electrons to possess smaller orbital radii. Not only do you achieve energy emission when captured, but also transmutation effects. The presence of external H- ions if brought close to the outer electrons impose another negative field which drive the inner electrons closer to the nucleus assisting in the electron capture by the nucleus and the interaction with the nucleons. May I have your thoughts on this.
Respectively awaiting your reply.
Thomas Florek:
Is a Great Pope. In this historic period, with so many analogies with the periods before the first and the second WW, God has chosen the right man to help to maintain as much as possible a relative peace. It is paradoxical, but in this very period if the third WW has not yet been born it is thanks to the nuclear weapons.
I think Pope Francis will play a cosmic- historical role to save the world from the war.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea. I am very curious about whether you have any opinions about the new pope. Some might say that Pope Francis is putting a refreshing amount of energy into his work.
Mark Saker:
I can answer only to this:
a- the Customer is independent from us and has no participation to our business
b- its employ is to make heat for industrial purposes.
About all the other issues, we will give due specifications when the visits will be allowed.
About the imbeciles, let them laugh, but, please, do not call them scientists: scientists are curious, intelligent and always wait for solid experimentation; besides, they never laugh of working people: only an imbecile can laugh of persons that are working with all the force they dispose of, and a scientist cannot be an imbecile.
Georgehants:
We will give specifications when the visits will be allowed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, could you clear a little confusion.
Is your new 1MW plant driven by the older E-cats or the newer Hot-cats.
Best wishes
Dear Andrea,
Hopefully you can answer at least some of these questions 🙂
1) Can you confirm whether the housing for the 1MW plant is the same as has been used for the previous 1MW test, or is a different container
2) Do the internals look substantially different than the previous 1MW test
3) What temperature will the 1MW plant be supplying
4) Is the owner of the new 1MW plant Industrial Heat, or a separate entity with no ties to Industrial Heat?
5) If the answer to 4 is no, can you specify whether it’s an instant coffee factory – a subtle insult at all the scientists asking for the ecat to boil a cup of tea? (‘fortyniner’ mentioned this on e-cat world, I think it would be great) 🙂
6)Have you started up the 1MW plant yet and if so is it working?
7)Have you started the installation for the 1MW plant at the customers premises yet?
8) And final question, pleaaasssee answer this… will the plant be making just heat or heat and electricity?
The first thing I do every day is check for news on the e-cat. Don’t keep us waiting too long please!! 🙂
Jeff Smathers:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I’d like to post a recent paper that may describe a directly contributing attribute in this field. It is interesting how associated fields in physics are merging results of disparate science activities into a possible explaination for the anomlies many are now utilizing in alternative energy platforms.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3941
Thank you again Mr. Rossi for your diligence and honest efforts in applying the real scientific method, and not the current ego driven ‘religion of modern science’.
Hank Mills:
The paper you are referring to has not been published because we were not sure of the results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The paper is the eighth reference in the bibliography posted at the end of the article on the JONP found here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=53
Earlier in the paper, posted on the JONP, it references the paper I have requested as a successive paper.
These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6 different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural composition. The Zn64 derives from the β‾ Cu64 decay: as it.s shown in Table 3, formation of Cu64 requires the existence of Ni63 which, absent in natural Ni composition, must have been in precedence produced starting by more light nickel isotopes. More details on this analysis will be given in a successive paper [8].
I have double checked all papers posted during 2010 on the JONP, and I do not see the successive paper.
Keith T:
1- I do not know, it does not depend on me
2- I do not know: also this does not depend on me, but I suppose that first the paper is reviewed by the 6 Professors that made the experiment, who are reviewing each other, eventually also the magazine makes its own peer reviewing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
H-G Branzell:
I can do that if:
1- the magazine will reject the paper
2- the Professors will allow me to do that and will deliver me the report. Our protocol so far says that they will deliver to me the report several days before the publication. I am very positive about the fact that the paper will be published, because, whatever the results, positive or negative, the measurements have been made, as you correctly say, describing rigorously the extended test. I agree on the fact that, after the publication, the world will be the super-peer reviewer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
1- it will provide all the energy for the production it is employed for
2- yes ( I hope)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bob:
1- USA
2- industrial application
3- same size
Thanks to you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
That paper has been published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics in 2010.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
While we are waiting on the TIP, I was wondering if perhaps you could publish the paper referenced as, ” S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv.” that Sergio Focardi stated was rejected. After all this time, it would be great to actually be able to read it. Also, it would give all of us something to read and think about while we wait for the TIP.
Thank you.
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Can you tell us if the new 1MW plant will be located in the U.S. or in Europe?
2. Does the customer intend to use the plant for an industrial application (like making a product)or an environmental application (like heating a building)?
3. Are the dimensions of the new plant smaller larger or the same size as the other 1MW plants you had previously completed?
Thanks,
Bob
P.S. Thank you and the other commenters to this blog for the many clearly written explanations about particle physics concepts.
Dr. Rossi: Could you please provide us with just a little more information about the E-Cat you are installing for the customer? 1) Will it be supplementing the necessary heat or power or will it be providing all the heat or power needed in the customers situation. 2) How obvious will it be that the E-Cat is saving the customer money, will the customer see immediate savings?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The third party members have done their best to make a good report describing the results of the extended testing, I am sure. Why don’t you just publish the report here and now to let the whole world be your peer reviewers?
Best regards, H-G Branzell
Dear Andrea,
1. Does the magazine have exclusive rights to review until publication.
2. Are all the peer reviewers nominated by the magazine.
Best regards,
Keith Thomson.
Frank Acland:
1- yes: they accepted to make a third independent party test at the foundamental conditions that they will publish the results, positive or negative as they might be.
2- yes: they can publish where they want to.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for your response to Giuliano Bettini below. These explanations are helpful to those of us who are following this story in making sense of the situation.
Two follow-up questions if you don’t mind.
1. Are the peer reviewers committed to publishing the report in the scientific magazine whatever the results might be — positive, negative, or inconclusive?
2. If the peer reviewers refuse to publish the results for whatever reason, are the testers free to publish the results independently?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Giuliano Bettini:
You ask me to give answers I am not able to give. I just said that you must understand that as an average an important scientific publication ( and this will be important, either negative or positive as the results may be) can demand an average of 6 months for the publication. The reviewers want not to risk to make mistakes. An average means that a reviewing can last between 2 and 12 months starting from when the report has been delivered. In this moment I have not the information that would allow me to give specific answers. The experiment has been completed in April, then a report has been written on the base of the analysis of millions of data, confronting calculations of 6 Professors who reviewed each other before delivering the report. After that there is the peer reviewing of the magazine. It is a long, difficult process. You are intelligent and I am sure you can understand. The report made in 2013 by the same Commettee has put the bases and yelded precious experience for this long run test, making all the measurements that in 2013 have not been made and that have been suggested by many scientists who read the 2013 report. A Professor of the Commettee explained to me recently, when I made a phone call to ask the scheduling of the publication, that they ( the Professors) need all the time necessary to make a work that gives results beyond any possible doubt, because the results, positive or negative, will have important effects.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
sincere thanks for answering.
6 months … from WHEN?
Very respectful greetings,
Giuliano Bettini.
Layman:
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you Sir!
You make difficult concept, simple to understand
Layman:
Rest mass: its value is
m= E/c^2 time the square root of ( 1- v^2/c^2)
It is one of the 4 foundamental magnitudes of the elementary particles and is the minimum amount of energy that an object can have: when a particle is perfectly still its amount of energy is equal to its mass time c^2, where, obviously, c is the speed of the light: in fact when the elementary particle is perfectly still in the above described formula v^2/c^2=0/c^2, the square root of 1 is 1, therefore m= E/c^2, from which E= m x c^2.
Following this formula, you can see also that if the particle goes at the speed of light, mass becomes zero ( if v=c we will have the square root of 1-1=0, therefore the mass becomes E/c^2 x 0 = 0): in fact, the elementary particles that travel at the speed of light are massless. Obviously, this does not mean that a fermion accelerates to reach the speed of light, we all know it is impossible, but a Fermion can interact with another particle and generate a gauge boson ( for example, a neutron decays into a proton plus a photon and a neutrino). If you substitute to the variable v the speed of the particle, you get the value of the mass ( which is an integral, not a number). Due to the value of c ( 186 000 miles/second) don’t even think you can reduce your mass driving your car as fast as possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea
Please explain what is a rest mass? And mass of moving particles? Are they different?
Thank you
H-B Branzell:
In a closed system mass but not matter is conserved, as you say, provided the elementary particles are still. In a collision, energy is conserved, not mass.
Thank you for your good point, though.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In a closed system mass but not matter is always conserved.
Kind regards, Albert
Curiosone:
To make it short, let’s start from Logic: “all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats”. Analogously, E = mc^2 implies that any form of mass is convertible into Energy ( in fact mass is usually measured in eV) , but , on the contrary, not any form of energy can be convertible in mass: in fact, all the Bosons that do not interact in the Higgs field are not turned into Fermions. For this reason it is correct to say that energy is conserved, in any form ( even in mass), but not mass.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I want to take profit from your skill to teach Physics in a way everybody can understand: in your comment about the 4 foundamental magnitudes you wrote that energy is conserved, not mass. But, since mass is energy, why didn’t you write that also mass is conserved ?
Thank you,
W.G.