.
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.
Paul Calvo:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
The analysis made by the scientists of the third independent party that made the test have been made correctly, with the most sophysticated methodologies and the best available technologies. The results are what they are. Our duty now is to reconcile them with the Standard Model, and this is the work we are doing. When we will have conclusive information about this issue, if such information will be publicable, we will give due information. Before that, is totally useless to make inconclusive assumptions. We are working upon not easy equations and I am an optimist about the output.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
How much reliability do you place on the report of the ash contents included in the TP3? If they are correct the Rossi effect must involve the removal from one of the reaction atom nuclei, of a neutron, and the capture of that neutron by another of the involved atoms. Most likely IMO, the 7Li passing a neutron in steps to the 62Ni. The Hydrogen through its spin energy absorbed from an imposed RF field can cause the neutron emission by interacting and destabilizing a neutron rich nucleus such as the 7Li.
Regards.
Hi Dr Rossi
take a look at this water heater tech, I can see this looking like your home cat – they have a video demonstration.
http://myheatworks.com/technology.php
Regards,
Paul Calvo
Dear Rossi,
A website of CNN says that LENR is Obama’s secret weapon.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1187686?ref=feeds%2Fnewsiest.
Jorge
Pete Frimmel:
Water heats up in a water-fall, so is slightly hotter at the bottom
than at the top, for reasons of conservation of energy. A volcano
presumably shows the same effect, because the lava will be stirred up
as it flows downhill. Heating by internal friction. But I have not
seen the figures.
Peter W.
but maybe the temperature of the sun come from a nuclear reaction and we could call HENR, high energy nuclear reaction. can you tell me where the sun’s energy come from than a nuclear reaction?
Dr Rossi, Take a look at this water heater – they have a video demonstration.
http://myheatworks.com/technology.php
Regards,
Paul Calvo
Clauzon Pierre:
I am delighted to receive this important information from you.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear friend Andrea,
> You have to take a look on the nice paper given in french by Contrepoints about the ecat (Third report). I think that there is a real change in the minds now.
>
> http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/10/13/184364-fusion-froide-le-chat-e-cat-est-enfin-sorti-de-sa-boite
>
> and also this note taken from Linkedin below:
>
Christian Wiesner Director Global Sales / Co-Founder / Shareholder of PWH Plasmawerk Hamburg GmbH and ROTOKINETIK UG
What Rossi is doing is absolutely OK, every small to medium sized company has to act this way. Don’t forget that every patent is also giving clear instructions to your competitors on how you are doing things, it’s like a manual.
It’s therefore common practice for smaller companies to only patent technological aspects AROUND your key technology, preventing other people from making direct copies of your products, rather than patenting the core technology itself.
If one of the giants, like GE, SIEMENS or ABB (why not AREVA), will finally jump on the case, with hundreds of patent lawyers behind, there will be no patent strong enough so these guys can’t find their way around !
Well done Mr. Rossi, well done !
Warmest regards and good luck for the 1MW demo to come
Pierre
Rafael:
The sun, obviously, is not a product of LENR. The temperatures necessary to remake what happens in the sun are in the order of millions °C, which is not properly a “low energy”…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Maybe the sun is the product of a LENR, why not you try to mix the same chemical elements that has in the sun to see if you not create an artificial sun or get electricity or make a nuclear fusion propellant with less chemical elements, we already know what the sun is made of, just see on the wikipedia. Do not forget that the sun also has chromium nickel and calcium.
Pete,Wladimir
The Earth’s mante is made up largely of piezoelectric perovskites that produce heat (mysterious source responsible for half of the heat which keeps the temperature of the Earth) and electricity because of the enormous pressure. The mante flows on the core for the Coriolis force, so the electricity magnetizes the core. Therefore I believe that the Earth’s magnetic field is created.
Pete Fimmel wrote in November 11th, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Prior to the course of the lava flow turning towards the town, it flowed from the volcano into the sea.
Temperatures of the lava immediately before it reached the sea were found to be higher than those of the lava emerging from the volcano!
An interesting source of unexplained heat.
—————————————-
Pete,
nobody knows what is a mysterious source responsible for half of the heat which keeps the temperature of the Earth.
Half of the 44 TW heat lost to space is due to radioactive decay.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
The other source is unknown.
Perhaps the Nature already had discovered the Rossi’s Effect before Andrea Rossi.
regards
wlad
Dr. Rossi, I liked your response to Pete Fimmel.
I am also not an expert on Volcanos.
However after 10 minutes on Google, I may be able to explain the ‘unexplained heat’
There are 4 chemical types of Lava.
Felsic, sometimes >950 C.
Intermediate, 750 to 950 C.
Mafic, >950 C.
Ultramatic, 1,600 C.
What was the sequence out of the Volcano ?
Ultramatic followed by Intermediate ???
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale Florida
USA
Pete Fimmel:
I am not an expert of volcanos. Cannot comment at all.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prior to the course of the lava flow turning towards the town, it flowed from the volcano into the sea.
Temperatures of the lava immediately before it reached the sea were found to be higher than those of the lava emerging from the volcano!
An interesting source of unexplained heat.
Steven N. Karels:
No, I didn’t mean that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.” Does that mean that no one is working on electricity generation from an eCat?
Frank Acland:
In Physics nothing is absolutely impossible: everything is associated to a certain percentage of probability.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You mention that you don’t think LENR effects takes place spontaneously on earth. Do you think they occur naturally anywhere in the universe?
Kind regards,
Frank
Franco Sarbia:
Well, the applications you are looking for belong to the future of the Hot Cat, possibly. Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
An Estimate of the Hydrogen Pressure within the eCat Reactor
Assume the ideal gas law
Amount of available hydrogen (from the LiAlH4) is 0.006 grams
eCat Reactor operating temperature of 1500 K
Interior eCat cavity dimensions assumed to be 0.5” diameter by 20cm in length
Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT where R = 0.08205 L * atm / ( mole * K)
V = L * pi * D * D / 4 = 20cm * 3.1415927 * 1.27cm * 1.27cm / 4 = 25.34 cc = 0.02534 liters
n = 0.006 grams / 2 grams per mole (diatomic hydrogen gas in the reactor interior volume) = 0.003 moles
P = nRT / V = 0.003 moles * 0.08205 L * atm / (mole * K) * 1500K / 0.02534 = 14.57 atm
This would be the maximum pressure. Actual pressure would be reduced by hydrogen adsorbed into the nickel
Caro Andrea Rossi.
L’ecat sottoposto a test, ha caratteristiche di dimensione, potenza, temperatura d’esercizio, che sembrano ormai adattarsi a diverse applicazioni quali mini generatori turbo elettrici, capaci di motorizzare: automobili, motoveicoli, piccole imbarcazioni, e aerei leggeri. Sistemi modulari complessi a turbina ed elettrici ad alto grado di sicurezza potrebbero essere propulsori di grandi navi, sottomarini, aerei, e veicoli spaziali. State già lavorando a simili applicazioni?
Cordiali saluti.
Franco Sarbia
Dear Andrea Rossi.
The ECAT tested, has characteristics of size, power, operating temperature, which now seem to adapt to different applications such as mini electric turbo generators, capable of powering: cars, motorcycles, small boats, and light aircraft. Complex modular systems, turbine and electrical high degree of security may be engines of large ships, submarines, aircraft, and spacecraft. Are you already working in similar applications?
Best regards.
Franco Sarbia
Orsobubu: I retrieved this comment of yours from the spam: fortunately it was in the first spam page in good evidence. Beware next time you don’t find your comment published is because it contains something taken as advertising by the robot. In that case, just inform me sending an email to info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Boss:
We did not make press conferences because we deem it premature. It is necessary to see in operation the 1 MW plant for a long enough time to be sure of a commercial breakthrough before it is worth to make a diffused communication. For the same reason so far our publications are limited to scientific and technological context.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Georgehants:
At this moment our focus is on the 1 MW plant and the gas fueled Hot Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pete Fimmel:
The time necessary to the solidification of the lava is not a number, but a complex system of integrals, related to the heat source power, the heat conduction, convection, irradiation, the heat exchange surface, the mass of the lava to be cooled etc. Without these calculations it is impossible to give an answer, but, honestly, I think that no LENR are happening there. I know how complex is the mechanism to get the so called “Rossi effect” and I do not think it can happen spontaneously.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rossi ,
Unibo published the tprII
here : http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/
Is there a reason in your opinion for the e-cat recent developments being discussed and confined to online blogs and forums?
Why do you think the media are not talking about It ?
Regards
orsobubu wrote in November 10th, 2014 at 9:20 AM
More doubts over the Standard Model:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19802/20141108/shocking-cern-may-not-have-discovered-elusive-higgs-boson-particle-after-all.htm
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19806/20141109/researchers-claim-higgs-boson-particle-still-elusive-what-did-cern-discover-then.htm
——————————————-
Andrea Rossi wrote in November 10th, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Orsobubu:
Your last comment is interesting also in general in the following sense: an experiment made by the creme of the scientists of all the world, with funding of tens of billions of Euros, raises doubts: this makes normal and understandable that also the E-Cat science can raise doubts among the scientific echelons.
Nobody is immune from doubts. Respect them, I have an advantage, though: with a commercial breakthrough I can make futile any kind of doubt.
=========================================================
Dears Orsobubu and Andrea Rossi
the brain of the scientist is one among the most mysterious and paradoxical things of the universe.
Because although the scientist is known as the most rational of the beings, however the most scientists become irrational when the theories they believe is threatened by some experiment.
The Higgs theory was conceived 50 years ago by considering the empty space, because he was led by the need of explaining (from the concept of the empty space), from where the particles get their mass.
But in 2011 a new experiment had proven that the space is not empty, because an empty space cannot create light (the empty space cannot get energy from nothing):
A vacuum can yield flashes of light
http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430
Therefore,
the Higgs theory lost its merit and lost its sense, because he had proposed it with the aim of solving the paradox: how particles can get mass from the empty space?.
The mass of the particles comes from their interaction with the aether, which existence was proven by the experiment published in the journal Nature.
And so the physicists would have to realize that there is need to develop a New Physics, based on the concept of the aether:
a new model of the atom
a new model of the nucleus
a new model of elementary particles
But instead of to face this unavoidable situation requiring a New Physics, the physicists persist in keeping their old theories developed under the hypothesis of the empty space.
Probably, after the publication of the paper by Nature in 2011, the own Higgs had said to himself:
“What a hell… I developed my theory by supposing the space as empty, and now this experiment proves the empty space is a myth. Oh, my God, in this case… probably my theory is wrong… there is no need any boson to give mass to the particles, they can get mass from the interaction with the non-empty space…”
Suppose that an alien scientist from another planet comes here (probably getting energy for his spacecraft from the Rossi’s Effect), and we tell him that scientists in the Earth continue believing that there is need a kind of Higgs boson so that to supply mass to the particles, in spite of in 2011 a new experiment detected that the space is no empty, as Higgs supposed for proposing his theory.
Well,
immediately the alien scientist would reply to us:
“This is unbelievable. What sort of scientists do you have in this planet?”
regards
wlad
Andreas Moraitis, Peter Forsberg, StudentG, Silvio Caggia:
I can give you a well done link on Husserl
http://www.filosofico.net/husserl.htm
translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filosofico.net%2Fhusserl.htm
This is perhaps the busiest italian site for students of philosophy. I must say that, although Husserl departs from Berkeley’s classical idealism and then try to solve the problem of solipsism (the material non-existence of other men), anyone who is preparing to such studies should necessarily compare him with a general critique of modern idealism, as for example the powerful Lenin’s one in “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”, which faces the same problems on the crisis of science and in general of the life of humanity today, resolved of course – in the works and actions by the author – not through subjectivism and phenomenology (the reflection on the subject itself, You can seek an answer exclusively in yourself, as said by Rossi), but through the material intervention of the man in society and economy, ultimately by class struggle. I’m sure that among the 11 professors examining Rossi’s doctoral thesis (he’s constantly under a commission of Professors), Geymonat, who was critic with Husserlian fenomenology, would have liked to hiddenly shoot him in the back with a flat out 0/110 🙂
In fact, what interests most to me is to remember the figure of Rossi’s Professor of Relativity, Ludovico Geymonat, the knowledge of which could also be useful here to non-italian readers, like Peter Forsberg (hi!), when he considers empirically evident the failure of alternatives to the capitalist mode of production; when it is rather obvious (and it had to be especially to a master of logic as Geymonat) that those systems were based on absolutely capitalistic social relationships (market, money, wage labor, banks, etc.), although a state controlled market instead of a free market.
Geymonat had a degree in mathematics and philosophy, he was the most important epistemologist (philosopher of science) we’ve had in Italy, and one of the foremost in the world. Together with Feyerabend, he demolished the thesis of Karl Popper, whose critique vs. dialectical materialism/marxism had very little scientific foundation, dictated mostly by geopolitical needs in a mccarthyistic political climate, depending on the creation of an anti-communist ideology in anti-soviet key.
Among the students of this master of scientific philosophy there are contemporary important scholars in Italian and international cultural life, which often followed different paths from the thought of their teacher, and it gives me great satisfaction to know that Andrea Rossi has also been part of this group. This fact alone is sufficient to me to ridicule any critics by detractors that use “established science arguments” against him.
I badly translate here a few sentences about Geymonat and science, from the site by philosopher Diego Fusaro:
http://www.filosofico.net/geymonat.htm
translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filosofico.net%2Fgeymonat.htm
—–
In the course of his work, the reflection comes, in particular, to two conclusions: to reject a formalist-conventional interpretation of knowledge (which can and should relate to the real facts and truth), and to value analysis as not static and abstract but dynamic and practical (everything is “dynamic”, everything is “motion”); analysis must take into serious consideration “the complex dialectic, both theoretical and technical-experimental, pushing the scientist to ever more daring generalizations of his results”.
For Geymonat scientific theories are “an act essentially historical, indissolubly linked to the level of human civilization and therefore at a level of our instruments of knowledge and action”, restoring in this way the thesis expressed by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism, and dialectical materialism by Engels … He believed in science as a content of truth, albeit temporary. But he did not believe in the neutrality of science. Science is a powerful tool, the most powerful that has given the man. It is not indifferent to the social group which holds it: if science is the prerogative of the ruling classes, it becomes a powerful tool of coercion. If science becomes the preserve of the lower classes as well, then it becomes the most powerful tool of liberation and social progress … This view, class, politics and science had, in lucid and coherent speech by Geymonat, two specific consequences. The socialization of scientific discourse, resulting in attention to the communication of science to the general public. And the social commitment of the scientist … But Geymonat is not only uncomfortable for academics and politicians. Nor for his students and his readers. It ‘also inconvenient, and perhaps especially for scientists, who Geymonat calls for a more stringent commitment: to recognize that their science is not neutral, that knowledge they produce have enormous effects on society. And, therefore, scientists can not think of “focus their activities on pure research without being distracted” by other concerns.
They must focus on the tormentors of the society “to reveal the social truth, just as Galileo had pointed his telescope to the sky to reveal the physical truth. Scientists must engage “with the utmost seriousness to address the urgent problem to make sense of human philosophical, ethical and political science. “Because if science “will not be able to broaden and deepen its duties, if it fails to take the position of high responsibility that competes in today’s world, if it is unable to spread throughout the critical spirit, will eventually betray their mission. In that case, will soon become a factor not of progress, but of genuine ruin of increasingly dangerous dehumanization of society, “as a tool of emancipation of the whole society to an instrument of power for small oligarchies … The force of arms, the laws, the propaganda that this would be the best of the possible states, are the means of defense of “the Order of Things” and is called Power. Geymonat writes: “If we ask a revolutionary the things which he would change in this Order he shall answer: I want to change everything. But if we turn to a conservative, more or less said, he will say: I want to put some modifications, apply some reform. That is simply not possible and so it is as if to say: I do not want to change anything. A simple examination of what has happened and is happening continuously in the development of society, shows that efforts to reform the order existing have to invest all of that Order or fail. ”
—-
Finally, I want to add something that few people know. Throughout his academic and scientific life, Geymonat was always admittedly Marxist, but also hostile to the positions of Lenin. In the late 70s there was his shocking “Leninist turn” – harshly criticized by all colleagues – in which he exerted self-criticism of previous positions. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the early repudiation of Lenin was the result of a kind of residue of “personal interest”, in the sense that italian academics and politician in the 60s and 70s were very close to soviet ideology and far from the critics of Leninist wing. The latter, of course, was deeply adverse to the pro-Soviet official Communist party (remember that, since the 30s, Stalin had worldwide killed all the Leninist opposition to his regime, and yet in the Hungary repression, eg., they did not have better luck). It’s true that Geymonat was a profound critic to the academy, but it was always, in the end, what made him a living, and he could have reasonably expected the retirement to fully express his revolutionary spirit (to the contrary, Rossi will not express, surelys he will not retire either). Coincidently, most of italian Rossi’s “scientific” enemies belong to that same leftist political and academic area fought by Geymonat.
I don’t want to make an apology, but I must recognize that although Rossi, like other Geymonat’s students, has followed a different philosophy, inspired by confidence in the market economy, however he distinguished his life according to the teachings of the illustrious Professor, working on the concrete, economic reality of the society, which he achieves by combining in himself the characteristics of the scientist, of the inventor, of the entrepreneur and of the epochè (in the end I must to add a stupidity at any cost)
An item of news of interest for the last 3 weeks or more has been the volcanic lava flow in Hawaii. I haven’t noticed any discussion on why it continues to glow red and does not solidify.
Surely this would be of interest to the LENR community. Perhaps someone could offer an explanation for it remaining at such a high temperature for weeks on end.
If it were molten aluminium at 700˚C its temperature would drop 400˚C in 12 minutes from contact with ambient temperature surface soil.
Looks like ‘natural’ LENR to me.
Dear Mr. Rossi, understanding that you have delayed your small domestic E-Cat because of the certification problems, are you still working on getting it ready for market as it is the device most suitable to use in villages etc. for water purification etc. and is very urgently needed in these situations.
Beat wishes
Making a paragon between the e-cat development and early radio experiments, we could say that Fleischmann e Pons finding can be compared with Hertz’s resonator, the ITP tests represent the shot of rifle behind the hill, the last e-cat device the first electronic tube, the 1 MW plant represents the Poldhu station.
From this point in forward we can imagine a fast and global affirmation of the e-cat technology.
I have not casually spoken of Guglielmo Marconi, there are many common points between you and him, and your work, seriously risks to overcome his radio for importance in the mankind history.
···—·—
Alessandro Coppi
Keith T.:
Thank you for your suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
1- The reactor that has been used in the Lugano test has been manufactured in the factory of Industrial Heat, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
2- The charge has been prepared by Industrial Heat, as all the charges are now, obviously upon the instructions I delivered with the know how.
3- I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges, because I trust my magnificent Team. After months of rehearsing, under my direction, the Team of IH is able to manufacture everything without my help. For example, the 1 MW for the Customer of IH has been completely manufactured by them. The reactor used in Lugano is just one out of many of them manufactured in the factory of IH by their workers, directed by their engineers. The charges are made by the top level persons that have access to them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
No, it does not work like that.
and there is no point to put a heat exchanger between the heat source and the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea and KeithT,
A gas-fired heat source has some temperature that it operates at. I would assume there is an optimal temperature for control of the eCat. The eCat ideal operating temperature is probably lower than the gas-fired heat source (or else the gas-fired heat source would not be a good heat supplier). Therefore, the molten salt might act as an efficient mechanism to change the gas-fired temperature to an optimal temperature that is needed for the eCat? Maybe the eCat can output energy to heat the molten salt to improve effective COP? Thoughts?
Dear Andrea,
Can you tell us:
1. Who made the reactor that was used in the Lugano report?
2. Who prepared the powder that was used in the reactor?
3. What your role was (if any) in preparing the above items?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea Rossi,
For a E-Cat within a circulating thermal fluid circuit, the fluid could be heated via gas, electric or even another E-Cat, once the primary E-cat was up to temperature then producing excess heat it would be a case of extracting the excess heat via a heat exchanger. If you have multiple E-Cats within a circuit it only requires the initial heat source to get the circuit up to temperature, after this it becomes a question of thermal heat balance and control of the individual E-Cat thermal cycling to get overlap.
Apologies for taking too simplistic a view i am trying top understand the potential of the E-Cat.
Regards,
Keith Thomson
Eric Ashworth:
I use all the information I receive.
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ran out of space.
Could these suggestions help solve some enigmas with regards atomic physics?. I would also like to think that maybe Andrea could use some of the information.
There is more interesting information with regards the geometry of a cubic neutral of energy but I need to cut this short and I apologize to Andrea for taking up so much space on his blog. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Koen Vandewalle & Greg Leonard, I feel it necessary to put forward further information with reference to the previous site of mine referring to the unifying field oscillation mechanism. This information when understood and considered could explain the anomalous mass of the neutron and how gravity features into the enigma. This technical so please bear with me.
These findings and theories are from my understanding and observations with regards the mechanism previously referred to a a ‘unifying field oscillator’ which came about as an understanding I perceived as the internal dynamics of the atom. I believe the origin of geometry and math is related to an understanding of energy with regards atomic make-up.
The mechanism design is based upon a binary interaction to produce and control a flow. This being one circle referred to as the field which is divided into four quadrants. Midway between the centre of the field and its periphery on each of the dividers which now become diameters are drawn four circles that extend from centre to periphery. Thereby a one third overlap is achieved by each circle with its neighbour. The mechanism is now designed using four rotors, two blades per rotor and a necessary timing sequence. Rotors are spaced accordingly to allow for a necessary vacant central space. The static baffle of the assembly (being a frame) contains a central divider/mantle between inner and outer field and upon which rotors are fixed at their strategic points. This reference to mantle comes from an observation in nature and referes to the division between the chambers of the frame that occupy the inner and outer positions of the field
The field now has a central vacant space (super/major gravitational), four vacant spaces at the periphery of the field(minor gavitational fields), four gavitational at each rotor, four inner vortex flows (vortex gravitational), four outer vortex flows (vortex gravitational). The vortex flows are the economy flows within the mechanism that bind the flow structure together (binding force). The mechanism contains two gates of the super gravitational force which includes all the other gravitational forces and three types of flow, curvature, linear and static. The linear flow refers to an exterior macro curvature flow that responds accordingly to the two gates. Reference to my previous material will explain flows. There is a horizontal and a vertical plane to the mechanism as can be seen, four divisions of the horizontal between two gates of the super gravitational. Four divisions become four dimensions, two gates become two dimensions and thereby six dimensions in all. Consequently I refer to the mechanism as being able to generate a cubic neutral of energy. This mechanism is thereby able to prove a theory of unification, it is also able to be studied so as to investigate what I term energy interaction. Mobile energy (flows), static energy (atomic substance in structure) and the interaction between these two states which I term (the static and mobile mechanics of energy interaction). The static and mobile mechanics with regards the mechanism is in reference to the static baffle and its interaction with the generated flows.
So in consideration with regards the mechanism I shall extend my thoughts to particle structure and attempt to explain stable and unstable structure and therefore the following is guesswork. To be stable a structure has to be a cubic neutral composed of six parts that compliment one another. The proton being of three quarks is unstable and so too is the neutron but together they form a cubic neutral of energy in the same way that two propellers overlap in the mechanism. The overlap of two particles is dependent upon their construction within a field and nothing can be formed outside of a field that conforms to the field. Every field contains its super/major gravitational force and its four minor gravitational forces. Aminor gravitational force is a black hole on the periphery of the field, this being one quarter strength of the super gravitational force. Fusing of structure (the construction of a vortex) occurs from the moment it is formed at the periphery from vortex gravitational force. Vortex forces formed at the periphery of a macro field will produce solid atomic substance due to the super gravitational force acting progressively on the structure as it traverses the field. Vortexes not formed at the absolute periphery will be formed of a gravity value less than that of a quarter and will always be less dense in their structural make-up because of this. Three distinct densities with a fourth being less distinct thereby exist because of a divisional relationship within the field.
The economy flow system of vortex forces within a structure provide the quality value pertaining to the structure. Good quality provides solidity, poor quality is responsible for week structure. Metals have good structure, Hydrogen has week structure. This is important: good structure has to have a good overlap between its particles to form a good economy flow system whereas, particles that barely overlap or oscillate to form a partial overlap with regards time and space i.e. time in/time out have very week strurcture. It is dependent upon the gravitational forces of the particles (particle gravitation forces depends upon their origin of manufacture) that dictates the overlap that is responsible for the vortex forces of the economy flow systems.
In the mechanism I see four particles that overlap by one third, providing good structure. Each rotor can represent a particle. Thereby imagine three quarks (each quark composed of three aethers) rather than two blades rotating around a central vortex (I believe geometry dictates energy whether it be atomic or charged particles) within a field. Three evenly spaced quarks in a binary interaction with three other quarks of another particle (three quarks form an unstable neutral particle) form a stable neutral cube of energy. To picture this situation in the mechanism it will be seen that two quarks of the neutron would be travelling out to the periphery on an arc and one travelling into the central field whereas with regards the proton its activity would be visa versa. To travel into a field the vortex closes producing less inner gravity and less kinetic energy, to travel outwards of a field opens the vortex producing more inner gravity and more kinetic energy. Each quark composed of three aethers in vortex make-up. If so a quark could be likend to a mini heat pump with regards its charge potential as it completes a circuit.
I shall now refer to flows and the mechanism. As I previously mentioned two curvature vortex flows, produced by the overlapping propellers, upon contact spin out to form economy flows from the produced linear flow. This linear flow encapsulates the cubic neutral of generated energy. The linear flow represents for me the electron flow force produced by a proton neutron activity. However, when the proton and the neutron are unable to produce a linear flow because of a week interaction then the neutron because of its quark activity responds according to the field of its manufacture, its two negative quarks become more negative by position and the proton acts visa versa. This results in a cubic neutral of charge energy which is not the same as a cubic neutral of atomic energy made up of particles. Consequently, hydrogen could be said to be comprised of an expanded neutron that circumvents a contracted proton in an oscillating motion. The interaction between two these particles could be oscillatory in activity because of the week bond. If what I say is correct then could this explain the enigma with regards P+E=N. The loss of .789 could be due to the formation of an economy flow system or it could be said that .789 has something to do with a binding force energy. The subject does intrigue me.
Keith T:
To what purpose? Any heat exchange implies a loss of efficiency.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If an E-Cat can be gas powered, could it be powered by a heated thermal fluid / molten salt.
Regards,
Keith Thomson
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you, I am delighted to read that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
KeithT:
Electric controls are necessary, but they consume a small amount of energy, easy to backup.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
StudentG:
Thank you very much for your interesting comment. In my Philosophy studies I also have studied Buddhism, and your innuendo is intriguing. I leave to you your subjective interpretation. You can seek an answer exclusively in yourself. Whatever I could say is not important. By the way: I am sure you will make a great engineer in nanotechnologies and I am sure I will hear of you in the near future. As you know better than me, in this period of your life the most important thing is what you learn from your Professors. Leave all the rest in a second place.
If it is necessary to study 8 hours per day, you have to study for 12 hours.
Good luck!
Andrea Rossi
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Even though I was just googleing Husserl and don’t know much about him and his work, it seemed to me that his ideas are kind of in line with core teachings of the Buddha as interpreted by Theravada Buddhism. So I was just wondering if you know about Theravada or have interest in this teaching and see parallelities to Husserl. To clarify, where this question is coming from, I’m a student in Nanoengeneering from Germany and following this blog for a while now with much interest. So my interest is not religious, but as you seem to be really open minded and experienced in the combination of scientific science and philosophy science, im seeking for an answer in this perspective, if even possible.
Best greetings and Good luck
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regarding the gas E-Cat, is a pure gas powered E-Cat possible, or would you still require electrical controls. There is still many remote locations on Earth that do not have an electrical supply.
Regards,
Keith Thomson