.
by
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier.
The current theoretical understanding does not offer an explanation for cold fusion or LENR. The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures of the atomic nuclei.
Dear Andrea,
How do you feel about having to give up the “zero emissions” ideal for a gas fuelled e-cat?
Regards,
Patrick
Dears Joe , Daniel Le Caluwé,
and further readers of the JoNP
my theory on cold fusion is the last hopefulness of Physics.
Do you know other cold fusion theory so beautiful and elegant as the mine?
My theory is coherent, it is simple, it is logic, and it works by plausible mechanism, without the need of to appeal to strange and doubtful mechanisms neither to ad hoc hypotheses.
Besides, it gives explanation for phenomena impossible to be explained from other cold fusion theories, as for instance:
1- The emission of neutrons with 10MeV in the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment, since only 2,2MeV are available for the neutron before the cold fusion occurence.
2- Why the scattering experiments detected a spherical Coulomb barrier, while the Coulomb barrier of nuclei is actually non-spherical, and this nuclear property is decisive for cold fusion occurrence.
Those considerations give me the sure that my theory is the last hope for a coherent explanation for cold fusion.
If there is other theory capable to explain cold fusion better than the mine, I would like to know it.
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
No, it does not mean that: as I explained, we are also working on the gas fueled Hot Cat, this R&D bringing with itself the Hot Cat evolution.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in December 4th, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Wladimir,
1) ——————————————-
Your latest alteration to your model is intended to eliminate the flip in the magnetic moment (GEP) by replacing the initial magnetic moment by a force of attraction that is electric instead. The main problem with this is that the motion of the proton (which replaces the neutron) would not be easy to determine since the proton has an electric charge.
Because of this, the proton would suffer a Lorentz force due to the presence of electric and magnetic fields caused by the rotating electron. The result might be that the proton rotates in situ and never crosses the rotation plane. Or the proton might follow a helical trajectory out of the source nucleus again without ever crossing the rotation plane. Your alteration makes the situation of your model more difficult to ascertain.
————————————————————-
Joe,
what you say can be applied for the proton moving in an electrosphere in normal conditions, where the electrons move in all the directions.
However, when the 3Li7 and the Ni nucleus have their z-axes aligned, the orbits of the electrons 1s1 and 1s2 is about the z-axis.
The positions of two electrons 1s1 and 1s2 are always in perfect symmetry regarding the z-axis, and therefore the proton is always attracted by two contrary forces of the same value.
The Coulomb attraction between the proton and 1s1 is cancelled by the attraction between the proton and 1s2, and the proton goes moving along the z-axis in a helical trajectory whose center-line is the z-axis.
Therefore the proton crosses the rotation plane of the orbit 2s1 (p1 in my figure).
regards
wlad
Anyone:
A few days ago there was a discussion about the role artificial intelligence (AI)could play in LENR research. The discussion was mostly joking. However; it may not be a joke after all. Advise you see the link below, which is to an AI application that may be uniquely useful in LENR research- – for discovering hidden relationships in large amounts of data (where there is no established theory yet). The Site speaks for itself:
(http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/eureqa)
Regards; HRG.
Daniel De Caluwé wrote in December 4th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
My answer: When the weakly bound neutron of the 3Li7 decays in a proton emitting one electron, as you wrote, then what happens with that new born electron? If it is not captured somewhere else in the nucleus, and escapes to the electrosphere, than you get a reorganisation of the electrosphere and also a new atom: 4Be7 (a neutron became a proton, and the electron escaped to the electrosphere 😉 ), with a pair of electrons (with opposing spins!) in the 2s outer subshell of its electrosphere, and in that case, the mechanism you proposed can not work anymore.
———————————————————–
Daniel,
4Be7 decays in 3Li7 by electron capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium
Let see what happens:
1- the neutron decays: n-> p+e, and the first electron exited the nucleus.
2- the 4Be7 is formed in the form of a ion, and the proton is attracted by the orbit of the electron 2s1.
3- In fraction of second the proton exits the nucleus of the 4Be7 and so the 4Be7 transmutes to 3Li6. The ion 4Be7 has not time to capture one electron so that to form the 2s outer subshell
4- In that fraction of second the proton crosses the orbit 2s1 and by electron capture it transmutes to neutron.
The half-life of the 4Be7 is 53,2 days, but this occurs in normal conditions (when there is NOT an electron orbit 2s1 attracting the proton along the z-axis direction).
regards
wlad
Daniel De Caluwé wrote in December 4th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
1) ———————————————
My question: At the moment when, according to your model (of the neutron according to your QRT), the neutron decays in a proton + electron, where does that electron goe?
————————————————-
Daniel,
om beta-decay of a nucleus, the electron is emitted and leaves away the nucleus.
2) —————————————-
What happens with it in between the decay of the neutron and its recapturing by the proton?
——————————————–
No, the phenomenon of electron (or positron) capture depends on the charge of the nucleus. Such electron (or postitron) is created (that’s why Dirac proposed his theory on the space filled by virtual electrons)
3) ————————————————
Thinking on the Pauli exclusion principle, or your newly GEP (Guglinsky Exlusion Principle), could this newly born electron disturb the mechanism (of acceleration of the proton by the other electron p1 of the 3Li7) that you describe?
—————————————————–
No, the newly born electron is extracted from the space by the proton, and they form the neutron.
The other electron (resulted from the neutron’s decay) exited the nucleus.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
You mention that the current plant you are working on (and giving your full attention to) is a normal E-Cat plant.
Does this mean that development of Hot Cat plants will wait until the current task of perfecting your first 1 MW plant is complete?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
Yes, that is the strategy. That is why this first industrial working plant is so important. It will be the “Rosetta Stone” of our industrial know how.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Once you get this first plant operating perfectly, like Henry Ford, do you plan to make it your “Model T”, which you can duplicate on a mass production assembly line?
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Wladimir,
Your latest alteration to your model is intended to eliminate the flip in the magnetic moment (GEP) by replacing the initial magnetic moment by a force of attraction that is electric instead. The main problem with this is that the motion of the proton (which replaces the neutron) would not be easy to determine since the proton has an electric charge. Because of this, the proton would suffer a Lorentz force due to the presence of electric and magnetic fields caused by the rotating electron. The result might be that the proton rotates in situ and never crosses the rotation plane. Or the proton might follow a helical trajectory out of the source nucleus again without ever crossing the rotation plane. Your alteration makes the situation of your model more difficult to ascertain.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Wladimir,
i) You wrote:
My answer: When the weakly bound neutron of the 3Li7 decays in a proton emitting one electron, as you wrote, then what happens with that new born electron? If it is not captured somewhere else in the nucleus, and escapes to the electrosphere, than you get a reorganisation of the electrosphere and also a new atom: 4Be7 (a neutron became a proton, and the electron escaped to the electrosphere 😉 ), with a pair of electrons (with opposing spins!) in the 2s outer subshell of its electrosphere, and in that case, the mechanism you proposed can not work anymore.
ii) Concerning your article “Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered”, I also have remark, about Figure 6: The outer electron of 3Li7 is NOT a p1 electron, but in fact a 2s1 electron, because it belongs to the 2s subshell of 3Li7, but, of course, as this works in the same way, this probably does not have any effect on your proposed mechanism.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Dear Wladimir,
In the case of the Rossi-Effect, you wrote:
My question: At the moment when, according to your model (of the neutron according to your QRT), the neutron decays in a proton + electron, where does that electron goe? What happens with it in between the decay of the neutron and its recapturing by the proton? Thinking on the Pauli exclusion principle, or your newly GEP (Guglinsky Exlusion Principle), could this newly born electron disturb the mechanism (of acceleration of the proton by the other electron p1 of the 3Li7) that you describe?
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Dear Joe,
as you do not enjoy my Guglinski Exclusion Principle, there is another alternative, as I explain ahead.
Rossi-Effect:
Due to the excitation of the 3Li7 by the high frequency of the oscillatory electromagnetic field applied in the reactor, the weakly bound neutron of the 3Li7 decays in a proton emitting one electron.
Due to the positive charge of the proton, it is strongly attracted by the orbit of the electron p1, and gets a big speed toward the z-axis.
When the proton crosses the orbit of p1 with very fast speed, by electron capture the proton transmutes to a neutron again.
The orbit of the electron p1 starts to apply a repulsion force in the newborn neutron, and it is accelerated along the z-axis toward the nucleus Ni.
.
Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
After the decay of the deuteron, the charge of the proton is strongly attracted by the orbit of the electron s1 (of the decayed deuteron, now in the new form of a proton).
When the proton crosses the orbit of the electron s1, it decays in a neutron. This newborn neutron is repelled by the orbit s1, and so the neutron goes moving with acceleration along the z-axis toward the direction of the Pd nucleus.
regards
wlad
Dears Joe, Eernie, Orsobubu, Steven, Eric, Daniel Caluwé, Herb Gillis, and those ones interested in the discussion.
I posted our discussion on my theory for cold fusion in Peswiki, under the title Cold fusion mystery finally deciphered, in this link:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Cold_fusion_mystery_finally_deciphered
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in December 3rd, 2014 at 2:24 PM:
Wladimir,
Even your newly minted Guglinski Exclusion Principle (GEP) (patent pending) can not explain the energy and acceleration of the neutrons in the Mosier-Boss (MB) experiment. As you recently mentioned, the magnetic moments of pairs of electrons within each orbital of an electrosphere cancel. Therefore, there is no net effect upon a neutron traveling through an electrosphere.
————————————————
yes,
but we can think about other hypothesis.
The neutron is accelerated by the orbit of the electron s1 of the deuteron, and not by the electrons of the nucleus Pd (the orbit is perpendicular to the z-axes of the two nuclei Pd and 1H2).
The proton decays in a neutron immediatelly after the decay of the deuteron. When the neutron crosses the orbit of the electron s1, the electron of the neutron changes its spin, and the orbit s1 applies a force of repulsion on the neutron, and it accelerates.
As the neutron gets a very fast motion, it is not captured by the nucleus Pd.
This is the unique solution for explaining the 10MeV of the neutrons in the Mosier-Boss experiment.
If this explanation cannot be able to explain it, the Physics is in a serious problem.
regards
wlad
Bernie Koppenhofer:
I am not able to answer, anyway within a year or so we will have consolidated results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tommaso Di Pietro:
It is a normal E-Cat, not a Hot Cat. Outside is similar to the 1 MW plant of 2011, inside is completely different.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
Even your newly minted Guglinski Exclusion Principle (GEP) (patent pending) can not explain the energy and acceleration of the neutrons in the Mosier-Boss (MB) experiment. As you recently mentioned, the magnetic moments of pairs of electrons within each orbital of an electrosphere cancel. Therefore, there is no net effect upon a neutron traveling through an electrosphere.
All the best,
Joe
Dr. Rossi: Good to hear the installation is going good. Is there a possibility you might release results before a year? Our world desperately needs this technology. Thanks.
Dear ing. Rossi,
Is the megawatt plant actually in operation composed by low temperature e cat inside the big container or by hot cat inside the cube:)?
Thamks in advance
Dr. Rossi, P2G or PtG is Power to Gas.
A P2G plant converts electrical power to gas, that can then be stored in Pipelines.
Google:
Power to Gas
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale Florida
USA
Andreas Moraitis:
Thank you for your interesting information and congratulations to Dr Ruggero Santilli.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark Saker:
The control system has been designed by our specialists based on the best available technologies related to the controls we need.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bob:
1.c ( Water)
2. We will give performance data when they will be consolidated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Does the 1MW plant exchange its heat with
a. Air
b. Some other gas
c. Water
d. Some other fluid
2. Can you reveal whether you are obtaining improvements in the Carnot cycle efficiency of the heat exchange apparatus through your own proprietary efforts and if so what order of magnitude are you achieving?
Thanks
Bob
Dear Andrea,
What is the rationale behind 110 computers vs a larger computer with 1+1 redundancy handling all 110 reactors simultaneously.
Surely the actual computational power required cannot be that great that it would trouble a recent CPU?
Would that not reduce the cabling?
thanks
Mark Saker
Dear Andrea Rossi,
There are various civil applications for MagneGas, one of them is metal cutting:
http://vimeo.com/47166079
By the way: It was invented by Ruggero Santilli, whom you know well.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Frank Acland:
I would say that the main problems have been resolved, but we have to see what happens in a long term operation. We must reach that kind of reliability that Henry Ford reached when he decided to sell the Model T Ford in massive quantities. It takes time. This first plant working in the factory of a Customer that has to get industrial profit from it must reach perfection to make us satisfied.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Can you comment on how successful your team has been so far in solving the problems you have encountered with the 1 MW plant?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Joe wrote in December 2nd, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Wladimir,
ii) is not part of any orbital within the electrosphere of 3Li7 since it orbits a different entit
Therefore, the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply here in trying to explain the flip of the spin as the electron crosses the plane. Another reason must be given, or your model is not viable.
—————————————————–
Joe,
then call it Guglinski Exclusion Principle
It seems the phenomenon occurs in the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment, because she detected emission of neutrons with 10MeV, while the energy avaikable is only 2,2MeV (binding energy of the deuteron).
It seems the neutrons are accelerated when they cross some orbits of electrons in the electrosphere of the Pd nuckeus;
There is no way to exlain the 10MeV by considering the laws of the Standard Model
regards
wlad
Joe,
why do I need to explain an impossible phenomenon(according to the Standard Model) by using the known laws proposed in the Standard Model ?
If we consider the Standard Model, my model is also no viable from other aspects. For instance, my model of field is different of the model considered in the Quantum Field Theory.
But you yourself had pointed to us that from the model proposed in QFT it is impossible to explain the null magnetic moment of the even-even nucle with Z=N, because of the monopolar nature of the electric field.
Besides, my theory for the explanation on cold fusion is also no viable (by considering the Standard Model) because my theory is based on a new nuclear model which works with laws different of those considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics (for instance, the aggregation of nuclei is not promoted by the strong force).
However,
the reversion of the magnetic moment of a neutron when it crosses an orbit of one electron can be tested by experiments.
Besides,it is possible the phenomenon occurs in the Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment, because she detected neutrons with 10MeV, while the binding energy available is only 2,2MeV (the binding energy of the deuteron).
Therefore, dear Joe,
we are dealing with questions that cannot be solved by using the same old laws considered in the Standar Model.
Some news laws must be discovered
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in December 2nd, 2014 at 11:51 PM
1) —————————————-
Therefore, the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply here in trying to explain the flip of the spin as the electron crosses the plane.
——————————————-
JOe,
then call it Guglinski Exclusion Principle
Because a neutron crossing the orbit of an electron was never observed in any experiment, and the physicists do not know such phenomenon.
As they also did not know cold fusion some years ago.
2) —————————————–
Another reason must be given,
——————————————–
Then cold fusion is impossible, Rossi-Effect is a fraud, and he must stop his experiments
3) —————————————–
or your model is not viable.
——————————————–
And cold fusion is no viable too
regards
wlad
Wladimir,
The Pauli exclusion principle states that for two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, l, and m(l) are the same, so m(s) must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. But the electron orbiting the proton within the QRT neutron
i) has no defined orbital in a general sense
ii) is not part of any orbital within the electrosphere of 3Li7 since it orbits a different entity.
Therefore, the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply here in trying to explain the flip of the spin as the electron crosses the plane. Another reason must be given, or your model is not viable.
All the best,
Joe
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you: sincerely, I did not know MagneGas: interesting, even if unapplicable for civil apparatuses.
For rockets, maybe…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi wrote in December 2nd, 2014 at 1:04 PM
Herb Gillis:
To alter the composition of a fuel makes practically impossible to get a certification. We are aiming to commercial apparatuses, not of experimental prototypes.
———————————-
Yes, dear Andrea
but you can work in two ways.
By one, working so that to improve the technology based on the present fuel, in order to get the certification.
By the second, to put a small crew so that to test new fuels, with the aim to obtain a higher COP for the eCat.
Having the certification obtained from the present fuel, in the future you dont need to tell to people who buy the eCat that you changed the composition of the fuel (in the case you discover a new more efficient fuel).
However, I do not intend to teach a priest how to pray Mass.
regards
wlad
regards
wlad
Andrea Rossi
December 2nd, 2014 at 7:50 AM
Curiosone:
This fact also casts some doubt about the certainty that what they found there is really the Higgs boson, but after 9 billion euro spent for this quest it is not politically correct to say so.
——————————————–
If the physicists had asked my opinion, I would had told them that a wrong theory never can be confirmed. The theory was developed by considering the empty space, but the space is no empty, and so the theory makes no sense.
But it is a good lesson for the scientists, in order they learn that the mathematics cannot be applied as corroboration for theories based on stupid conjectures, as that crazy concept of empty space proposed by Einstein, according to which an empty thing (the empty space) could be able to have contraction and to be the supporter of physical entities as the magnetic fields.
400 years ago Galileo advised the scientists that the Science cannot be divorced to the Logic.
The scientific method is making jokes with the physicists.
First, they had interpreted wrongly the Michelson-Morley experiment, and concluded that Einstein was right, because it is impossible to detect the aether by experiments. And as the loyalty to the scientific method prescribes that they cannot accept the existence of something not detectable by experiments, they rejected the obvious: the space cannot be empty.
Later, they used the scientific method so that to find objections against cold fusion, as to claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong, because their experiments were not replicable, and the measurement of the excess heat was wrong, and only because they actually were trying to save their Standard Model, from whose principles cold fusion is impossible.
Finally, in 2012 they had interpreted as successful an experiment which detected a boson, believing that it was the Higgs boson, in spite of the theory was developed from the concept of empty space, and despite of the fact that in 2011 an experiment published in the journal Nature had shown that the space is not empty, since the space is able to create light.
In the future the scientists will remember the 20th Century as the most obscure and tenebrous in the History of the Science.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in December 2nd, 2014 at 1:03 AM
2. I repeat my last question, what is the specific mechanism that flips the spin of the electron when it crosses the plane of the 1p1 rotation?
——————————————-
Pauli’s Principle:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:PAULIprincipleWHENelectronCHANGESorbit.png
regards
wlad
Herb Gillis,
If Flame temperature were the primary consideration, you might use Magnegas instead of Acetylene. You can also listen to this awful musical background. Perhaps the flame temperature of Magnegas is too high! (You could melt everything!!)
Independent tests have established that MagneGas™ with a flame temperature of 5,819°C / 10,560°F (Verified by CCNY and the Institue of Ultraspectroscopy http://www.magnegas.com/docs/MG-Flame-report.pdf) is the fastest, most precise and most energy efficient cutting fuel available today.
http://www.magnegas.eu/metal
Very warm regards,
Joseph Fine
Frank Acland:
Thank you.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Herb Gillis:
To alter the composition of a fuel makes practically impossible to get a certification. We are aiming to commercial apparatuses, not of experimental prototypes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi:
Have you considered the possibility of adding acetylene to the natural gas stream (or even using pure acetylene) in the gas-driven Ecat? Acetylene would give a hotter flame. Acetylene is derived from natural gas and cracking of hydrocarbon feedstocks.
Regards; HRG.
ERRATA:
In my last post, where is written:
But while 28Ni requires an emitter with pair number of protons, as 50Sn is very biggest than 28Ni then the best emitter for 50Sn can be with odd number of protons.
the correct is:
But while 28Ni requires an emitter with odd number of protons, as 50Sn is very biggest than 28Ni then the best emitter for 50Sn can be with even number of protons.
JC Renoir:
We are working on this issue very, very, very hard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Perhaps 50Sn requieres an emitter with Z=pair
As we have seen, the 4Be9 cannot be an emitter for 28Ni because the size of Ni is not sufficiently large, so that to supply a large difference between the radius of the orbit of p1 and p2, as shown in Figure 7.
FIG. 7:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE-7-substitute3Li7-28Ni.png
But while 28Ni requires an emitter with pair number of protons, as 50Sn is very biggest than 28Ni then the best emitter for 50Sn can be with odd number of protons.
Indeed, as 50Sn has a big electric field, we can use as emitter a nucleus with pair number of protons, as 4Be9. Because of the big size of the 50Sn the radius of the orbit of the electron p1 will be very larger than the radius of the orbit p2. By this way the big magnetic force applied by the orbit p1 will be counterbalanced by a contrary force applied by the orbit p2, and by this a suitable force can be obtained. This shown in the figure ahead:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:4Be9-USEDasEMITTERfor50sN.png
Perhaps 4Be9 is not the best emitter to be used with 50Sn, but the best emitter can be found, because it is possible to find the suitable combination of difference in the radii of the orbits , so that to apply the suitable force on the neutron of the emitter.
Dear Andrea,
Here is an interesting article dealing with your E-Cat from the Dome Magazine in Michigan (talks mainly about public policy issues). The title is ‘The Miraculous Machine’
http://domemagazine.com/glazer/lg111414
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
D. Travchenko:
No, they are not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone:
There are two parameters in the Standard Model that are unnatural: the values of the Higgs Field in empty space and of the energy density in empty space, the so called “vacuum energy”: they are much smaller than they ought to be along the mathematical equations, calculating the energy of the virtual particles in the empty space that are necessary to justify the expansion rate of the Universe. The value of the Higgs field should be 10^16 bigger than it has been measured to be by the CERN experiment. This fact also casts some doubt about the certainty that what they found is really the Higgs boson, but after 9 billion euro spent for this quest it is not politically correct to say so. This enormous discrepance between the value the Higgs field should have and the observed one is called the “hierarchy problem”; it is far from being resolved, as well as the one of the energy density in empty space ( the two things seem to be connected).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Georgehants:
I agree with you, after the Report of the Independent Third Party ( and the work of many colleagues of mine, like for example Brian Ahern in the MIT) many scientists of the so called mainstream science have changed opinion. Before our work, to show anything regarding the LENR to a mainstream scientist was like to show garlic and crucifix to Dracula; today most accept that it is a field that is worth R&D. The final push can only be given by reliably working plants that produce energy in a profitable way in an industry. This is exactly what our Team is doing by means of the 1 MW plant upon which we are working so hard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
ERRATA:
The correct structure of the 11Na23 is actually the following:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:3Li7-and-11Na23-SIMILARITIES-Rev1.png
I tried several times to upload the correct version by editing it in Peswiki, however the blog does not work.