.
by
.
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S.Lakshminarayana
Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Abstract
Point of ‘big bang’ can be considered as the center or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions.
If so, the existence of ‘preferred direction’ in the universe may not be wrong.
Based on the Mach’s principle, it can be suggested that, within the ‘Hubble volume’ overall distribution of ‘Hubble mass’ will explain the
observed physical phenomena.
With the discovered applications it is very clear to say that, without a joint and unified study of cosmology and atomic & particle physics, one should not deny the concepts of black hole cosmology.
The most interesting thing is that, at any given cosmic time, if the universe is a primordial growing black hole, then certainly its ‘Schwarzschild radius’ can be considered as its characteristic minimum size at that time.
Clearly speaking, “forever rotating at light speed, high temperature and high angular velocity small sized primordial cosmic black hole gradually transforms into a low temperature and low angular velocity large sized massive primordial cosmic black hole”.
Independent of the redshift observations and considering the proposed relations, with a great confidence now one can start seeing/observing the universe as a primordial expanding and light speed rotating black hole. Based on the proposed relations and concepts of black hole cosmology, definitions of cosmic homogeneity and cosmic isotropy must be re-addressed.
It is also clear that, now the black hole universe is expanding in a decelerating mode at a very small rate in such a way that with current technology one cannot measure its deceleration rate.
Finally it can be suggested that cosmic acceleration and dark energy can be considered as pure mathematical concepts and there exists no physical base behind their affirmation.
For the most serious cosmologists this may be a bitter news, but it is a fact.
Authors hope that, by 2015 definitely this subject will come into main stream physics.
With reference to Black hole cosmology, it can be suggested that, characteristic nuclear charge radius and the characteristic angular momentum of the revolving electron increase with cosmic time.
In addition, characteristic nuclear charge radius is more fundamental than the reduced Planck’s constant.
The key point to be noted is that the Planck’s constant can be considered as a cosmological constant.
.
.
Dear Andrea Rossi…
Two questions…
1.) Is the e-cat reaction in any way impacted by changes in Atmospheric Conditions (even if 2nd or 3rd Order)?
2.) If so, wouldn’t further testing potentially provide additional insight to how the reaction works and is governed?
We know…THERE ARE KEY ASSUMPTIONS MEASURING TEMPERATURE (KINETIC ENERGY) AND HEAT (POTENTIAL ENERGY + KINETIC ENERGY).
In other words, do we fully understand what we are measuring? Your temperature probes, a statistical based derivation of differential Q. Examples: Kirchoff’s and Plank’s laws fully valid to name a couple.
We don’t really know what “gravity” G is…what “charge” Q is (suggest both are relativistic phenomena). Quantum physics is statistical…so essentially is Rutherford…Bohr…Wave models of the atom.
As an Atmospheric Scientist who worked hi-levels military Stealth technology in 1980’s/1990’s with Radiant, Thermal, Nuclear, Mechanical & Chemical Energy relationships, if question 1 is valid, maybe there are some tests to consider depending on your dataset to better understand what I describe is happening within the Earth-Atmosphere-Solar-Cosmological (EASC) system. Scales of Energy leading to better understanding of our rough grasp of resonance, coherence and harmonics to name a few.
My decades in these disciplines…offer this is the case…and much of what we have learned is incomplete. Would be surprised if your answer to question 1 is no.
Don’t we need to understand the relationship of Q (charge…two way force) and G (“gravity”…one way “force”)…since both are used to define ENERGY? Do we really understand force?
I saw confirmed anomalous heat in early 1990s as a research scientist. So don’t doubt the phenomena.
If you’ve seen variances per question 1…maybe there are some basic first order tests. You may or may not have considered and done.
Thanks for the opportunity to ask these two questions, and all the best in your endeavors and hopefully ultimately to a successful report for the e cat.
Kind Regards,
Bill Nichols
Wlad,
In your remarks, you dismiss Dirac and say the difference between your theory and his is that he uses a massive particle and antiparticle(although he states the particles are made up of waves in a string) and your particles are massless photon like particles. How do your particles then create mass. Since you dismiss SQM do you also dismiss the Higgs field and Higgs Boson? Dirac envisions his epo as two fields(electron and positron) intertwined and phase related to maintain its character. Isn’t this similar to your particle made up of two fields?
Stevehigh:
Your son can send his C.V. and credentials to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
Our Group will need to hire and all the requests of employement will be duly examined.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Fabio82:
I started few time after the press conference of F&P and the reason has been that I was interested to work with it, being already in the field of energy production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Wlad,
Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.
———————————————–
Eernie,
I made a mistake.
Actually it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Because if in the even-even nuclei with Z=N the total magnetic moment due to protons and neutrons was not zero, then the nuclear spin also would not be zero.
But those nuclei have nuclear spin zero.
Therefore the magnetic moment due to protons and neutrons must be zero.
And so it remains the magnetic moment due to the rotation of the protons.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea, why and how did you start studying lern?
good luck, I’m very anxious too.
Fabio
eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Wlad,
One more thing. Santilli has a proposed structural form for his neutron. How does it compare with yours?
——————————————–
Eernie,
Santilli’s model cannot explain the spin 1/2 of the neutron, because he does not consider the helical trajectory of the elementary particles in his theory.
Also, in my theory I propose a new gravitational Planck constant 1000 times smaller than the electromagnetic Planck’s constant, in order to explain why the electron is not expelled from the nuclei.
regards
wlad
eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Wlad,
Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.
———————————————–
There is no way.
The protons and neutrons have magnetic moment. In the even-even nuclei with Z=N, each proton has a symmetric proton and their total magnetic moment is zero, and the same happens with each neutron, it has its symmetric.
So, due to protons and neutrons, the magnetic moment is zero.
For a total null magnetic moment, the protons and neutrons would have to have a total non-null magnetic moment, with the exact value (and with contrary signal) of the magnetic moment produced by the rotation of the protons.
That would be a very big coincidence.
Even if the coincidence could occur in the case of one specific nucleus, however the coincidence could not occur for all the even-even nuclei with Z=N, as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc. etc…
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea:
My beloved son is a brilliant researcher in nanophysics who is biding his time working as a postdoc at an august New England institution. I’ve been pestering him about the ECat since I first heard of it in January 2011. My question: will there be a place on your team for such a talented individual who has pretty much achieved the bending of heaven and earth in his lab? I expect to be sending him a breathless update on your progress in the near future.
Wlad,
One more thing. Santilli has a proposed structural form for his neutron. How does it compare with yours?
Wlad,
Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.
eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Wlad,
1) ———————————
He also,like some of todays scientists and yourself,considered the aether as composed of particles and antiparticles(electron and positron).
————————————
Eernie,
however there is a fundamental difference.
The positron and electron have big mass, compared with the mass of the particles and antiparticles proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
The own positron and electron are composed by particles and antiparticles, because they are formed by quarks, and the quarks are composed by particles and antiparticles (those which compose the structure of the aether).
.
2) ——————————-
He went a step further by proposing that each particle also had another opposed form of energy.
———————————-
It is easier to develop a theory dealing with energy, as Dirac did, instead of proposing new particles.
However, the question is not to find the theoretical easily way. Because in the case the structure of the aether be really composed by several particles-antiparticles, the easier theoretical way fatally will fail.
.
3) ——————————————–
If you want conjectures, I cant think of a situation that allows more of them.
———————————————–
It is not just a question of proposing conjectures.
There are two sort of conjectures: the good, and the bad.
When an author starts up by supposing good conjectures, his theory will be compatible with the phenomena observed in the Nature.
But when an author starts up by supposing bad conjectures, his theory will fail in several aspects, and therefore will be denied by several phenomena.
An example is the Dirac’s theory.
.
4) ————————————-
On another subject, can the differences between you and the SQM people arise because of the mobility character of the particles that make up the nucleus? I think this does not allow for supposing a single geometrical form, but is composed of a summation of all the possible forms for the nucleons.
—————————————-
No.
My nuclear model has a central 2He4.
This is the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, according to my Quantum Ring Theory.
As there is not a central 2He4 in the current nuclear models, then, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape, and that’s why along 80 years the nuclear physicists were sure that those nuclei are spherical.
But when I developed my nuclear model, I knew that non-spherical nuclei must have non-null quadrupole moment. As the experiments had never detected non-null quadrupole moment for even-even nucle with Z=N, I had to explain why, according my nuclear model, the experiments never detected the non-null quadrupole moment for those nuclei.
I proposed the explanation in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory.
The authors of the paper published by the journal Nature in 2012 faced the same problem.
Because, as the experiments published by Nature in 2012 detected that even-even nclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, then why the experiments along the years had never detected their non-null quadrupole moment?
The explanation proposed by the authors of the paper published by Nature in 2012 is the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book.
.
5) —————————-
Could this account for the none null readings of magnetic moments in what is considered spherical nuclei?
——————————-
You did not understand the point.
In spite of even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, nevertheless they have NULL magnetic moment, which is confirmed by experiments.
However, as all the nuclei have rotation, and they have positive charge (protons), the rotation of the protons would have to induce a magnetic moment in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
Therefore, by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have magnetic moment zero, and so the foundations of the theory are denied by the null magnetic moment of those nuclei.
So, the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
And this is the reason why the nuclear physicist Dr.Lakshminarayana (author of the present paper published in the JoNP, and also the professor invited by the Dr. Seshavatharam) did not come here to explain such a question.
regards
wlad
Joe,
Good question. You are perhaps asking if there has been evidence that the coulombic repulsion between the negative hole and the electron can be decreased or compensated for in a semiconductor structure allowing the electron to occupy this site. Of course the theory that at extremely low temperatures, the coulombic repulsion between pairs of electrons is mitigated and would allow pairs to be formed(Cooper pairs) thereby producing what is called superconductivity, is similar. This possibly occurs because at decreased temperatures theoretically there is formed a Fermi gas similar to the Boson gas of the BEC. I recall that investigators at a number of institutions are pursuing this question because it could be the basis for an extremely fast 0-1 computer chip.
I hope I have not misinterpreted your question.
JCRenoir:
I too hear the rumors: you said that come from 100 Harley Davidsons, I take notice of what you say.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JC Renoir: I am not scared, I am anxious.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
DTravchenko:
Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Colurwin:
Nor true, and I cannot explain you why…
Warm Regards,
Bond, James Bond
eernie1,
Has an experiment involving the stopping (and perhaps cooling) of an electron ever been done to verify the suspected drop of a low energy electron into a negative hole?
All the best,
Joe
Haha ‘Listen carefully’ Andrea, Bond-James-Bond fan or not… Your attitude to internet security was already betrayed by your willingness to click links to posted on this blog!
Maybe one has over time become blase about the nature of one’s own discoveries?
Highest Regards
Col
Dear Andrea Rossi:
How is going the work with the 1 MW plant? Are your troubles more or less than 2 weeks ago?
Warm Regards,
DT
Also: the rumors ( like 100 Harley Davidsons) are that the results are very important: are you scared?
Andrea, now the rumors that the report id very close are becoming loud. Are you hearing any whisper of it?
JCR
Wlad,
I have enjoyed our discussions immensely. Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I asked how was your theory basically different than Dirac’s. He also,like some of todays scientists and yourself,considered the aether as composed of particles and antiparticles(electron and positron). He went a step further by proposing that each particle also had another opposed form of energy. One set he called negative and the other positive. The negative energy particles because they were the lowest energy, filled all the allowed energy levels of the aether and possessed 0 entropy(perhaps dark energy). The positive entities, because they were excluded by the Pauli principal, were free to manifest themselves in the sensible portion of the aether and arranged themselves into stable pairs he called epos. The movement of the epos in and out of the two regions of the aether defined some of the interactions we observe between particles and photons and allow the entire spectrum of frequencies and the mass to energy relationships that exist. If you want conjectures, I cant think of a situation that allows more of them.
On another subject, can the differences between you and the SQM people arise because of the mobility character of the particles that make up the nucleus? I think this does not allow for supposing a single geometrical form, but is composed of a summation of all the possible forms for the nucleons. Could this account for the none null readings of magnetic moments in what is considered spherical nuclei?
Regards.
Pekka Janhunen:
The issue is much more complex.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
(Related to your answer to Joseph Fine and previous discussion about AC/DC.) So only AC works as driver, but DC gets produced. Is then DC a poison? If so, there exists counter-poison: oppositely directed DC. Even if the effect is small, maybe possible to obtain extra control parameter this way.
regards, /pekka
Dr Joseph Fine:
He,he,he…
By the way: the production of direct current is one of the rows of our R&D.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in October 1st, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Wlad, We are at a crossroad in our discussion. I will close by suggesting that you reread Dirac with an open mind.
———————————-
Dear Eernie,
as you said, “Dirac believed he could explain the laws of Nature with his four particles. IMO he did a good job. HE thought that adding more would only over complicate the issues.”
If the Nature would be working with four particles, be sure that Dirac’s theory would be able to reproduce the whole phenomena existing in the Nature.
Dirac had supposed that Nature works by four particles. But he had supposed it because “thought that adding more would only over complicate the issues”. However such assumption is not a guarantee that Nature really works by four particles.
The problem with the scientific method is because it does not allow conjectures.
Dirac preferred to consider the known existing particles as the electron and the positron, and that’s why he avoided to appeal to a conjecture by supposing other more particles.
However, if the Nature works via several particles of the aether, then any attempt by using the scientific method fails, because it does not allow conjectures.
When I was developíng my Quantum Ring Theory, I felt that the Standard Model was not able to explain several phenomena. And then I started to think about several conjectures.
So, when I was developing my theory, I thought to myself: “My God, the scientists will never accept my theory, because there are so much conjectures in it”.
For instance, my model of field formed by two concentric fields is a conjecture hard to be accepted.
But look what happened with other conjecture.
According to my new nuclear model, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. But a non-spherical nucleus must have non null electric quadrupole moment. And this is the reason why along 80 years the nuclear physicists believed that those nuclei have spherical shape.
So, as the experiments never measured electric quandrupole moment non null for those nuclei, it seemed that my theory was wrong, and that’s why I thought to myself:
“The scientists will never accept my new nuclear model, since the experiments never detected a quadrupole moment zero for the even-even nuclei with Z=N”.
But in 2012 new experiments published in the journal Nature detected that those nuclei have non-spherical shape, as predicted in my theory.
As you see, the scientists avoid conjectures, because the scientific method does not allow them, and this is the reason why sometimes they arrive to wrong conclusions.
So, Dirac made a mistake, believing that Nature works by four particles only. He avoided to consider more particles because he wished to avoid conjectures. And he developed a wrong theory, because in the case of the structure of the aether there is need to consider conjectures.
There is no way to solve the mystery of the aether structure without to consider conjectures.
And the authors of the paper published by the European Physical Journal in 2013 have the same opinion of mine, since they had proposed a conjecture: the aether is formed by particles and antiparticles, like proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory:
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi:
A current is a flow of charge. In a semiconductor, for example, there are negative and positive charge carriers: (An excess of) Electrons and a deficiency of Electrons or ‘Holes’.
In your device, do you produce both negative and positive charges and/or currents? In this way, perhaps your results can be both Negative AND Positive at the same time!
Positive regards,
Joseph Fine
Colurwin:
How many movies of Bond-James-Bond did you watch this morning? Take it easy, turn into Mickey Mouse!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
BroKeeper:
Let’s just put down at work…the cow is harnessed, now has to pull.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andre Blum:
I am always in the USA, mainly in North Carolina and in Florida, focused on my work for Industrial Heat and IH’s Customer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Francesco wrote in October 1st, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Hi, I can’t understand how you can accept the hypothesis of a negative result of the independent report if you are sure that the so called “Rossi effect” is real and so evident (COP6).
I don’t want to be polemic but for me is impossible to understand how you can continue to say that the results can be negative although you have worked on this system for so long and you have a so deep comprehension of the phenomena.
Thank you for you answer.
———————————
Dear Francesco,
My humble opinion is that Andrea Rossi is sure his eCat works.
He thinks, though,”The final answer belongs to the scientists who are testing the eCat”.
When the heart of person stops to work, and he stops to breathe, we are sure that he is dead
However, we have to wait the autopsy report of the coroner, so that to consider oficially that person as dead.
So, the test will tell us oficially what we already know: the eCat works. Otherwise Rossi is dead.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for all your hard work and perseverance. As (long time) spectators of your work, we have exciting times ahead, with the upcoming report!
I was curious: where do you work out of nowadays? Are you still working (at least part time) in Italy? Or are you working more or less permanently in the U.S. now? Is your U.S. base still Florida, or are you spending most of your time in North Carolina or elsewhere?
Best regards, good luck!
Andre
Dear Andrea, while praying, don’t imagine the dark side of the moon. Its light and your work of hope will be reflected back to us all from the Son. Bless you brother.
Dear Rossi, while praying, don’t imagine the dark side of the moon. Its light and your work of hope will be reflected back to us all from the Son. Bless you brother.
Wlad, We are at a crossroad in our discussion. I will close by suggesting that you reread Dirac with an open mind.
Fond regards.
Steven N Karels wrote:
…and perhaps state-sponsored espionage too
——————————
Perhaps!? I’m not a great conspiracy theorist, but I’m fairly certain there are several darkened rooms around the world devoting themselves to finding out just what’s going on in Dr Rossi’s lab.
…cf: The Snowden Files
Maybe The Good Doctor air-gapped his favoutite PC, but I bet the TPR reseachers didn’t.
My guess is the Russian state is the most interested, as without a high oil price, things won’t be too rosy for them…
Orsobubu:
I did not publish your comment because “that” word has not right of citizenship in this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Francesco:
We must wait for thr report of the ITP and the operation of at least one year of the 1 MW plant before considering consolidated the technology. In the meantime a huge R&D work will have to be performed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
eernie1 wrote in September 30th, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Wlad,
Why do you keep insisting that the only photons in the Dirac theory are the annihilation photons of an epo(511 KeV for the electron, 511KeV for the positron)? In his theory he accounts for the production of all frequencies of the spectrum and only in special cases, for the annihilation of the epos. Why do you think that only those photons are allowed?
———————————————
Dear Eernie,
an acceptable model of photon must be able to explain the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
According to the Dirac theory, the photons of the luminous spectrum have energy in the magnitude of 1MeV.
1MeV is the energy of the gamma rays.
Therefore, according to Dirac theory, all animals and the human specie would have to be blind, since the energy of the positron-electron photon would destroy the eyes of the whole live beings.
But the energy of the positron-electron photon would destroy not only the eyes of all alive beings.
The photons positron-electron with the energy of the gamma rays would destroy the whole life in the planet.
Dirac theory of the photon is absurd and stupid, and I dont want to talk about anymore.
You are trying desperately to save the Dirac theory, because you use it in your LERN theory.
But the science does not work in such a way.
If a theory is unable to describe a phenomenon, the theory must be discarded, because the phenomenon cannot be discarded (as you are suggesting), since the phenomenon belongs to the range of phenomena existing in the Nature.
regards
wlad
Hi, I can’t understand how you can accept the hypothesis of a negative result of the independent report if you are sure that the so called “Rossi effect” is real and so evident (COP6).
I don’t want to be polemic but for me is impossible to understand how you can continue to say that the results can be negative although you have worked on this system for so long and you have a so deep comprehension of the phenomena.
Thank you for you answer.
Giuliano Bettini:
I do not know how the consume of electricity has been measured by the Independent Third Party, but I imagine it will be described in detail in the report.
I know, because they told me before the test, that they have treasured the experience and the critics made after the test made in 2013.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
As per your request, I did not publish your comment.
Timycelyn:
In our Team there are specialists of the necessary fields and when we need support we ask it from external specialists of our trust. Obviously the control system are a vital part of the plant and your Group can be sure we have top level engineers that have designed it. Obviously we work only with persons who got the necessary clearance, beside the necessary professionality.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Orsobubu:
I agree with you. What we are doing is a team work. A strong team work. Read again the comment of Argon… and my answer to him.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
according to Argon’s thoughtful LMAO translation machine, not only you are very near to “your labor exhaustion”, but it seems that, because “your investors need result of your work”, in the effort of “increase your work team” you’re starting a very discutible practice of “delegate …etc” Please clarify urgently this point because this is not what we intend here as a permanent social evolution.
Dear Andrea,
We have been discussing the 1MW plant you have installed at IH’s first E-cat customer, and the experts in our group who have background in the relevant industry and disciplines are stressing the challenge and difficulty of ganging up 100 – odd heat producing units in a heat excanger type situation, and keeping them all within acceptable performance parameters.
Apparently it is a substantial control systems challenge, even for something as mundane as a gas burner, that could take many months to perfect.
Our concern was that we knew the World’s ECAT experts were taking care of the ECAT modules at the heart of he 1MW device, but we wondered (no insult meant!!) to what extent you had / had access to the very best experts in these complex control system problems. One of our number summed this up with something like “They shouldn’t try to do everything themselves. They are the ultimate experts when it comes to the ECATs, but they need to get in equivalent experts for the non-ECAT parts of the project.” How do you feel about this worry – have we a point?
Best wishes and hopes
Tim
Steven N. Karels,
You have imagined the bright side of the moon. I should have to imagine the dark side of the moon. The consequences of a failure would be devastating.
In both cases, I will continue, as always, to pray God every morning and then get down to work, because in both cases much work will have to be done by our team. First of all, we want to see the 1 MW plant work well for a long, long time, and make profits for the company of our Customer. I have to focus on this, not on the sides of the moon.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When the independent report is published and IF IT IS POSITIVE!, A big if, yes we know it can be either positive or negative, but if it is very positive, this could be very troubling for you and your firm. Think of the enormous pressure to produce, to protect your Intellectual property, the increased amount of scams and fake investments which will arise, the enormity of the opposition now becoming competition, etc. You will have awakened many sleeping giants.
I understand you have taken provisions to obtain a patent and, perhaps, the report, IF POSITIVE, will aid in a successful outcome. But, I suspect, literally billions will flood into corporate and perhaps government research projects into this technology area. And there is the problem of industrial espionage (and perhaps state-sponsored espionage too). I trust your security (IT and personal) are good enough. I hope you are ready to ride the Wave of Success, if the report is very positive. Success can be very difficult in ways you may not have imagined. It seems you have a good Management team, seasoned and strong. And a good technology team. Your thoughts?
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Argon:
It is not very easy to understand what you mean, but I try.
About domestic E-Cats: we will not put them for sale for the time being. It will take time to make it possible, for many reasons I already explained.
About the other issues: my duty is to continue my R&D work, whatever the results of the ITP report.
By the way: I am not exhausted, I am used to work hard.
Suggestion: please write short phrases, so you can take under control what you say… and avoid to write stupidities as the one I cancelled from your comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.