I am increasingly amazed at the discussions on your blog, I would think we should wait until your demonstration / presentation is available to everyone.
When E-cat SKLs become available on the commercial market in due course, scientific research and assessment will only be a meaningful activity.
The future will evoke many new developments and scientific highlights around E-cats’s.
I hope for a quick demonstration of your invention,
best regards, Jitse
CONTINUATION.
So, let’s move on to the main thing. How Andrea Rossi could get excess electricity.
There are several ways. But they all obey the law of conservation of energy. Therefore, the piling up in the comments, and answers to them of all kinds of effects, known to science, of a scientific nature, violate this law, confuse everyone and lead away. And the only correct explanation is the use of the energy of the Physical Vacuum (PV). This has to be admitted. Now, how does he do it and how he transforms it into electricity. In two steps:
1. Energy impact on the medium Environment — ether, or more precisely, structured ether — Physical Vacuum (PV) by impact on the matter connected with him creating plasma filament in hydrogen environment. As a response from PV on this impact – a sharp change in his energy density by intensifying the oscillations of the PV’s energy lattice, and at least, increase of its energy density (Vacuum polarization – as pointed out in the comments). And due to Lenz rule Response from PV on the matter leading to absorption and release of anti-neutrino by an electron during the sharp changes in PV density around him. Electron receives an impulse from anti-neutrino, like in beta decay — kinetic energy. The total energy of the anti-neutrino in the Universe decreases in this case. The additional chaotic motion of the electrons leads to the release of additional energy.
2. If we managed to transform chaotic electron oscillation in the directional movement of electrons, we will receive electric current. Most likely we should use magnetic or electric field to make electrons move in the right direction. I guess this variant Andrea Rossi presented several years ago where the dimensions of his device were about one millimeter in diameter and several centimeters in length (if anyone remembers).
But it is not all. To increase the electric current value we need more electrons occupying PV higher density volume. In this case around the plasma filament (PV energy density changes exist not only in the center, but also in the surroindings of the plasma filament) in the same direction using simple electron emission from cathods methods, one can launched electrons flow, that is also accelerates due to PV energy changes.
The secondary electron emissins filaments can be also put inside the plasma filament (technologically difficult, but for Andrea Rossi possible). And all this set of plasma filaments surrounded by electron filaments is assembled into a single system (remember he mentioned of hundreds of soldered micro-joints).
Of cause, one can find other methods to transform excess of energy into electricity (there I only suggested that he could do. I also “could be wrong” or mistaken. But I think it’s better to offer something and be wrong than not to offer anything and not move forward.
By the way in modified paper appeared references concerning Shoulders experiments in which he also tried to generate electricity. Although Shoulders also has everything generalized and little specific, so it is impossible to repeat his experiments, but his approaches are interesting, and it is likely that Andrea Rossi also used these ideas.
Best regards,
Aleksei
Dear Colleagues (Skeptic Prof, only Prof, Physicist, Andrea Rossi,…etc)
Thank you for the fruitful scientific discussion. Especially now, when the continuously continuing questions to Andrea Rossi, when will be the long-awaited presentation, are already a little boring.
In my scientific opinion, the later the better.
We have just experienced COVID 19, which shook the whole world, and you propose to shake it up again with an energy revolution. We are not ready for this yet. It’s a shock. Even if the Martians land on Earth, the shock will be less.
As for the issue how Andrea and his Team received electricity there can be several ways. From time to time Andrea makes comments, which partly can help us for understanding. But you should take into account two things.
First, a great sense of humor of Andrea. And if his answer coincides with the 1-st of April date (and he repeats April 1 date several times a month), then the answer will be appropriate, and it should not be taken seriously.
Secondly, he himself does not fully understand how he did it (in his answers he repeatedly hints at this – «I could be wrong” – an honest answer is always valuable), therefore, with the use of his last papers, it is impossible to anybody to repeat his E-Cat SKL. In this sense, he reminds Nikola Tesla, he also feels the process, knows what needs to be done, and leaves the theoretical explanation for later, involuntarily misleading all of us. (TO BE CONTINUED)
Alphonse Whitchurch:
Zitterbewegung is the circular/helicoidal of the massless charge of the electron, not the speed of electron.
See ref. 24,25,26,27 and, also important, 17 of the cited paper.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Physicist:
I respect the observations of Skeptic Prof, though, as I respect any criticism made honestly. I do not agree with him, but I am grateful to him for the time he spent to read our theoretical contribution, that, remember, could be wrong, albeit I think, so far, it is right and I continue to find corroboration of it during our experiments with the Ecat SKL.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Kudos for your answer to Skeptic Prof. I liked also your cameo about mass, inertia, spin and magnetic momentum that, dubbed “intrinsic” by Quantum Mechanic, are redubbed “intrinsic, i.e. unexplained” by you: great !
Cheers
Physicist
Skeptical Prof:
Thank you for your comments: I am delighted to answer.
Answer to “comment on the whole”:
Obviously I am perfectly aware that according to the general accepted interpretations of QM electron does not have an internal structure and that consequently all the hypotheses presented in my paper can be easily dismissed on this bases, but this is a tautology ( A=A )
Answer to Comment on Par. 2.1:
In this old interview Prof. M. Fleishmann considers the “space charge” an interesting research subject:
F: Well, you have worked in this field, haven’t you ? Just think of the space charge around a cathode, you understand that?
T: Well, I must admit, to be honest, I have rather tended to take things like the thermionic diode pretty much for granted
F: Well, before our next meeting try to tell me wether you understand the space charge around a cathode
[By the way: the space charge has been discovered also by Edison as a serendipity during his experiments with a light bulb]
I agree on your statement ” Vacuum polarization is a well estabilished effect in QED and I doubt very much that any new physics could be derived from it”. But “old physics” must be better understood, especially when electrons are defined as pointlike particles, with the bizarre consequence that their electric field should be supposed infinite.
About your statement “The reference to an obscure patent by Nelson does not strengthen the case”: let me humbly observe that “obscure patent” is an oxymoron, when referred to a granted US patent.
Answer to Comment on Par. 2.2:
You write ” I get the impression that what you call zitterbewegung is a circular motion of the electron with the speed of light. This is not what is normally called zitterbewegung; this word is used for a trembling or zig-zaging motion”.
Now, dear Skeptical Prof: when you read a paper, before make statements about the use of words, you should be supposed to take a look to the references related to the definition of the key-terms of the paper itself: Prof David Hestenes ( see references 24,25,26,27 of my paper), who is considered one of the best living physicists of the world, calls zitterbewegung the circular/helicoidal motion of a massless charge. This motion is the very cause of mass, inertia, spin, and magnetic momentum. In QM these quantities are “intrinsic” ( i.e. unexplained) properties. It is true, however, that this is not the original Schrodinger definition given on Wikipedia, but that definition has nothing to do with the context defined in the references of Hestenes.
About your statement “It is correct that at the speed of light the Lorentz force can become as strong as the Coulomb repulsion. In order for them to balance one needs parallel motion, not circular. In circular motion the current on opposite sides of the circle are in opposite directions and the Lorentz force repulsive, Equation 8 is not comprehensible to me.”, here is my answer:
The velocity vectors of two massless charges that rotate at the speed of light in parallel planes, with the same angular frequency, same phase and same orbit radius are parallel.
About equation 8: it can be understood accepting the point 3 of ” the alternative world view ” proposed by Carver Mead in his paper
“The Nature of Light: What are “Photons”?”
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Please allow me some comments on your paper http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
:
Comment on the whole: I am certain that ultra dense hydrogen does not exist. Our excellent theories for quantum mechanics and electromagnetism simply do not allow for this.
Comment on par. 2.1: I am not aware that thereis any misterious space charge at cathodes. Vacuum polarization is a well estabilished effect in QED and I doubt very much that any new physics could be derived from it. The reference to an obscure patent by Nelson does not strengthen the case.
Comment on par. 2.2: I get the impression that what you call zitterbewegung is a circular motion of the electron with the speed of light. This is not what normally is called zitterbewegung; this word is used for a trembling or zigzaging motion.
It is correct that the Lorentz force can become as strong as the Coulomb repulsion, but in order for them to balance one needs parallel motion, not circular. In circular motion the current on opposite sides of the circle are in opposite directionsand the Lorentz force is repulsive.
The equation (8) is not comprehensible to me.
Are you able to answer my comments ?
Skeptical Prof
This was in fact not a question but rather a remark:
The author explains/illustrates his view further by quoting Gilbert N. Lewis (at the end of page 4 and the beginning of page 5):
It is generally assumed that a radiating body emits light in every direction,
quite regardless of whether there are near or distant objects which may ultimately absorb that light;
in other words that it radiates “into space”…
I am going to make the contrary assumption
that an atom never emits light except to another atom…
I propose to eliminate the idea of mere emission of light and substitute the idea of transmission,
or a process of exchange of energy between two definite atoms…
Both atoms must play coordinate and symmetrical parts in the process of exchange…
I find this view (also explained in CE (‘Collective Electrodynamics’) and the ‘Transactional View of Quantum Transitions’ the author refers to) very interesting and new to me. As a civil engineer we never learned to view it that way. We learned what was ‘generally assumed’ (see above).
At the moment I’ve read two papers that you referred to in the past (of course, this doesn’t mean that you necessarily agree with them, so I don’t insinuate that you agree with them), but I would like to ask some questions about them:
I like their idea/model of a ‘3D quantum vacuum’ as a background of physical processes, (which appears similar to the Theosofists’ idea/model of the 4th ether), and which hopefully can show/prove (later) that the gravitational and the quantum effects of matter are highly coupled and have the same origin, namely the same 3D quantum vacuum characterized by opportune changes of its energy density as the origin of mass and curvature of space.
Do you agree with their conclusion that gravity is non-local, and caused by it? (I personally tend to agree with them). So, in comparison with ‘quantum entanglement’, gravity also is a non-local ‘spooky action at a distance’ and NOT a propagating force, but acts immediate, and could be the result of the variable energy density of quantum vacuum?
ii) The second paper I’ve read is: The Nature of Light: What are “Photons”? (pdf-file!) (from Carver Mead), but as I’m running out of time (unfortunately I don’t belong to the 3D Quantum Vacuum where there’s only NOW, and my other duties call me), I maybe will ask a question about it later.
Mike Phalen:
Thank you and all our Readers for your attention to the hard work of the great Team of the E-Cat !
Actually, we spent ten hard years, never giving up, but we would repeat everything we made.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea
A little clarification regarding your recent answer to Gerard McEk if you will.
When you answered the question “Can you tell us how far you are from being ready?” with “maximum 11 months from the presentation” did you mean that the presentation that you thought you might be able to give last year may not be given for another 11 months from now?
Gerard McEk:
1. maximum 11 months from the presentation, but I think it will be earlier
all the 2s: yes
3a. yes
3b. does not depend on me
3c. same as 3b.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Can you tell us how far you are from being ready?
2. Does ‘being ready’ mean:
2.a Required certifications received?
2.b All needed test done and satisfactory?
2.c Ecat production factory ready and pilot series work satisfactory?
2.e Partner- customer(s) ready for showing first product with Ecat(s) inside?
2.f Production facility beefed-up, administration and sales department ready for mass production?
3 What will you show during the presentation:
3.a An Ecat in operation?
3.b An Ecat in a product of a customer, also in operation?
3.c Will you (or somebody of Leonardo Corp.) present the Ecat jointly with a customer?
Thanks if you can answer.
Kind regards, Gerard
thank you for clarifying the other day that you mean by stating that dV/dt is for understanding the ECAT technology important and that this refers to d(Volt)/d(time) as I always thought that you were talking about dV/dt as d(Volume)/d(time) as V is usually used in science equations as volume and these general equations shouldn’t be mixed with units (like Volt).
And as you’re mentioning and recommending also to read Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions, I guess there is a mistake in one equation (1.4.23).
Looking forward to the surely incredible presentation of this marvelous technology, as this might be the event of the year/decade/ or even century : )
Good luck to you and the whole ECat team and also a happy new year to all the readers here.
Marcus:
Thank you for the link.
I prefer to use the calendar and the planning based on the results of the tests, although from NASA surely there is plenty to learn.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Jaroslaw Bem:
In nature the entropy increase is constant. If the Ecat is shut down, the energy made before the shut down has already been transfered to the eectrons not in phase and has already been turned into electricity, while the generation of clusters of electrons in phase ceases. At that point the situation returns to a constant increase of entropy, along the second and third principles of thermodynamic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
As I mentioned earlier that I couldn’t read nor download your paper with my linux system, this message just to let you know that I could download and read your paper and all the interesting references since sunday 3 january. In my case, an update of Adobe or Acrobat Reader was not necessary, and I could read it with my normal European IP-number, without using any proxy or VPN connection. (As I was very busy, I apologize that I had no time to mention this earlier).
But as I had no quantum mechanics in my curriculum, it can take a long time before I give feedback on it. Nevertheless it’s interesting, and I’ve seen a lot of interesting references, that I certainly want to read.
I also realize that the future demonstrations of the E-Cat to the general public (that will show that real energy with enormous energy density is produced), in combination with these exotic but interesting theories and papers, will give an enormous boost to science. Like in 1900, starting with Planck, science will reboost again and again.
So you and your team not only created an incredibly device (the E-Cat), but you also give an enormous boost to science!
According to your theory presented in: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions:
formation of coherent electrons clusters with lower entropy implies transmitting energy to the noncoherent electrons and outside to the environment.
This process is triggered and supported by the control box.
If control box stop its working, then electron clusters loss their coherention and their entropy will growing.
Is it means, that electrons will absorb energy from the environment?
Could you explain why not occur the “revers transmitting” energy from the environment to the E-Cat SKL after turn off the control box ?
Congratulations with the progress of the ECAT SKL plant and use of it.
I know question have been asked already a few times,
will there be an opportunity for small investers (for ex. max $1000) and not only for big guys at big banks?
I am sure you and your partners have penetrated the important business opportunities with the E-Cat and I am not asking for credit for a suggestion, if any, but here is one thought. We know that solar cells and wind farms are nowadays being installed at a higher pace than ever. These energy systems have the drawback of being daylight and wind dependant which causes supply and demand balance problems on the grid. Other generating capacities will then have to respond to the imbalance where these other power generators are expensive and have long response time. Maybe the E-Cat power plant has a seconds long (?) response time making the E-Cat comparable with battery farms. If so, the E-Cat is not competing on electricity pricing but on costs for battery farms.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Have you had the Covid-19 vaccine yet. It’s widely available in Florida for senior citizens and people with health conditions. If you haven’t yet taken the vaccine, contact the nearest American embassy or consulate. They may be able to direct you how to receive the vaccine.
Best Regards,
Iggy
I understand from recent posts that one of the potential uses for using the e-cat SKL is to support the Hydrogen economy.
I can see the benefits for this especially in the early phase.
One as a way to covert the energy to storable medium if the supply is irregular for some reason. Especially if electrolysis is more robust to variations than other storage methods such as battery banks etc. I see this could be many other factors influencing this. availability and cost of batteries vs storage medium for Hydrogen etc either tanks or metal hydrides etc. number of recharge cycles in batteries vs electrolysis cycles etc.
The other is to use Hydrogen as a chemical resource directly by using the ecat -SKL and safe to store water.
I wonder if rather than producing hydrogen gas directly if it would be better to combine this technology with a more usual metal hydride heat pump set up. Thus may be more efficient and safer than storing Hydrogen as a gas etc and I know it’s something your familiar with from your use if LAH etc in your patent.
In another topic I recently came across this link uses Stoichiometric Oxygen Hydogen (SOH) fuels that relates to MOH and OHMASA gas that has in the past been a topic discussed in some fora.
I wonder if this would be a match for your need? It seems well funded from a EEC point of view since 2019.
I have no affiliation with them and am not sure of how far developed they are but I could imagine e-car SKL could be a good match to power their electrolysis. Perhaps other readers know more about it.
Their related links also seem interesting and a good match for you.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
I am increasingly amazed at the discussions on your blog, I would think we should wait until your demonstration / presentation is available to everyone.
When E-cat SKLs become available on the commercial market in due course, scientific research and assessment will only be a meaningful activity.
The future will evoke many new developments and scientific highlights around E-cats’s.
I hope for a quick demonstration of your invention,
best regards, Jitse
Skeptic Prof:
why am I not surprised about you insisting on your position:
Better
Indulge on
Authority’s
Systems
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Interesting answers, but I don’t change my position,
Skeptic Prof
Aleksei Savchenko:
Intriguing insight,
thank you !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
CONTINUATION.
So, let’s move on to the main thing. How Andrea Rossi could get excess electricity.
There are several ways. But they all obey the law of conservation of energy. Therefore, the piling up in the comments, and answers to them of all kinds of effects, known to science, of a scientific nature, violate this law, confuse everyone and lead away. And the only correct explanation is the use of the energy of the Physical Vacuum (PV). This has to be admitted. Now, how does he do it and how he transforms it into electricity. In two steps:
1. Energy impact on the medium Environment — ether, or more precisely, structured ether — Physical Vacuum (PV) by impact on the matter connected with him creating plasma filament in hydrogen environment. As a response from PV on this impact – a sharp change in his energy density by intensifying the oscillations of the PV’s energy lattice, and at least, increase of its energy density (Vacuum polarization – as pointed out in the comments). And due to Lenz rule Response from PV on the matter leading to absorption and release of anti-neutrino by an electron during the sharp changes in PV density around him. Electron receives an impulse from anti-neutrino, like in beta decay — kinetic energy. The total energy of the anti-neutrino in the Universe decreases in this case. The additional chaotic motion of the electrons leads to the release of additional energy.
2. If we managed to transform chaotic electron oscillation in the directional movement of electrons, we will receive electric current. Most likely we should use magnetic or electric field to make electrons move in the right direction. I guess this variant Andrea Rossi presented several years ago where the dimensions of his device were about one millimeter in diameter and several centimeters in length (if anyone remembers).
But it is not all. To increase the electric current value we need more electrons occupying PV higher density volume. In this case around the plasma filament (PV energy density changes exist not only in the center, but also in the surroindings of the plasma filament) in the same direction using simple electron emission from cathods methods, one can launched electrons flow, that is also accelerates due to PV energy changes.
The secondary electron emissins filaments can be also put inside the plasma filament (technologically difficult, but for Andrea Rossi possible). And all this set of plasma filaments surrounded by electron filaments is assembled into a single system (remember he mentioned of hundreds of soldered micro-joints).
Of cause, one can find other methods to transform excess of energy into electricity (there I only suggested that he could do. I also “could be wrong” or mistaken. But I think it’s better to offer something and be wrong than not to offer anything and not move forward.
By the way in modified paper appeared references concerning Shoulders experiments in which he also tried to generate electricity. Although Shoulders also has everything generalized and little specific, so it is impossible to repeat his experiments, but his approaches are interesting, and it is likely that Andrea Rossi also used these ideas.
Best regards,
Aleksei
Dear Colleagues (Skeptic Prof, only Prof, Physicist, Andrea Rossi,…etc)
Thank you for the fruitful scientific discussion. Especially now, when the continuously continuing questions to Andrea Rossi, when will be the long-awaited presentation, are already a little boring.
In my scientific opinion, the later the better.
We have just experienced COVID 19, which shook the whole world, and you propose to shake it up again with an energy revolution. We are not ready for this yet. It’s a shock. Even if the Martians land on Earth, the shock will be less.
As for the issue how Andrea and his Team received electricity there can be several ways. From time to time Andrea makes comments, which partly can help us for understanding. But you should take into account two things.
First, a great sense of humor of Andrea. And if his answer coincides with the 1-st of April date (and he repeats April 1 date several times a month), then the answer will be appropriate, and it should not be taken seriously.
Secondly, he himself does not fully understand how he did it (in his answers he repeatedly hints at this – «I could be wrong” – an honest answer is always valuable), therefore, with the use of his last papers, it is impossible to anybody to repeat his E-Cat SKL. In this sense, he reminds Nikola Tesla, he also feels the process, knows what needs to be done, and leaves the theoretical explanation for later, involuntarily misleading all of us. (TO BE CONTINUED)
Alphonse Whitchurch:
Zitterbewegung is the circular/helicoidal of the massless charge of the electron, not the speed of electron.
See ref. 24,25,26,27 and, also important, 17 of the cited paper.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eve:
Thank you for your attention to our work,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I read on
http://www.researchgaye.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
thatthe zitterbewegung consists in the fact that the electron moves at the speed of light, but how is it possible that a fermion moves at the speed of light ?
Alphonse
I like your answer to Skeptic Prof
Eve
Physicist:
I respect the observations of Skeptic Prof, though, as I respect any criticism made honestly. I do not agree with him, but I am grateful to him for the time he spent to read our theoretical contribution, that, remember, could be wrong, albeit I think, so far, it is right and I continue to find corroboration of it during our experiments with the Ecat SKL.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof:
Thank you for your attention to our work,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Great answer to Skeptic Prof !
Prof
Kudos for your answer to Skeptic Prof. I liked also your cameo about mass, inertia, spin and magnetic momentum that, dubbed “intrinsic” by Quantum Mechanic, are redubbed “intrinsic, i.e. unexplained” by you: great !
Cheers
Physicist
Skeptical Prof:
Thank you for your comments: I am delighted to answer.
Answer to “comment on the whole”:
Obviously I am perfectly aware that according to the general accepted interpretations of QM electron does not have an internal structure and that consequently all the hypotheses presented in my paper can be easily dismissed on this bases, but this is a tautology ( A=A )
Answer to Comment on Par. 2.1:
In this old interview Prof. M. Fleishmann considers the “space charge” an interesting research subject:
F: Well, you have worked in this field, haven’t you ? Just think of the space charge around a cathode, you understand that?
T: Well, I must admit, to be honest, I have rather tended to take things like the thermionic diode pretty much for granted
F: Well, before our next meeting try to tell me wether you understand the space charge around a cathode
[By the way: the space charge has been discovered also by Edison as a serendipity during his experiments with a light bulb]
I agree on your statement ” Vacuum polarization is a well estabilished effect in QED and I doubt very much that any new physics could be derived from it”. But “old physics” must be better understood, especially when electrons are defined as pointlike particles, with the bizarre consequence that their electric field should be supposed infinite.
About your statement “The reference to an obscure patent by Nelson does not strengthen the case”: let me humbly observe that “obscure patent” is an oxymoron, when referred to a granted US patent.
Answer to Comment on Par. 2.2:
You write ” I get the impression that what you call zitterbewegung is a circular motion of the electron with the speed of light. This is not what is normally called zitterbewegung; this word is used for a trembling or zig-zaging motion”.
Now, dear Skeptical Prof: when you read a paper, before make statements about the use of words, you should be supposed to take a look to the references related to the definition of the key-terms of the paper itself: Prof David Hestenes ( see references 24,25,26,27 of my paper), who is considered one of the best living physicists of the world, calls zitterbewegung the circular/helicoidal motion of a massless charge. This motion is the very cause of mass, inertia, spin, and magnetic momentum. In QM these quantities are “intrinsic” ( i.e. unexplained) properties. It is true, however, that this is not the original Schrodinger definition given on Wikipedia, but that definition has nothing to do with the context defined in the references of Hestenes.
About your statement “It is correct that at the speed of light the Lorentz force can become as strong as the Coulomb repulsion. In order for them to balance one needs parallel motion, not circular. In circular motion the current on opposite sides of the circle are in opposite directions and the Lorentz force repulsive, Equation 8 is not comprehensible to me.”, here is my answer:
The velocity vectors of two massless charges that rotate at the speed of light in parallel planes, with the same angular frequency, same phase and same orbit radius are parallel.
About equation 8: it can be understood accepting the point 3 of ” the alternative world view ” proposed by Carver Mead in his paper
“The Nature of Light: What are “Photons”?”
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Please allow me some comments on your paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
:
Comment on the whole: I am certain that ultra dense hydrogen does not exist. Our excellent theories for quantum mechanics and electromagnetism simply do not allow for this.
Comment on par. 2.1: I am not aware that thereis any misterious space charge at cathodes. Vacuum polarization is a well estabilished effect in QED and I doubt very much that any new physics could be derived from it. The reference to an obscure patent by Nelson does not strengthen the case.
Comment on par. 2.2: I get the impression that what you call zitterbewegung is a circular motion of the electron with the speed of light. This is not what normally is called zitterbewegung; this word is used for a trembling or zigzaging motion.
It is correct that the Lorentz force can become as strong as the Coulomb repulsion, but in order for them to balance one needs parallel motion, not circular. In circular motion the current on opposite sides of the circle are in opposite directionsand the Lorentz force is repulsive.
The equation (8) is not comprehensible to me.
Are you able to answer my comments ?
Skeptical Prof
@Mike Phalen:
Thank you for the memo: in 2021 we will see something never seen before !
K
Daniel De Caluwé:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Concerning my second question (about The Nature of Light: What are “Photons”? (pdf-file!) (from Carver Mead) ):
This was in fact not a question but rather a remark:
The author explains/illustrates his view further by quoting Gilbert N. Lewis (at the end of page 4 and the beginning of page 5):
I find this view (also explained in CE (‘Collective Electrodynamics’) and the ‘Transactional View of Quantum Transitions’ the author refers to) very interesting and new to me. As a civil engineer we never learned to view it that way. We learned what was ‘generally assumed’ (see above).
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Daniel De Caluwé:
i) No
ii) Waiting for it
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
At the moment I’ve read two papers that you referred to in the past (of course, this doesn’t mean that you necessarily agree with them, so I don’t insinuate that you agree with them), but I would like to ask some questions about them:
i) My first question is about the paper Quantum vacuum energy density and unifying perspectives between gravity and quantum behaviour of matter (pdf-file!), that you referred to in your answer to Raffaele Bongo.
I like their idea/model of a ‘3D quantum vacuum’ as a background of physical processes, (which appears similar to the Theosofists’ idea/model of the 4th ether), and which hopefully can show/prove (later) that the gravitational and the quantum effects of matter are highly coupled and have the same origin, namely the same 3D quantum vacuum characterized by opportune changes of its energy density as the origin of mass and curvature of space.
Do you agree with their conclusion that gravity is non-local, and caused by it? (I personally tend to agree with them). So, in comparison with ‘quantum entanglement’, gravity also is a non-local ‘spooky action at a distance’ and NOT a propagating force, but acts immediate, and could be the result of the variable energy density of quantum vacuum?
ii) The second paper I’ve read is: The Nature of Light: What are “Photons”? (pdf-file!) (from Carver Mead), but as I’m running out of time (unfortunately I don’t belong to the 3D Quantum Vacuum where there’s only NOW, and my other duties call me), I maybe will ask a question about it later.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Mike Phalen:
Thank you and all our Readers for your attention to the hard work of the great Team of the E-Cat !
Actually, we spent ten hard years, never giving up, but we would repeat everything we made.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea
**** This is a duplicate post. I Edited last line *****
Hi Dr. Rossi,
Today, Jan. 14 2021, is the 10 year anniversary of the first public E-cat demo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQlKXqoZHxI&list=ULN9Vyjlj8PLM&index=12
Thank you to you and your team for giving the E-cat to the world!
Hi Dr. Rossi,
Today, Jan. 14 2021, is the 10 year anniversary of the first public E-cat demo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQlKXqoZHxI&list=ULN9Vyjlj8PLM&index=12
Thank you for giving the E-cat to the world.
Victor:
There is a typo: Jzx is Jez.
Obviously it is a typo, not an error, since Jzx is a nonsense.
Thank you for your kind wishes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bill Conley:
I meant that the presentation will be made within this year. I am not able to say when, right now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
A little clarification regarding your recent answer to Gerard McEk if you will.
When you answered the question “Can you tell us how far you are from being ready?” with “maximum 11 months from the presentation” did you mean that the presentation that you thought you might be able to give last year may not be given for another 11 months from now?
Best wishes on your team’s important work.
Bill Conley
Gerard McEk:
1. maximum 11 months from the presentation, but I think it will be earlier
all the 2s: yes
3a. yes
3b. does not depend on me
3c. same as 3b.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Can you tell us how far you are from being ready?
2. Does ‘being ready’ mean:
2.a Required certifications received?
2.b All needed test done and satisfactory?
2.c Ecat production factory ready and pilot series work satisfactory?
2.e Partner- customer(s) ready for showing first product with Ecat(s) inside?
2.f Production facility beefed-up, administration and sales department ready for mass production?
3 What will you show during the presentation:
3.a An Ecat in operation?
3.b An Ecat in a product of a customer, also in operation?
3.c Will you (or somebody of Leonardo Corp.) present the Ecat jointly with a customer?
Thanks if you can answer.
Kind regards, Gerard
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
thank you for clarifying the other day that you mean by stating that dV/dt is for understanding the ECAT technology important and that this refers to d(Volt)/d(time) as I always thought that you were talking about dV/dt as d(Volume)/d(time) as V is usually used in science equations as volume and these general equations shouldn’t be mixed with units (like Volt).
And as you’re mentioning and recommending also to read Maxwell-Dirac Theory and Occam’s Razor: Unified Field, Elementary Particles, and Nuclear Interactions, I guess there is a mistake in one equation (1.4.23).
Looking forward to the surely incredible presentation of this marvelous technology, as this might be the event of the year/decade/ or even century : )
Good luck to you and the whole ECat team and also a happy new year to all the readers here.
victor : )
Calle H:
Thank you for your information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
About the E-Cat for hydrogen production, below is a not very flattering report by Corporate Observatory Europe on EU lobbying undertaken by the hydrogen industry. One gets the impression that hydrogen is just a tool for extending the life of the fossil gas industry. https://corporateeurope.org/en/hydrogen-hype As pdf https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/hydrogen-report-web-final_3.pdf
Best wishes for your success.
Calle H
Rod Walton,
Thank you for the update,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On Power Engineering of January 1 2021:
Oil rally, renewables top predictions for 2021
Rod Walton
Marcus:
Thank you for the link.
I prefer to use the calendar and the planning based on the results of the tests, although from NASA surely there is plenty to learn.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Jaroslaw Bem:
In nature the entropy increase is constant. If the Ecat is shut down, the energy made before the shut down has already been transfered to the eectrons not in phase and has already been turned into electricity, while the generation of clusters of electrons in phase ceases. At that point the situation returns to a constant increase of entropy, along the second and third principles of thermodynamic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Technology readiness levels (TRLs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level) are a method for estimating the maturity of technologies.
What TRL did the ECAT SKL reached?
Thanks and Best Regards
Marcus
Daniel De Caluwé:
Thank you for your kind attention to the work of our Team,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
As I mentioned earlier that I couldn’t read nor download your paper with my linux system, this message just to let you know that I could download and read your paper and all the interesting references since sunday 3 january. In my case, an update of Adobe or Acrobat Reader was not necessary, and I could read it with my normal European IP-number, without using any proxy or VPN connection. (As I was very busy, I apologize that I had no time to mention this earlier).
But as I had no quantum mechanics in my curriculum, it can take a long time before I give feedback on it. Nevertheless it’s interesting, and I’ve seen a lot of interesting references, that I certainly want to read.
But before I was able to download your paper, I enjoyed reading Quantum vacuum energy density and unifying perspectives between gravity and quantum behaviour of matter, that you referred to in your answer to Raffaele Bongo. Until now, it’s the only paper I’ve read, but I found it interesting, because it sheds another light on “the spooky action at a distance” called gravity. I hope one day we will be able to compensate for it… 😉
I also realize that the future demonstrations of the E-Cat to the general public (that will show that real energy with enormous energy density is produced), in combination with these exotic but interesting theories and papers, will give an enormous boost to science. Like in 1900, starting with Planck, science will reboost again and again.
So you and your team not only created an incredibly device (the E-Cat), but you also give an enormous boost to science!
Kind Regards,
Ir. Daniel De Caluwé, Belgium.
Dear Andrea,
According to your theory presented in:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions:
formation of coherent electrons clusters with lower entropy implies transmitting energy to the noncoherent electrons and outside to the environment.
This process is triggered and supported by the control box.
If control box stop its working, then electron clusters loss their coherention and their entropy will growing.
Is it means, that electrons will absorb energy from the environment?
Could you explain why not occur the “revers transmitting” energy from the environment to the E-Cat SKL after turn off the control box ?
Best regards,
Jaroslaw Bem
Sailmenn:
When the Ecat SKL will be in the market, maybe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea
Congratulations with the progress of the ECAT SKL plant and use of it.
I know question have been asked already a few times,
will there be an opportunity for small investers (for ex. max $1000) and not only for big guys at big banks?
Best regards.
Calle H:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am sure you and your partners have penetrated the important business opportunities with the E-Cat and I am not asking for credit for a suggestion, if any, but here is one thought. We know that solar cells and wind farms are nowadays being installed at a higher pace than ever. These energy systems have the drawback of being daylight and wind dependant which causes supply and demand balance problems on the grid. Other generating capacities will then have to respond to the imbalance where these other power generators are expensive and have long response time. Maybe the E-Cat power plant has a seconds long (?) response time making the E-Cat comparable with battery farms. If so, the E-Cat is not competing on electricity pricing but on costs for battery farms.
Best wishes for your success.
Calle H
Iggy Dalrymple:
Thank you for your suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jockum:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This might be of interest. https://physicsworld.com/a/relativistic-quasiparticles-tunnel-through-a-barrier-with-100-transmission/?fbclid=IwAR2WGjLhKPJ3_e7a4KizNKA0hZskxxHjLcb0SioLEvN3yBwXKY25A_Aaq9A
Dear Dr Rossi,
Have you had the Covid-19 vaccine yet. It’s widely available in Florida for senior citizens and people with health conditions. If you haven’t yet taken the vaccine, contact the nearest American embassy or consulate. They may be able to direct you how to receive the vaccine.
Best Regards,
Iggy
Stephen:
Thank you very much for your suggestions and the link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I understand from recent posts that one of the potential uses for using the e-cat SKL is to support the Hydrogen economy.
I can see the benefits for this especially in the early phase.
One as a way to covert the energy to storable medium if the supply is irregular for some reason. Especially if electrolysis is more robust to variations than other storage methods such as battery banks etc. I see this could be many other factors influencing this. availability and cost of batteries vs storage medium for Hydrogen etc either tanks or metal hydrides etc. number of recharge cycles in batteries vs electrolysis cycles etc.
The other is to use Hydrogen as a chemical resource directly by using the ecat -SKL and safe to store water.
I wonder if rather than producing hydrogen gas directly if it would be better to combine this technology with a more usual metal hydride heat pump set up. Thus may be more efficient and safer than storing Hydrogen as a gas etc and I know it’s something your familiar with from your use if LAH etc in your patent.
In another topic I recently came across this link uses Stoichiometric Oxygen Hydogen (SOH) fuels that relates to MOH and OHMASA gas that has in the past been a topic discussed in some fora.
https://ec.europa.eu/eipp/desktop/en/projects/project-11910.html
I wonder if this would be a match for your need? It seems well funded from a EEC point of view since 2019.
I have no affiliation with them and am not sure of how far developed they are but I could imagine e-car SKL could be a good match to power their electrolysis. Perhaps other readers know more about it.
Their related links also seem interesting and a good match for you.
Just a thought in case it is practical for you.
Thanks and Best Regards
Stephen