.
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
.
Angel Blume:
We will publish nothing before the publication of the Third Independent Party. We must confront it before any further communication.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, Sherlock Holmes father Conan Doyle always knew that Sherlock had to give a few hints to the readers to keep them interested.
Come on, keep the galley happy, give us a small clue.
Dear Andrea,
Precedent post did not arrive.
My question:
Apart from publication of TIP results, could you publish your own results with magnitude values.
Best regards
Angel
Dear Adrea,
I have followed your work with great expectation since spring 2011. Apart from the publication of the Third Independent Party conclusions which are being so long delayed, are your own results positive or negative? Any figures of physical magnitudes herein?
Best regards
Angel
Frank Acland:
Compared to you, Sherlock Holmes was a dummy! ( he,he,he…I can’t give specific information now).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you — you say ‘worked’ on this plant. Does this mean the manufacturing has been completed? Maybe you are now involved in testing it?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
Between Engineers, technicians, workers, Computer designer, the Team that worked on this 1 MW plant has been composed by 15 persons, plus me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
What is the size of the workforce working on the 1MW plant?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
In Raleigh area the standard level of employees’ professional background is very high. Every member of our team, whatever his level and profession, has the highest level of professionality one can hope for, from the welder to the engineer. Working with them you feel what means to play in the Majors. When I say that we are making a masterpiece I really mean it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am glad to hear you speak so highly of your team — it must make your job so much easier. It is difficult to conceive of a masterpiece that doesn’t work as you intend!
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Robert Curto:
Our team is making a terrific job. We are making a masterpiece.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi, just wanted to say I loved your comment to Curiosone about your lack of sleep,
plus you shared the credit with your Team.
You are first class !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale Florida
usa
H-G Branzell:
He,he,he…good question. As a matter of fact these are two separated issues. Both are under exam.
Theoretically, if one goes well there is no reason why the other go bad, and viceversa. Both results will arrive after a long term run, so both results will be reliable, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If the third party test comes out negative, what are the chances that the one MW plant that you are so busy building will work?
Curiosone:
I can say this: the 1 MW plant we are working upon has been manufactured in the USA, in the factory of Industrial Heat. It is substantially different from the one we made the test of in Bologna, because during these 2 years I did not sleep too much and because I am working with a top class Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you again for your answer on quarks. You are a good teacher.
W.G.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The 1 MW plant that you are making now is still a remake of the one we saw in the 2012 test of Bologna?
Thank you,
W.G.
Georgehants:
My work now is focused on the new 1 MW plant. As soon as we will have results that will available for publication, we will publish them. So far, pending the tests on the 1 MW plant and an R&D work of our team that could result in positive or negative results, we cannot give specific information.
Than you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi, while you and IH wait for the results of the new report, I take it that you and they are continuing your good work on LENR.
Would you say that the progress being made fits in with your personal expectations of the E-cats abilities.
Many thanks.
Frank Acland:
The protocol of the experiment will be published in the report. I am not authorized to give previous information about any issue regarding the experiment .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Have there been any restrictions placed on the testers about what they can do with the E-Cat reactors you gave them for their testing — if so, what are those restrictions?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi,
Black, grey, white; It doesn’t matter what color the cat, what’s important is whether it heats the factory!
😀
Joseph Fine
alutam:
Maybe too, you are right. Like black, grey, white.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
You say positive or negative as though they are the only two possibilities.
What about “inconclusive”?
Regards
Frank Acland:
In this place History has been made by some of the most imporant concerns of the USA.
Besides, the Nature here is wonderful.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
What effect does it have on your work to be located in the heart of the Research Triangle in North Carolina?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, useful info as usual. A gift for our Readers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Today, I received a paper from Drs. Fred Mayer and John Reitz which discusses Compton Composite Particles (i.e. Tresinos) in the early Universe. The message below is self-explanatory, but I am saddened that one of papers’ co-authors is no longer with us. The paper discusses their cosmological theories and the topic of dark matter. This subject may be of interest to astrophysicists, but may also be of interest to many others.
Composite Regards,
Joseph Fine
//////
Dear Colleagues,
It is my pleasure to forward our new (open source) paper “Compton Composites Late in the Early Universe” to you. Unfortunately, it is also a sad moment because my mentor, colleague, and co-author, John Reitz, passed away just a few days before our paper was to appear.
-Fred Mayer
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/2/3/382
Curiosone,
Here are the answers to both comments of yours.
Protons and neutrons are both made by 3 quarks; a proton is made by 2 UP quarks, each with an electric charge of +2/3 and a DOWN quark, with a charge of -1/3, so that the resulting charge is +1;
neutrons are made by 2 DOWN and 1 UP, so that the resulting charge is 0.
These quarks that make up the protons and the neutrons are called the “valence quarks”. The valence quarks are sorrounded by means of virtual particles, which are gluons, quark-antiquark pairs, so that the rest mass of protons and neutrons is much higher than the bare sum of the rest mass of the valence quarks. While the virtual particles around the valence quarks are in permanent revolution to make glad my friend Orsobubu, the number of the valence quarks remains fixed, so that if you add the total # of quark inside a proton, UP are always 2 more than the antiUP while likewise the # of DOWN is always 1 more than antiDOWN; in neutrons, DOWN are always 2 more than antiDOWN, UP are always 1 more than antiUP.
Richard Feynmann named all these particles PARTONS.
When protons ride around the Large Hadron Collider of CERN they reach a speed very close to the speed of the light; this fact, along the laws of the Relativity, make them become thinner: imagine a ball that becomes a subtle disk.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sorry, another question I forgot to ask for an answer: is it true that in the CERN accelerator protons speed makes them become smaller?
Again, thank you,
W.G.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Another question of Physics, if you have time: of what are made protons and neutrons? I know, they are made by quarks, but can you explain some more ?
Thank you for your patience,
W.G.
Daniel De Caluwè:
If a LENR system works, it does not need public funding. If anything that works well needs funding, money arrives from investors. Think to Microsoft, Apple, etc. There are things that need public funding because they are important but do not produce profit, or the perspective of profits are too much distant in time to make them appealing for capital investments; in those cases is necessary that governments make funding: for example CERN, the conquer of Space, things like these. But it is not the case of LENR.
This is my opinion, obviously it can be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr. Rossi,
Regarding the discussion about public or private funding of LENR, I can image that, in your case, you got a lot of dishonnest competition from wannebee competitors that are payed by taxpayer money (public funding), or by people who don’t play it very honestly, and was that the reason why, in your answer to Lande (who gave examples of the necessity of public funding in other fields), you wrote that LENR is a totally different thing.
But why? I personally strongly believe that we, the people of the world (and we’re already with 7 billion on this globe, and we will be with 10 billion in 2050 or so), need very much LENR, because, (although there still are sceptics, especially in the United States), I studied very deeply the present climate change, and I know there is a problem (mainly caused by human activities), and also I know our nuclear power industry and its plants very well, and I know we need a better solution. So, as the present technologies are not good enough and could bring us in danger on the longer term (as well fossil fuels as present nuclear industry), do you agree that there should be (and probably will be an increasing) intrest and even demand from the public, maybe already in the near future? I personally think this will legitimate public funding, for the simple reason that the world needs it.
Kind Regards,
Hank Mills:
The Third Independent Party, as such, is INDEPENDENT.
They can publish what they want independently from me and whatever the results, positive or negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
If the scientists performing the third party report figure out how the E-Cat works on their own – perhaps confirming by replicating the E-Cat – would you allow them to publish the details?
Lande:
Yes, the cases you cited are right, but LENR are a totally different thing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear mr Rossi,
regarding your statement
“I am totally contrary to public funding of LENR. It is a high risk field, that must be funded by enterpreneurs, not by taxpayers. Taxpayers must not be exposed to industrial risks.”
I believe we have many industrial fields that started with public scientific research funding and which later was beneficial for humand kind. Like the Space and Moon race in the 1950’s and 60’s. Or the public funded research of Nuclear power for peaceful use, which have given us the Nuclear Power industry. So I don’t think it’s necessary a bad thing for the Public to fund high risk ventures, when the possible reward for the society are very high.
And I may add that Public actually are exposed to industrial risks every day from the present Nuclear power plants, which have only limited liability against major Nuclear accidents….
regards
Lande
Frank Acland,
It is impossible now to give an answer.
Warm Regards
A.R.
H-G Branzell:
Depends on the results
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi, you wrote:
“Yes, I agree about public funding of basic and foundamental research: without it the CERN could not exist. But the case of LENR is totally different.”
Maybe when the second independent third party report is published it will not be totally different?
/H-G Branzell
Dear Andrea,
Would you consider the installation of the initial 1MW plant the start of mass production?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
@ orsobubu
Sorry,but I am not a keinesians,my thinking is more close to Jean Baptiste Say’s thinking.
Maybe I did not explain well my ideas.
I think that humanity evolution mast go on and it happens through natural laws. We are the product of nature and the human system is a natural system. Included freedom of choice.
I think that Thecnology is the first way for our evolution and revolution,givin us more time for loving,thinking and everything is aligned with ours desires and attitudes. In a word, freedom.
Regards G G
Orsobubu:
Yes, I agree about public funding of basic and foundamental research: without it the CERN could not exist. But the case of LENR is totally different.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
For to explain the theory behind its operation is necessary the start of the mass production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
>I am totally contrary to public funding of LENR. It is a high risk field, that must be funded by enterpreneurs, not by taxpayers. Taxpayers must not be exposed to industrial risks
Perhaps you could agree at least about public funding of basic, fundamental research; this is widespread policy also in United States. This way, the capitalistic state can boost the national competitivity in global markets, employ and specialize large masses of workers and at the same time replace the capitalists when they cannot risk big capitals in long term programs. Then, when there are some results, capitalists can take advantage of this generous public help, exploit the discoveries and bring them to market and make the bucks. Obviously, I’m not a keynesian, so I don’t agree either, but this is a common political economy that gave impressive results in the past. Mr Guerrini asks you to turn keynesian, but I know that we’re for the revolution and will resist the temptation.
Dear Andrea,
At what point do you expect you will be able explain how the E-Cat Works?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dott Rossi,
I agree with you.
Regards G G
Silvio Caggia:
Should I have to answer specifically to your good question, I would have to explain what happens inside the E-Cat’s reactor. Let’s delay the answer to when I will be able to explain how the E-Cat works.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Stunning, thank you very much for your usual useful information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
Your paper arrived damaged: please send it again as an attachment to an email to be mailed to:
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Do not use Leonardo’s email address, please.
Warm Regards,
A.R.