.
by
Gamal A. Nasser
Faculty of science, Mansoura University, Egypt
E-mail: chem.gamal@hotmail.com
.
.
Abstract
This model is development of solid nuclear models. Like FCC model, this model can account for nuclear properties that have been explained by different models. This model gives more accurate explanation for some nuclear properties which are Asymmetric fission, Nuclear binding energy and the most bound nuclei, Natural radioactivity and Number of neutrons in nuclei depending on the structures of these nuclei. The structures of nuclei in this model have special advantage, as there is separation between lattice positions of similar nucleons giving new concept for nuclear force.
.
.
Pekka Janhunen:
Interesting proposal.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gherardo:
That will be a possibility.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski:
You made your point, I made my point.
Prof. Focardi, by the way, never talked about new Physics, he always invited to study better the existing Physics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Wladimir Guglinski:
You have worked for one hour to write this comment of yours: I was close to spam it, but my heart said “Andrea, don’t hurt him, this guy has sweated blood to write it” and so I published it. But I must say that I do not agree with it.
In their Report the Professors of the ITP have written that mainly the 62Ni isotope shift is hard to reconcile, but this is not in contrast with the fact that an explication must be found inside the system of the Standard Model. I am working to reconcile and I must tell you that I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory. As Prof. Focardi teached to me, to understand LENR we have not to invent new Physics, we have just to study better the Standard Model.
————————————————–
Dear Andrea,
each one of us has the right to have his own believes.
But science is not a question of belief, but a question of facts.
Prof. Focardi believed that cold fusion can be explained without a New Physics.
However there are many other nuclear phenomena impossible to occur, when we consider the foundations of the Standard Model. Here I had mentioned some of them:
– the emission of alpha particles by the 92U,
– the null magnetic moments of the even-even nuclei with Z=N,
– the pear shape of the Ra224 (which inspired Prof. Butler to propose the z-axis of nuclei
– the fusion proton-electron forming a neutron at low energy by the Don Borghi experiment.
– and there are many other phenomena.
The fusion proton-electron at low energy is impossible to occur, by considering the fundamental principles of the Standard Model.
It is not the results of the e-Cat which are requiring a New Physics. Actually there are a lot of other nuclear phenomena requiring it.
Therefore, the advise of Prof. Focardi loses its merit (of saving the Standard Model, avoiding the need of a New Physics), because many other nuclear phenomena require a New Physics.
In order to avoid a New Physics, there is need to fulfil two requirments, as follows:
1- You have to explain LENR from the principles of the Standard Model, as taught by Prof. Focardi
2- To reject all the other nuclear phenomena and experiments which require a New Physics, as the case of the Don Borghi experiment.
Even if you succeed to find a theory based on the Standard Model capable to explain the working of the e-Cat, there are other two steps to be filled:
A- To explain many other experiments in the field of LENR
B- To reject many other nuclear phenomena impossible to occur (according to the Standard Model).
The task is very hard
regards
wlad
Dott.Rossi,
when in the future you’ll release multiple industrial 1MW boxes and secrecy will not be so tight, do you think would be feasible and interesting to sell research boxes (barebone e-cat with control unit) to spread around labs and 3rd parties the opportunity to study and integrate e-cat in the world? It would be a kind of Arduino building module but for energy generation.
Un saluto, Gherardo
Dear Andrea,
If one shines a beam of gamma rays (collimated by a slit) through the reactor from behind, is their intensity reduced when the reaction is on? In other words, does the active material act as a gamma ray shield? This experiment would be relatively easy to do, I think, and it would answer the question if the absence of radiation is due to an ability of the material to remove it. It would constrain possible theories.
regards, /pekka
Wladimir Guglinski:
You have worked for one hour to write this comment of yours: I was close to spam it, but my heart said “Andrea, don’t hurt him, this guy has sweated blood to write it” and so I published it. But I must say that I do not agree with it.
In their Report the Professors of the ITP have written that mainly the 62Ni isotope shift is hard to reconcile, but this is not in contrast with the fact that an explication must be found inside the system of the Standard Model. I am working to reconcile and I must tell you that I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory. As Prof. Focardi teached to me, to understand LENR we have not to invent new Physics, we have just to study better the Standard Model. I believe it will not take very much time before I will publish, in collaboration with other scientists, an explication of what happened. I think I have understood, but much has still to be studied. As I said, all the time left free from the work on the 1 MW plant is dedicated to this. I am deeply convinced that it is in the Standard model that we have to find a reconciliation.
Obviously, as you know, I am perfectly aware of the fact that a theory is made to be overcome, but I do not think this is the case.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On the report Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel, by Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén
In the item 9. Summary and concluding remarks at the page 30, the authors write:
”In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. ”
————————————————————————–
COMMNENT:
Dears Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén
According to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics, not only the cold fusion produced by the E-Cat is impossible.
Actually according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics there are several nuclear phenomena impossible to occur, but the experiments show they actually occur.
However, along decades the nuclear theorists have used to neglect them.
And so, the fundamental question arises:
As from the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics is impossible to occur several nuclear phenomena observed in the nature, it makes no sense to use such general knowledge in nuclear physics so that to conclude that cold fusion is impossible to occur.
One among the phenomena impossible to occur is the emission of the alpha particles by the uranium nucleus. The nuclear theorists use to suppose that Gamow had solved satisfactorily the puzzle, but actually his mathematical solution is unsatisfactory, as is shown in the article Cold Fusion and Gamow’s Paradox:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Cold_Fusion_and_Gamow%27s_Paradox
As shown in the article, Gamow solved the paradox of the alpha particles emission by 92U238 by introducing another paradox.
Besides, it was experimentally observed that alpha particles exit the nuclei 92U along a radial direction. This is impossible to occur by considering the current nuclear models, because as the nuclei have spin, and the alpha particle moves together with the 92U nucleus, then the alpha particle would have to leave away the 92U by a tangential line.
Therefore, the emission of alpha particles by the 92U238 requires another explanation, since the solution proposed by Gamow is unacceptable.
But it is impossible, from the current nuclear models, to find another explanation for the emission of the alpha particles by the 92U. And therefore we conclude that the emission of alpha particles by the 92U238 is also impossible to occur, according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics
Then another fundamental question arises: perhaps cold fusion occurs via the inverse the phenomenon which makes possible the emission of alpha particle by the 92U238. And such assumption makes sense, because:
1) As an alpha particle can exit a 92U nucleus by a phenomenon impossible to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics…
2) … then a particle can enter within a nucleus by using the same phenomenon used by the alpha particle when it leaves away the 92U.
Such hypothesis is just proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, as follows:
3) The alpha particle exits the 92U because there is a “hole” in the Coloumb electric field of the 92U.
4) And so, under suitable conditions of low temperature, a particle can enter within a nucleus by crossing the “hole” in the electric field.
But of course a nuclear theorist would immediately to claim:
”It’s hard to me to accept a conjecture of a hole existing in the electric field of the nuclei”.
Well, I said the same to myself when I arrived to the conclusion on the existence of that “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei, 20 years ago (at that time I did not have knowledge on the existence of cold fusion, and my conjecture was consequence of other ponderations based on other nuclear properties of the nuclei). That’s why at that time I said to myself:
”The nuclear theorists will never accept this conjecture of mine”.
But 20 years ago I also had arrived to another unacceptable conjecture (for the nuclear theorists): According to my new nuclear model, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
According to the nuclear theorists, such conjecture was impossible 20 years ago, because:
a) From the current nuclear models, an even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape (theoretical impossibility).
b) A nucleus with non-spherical shape would have to have non-null electric quadrupole moment, but experiments do not detect it for those nuclei (experimental evidence refuting my nuclear model).
However, in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, in which the authors describe new experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, destroying a dogma in which the nuclear physicists believed along 80 years, and therefore confirming the impossible conjecture of mine:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html
But the authors of the paper published in Nature had to justify why the experiments had never detected the non-null electric quadrupole moment for those nuclei (a question faced by me 20 years ago). So, they proposed an explanation. And their explanation is the same proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, therefore 6 years before the paper published in Nature.
So, the journal Nature published a plagiarism of my conjecture, supposed to be impossible by the nuclear theorists, 20 years ago.
Other impossible phenomenon according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics is the pear shape of the nucleus Ra224, detected in 2013.
In order to explain the impossible shape of the Ra224, the Professor Peter Butler (University of Liverpool) proposed the following conjecture (which is impossible according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics):
The nuclei are divided by an z-axis:
http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/
Well, the impossible conjecture on the existence of an z-axis dividing the nuclei is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.
In the page 133 of the book it is written:
“The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics, and…”
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80549-missed-z-axis-in-the-current-nuclear-models/
.
As we see, many conjectures proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, considered to be impossible by the nuclear theorists 20 years ago, have been confirmed by experiments in the last 3 years.
Concerning the conjecture on the existence of a “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei let us ponder about the following facts:
1) According to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei have two concentric fields. So, it is a double-field theory, and therefore it is rival to the Quantum Field Theory, which is a :mono-field theory.
2) According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is impossible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
3) In September-2014 I had invited the Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (nuclear physicist) and Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , authors of the paper Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos , published in the JoNP, so that to come here to explain us how is possible to explain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei, according to the current nuclear models. No one of them accepted to come here to explain it:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=859&cpage=6#comments
4) Well, as the null magnetic field of even-even nuclei with Z=N is a phenomenon impossible to occur (according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics), but the experiments show that such impossible phenomenon really occurs, is it reasonable to consider that cold fusion is also impossible by considering the same basic general knowledge in nuclear physics ????
5) The reason why the current nuclear models cannot explain the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N is because all they were developed from the initial premise of considering the mono-field concept of field used in the Quantum Field Theory.
6) If by the double-field concept is possible to explain the impossible occurrence of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, then it is reasonable to suppose that from the double-field concept is also possible to occur the impossible occurrence of the cold fusion.
7) Therefore the conjecture of a “hole” in the external electric field of the nuclei deserves do not be discarded, because the existence of cold fusion requires new principles missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics. Without new fundamental principles (missing in the Standard Nuclear Theory), it is impossible to explain cold fusion, and the Rossi’s E-Cat.
8) A particle can enter within a nucleus via the “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei under special conditions which promote its entry. Among of the special conditions, one of them is the alignment of two directions: the direction of the oscillatory motion of the particle and the direction along which all the “hole” of the electric fields of some nuclei are aligned via the application of an external electromagnetic oscillatory field (used in the E-Cat).
.
Concerning to your words ”but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding”, why do not apply them also to the experimental result obtained by Don Borghi ???
C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.
In his experiment, Don Borghi showed that one proton and one electron at low energy can be fused so that to form one neutron, a phenomenon impossible to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics. That’s why the scientific community uses to reject (or to neglect) the Don Borghi experiment, like she also uses to reject the E-Cat.
But as the results of the E-Cat are being accepted in the universities of Bologna, Uppsala, and Royal Institute of Technology, some questions must be put:
Why do you accept the results of the Rossi’s E-Cat reactor, and do not accept the results of the Don Borghi experiment?
What is the difference between the E-Cat results and the results of the Don Borghi experiment?
Well, the difference is mentioned in your article, when you say:
“ In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source”.
This is just the point in which relies the difference between the results obtained from the Rossi’s E-Cat and from the Don Borghi experiment. While the E-Cat cannot be neglected, because a practical use can be extracted from its working, the same does not occur with the results of the Don Borghi experiment, because there is no way to develop a technology from which to extract a practical use of energy from the fusion proton+electron at low energy (at least in the present day).
But it is an error to neglect a scientific discovery when we do not know how to use it in practical applications. In spite of we do not know what to do with the results of the Don Borghi experiment, nevertheless the experiment points out to us that some phenomena (considered impossible by the nuclear theorists) may occur under suitable conditions.
Besides, as the fusion proton+electron at low energy is possible to occur, probably the fusion occurs in some cold fusion reactions. And therefore, by neglecting the Don Borghi experiment, the nuclear theorists are suppressing one of the most important mechanisms we have at hand from which we can be able to understand cold fusion.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
Author of the book Quantum Ring Theory
Giovanni Guerrini:
Nevertheless, the “ghost” will pass to the history, here is the publication I received today from a Reader:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1868
Warm Regards ( Thank you)
A.R.
JR wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 3:14 PM
Wlad said: “The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.”
Exactly! You’ve finally figured it out. Once you bother to learn the definition of a nuclear magnetic moment, it is so trivial that it doesn’t deserve any further discussion.
Also, I agree that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. But you can’t simply assume that’s the reason that they aren’t answering your emails. There are many good reasons to ignore what you say.
————————————————————-
Mr JR does not know not only Nuclear Physics. He also does not know what is irony
he he he
And take care:
never trust in a person who does not know irony
regards
wlad
Wlad said: “The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.”
Exactly! You’ve finally figured it out. Once you bother to learn the definition of a nuclear magnetic moment, it is so trivial that it doesn’t deserve any further discussion.
Also, I agree that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. But you can’t simply assume that’s the reason that they aren’t answering your emails. There are many good reasons to ignore what you say.
It is obvious that the E-CAT is vital for all, but not all are able to undertand the technitalities .
Well,on one side there is a group of university professors who put their face and their career on the stakes, working to the best of human ability,on the other side there is a character who hides behind a nickname writing a lot of numbers and bla..bla..
So, since I am a common man, whom should I believe to?
Certainly not to the one who is hiding behind a nickname.
I am only a common man, but when I adduce my ideas I put my face, name and family name.
So I don’t care of a ghost.
Regards G G
Andrea Rossi wrote in October 20th, 2014 at 10:36 PM
Dear Dr Seshavatharam, Dear Prof. Lakshminarayana:
An answer from you to Wladimir Guglinski appears to be strongly called.
We’d be delighted to receive it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
——————————————————–
Dear Andrea,
it seems they do not want to come here to explain the issue, because it is so much trivial, as claims Mr. JR.
The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.
regards
wlad
JR wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 10:34 AM
eernie,
3)It’s simply wrong for Wlad to argue that he must be right based on the fact that people don’t respond to his often incoherent and insulting emails. In any case, it seems unlikely that a fourth (or 5th or 10th or whatever it is now) explanation of this trivial issue will convince Wlad.
======================================================
In 24th September Dr. UVS.Seshavatharam wrote in the comments of the JoNP:
——————————————————
Wladimir Guglinski Sir
September 24th, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Wladimir Guglinski Sir
Please let me have a couple of days. I will forward the mail to my professor: lnsrirama@gmail.com
yours sincerely,
UVS.Seshavatharam
———————————————————
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=859&cpage=6#comments
.
Well, dear JR.,
15 couples of days have passed, and nobody did come here to explain the “trivial issue”.
So,
that professor did not come here because he knows Nuclear Physics, and he knows that the “trivial issue” has not explanation by considering the Standard Nuclear Theory.
Unlike,
as you do not understand Nuclear Physics, is the reason why you suppose that the issue is trivial.
regards
wlad
eernie,
I am a big believer in the importance of making meaningful predictions and testing these against measurements. This is why I object to Wlad’s constant misrepresentation of the state of nuclear theory, the results of experiment, etc…. I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the physicist you mention (Smaller).
As far as Wlad’s reply, it is wrong.
1)It’s wrong to claim that the data can’t be explained when they are explained by multiple calculations shown in the very same paper.
2)Nörtershäuser and I agree on 11Be – the results are difficult (or perhaps impossible) to explain within a purely classical picture of interactions, but are well understood in terms of quantum mechanics and modern nucleon-nucleon interactions. FWIW, I know more about some aspects of nuclear structure than he does, and he knows more about other aspects.
3)It’s simply wrong for Wlad to argue that he must be right based on the fact that people don’t respond to his often incoherent and insulting emails. In any case, it seems unlikely that a fourth (or 5th or 10th or whatever it is now) explanation of this trivial issue will convince Wlad.
Curiosone:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JC Renoir:
Thank you, but: our Team is all.
A.R.
Dr Rossi, please ignore the skeptics like the ones of Yesterday: they only disturb your blessed work. Do not lose time with them. They are nothing, you are all.
God bless you,
JCR
The clowns you have discussed yesterday with are just trying to hidden the fact that the COP has been calculated by the Professors of the ITP based on precise and certified instruments, not by formulas: the COP has been calculated measuring the consume of current with 2 PCE 830, put one between the plug of the grid and the control system and one between the control system and the reactor, and the results of the measurements have given the same consume measured by both instruments, and this demonstrates that the control system does not affect the measurement. The COP has been calculated making a ratio between the thermal energy produced and the electricity, whose consume has not been calculated with formulas, but measured with a couple of certified instruments !!! The attempt of your enemies is to blur the real data trying to pull the attention of the public into a mess of formulas that have nothing to do with the calculation of the COP. It is clear to all that the differences in the calculation of the energy dispersed by the copper cables are nothing respect the COP.
They are stupid, we are not: Andrea, ignore these clowns and continue your precious work. You do not need to explain anything against them, we all have understood perfectly their agenda.
W.G.
Dear Andrea,
The Hot-Cat version of your device was tested by the TPR investigators at about 2500 watts output. Does that mean a 1MW unit would need approx. 400 units?
Regards.
Dear Andrea,
I’m glad to hear your work is progressing with the 1MW plant. I know that you are never satisfied with the state of your work (everything is epochè) — but at what point with this plant will you consider it ‘good enough’, and be ready to move on to the next project?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Andre Blum:
The 1MW plant is similar to the one tested in October 2012.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In the Lugano report, I was (pleasantly) surprised to see a new device, smaller than we had seen before, and made of alumina. Is this new design what you are now using in the 1 MW setup at the customer? Or is that 1 MW plant still based off the older design; or perhaps an altogether new one? What does the 1 MW setup look like now? Are we still talking a 20ft shipping container form factor? Does everything fit inside the container now (nothing on the roof, etc?)? Presumably it is still used to heat water?
Thank you for your answers, good luck with your hard work
Andre
Dear Dr Seshavatharam, Dear Prof. Lakshminarayana:
An answer from you to Wladimir Guglinski appears to be strongly called.
We’d be delighted to receive it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
I dedicate all my time to my 1MW baby and the connected R&D. I honestly am very positive: it is a magnificence, even if a lot of problems had to be resolved and probably will have to, but our model is NASA: how many failures before arriving on the Moon with the boots. “Non mollare mai” ( Never give up). Mostly all of my time goes to this, but also, in collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working on a theory that could explain the results of the report. I think that we will be able to reconcile everything with good sense and in full respect of the Standars Model. The dark side is that I have time for nothing else.
Obviously this effort is shared by all the Team, in particular the electronic engineers, who are making a masterpiece to harmonize an orchestra of 103 E-Cats with a quite complex play of Cats and Mice; the control system is made by about 100 computers . This wonderful Team is writing a page of History; every component of this Team is working at the maximum of his capacity.
Thank you very much for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JR wrote in October 20th, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Eernie,
Wlad said: “Eernie, the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.”
Slight correction: he forgot to mention that it can also be explained by any of the half-dozen or so calculations shown in the paper that made the measurement. Most if these were predictions made before the measurement, if I remember correctly.
———————————————
yes,
of course Mr. JR knows Nuclear Physics better than Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry, who wrote:
“By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics.”
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php
And since it is impossible to find a coherent theory for explaining the halo neutron of the 11Be, that’s why Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser proposed that phantasmagoric solution:
“Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.”.
Therefore,
the neutron is like a rubber… or a ghost… he he he
And Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser fails when he says the following:
The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics.”
No,
actually it cannot be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics, because the principles of quantum mechanics are wrong.
If the principles of quantum mechanics were correct, the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have to have NON-null magnetic moment.
Dear JR,
I and the readers of the JoNP are waiting yet (since September !!!!) the Dr. Seshavatharam and the Dr. Lakshminarayana (a nuclear physicist) to come here to explain how the even-even nuclei with Z=N may have null magnetic moment (since from the principles of quantum mechanics they cannot have null magnetic moment).
Dear Mr. JR,
please ask to Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana to come here to explain it to us.
If they do not come, I and the readers of the JoNP will start to think that quantum mechanics was developed from wrong principles.
regards
wlad
Dear Wlad,
One other idea I have been kicking around is the possibility of creating Rydberg atoms of Hydrogen or Lithium in Andrea’s device by the fields generated with his pulsed input power plus heat. The electrons in their large orbits contain relatively large energies and because of their orbit size, large electric dipole values. This makes it relatively easy to detach them from their parent nuclei and containing much energy, free to interact with the Nickel lattice. Perhaps with an assist from a magnetic field created by the Nickel nuclei at an elevated temperature. We can be talking about energies between UV and the lower x ray spectrum.
Regards.
Dear Andrea,
I am sure it’s been a busy time since the TPR2 was published. Are you able to devote much time to your 1MW plant project, and if so, how is work progressing with it?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear JR,
An interesting aspect of QM is that the basic equations were derived from mathematical relationships called Fourier series which described the relationship between frequency and time of a wave. By mathematically adding the simple sine and cosine series through a variation of phase and amplitude, both Schrodinger and Heisenberg concocted their equations which described the relationship between motion(energy) and time of individual particles. throw in a bit of field theory and you can( if you are a half way decent mathematician) predict all sorts of weird situations. With the aid of a bit of dimensional analysis you can also link the various universal constants together. This approach was used by people like Einstein and Dirac to predict various scientific outcomes such as antimatter and relativistic effects. My point is you can mathematically predict almost anything, but only direct observation of a result can give complete confidence. By the way, are you connected in any way with Argonne Labs? I did some work with a researcher named Smaller in the late 1950 which involved electron spin. He was quite a competent physicist.
Koen Vandewalle:
The robot,scared, obliged.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
This report is not for dummies.
A lot of what was written, is meant also to explain to the intended public that good attention was made not to make measurement errors, while hiding important IP issues.
We learn that the resistances are “coils” with Ni alloy. That was new. We don’t know their (individual) “coil-icity” nor each of their “resisanc-icities”. So any speculation may be wrong.
I assume that you did not allow to use some endoscope, or to put some product in it to allow the professors to look through the walls and components of the E-cat, the way sometimes weldings are being checked. I would not allow that if I were you. So it is very normal that you were there when the device was opened. It is also very normal that the professors could not use pliers by themselves to open the device.
The E-cat is not using DC nor sinewave 3-phase. E-Cat is not a 3-ph motor nor a transformer, nor anything else that is well known. So everyone should pay attention not to use simplified formulas from basic theory books.
One can only use information that is for sure, and if in doubt, take the worst-case approach.
The poweranalyser is basically a computer that interprets in a “state of the art”-way every signal of every probe connected to it. You just have to be sure that you don’t use signals that are out of range of the probes and the computer. For the rest: follow the manual. Amen.
Kind regards,
Koen.
PS: If I ever meet your spam-robot in real life, he (or she) owes me a drink.
Eernie,
Wlad said: “Eernie, the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.”
Slight correction: he forgot to mention that it can also be explained by any of the half-dozen or so calculations shown in the paper that made the measurement. Most if these were predictions made before the measurement, if I remember correctly.
Andrew:
Your comment is a typical example of the effects of the stupidities made by fake experts like “Raman”, that act as Professors, but lack the foundamentals of Physics, Electronics and Electrotechnics. The effects are that persons like you, clearly missing a professional understanding of the matter, instead of reading seriously a Report written by 6 Professors with a life dedicated to Science and Physics in particular, read the stupidities of imbeciles with an agenda and make us loose time to answer to absurd objections. I am not angry at you, you are just a candid non-expert-person, I am angry because every stupidity gets attention and we, honestly, do not have the time to answer. As you have perhaps read, I already suggested as a reference the wonderful book “Electronics for Dummies” to the “Prof” you got inspiration from, but he does not listen to me and continues to repeat the same stupidities.
Again:
The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it. Your phrase “”with or without reactions involved” is pretty arrogant, and such arrogance, perhaps, forbids you to try to understand what I wrote. If you read carefully what I wrote and what is written in the Report, you will see that “with or without reactions” is a stupidity. The nature and composition of the coils are of paramount importance in our IP and for obvious reasons I will not give any more information, albeit you demand to me not to “state that (I) cannot comment further on this, ESPECIALLY BEING AWARE THAT THROUGH THE REPORT SOME FUNDAMENTAL ( SIC!) MISTAKES ARE CARRIED OUT, SUCH AS..” and at this point you add another titanic stupidity that the Readers can find in your comment: whom do you think you are talking with ?
And here is the answer to your titanically stupid statement ( I know, you are not the author of the titanic stupidity, you are just parrotting the suggestions of “Prof” Raman): just, please read … I will write in very simple language, to allow you (and “Prof” Raman, who insists not to buy ‘Electronics for Dummies’ as I suggested him) to understand, with a small effort and some focus (to Raman I suggest not to chew a gum at the same time).
THE ALIMENTATION CABLING OF THE REACTOR IS COMPOSED BY MEANS OF 2 PARTS FOR EVERY ROW:
1- ONE PART FROM THE CONTROL SYSTEM TO THE JOINT (C); THIS PART IS NAMED C1
2- AFTER THE JOINT C THE SAME CURRENT IS SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 ROWS HAVING THE SAME SECTION AND LENGTH: WE CALL THEM C2
BASED ON THE KIRCHHOFF LAW ( ALSO CALLED KICHHOFF JUNCTION RULE) , WE CAN MAKE THE DEDUCTION THAT THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE ROW C1 IS EQUAL TO THE DOUBLE OF THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS ALONG EACH OF THE ROWS NAMED C2.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
Ms Vessela Nikolova ier referring to a book she wrote. Nothing to do with the Report of the ITP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JCRenoir:
The Professors told me that they are discussing the questions that merit an answer and that will answer to such questions by means of updates of the report published on
http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-mattrapport-publicerad
Their report will be then periodically updated with all the necessary answers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea Rossi and Vessela Nikolova,
Still hoping for published article, perhaps is that what Vessela Nikolova refers to when saying “The publication is a matter of days”? Your replies to our postings are treasures to store for us, we look forward to climbing the lattice with you into the new energy age of abundant, clean, and renewable power.
Tom Conover
ref: Vessela Nikolova
October 18th, 2014 at 4:23 PM
Hello Andrea, after about one year my book has come to an end. The publication is a matter of days… I wish you a nice day.
Vessela
Dr Rossi:
Will the Professors of the ITP answer to the comments made about their report?
Thank you,
JCR
Dear Dr. Rossi, needs to be done soon with the hot cat or our planet because of oil and fossil fuels will have serious problems. See the video of NASA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk5FgtLBP8c
eernie1 wrote in October 17th, 2014 at 7:41 PM
Dear Andrea,
I have read much discussion by critics about the role of the independent test in verifying your device. They claim since the test was not 100% independent because of your minimal involvement, the whole test was not admissible as evidence.
———————————————–
Dear Eernie,
suppose that Rossi had invented the plane, and he invited you to test his invention, as follows: driving his plane, you would have to cross the sea between USA and Europe.
But as you do not know how to drive his plane, the test started with Andrea Rossi giving you instructions on how to drive his invention.
So, after some explanations, you did put the plane to fly, and you alone crossed the sea.
But of course some people would claim:
“The test of the Rossi’s invention made by Eernie is not 100% independent, because Eernie crossed the sea between the Europe and USA with the Rossi’s plane, however Rossi gave to him some initial instructions on how to drive the machine”
I have doubt if such sort of critic is 100% reasonable.
regards
wlad
eernie1 wrote in
October 10th, 2014 at 10:43 AM
1) ———————————
Dear Wlad,
Since the Halo Neutron of the 11Be has been observed, the possible existence of a Halo Neutron in the 7Li cannot be ignored despite the theories of the SQM.
————————————-
Eernie,
the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
See 5- Halo neutron 4Be11 in the page 69 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
For supposing a 7Li with halo neutron would also require new foundations for Nuclear Physics, as those proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.
My aim is just to show that there is no way to explain cold fusion by considering the current principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, since the current nuclear models are not able to explain even many other puzzles, like the halo neutron of the 11Be.
2) —————————————–
Assuming its existence and the looseness of its bond in the 7Li nucleus, there are a number of possibilities for creating and applying enough energy to allow the neutron to be expelled with added energy. One use for the hydrogen protons added to the device may be to create multiple microwave ovens in the cracks of the Ni complex. My reasoning is that the cracks contain a strong magnetic field created by the heated NI atoms which align the spins of the H protons inserted into the cavities of the cracks. Then with the influence of an applied RF field(pulsed) the ensuing microwave oven RF then causes the 7Li nucleus to release its Halo Neutron and the dance begins. I have other thoughts about the possible generation of stimulating energy, but I need more time to think about it.
Wlad, Has Pandora’s box been opened?
No if you keep the current foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I believe that there are some clarification that either you, or the professors through you have to make, to justify the relevance of the TPRII.
You have already commented on this but your answer was not satisfying at all.
You stated that the behaviour of the resistances changes and it’s Not linear (in particolar behaving as a negative resistance from 500-1200 and holding constant from that temperature on) .
But we all know that inconel has not that characteristic, with or without reactions involved.
Therefore i believe that you can’t just state that you cannot comment further on this, especially being aware that through the report some fundamental mistakes are carried out such as :
Page 14:
”Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A.”
That is sistematically wrong since I2=I1/1.732
Vessela Nikolova:
Good luck!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea, after about one year my book has come to an end. The publication is a matter of days… I wish you a nice day.
Vessela
Gunnar Lindberg:
Thank you for your kind words.
About rumors, as I always said, I strongly suggest not to take them seriously. Real information is given in due time and it is given first time, when it is due, on this Journal. Until you do not read an information on this Journal, regarding our activity, just disregard it. Whatever it is.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andra Rossi,
The result of the third part evaluation is indeed very promising. From now, I´m sure, everything will happen fast.
Can you confirm the rumor that Elforsk is buying one of your megawatt plants? This will undoubtedly speed up the certification of the domestic cats.
Best regards
Gunnar Lindberg
Dear Ernie:
Obviously you are right.
Now, let’s go to make happy the Customer, aka let’s be able to make him earn money from the plant. If the Customer gets profits, the plant works well. If the Customer does not make money, the plant does not work well. With or without the contact with the inventor.
Most of critics of the ITP report, as far as I could read, are of the genre that should they look at me and see me to walk upon the surface of a lake, they would say: ” Hey, look at that moron, at his age is not even able to swim”. Too much work to do: no more time to listen this blabla.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have read much discussion by critics about the role of the independent test in verifying your device. They claim since the test was not 100% independent because of your minimal involvement, the whole test was not admissible as evidence. First of all using their criteria for independence, it is not possible to create an independent test because they claim there must be no contact by the creator of the device. Of course if you cannot have interaction with the inventor, how can you duplicate the device? At least the inventor has to give instructions on how to assemble and operate the device. When a device is submitted to Underwriters Lab (UL) they provide only independent testers. This is what your test reported. The argument can only be about the credentials of the testers which are better in my opinion than most tests of this nature.
Regards.
Paul:
Very interesting, thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Thomas McGuire and his team at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works have achieved a remarkable new magnetic configuration to contain a hot fusion reaction. They are still billions of investment dollars away from a practical solution to the worlds energy problems.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
Paul
Rafal Krych:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.