If you are a business/professional customer, please use the details below for dedicated business/professional support.
Business customer support. Call us on 0800-345-7788. Email us at business@dyson.co.uk.

Hello Dr. Rossi
You had created and pre-ordered a 10 000 lumens lamp. This lamp had the drawback of not being autonomous because it had to be connected to the network and to the earth.
With the evolution of the E-Cat generator this lamp could be autonomous and nomadic. This lamp could be available in different forms such as flashlight, torch, bicycle light, headlamp, etc.
Commercially such a lamp sold for around 30 to 50 dollars should interest a wide audience and would help you reach the
critical number of pre-orders.
Is it possible for you to relaunch the project for such a lamp?
All my wishes of success .
Best regards
Raffaele

Dear Dr Rossi
I think the best combination will be an ECAT and a battery. The ECAT will supply the average daily load while the battery will handle the peak load, this way we reduce the size of the ECAT required. Of course when the ECAT gets cheap enough with volume the battery more than likely will not be required.

Jean Pierre:
We already have a list of similar issues and we will take care of these situations when ready to deliver. We will add your information to our list.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

A Village with 100 Families. 6 100W NGU units, tied in parallel, driving 1 800W inverter. Each family has a 13W LED bulb. Underground wiring distributes the power. The inverter sells for $70USD. Cost per family is likely less than $25USD.

Hi Andrea. As any survival expert will tell you, the first things you need are a shelter and a fire (heat and light). Beryl is one of many devastating storms that regularly turn up and take away delicate houses and electricity, leaving people with utter misery.

In my previous email to you I mentioned the use of a 100W NGU and its inverter connected to a 60W lamp. Beryl prompted me into thinking that this cheap system could be saved up by poor people who are threatened by such storm disasters and put in a safe place to provide them with light when they no longer have a habitable home or normal electricity.

After all, Having light during the first traumatic night will make getting through it until morning a blessing and provide hope for them and any other destitute people who are nearby.

It is true that there are some poor souls who are so poor that they cannot afford to pay the $249 plus delivery plus tax, but there are many more who are poor but could easily save up for such a hope-giving system.

I offer this as a helpful idea for those who cannot afford an expensive portable generator.These devices need fuel, which may run out after a time. Your system would be smaller and more easily stored somewhere safe in readiness for any impending disaster.No need for fuel.

This vital necessity, light on the first night, echos my first sentence above.

Hoping all is well with you and your team. Jean Pierre.

Dear Andrea,
can you tell us when the test with the EV will be made ? Will it be streamed in the internet ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Warm Regards,
Ruby

You have an economic analysis. I made a distinction between nuclear, wind, and solar sources of electrical energy and eCat technologies in regards to grid power demand changes.

Our two separate analyses are “apples and oranges”.

Your cost analysis is overly simplistic. The actual costs will need to include taxation and implementation costs, as well as many other factors.

@Mr. Karels
Sorry, it is useless to pay 10ct/kwh for electricity grid charges plus taxes additional to the costs of an ecat, which would be about 2-3 ct/kwh.
If the ecats work as described, then everyone can disconnect his house from the power grid.
And another decision would be simple pointless.
Best regards
M.Reinhold

Why an eCat based electrical grid system is better than nuclear power

Beside radioactivity …

Nuclear based power plant can only change their output level by about 5% per minute. Because eCat technology uses a large ensemble of generators, they can ramp up and down quickly to meet changing grid demand.

Dott. Rossi, Gregory Daigle si riferiva al fatto che Dewey ha scritto 2015 invece di 2025 :-)))
Gregory Daigle was referring to the fact that Dewey wrote 2015 instead of 2025 (LOL)

Gregory Daigle:
True, but in the last 9 years we manufactured and put at work under our control Ecats, but we had to resolve many problems, one major one year ago, and these problems, that circumscribed inside a restricted number of situations have given us the possibility to resolve the problems without creating damages, litigations et similia, could have been catastrophic if generalized .
To start a general distribution we had two problems: to resolve the technological issues emerged and to reach the critical mass of pre-orders that allows us the economy scale necessary to offer acceptable prices.
Notwithstanding these facts, I wish the betters on our bad chance didn’t spend too much money against us; at least you, my friend, DON’T BET !
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Jean Pierre:
We will supply the Ecat idoneous to be connected in the Country where it will be distributed, as it happens with any kind of appliances.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Hi, Andrea.
Please would you clarify a point for me? Various areas of the world supply electricity at different mains conditions to house holders who use single phase a.c. at 110 V or 230/240V and at different frequencies. There are also different designs and sizes for the necessary plugs and sockets in various countries, some plugs coming with an earth pin.

Suppose, for example, a person wishes to purchase a single 100W NGU unit and states that it is to be used to provide 240 V a.c. at its inverter’s output in order to run a bedside table lamp which incorporates a 60W/ 240V filament bulb and at normal brightness.

This lamp would have previously been connected to the mains at 240V using its three- pin plug which has an earth pin of such a length to open the protective gates of the live and neutral wires for safety as the plug is pushed into the mains socket.

Question: Will this inverter, that comes free with the single NGU, have one type of output socket on it no matter what country it goes to thus requiring a tourist- type adapter sitting between the plug and the inverter, or will the inverter come with the three- pin socket already built-in ready for the user to plug into and enjoy the same amount of light as previously?

Mr.Rossi
Nelson’s phenomenon is well known for coaxial transmitting tubes in the 500MHz band. I remember that it was solved with ferrite rings for the cathode feed and suitable tuning of the transmitting stage. This phenomenon sometimes caused an avalanche-like increase in tube current. It is interesting that this was known in the practice of UHF broadcasting technology, but it was not addressed in theory.

Guglinski’s paper entitled “Incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law confirmed by the experiment Kegel et al.” was submitted to Applied Physics B in 17-Dec-2023 under the title “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields”.

The paper was rejected in 10-Jun-2024 with the following decision:

………………………………………………..
Decision on your submission to Applied Physics B

Applied Physics B
From:karthik.balakrishnan@springernature.com
To:wladski@yahoo.com
Mon, Jun 10 at 2:35 PM
Ref: Submission ID 06c49578-eca5-4982-940a-3f42fdb6eb0c

Dear Dr Guglinski,

Your manuscript “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields” has now been assessed. If there are any reviewer comments on your manuscript, you can find them at the end of this email. As possibly anticipated, with only one reviewer accepting the challenge, the manuscript and its premise has not been favourably received. Having struggled to get much interest from reviewers to accept to review your manuscript, I don’t think there is any benefit to be gained in trying to search for other reviews. The reviewer has made a critical analysis and highlighted where the deficiencies lie. I do not feel that even if you are able to resolve the critical points that a revision would be suitable for Applied Physics B.

Regrettably, your manuscript is not suitable for publication in Applied Physics B.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I’m sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion and hope you will not be deterred from submitting future work to Applied Physics B.

Kind regards,

Jacob Mackenzie
Editor
Applied Physics B

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer 1
Detailed remarks
Journal: Applied Physics B
Manuscript: “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields”
Author : Wladimir Guglinski
The manuscript submitted by the author to ‘Applied Physics B’ provides a review on a well established law of physics that plays a role in both classical and quantum electrodynamics. In particular, he demands that the electric field has an ‘Atomistic structure’ (?) to provide some modification in the mathematical statement of the Coulomb’s Law. Curiously enough, the author believes that nuclear theories should have been developed without taking recourse to the use of symmetry principles. In any way, the physical model for the atomistic structure of the electric field is discussed in Section 2 where the reader has been asked to consult ref. 5 ( a book written by author himself ) of the article. I am afraid if his viewpoint will be acceptable to others.
It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years. In the present paper he has tried to provide a detailed account of his ideas which, he believes, can be used to write a more accurate mathematical form of the law. As I could follow he has not referred to any work which supports his viewpoint. There exists a vast amount of literature on the physical implications and modification in the properties of the Coulomb systems. See for example, Metrologia 41, S159 (2004) and Phys. Rev .B of April 2013 (Authors : J. Hofmann et al). One important work along this line of investigation has been published relatively recently in Phys. Lett. B. – Monopoles on string-like models and the Coulomb’s law (Authors : D. M. Dantas et al ). In this context it is useful to remark that no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.
The analysis presented on He4 in section 7 is physically inconsistent. Next there are a few appendices which provide only confusing information. The content of section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments. Similar confusing logic has been used throughout the paper to put forward what the author refers to as ‘atomistic structure of electric fields’
In a recent paper (Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 152502 (2023) ) Kegel et al studied the monopole transition form factor for – particle excitation from its ground state to the resonance via an electron scattering experiment. By confronting their experimental findings with state of the art theoretical calculations the authors of this work conclude that modern nuclear forces including those derived using chiral effective field theory fail to reproduce the excitation of the particle. The author of the paper under review believes that the work of Kegel et al supports the proposed ‘atomistic structure of electric field’. This is not true.
I do not recommend the paper for publication.
………………………………………………..

Guglinski sent the following email to the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Jacob Mackenzie:

………………………………………………..
Wladimir Guglinski
From:wladski@yahoo.com
To:Applied Physics B
Wed, Jun 12 at 7:30 PM

Dear Dr. Jacob Mackenzie
Editor, Applied Physics B
I am sending a Reply to the Report of the Reviewer-1, where it is shown that he used unacceptable arguments.
Please find the Reply attached.
Regards
W. Guglinski

…………….Reply to Dr. Jacob Mackenzie…………

Dear Dr. Jacob Mackenzie, Editor, Applied Physics B

The Report is unacceptable, because the Reviewer 1 is a pseudoscientist. The reason why he is a pseudoscientist is very easy to understand, as explained ahead.

1- Science is developed through experimental observation. It is experiments that decide whether a theory is correct, or whether it is unacceptable, if the theory is in disagreement with experimentally obtained results. This article submitted to Applied Physics B mentions several experiments that are at odds with current theories. But the Reviewer simply ignored such experiments, and he did so in order to support his pseudoscientist point of view. After mentioning two articles, from 2003 and 2013, on physical implications and modification in the properties of the Coulomb systems, he explains his understanding of the scientific method, saying: “In this context it is useful to remark that no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.” Well, but several experiments are demonstrating that current theories are wrong, and the Kegel et al. is one of them. And what is the implication of this fact? The implication of this fact (that so many experiences in the last 30 years are at odds with current theories) is this: some fundamentals of these theories are wrong. And the question to ask is this: do we have to continue maintaining our current understanding of science, even though we know that physics has been developed through some wrong foundations, which do not exist in Nature???? The Reviewer’s opinion is that “yes”, no theory of physics can be developed by neglecting the current understanding of science, without caring that this current science has been contradicted by new experiences, despite it being obvious that some foundations of this current science are in disagreement with the true foundations existing in Nature. And therefore another question we have to ask is this: keeping all the foundations of current physics, among which some are wrong, can we obtain a theory of physics that identifies with the reality existing in Nature? The Reviewer believes so.

2- The Reviewer begins his Report by saying: “The manuscript submitted by the author to ‘Applied Physics B’ provides a review on a well established law of physics that plays a role in both classical and quantum electrodynamics”. Well-established law of physics??? This well-established law of physics is demolished by the Kegel et al experiment. So what the Reviewer claims is a well-established law? And is quantum electrodynamics a well-established law? Let’s see:
a) What is the physical structure that makes up the electric fields of elementary particles? According to quantum electrodynamics, two protons repel each other through the exchange of photons. But photons do not have an electrical charge. So, how can photons, which have no electrical charge, cause an electrical repulsion between two protons? And now comes another paradox: do a proton and an electron also attract each other through the exchange of photons? How is it that photons, which have no electrical charge, can at the same time cause repulsion (between two protons) and also cause attraction between a proton and an electron?
b) The Reviewer will claim that quantum electrodynamics is confirmed by experiments, and that this fact confirms the absurdity that it is photons that cause Coulomb repulsion and attraction.
c) However, there is no calculation in the theory of quantum electrodynamics that calculates the electrical charge of a proton, based on the hypothesis that it is photons that make up the electric field responsible for the repulsion between two protons.
d) But in Section 21 is the following Abstract from a paper of mine published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays:
Here is presented the math objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation of QED. It is calculated that the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which compose the electric field of the proton, have electric charge e0 = 5.06532.10-45 C, and from this value of e0, together with the fundamental constants KO, c, h, and = 1/137, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, achieving the value e= 1.6026.10-19 C, very close to the experimental e= 1.60218.10-19 C.
e) Therefore (based on the hypothesis that the electric field of a proton has an atomistic structure, composed of quantum vacuum fermions), the electric charge of a proton is successfully calculated. A success that does not exist in quantum electrodynamics.
f) And now we have to ask ourselves:
i) Did the Reviewer read my article published in Physics Essays? No, he didn’t read it, because in his Report he says: “It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years. In the present paper he has tried to provide a detailed account of his ideas which, he believes, can be used to write a more accurate mathematical form of the law. As I could follow he has not referred to any work which supports his viewpoint”.
ii) Therefore, contrary to what the Reviewer says, my “viewpoint” is proven by a mathematical work (something that does not exist in quantum electrodynamics, because in QED the electrical charge of a proton is not calculated from the exchange of photons between two protons).
iii) But if the Reviewer read my article, and did not consider the mathematical calculation as an irrefutable work that proves my point of view (about the atomistic structure of the electric field), then the Reviewer has no respect for mathematics, and this reinforces the evidence that the Reviewer is a pseudoscientist, as in addition to dismissing experimental results that contradict current theories, he also rejects mathematics.
iv) Finally, if the Reviewer has not read my article published in Physics Essays, this shows that he made a very superficial analysis of my article submitted to Applied Physics B. And this superficial analysis was due to the fact that he is a pseudoscientist, because from the beginning of reading my article the Reviewer already started from his point of view that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, and from this point of view he already concluded that my theory is wrong, and that he did not need to evaluate my work seriously.
v) Theorists’ reliance on QED is somewhat paradoxical. Because the theory works based on an absurd mechanism. Let’s look at this.
According to quantum electrodynamics, two protons interact electrically through the exchange of photons. So obviously in QED the mathematics to be developed would have to be based on the properties of photons, since they are the promoters of the interaction between two protons. But suppose that in Nature protons do not interact through the exchange of photons. Therefore, if QED were developed through mathematics developed from the properties of photons, the QED results would certainly be totally different from the results obtained in experiments. As a result of this situation, QED theorists had to invent some abstract mathematical concepts, such as bispinor, for QED mathematics to obtain good results. Now, what the hell is the physical meaning of a bispinor? Is it just a mathematical “adapter”?… whose purpose is to make QED mathematics compatible with the physical mechanism existing in Nature? Irrefutably, it follows that the mathematics of QED is confusing, because even the QED theorists do not know how to explain how the Nature produces this MAGIC, from which a proton attracts an electron with both them exchanging photons.
vi) Suppose that the Reviewer is sure that quantum electrodynamics is correct, because it is successfully confirmed by experiments, and therefore the theory of the atomistic structure of electric fields cannot be correct, since the two theories work through two different mechanisms of interaction. But in Section 23, entitled “Mathematical equivalence between two systems”, the question of the experimental success of quantum electrodynamics is discussed. This experimental success of QED may be a consequence of the mathematical equivalence between two systems, the ph-ph System considered in QED and the f-f System existing in Nature. If physicists really honestly want to find a theory free from absurd paradoxes and free from conflicts with experimental results that disprove current theories, they must investigate this mathematical equivalence. Once the mathematical equivalence is confirmed, it will be understood why QED is so successful, and it will be proven beyond any doubt that electric fields really have an atomistic structure. But the Reviewer prefers to deceive himself, believing that a QED full of absurdities and paradoxes can be the theory that explains what really happens in Nature. Galileo would never believe in QED, because in his opinion a theory that coexists with absurdities cannot be correct.

3- About Section 7. The Reviewer begins saying: “The analysis presented on He4 in section 7 is physically inconsistent”.
It is easy to understand the Reviewer’s reason for saying that the analysis on He4 is inconsistent. Because it is very easy for a pseudoscientist Reviewer to claim that an analysis is inconsistent. A serious Reviewer needs to prove that the analysis is inconsistent, showing what the inconsistency of the analysis is. Let’s see what the objective of the analysis in Section 7 was.
a) The analysis in Section 7 refers to a structure of 2He4 in which the two protons touch. In a 2He4 structure with the protons touching, the proton radius will be 0.838 fm (see Figure 12 of Section 11). This value 0.838 fm is measured in experiments.
b) But the analysis in Section 7 shows that, as a result of the nuclear properties of 2He4 (spin, magnetic moment, Pauli Exclusion Principle) it is impossible for the structure of 2He4 to be with the two protons touching.
c) For the structure of 2He4 to be possible (as a result of nuclear properties, spin and magnetic moment), 2He4 must have the structure shown in Figure 11 of Section 10.
d) The proton radius was measured with great precision at the Paul Scherrer Institute, obtaining the value 1.67824 fm.
e) In Section 10, a mathematical calculation is presented that demonstrates that, from the structure of Figure 11, the proton radius must be 0.695 fm, much shorter than the radius considered in the Standard Model of particle physics.
f) So, everything was calculated.
g) Where is the inconsistency alleged by the Reviewer?
h) The analysis in Section 7, and the calculations in Section 10, aim to demonstrate that, as a result of the value of the radius of 2He4 measured by the Paul Scherrer Institute, the proton radius has the property of shrinking when it penetrates the atomic nuclei .
i) But according to the Standard Model, the proton’s radius never shrinks. In the Reviewer’s opinion “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, and that was the reason he said that the analysis in Section 7 is inconsistent. But the Reviewer confused theory with experimental result. The radius of 2He4 measured at the Paul Scherrer Institute is not my theory. It is an experiment. And it is precisely experiments that prove that a theory is wrong. The proton radius, which is obtained from the radius of 2He4 measured by the Paul Scherrer Institute, demonstrates that the proton radius contracts, and therefore in this case the Standard Model is wrong. And this conclusion is obtained from an experiment carried out by the Paul Scherrer Institute, it is not a theory, and therefore there is no inconsistency in the analysis of 2He4 in Section 7.

4- Again about Section 7. The Reviewer says: “Next there are a few appendices which provide only confusing information”.
My book Quantum Ring Theory was published in 2006. In this book a new nuclear model with a central helium-4 is proposed. In the book it is predicted that nuclei with Z=N pairs, and with Z>7, have an ellipsoidal shape. If the Reviewer had read my book in 2006, he would have said: “This nuclear model is inconsistent and unacceptable, because it is absurd, since nuclei with Z=N evens have zero quadrupole momentum, measured by experiments, and therefore these nuclei have a spherical shape “. And the Reviewer would also add his favorite argument, which characterizes his understanding of current science: “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”. But in 2012 the journal Nature published the article “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing experiments that detected that nuclei with Z=N evens, such as 10Ne20, have an ellipsoidal shape, confirming what was predicted in 2006 in the book Quantum Ring Theory. Therefore, this correct prediction of my nuclear model invalidated the dogma that the Reviewer believes in, because my theory was created neglecting the understanding of science up to 2006, and the 2012 experiments proved that the understanding of science up to 2006 was wrong, and my theory was right, even though in my theory I had neglected the understanding of the science that existed in 2006. This correct prediction of my theory, despite neglecting the understanding of science in 2006, demonstrates that this dogma, in which the Reviewer believes, is pure fantasy that only a pseudoscientist can believe.
Conclusion: in 2006, if the Reviewer had read my book Quantum Ring Theory, he would certainly reject my nuclear model stating that the model is physically inconsistent and absurd, because “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”. So now, in the same way, after analyzing the three Appendices of Section 7, he made the same mistake he would have made in 2006 if he had read my book Quantum Ring Theory.
It should also be noted that the three Appendices of Section 7 are supported by mathematical calculations. In particular, the value of the magnetic permeability constant o was obtained by mathematical calculations in Appendix 2. There is no such thing as confusing mathematics. But there are two possibilities for a mathematical calculation: either the calculation is correct, or the calculation has a calculation error. To claim that Appendix 2 “provides only confusing information”, an honest Reviewer has to demonstrate that the math is wrong. But in the case of a pseudoscientist Reviewer, who values dogmas and rejects mathematical calculations, we can understand his reason for claiming that Appendix 2 only contains confusing information, because:
a) the mathematical calculation proved that the value of the magnetic permeability constant within atomic nuclei is around 100 times higher than nuclear physicists suppose.
b) and this fact, demonstrated mathematically, a pseudoscientist Reviewer cannot accept, as he believes in the dogma that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”.

5- About Section 8. The Reviewer says: “The content of section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments”.
Again, it is very easy for a pseudoscientist Reviewer to claim that the content of Section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments.
Firstly, Section 8 addresses three matters:
c) The fact that physicists assume that the strong force must exist (for the stability of atomic nuclei to be possible) as their assumption is based on the hypothesis that the Coulomb repulsion can only be counterbalanced by the strong force.
d) In Section 8 it is clearly demonstrated that the decay of 4Be11 proves that the existence of the strong force is impossible.
e) Section 8 deals with the mechanism responsible for the automatic balance between the magnetic force and the centripetal force.

Which of the three issues is based on unacceptable arguments, as stated by the Reviewer? Let’s check.
i) Is it an unacceptable argument to say that physicists consider the existence of the strong force mandatory? Hmm… it seems not.
ii) The fact that the decay of 4Be11 is impossible to happen (if the strong force were responsible for the stability of atomic nuclei) is a FACT. It is not an ARGUMENT. It is a fact discovered EXPERIMENTALLY, which is clearly explained in Section 8. If the Reviewer disagrees with my very clear explanation (which makes it clear that the decay of 4Be11 is proof that the strong force does not exist), then the Reviewer necessarily needs to find an explanation for why the proton returns to the nucleus of 4Be11, under the action of the strong force, despite it being at a distance of 7fm from the nucleus (since the strong force only acts at a maximum distance of 3fm). Thus, when the proton, at a distance of 7fm from the nucleus, returns to the nucleus, the proton obviously disagrees with the Reviewer’s opinion, when he says: “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.”. Because the proton understands nothing about the current understanding of science. And when the proton goes back to the nucleus of 4Be11, that’s not a theory. That is a FACT, which proves that strong force does not exist. Unfortunately, as a pseudoscientist, the Reviewer refuses to pay attention to experimental results because they undermine his understanding of current science.
iii) The balance between magnetic and centripetal forces is well-known, and if the balance within atomic nuclei really occurs through the dispute between magnetic force and centripetal force, then obviously the balance mechanism described in Section 8 also occurs within atomic nuclei, as exposed as follows in the Section 8:
“In resume, the centripetal force works together with the electric repulsion between protons. But if the proton starts trying to move away the nucleus, the growth of the orbit radius contributes for the decrease of the centripetal force. And what is the best: with the growth of the orbit radius, the velocity decreases, and as centripetal force varies with the square of the velocity, Fc= mV2/R, then the combination between the magnetic and centripetal forces performs an automatic system regulating the balance of forces inside atomic nuclei, remembering that the Coulomb repulsion force also diminishes with the growth of the orbital radius”.
If this is where the unacceptable argument alleged by the Reviewer lies, he needs to explain better how the balance between magnetic force and centrifugal force occurs.

6- The Reviewer is totally wrong with his supposal that “It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years”.
The author began his scientific research in 1990, because current theories are full of absurd conjectures, such as Einstein’s proposal that space is empty, but has the property of contracting. That is nonsense, an empty space cannot contract or expand. The author began analyzing the various models of nuclear physics in early 1993. And the conclusion he reached was that none of those models could explain some nuclear properties of atomic nuclei. And at the end of 1993 he came to another conclusion: only from a model with a central helium-4 could be possible to explain the properties of the atomic nuclei, and from there he began his new nuclear theory. In the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, in addition to the correct prediction that atomic nuclei with Z=N pairs have an ellipsoidal shape, there is also the prediction that atomic nuclei are divided by a Z-axis, which passes through the center of the central helium-4. On page 123 of the book is this sentence: “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”. In 2013 the journal Nature published a paper about an experiment, which detected that Ra224 is pear-shaped: “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams, Nature, 497, 199–204”. That experiment forced the nuclear theorists to conclude that atomic nuclei have a Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have different distributions. This correct prediction, obtained by the nuclear model with a central helium-4, is reported in more detail on page 14 of the author’s book Subtle is the Math, published in 2021.
Even at 1993 the author was already convinced that electric fields must be formed by electrically charged particles that fill the ether (quantum vacuum). However it was only in 2015 that he began to reflect on what the structure of this field should be like, but he still did not suspect that Coulomb’s Law was incomplete. It is wrong the Reviewer’s supposal that the author began to have suspicions about the standard Coulomb’s Law as a result of having investigated the “controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years”, because the author was not aware of this controversy. He came to the conclusion that Coulomb’s Law is incomplete because, among other reasons, he did not like asymptotic freedom, which seemed to him to be an ad hoc desperate proposal to explain why Coulomb repulsion is not able to break the attraction between quarks. In the author’s opinion, the quarks can bond because inside the proton the true Coulomb repulsion is F= KQq/dX, and as d is very short, and X decreases with the decrease of d, then the Coulomb repulsion between two quarks is very smaller than the repulsion calculated by the Standard Coulomb Law F= KQq/d2. The desperate hypothesis of the existence of asymptotic freedom must be discarded.

7- The Reviewer was wrong when he said: “The author of the paper under review believes that the work of Kegel et al supports the proposed ‘atomistic structure of electric field’. This is not true”. Let’s see why.
It is not only the Kegel et al experiment that confirms the atomistic structure of electric fields. Another fact that confirms this is my successful calculation of the electric charge of the proton, based on the electric charge of the fermions that make up the electric field, published in Physics Essays, which the Reviewer completely ignored, showing that he does not consider mathematics seriously. Another piece of evidence that reinforces the hypothesis of the atomistic structure of the electric field is the fact that, taking into account that Coulomb’s Law is very weak for the very short distances between two quarks, then to consider that repulsions between quarks are very weaker than calculated through the Standard Coulomb Law is much more plausible than to consider the desperate hypothesis of asymptotic freedom. The Reviewer’s claim, that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, implies that the fundamentals of current physics must always remain, even if some new experiment demonstrates that some of these fundamentals must be wrong. As a result of this understanding of science, alleged by the Reviewer, the following happens:
a) Since some fundamentals of current physics are wrong, it is obvious that new experiments always appear whose results do not fit with current theories.
b) And what is the solution adopted by theorists when this happens? The solution is very simple: a new ad hoc conjecture is introduced into the theory, with the aim to save its foundations. Let’s look at some examples:
I) The ad hoc strong force hypothesis was adopted because theorists found no other solution.
II) Wu’s experiment disproved the Law of Conservation of Parity. Theorists had to introduce ad hoc conjectures to explain the parity violation.
III) The collapse of Coulomb’s Law within the proton required an ad hoc conjecture, asymptotic freedom.
IV) As a result of all current nuclear models being in disagreement with the structure of atomic nuclei existing in Nature, there is always a need to introduce some ad hoc hypothesis into the theory, such as the chiral effective field theory hypothesis.
V) And now, with the result of the Kegel et al experiment, it has become evident that incorporating the ad hoc chiral effective field theory contributed to NOTHING.

Conclusion on the strong force hypothesis:
The strong force and asymptotic freedom are two theories that disagree with Occam’s Razor, because they are two ad hoc hypotheses designed to solve a problem that can be solved with just one theory. The strong force was proposed to resolve the issue that physicists assumed that there was no attractive force of sufficient magnitude to balance the Coulomb repulsion of protons within atomic nuclei. Asymptotic freedom was proposed with the same objective, but to explain the permanence of quarks inside the proton, since according to the Standard Coulomb Law the strong force was already insufficient, and therefore it was necessary to find another solution. Adopting the hypothesis of the incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law, both problems are resolved, and Occam’s Razor is satisfied.

8- And finally, the author will satisfy the Reviewer’s curiosity, as he said this: “Curiously enough, the author believes that nuclear theories should have been developed without taking recourse to the use of symmetry principles”.
The author deeply analyzed all current nuclear models, and came to the conclusion that none of them is capable of explaining all the properties of atomic nuclei. And faced with this failure of all nuclear models, he came to the conclusion that in the structure of atomic nuclei there is a helium-4 occupying the center of the nuclei. The most rigorous test to verify the validity of a nuclear model is done through a theoretical calculation: from that model to obtain the value of the magnetic moment of all atomic nuclei in the periodic table. If the nuclear model fails in this task, the verdict is ruthless: THE MODEL IS WRONG. The most difficult magnetic moments to get theoretically a value close to the experimental are the exotic light nuclei. For example, all current nuclear models fail to calculate the magnetic moment of the 5B10 nucleus. The theoretical value is very below the experimental value. And all nuclear models also fail to calculate the quadrupole moment of 5B10. In other words, 5B10 is the thorn in the side of current nuclear physics. The structure of 5B10 is shown in the cover of my book New Nuclear Physics, published in 2024 by Amazon.com, and this 5B10 structure can be seen by accessing the Amazon website. From the structure of the 5B10, you can see why it is so exotic.
For the theoretical calculation of the magnetic moment of medium and heavy nuclei, current nuclear models achieve satisfactory results, because in such nuclei the laws of probability prevail, as a consequence of the distribution of many protons and neutrons in the structure of the nuclei, and this distribution approaches of a distribution that follows the laws of symmetry (especially if Z=even). But in the structure of light nuclei, because there are few protons and neutrons, statistical laws do not prevail, and the consequence is that the structure of exotic light nuclei is very far away of what is expected from a structure ruled by the symmetry.
The author is convinced that the structure of atomic nuclei existing in Nature has a helium-4 in the center of these nuclei, because through this structure adopted in his theory, the magnetic moment of exotic light nuclei is successfully calculated (a task in which fail all current nuclear models). In the author’s book New Nuclear Physics the magnetic moments of exotic light nuclei are successfully calculated.
………………………………………………..

Prof. Jacob Mackenzie sent the following reply:

………………………………………………..
eicaphb
From:editor_aphb@soton.ac.uk
To:wladski@yahoo.com
Cc:Karthik Balakrishnan
Sun, Jun 16 at 6:18 AM

Dear Dr Guglinski,

We have received your appeal and whilst I fully appreciate your point of view and I agree that we were not able to provide an acceptable peer review of your submission, my key point of concern remains, which is the unsuitability of this manuscript for Applied Physics B. Neither myself nor our editorial board members are nuclear physicists and as such do not have the relevant expertise to provide adequate peer review. I appreciate that you must be having a challenging time to get what you see is a fair hearing for your work and I am sorry that we are not able to support you in this venture.

I wish you well in finding the right balance for your paper in presenting the objective science without the integrated storyline of how you arrived at your conclusions, and that this helps you find a suitable destination for your work.

Kind regards,

Jacob

——

Associate Professor Jacob Mackenzie
Editor in Chief Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics
Zepler Institute – Optoelectronics Research Centre
University of Southampton Editor_APHB@soton.ac.uk
+44 2380592693
………………………………………………..

Errata
Where is written:
“In my article submitted for publication to Applied Physics B, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted”

in the letter sent to Prof Maria Borge it is written:
“In my article submitted for publication to European Physical Journal A, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted.”

The paper by Wladimir Guglinski, entitled “Incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law confirmed by the experiment Kegel et al.” was submitted to European Physical Journal A in 28-Dec-2023.
The paper was rejected by the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Maria Borge in 09-Jan-2024, with the following Decision:

…………………………………….
Decision Letter (EPJA-107633)
From: mgb@cern.ch
To: wladski@yahoo.com
CC: epja.bologna@sif.it
Subject: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-107633
Body: 09-Jan-2024

Dear Professor Guglinski:
Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”.
However, the paper is considered of very low impact and therefore outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A.
Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.

Sincerely yours
Professor Maria Borge
Editor in Chief
European Physical Journal A mgb@cern.ch epja.bologna@sif.it
Date Sent: 09-Jan-2024
…………………………………….

In 26-06-2024 the website Physics News published “Understanding the interior of atomic nuclei”, where it is described a new experimental discovery about a nuclear property yet unknown by the nuclear theorists. https://phys.org/news/2024-06-interior-atomic-nuclei.html

Then today, 29-06,2024, Guglinski sent the following letter to Prof. Maria Borge:

…………………………………….
Dear Editor-in-Chief Prof Maria Borge

A new experimental discovery is confirming what is predicted in my new nuclear theory.

They say:
“In laser spectroscopy, a photon couples to a nuclear particle. The fact that the nuclear particle simultaneously interacts with other protons or neutrons has so far been ignored. The coupling of photons to interacting nuclear particles can be taken into account by considering so-called two-body currents”.

In my article submitted for publication to Applied Physics B, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted.
In the explanation of what happens with the structure of the 3Li7, 4Be7 and 3Li6 nuclei, in Figure 10 of the article, it is explained how two interactions occur between the central 2He4 and the orbits of the deuterons and neutrons that rotate around the Z-axis:
the Coulomb repulsion and electromagnetic attraction caused by the rotation of deuterons and neutrals around the Z-axis.

Also, below Print 2 on page 12, is this explanation about calculating the magnetic moment of lithium-6:

“Total magnetic moment of lithium-6 has two components:
1- First component- Intrinsic magnetic moment of deuteron, = +0.857 N. The proton and neutron spins are caused by the counterclockwise their rotation around the axis crossing the centers of each of them, inducing 1.913 N for the neutron and +2.793 N for the proton.
2- Second component- Magnetic moment caused by proton charge moving around Z-axis, which is negative rotation R(-), and so rotation of 1H2 induces negative magnetic moment, which will be calculated.”

In my two books Subtle is the Math and New Nuclear Physics the calculation of the magnetic moment of atomic nuclei is also done considering the contribution of the electromagnetic interaction of protons, neutrons, and deuterons that rotate around the Z-axis.

More information: T. Miyagi et al, Impact of Two-Body Currents on Magnetic Dipole Moments of Nuclei, Physical Review Letters (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.232503

On what do the last 10% for presentations depend? Why is it so complex to make the presentations, even though the problems with the E-Cat seem to have been solved and a final presentation was already prepared last year?

it is interesting that in the moment i am thinking about installing roughly 10 kwp solar modules plus a 10kw/h power storage due to the decreasing prices here in Germany, the discussion here heads to the same direction.

As i am following the ECAT now for about 10 years and my bets and hopes are still with Andrea and the ECAT, would someone recommend waiting for the ECAT or buying a solar solution at that low prices at the moment?

Asking GPT-4, you could get well-documented values for the actual energy production from a 300W panel.
The Stockholm figure is reasonably comparable to the actual performance of a solar panel I installed last year.

Avg. Solar Irradiance Energy Production* Panel cost $ /kWh
(kWh/m2/day) (kWh/10 years) (200 $/kWh/10 years)

Chicago 3.9 4265 0.05
Stockholm 2.5 2738 0.07
Nairobi 5 5475 0.04

* 0.5% yearly efficiency loss due to degradation is not included here

With 90% efficiency, the 10-year production for 300W NDGU is 10*300 W*8760 h*0.9 = 23652 kWh.
A 300W NGU generator cost of 750 $ offers a cost/kWh of 0.03 (750 $/23652 kWh)

I conclude that NGU appears competitive worldwide, even if you only consider the cost/kWh of the source component.
For professional analysis of the actual total cost/kWh of electricity production, you use an LCOE calculation where all relevant factors are included. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
For solar, the installation and site costs become a significant part of the total.
In addition, costs resulting from not running 24/7, season variations, and weather conditions are examples of additional factors.
For a full 20-year LCOE, you should include the cost of one NGU generator recycling after ten years.
As all parts are recycled, I estimate the actual recycling cost to be less than 50%.

Your invention would turn the whole world upside down. Many energy companies would become superfluous, whether in terms of oil or gas extraction or electricity production and grids.
Every country, no matter how small, including city states, would become independent. Not only independent of energy, but also of imports of agricultural products – thanks to vertical farming.

Leonardo needs a million pre-orders, but your invention is something totally new and there are therefore many doubters. That is why it is particularly important to provide evidence that the ecat works. Evidence that EVERYONE can see, e.g. in short videos. You have at least one finished 3 KW ecat module. I would have a lot of ideas for tests to convince many people that the ecat works.

Simply waiting until the one million pre-orders are there and only then publishing these proofs/videos does not lead to the goal. Your invention would be extremely important for mankind. Please take all possible steps to make it a success.

Is this a business opportunity?

1000 well qualified engineering and design teams immediately available in the UK:

Regards,

Paul Dodgshun

Dyson to cut nearly one third of UK workforce

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2660ldn2o

If you are a business/professional customer, please use the details below for dedicated business/professional support.

Business customer support. Call us on 0800-345-7788. Email us at business@dyson.co.uk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dyson

Lina:

never above the background: Min 0.06 max 0.17 uS/h ( microSievert per hour )

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr Rossi,

Which are the results of the radiation measurements at the body of the Ecat NGU ?

Thank you if you can answer,

Lina

Manuel Cilia:

Thank you for your suggestion,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Raffaele Bongo:

Thank you for the suggestion.

The Ecat SKLep NGU will be able to power any kind of electric lamp,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Hello Dr. Rossi

You had created and pre-ordered a 10 000 lumens lamp. This lamp had the drawback of not being autonomous because it had to be connected to the network and to the earth.

With the evolution of the E-Cat generator this lamp could be autonomous and nomadic. This lamp could be available in different forms such as flashlight, torch, bicycle light, headlamp, etc.

Commercially such a lamp sold for around 30 to 50 dollars should interest a wide audience and would help you reach the

critical number of pre-orders.

Is it possible for you to relaunch the project for such a lamp?

All my wishes of success .

Best regards

Raffaele

Dear Dr Rossi

I think the best combination will be an ECAT and a battery. The ECAT will supply the average daily load while the battery will handle the peak load, this way we reduce the size of the ECAT required. Of course when the ECAT gets cheap enough with volume the battery more than likely will not be required.

Jean Pierre:

We already have a list of similar issues and we will take care of these situations when ready to deliver. We will add your information to our list.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Ruby:

1- Probably within September/October 2024

2- yes

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Jean Pierre,

Consider the following,

A Village with 100 Families. 6 100W NGU units, tied in parallel, driving 1 800W inverter. Each family has a 13W LED bulb. Underground wiring distributes the power. The inverter sells for $70USD. Cost per family is likely less than $25USD.

Hi Andrea. As any survival expert will tell you, the first things you need are a shelter and a fire (heat and light). Beryl is one of many devastating storms that regularly turn up and take away delicate houses and electricity, leaving people with utter misery.

In my previous email to you I mentioned the use of a 100W NGU and its inverter connected to a 60W lamp. Beryl prompted me into thinking that this cheap system could be saved up by poor people who are threatened by such storm disasters and put in a safe place to provide them with light when they no longer have a habitable home or normal electricity.

After all, Having light during the first traumatic night will make getting through it until morning a blessing and provide hope for them and any other destitute people who are nearby.

It is true that there are some poor souls who are so poor that they cannot afford to pay the $249 plus delivery plus tax, but there are many more who are poor but could easily save up for such a hope-giving system.

I offer this as a helpful idea for those who cannot afford an expensive portable generator.These devices need fuel, which may run out after a time. Your system would be smaller and more easily stored somewhere safe in readiness for any impending disaster.No need for fuel.

This vital necessity, light on the first night, echos my first sentence above.

Hoping all is well with you and your team. Jean Pierre.

Dear Andrea,

can you tell us when the test with the EV will be made ? Will it be streamed in the internet ?

Thank you if you can answer,

Warm Regards,

Ruby

M.Reinhold,

You have an economic analysis. I made a distinction between nuclear, wind, and solar sources of electrical energy and eCat technologies in regards to grid power demand changes.

Our two separate analyses are “apples and oranges”.

Your cost analysis is overly simplistic. The actual costs will need to include taxation and implementation costs, as well as many other factors.

@Mr. Karels

Sorry, it is useless to pay 10ct/kwh for electricity grid charges plus taxes additional to the costs of an ecat, which would be about 2-3 ct/kwh.

If the ecats work as described, then everyone can disconnect his house from the power grid.

And another decision would be simple pointless.

Best regards

M.Reinhold

Steven Nicholes Karels:

Thank you for your insight,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Gavino Mamia and Gregory Daigle:

Ohh, sorry for my misunderstanding !

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Why an eCat based electrical grid system is better than nuclear power

Beside radioactivity …

Nuclear based power plant can only change their output level by about 5% per minute. Because eCat technology uses a large ensemble of generators, they can ramp up and down quickly to meet changing grid demand.

Similar advantages apply to solar and wind power,

Dott. Rossi, Gregory Daigle si riferiva al fatto che Dewey ha scritto 2015 invece di 2025 :-)))

Gregory Daigle was referring to the fact that Dewey wrote 2015 instead of 2025 (LOL)

Gregory Daigle:

True, but in the last 9 years we manufactured and put at work under our control Ecats, but we had to resolve many problems, one major one year ago, and these problems, that circumscribed inside a restricted number of situations have given us the possibility to resolve the problems without creating damages, litigations et similia, could have been catastrophic if generalized .

To start a general distribution we had two problems: to resolve the technological issues emerged and to reach the critical mass of pre-orders that allows us the economy scale necessary to offer acceptable prices.

Notwithstanding these facts, I wish the betters on our bad chance didn’t spend too much money against us; at least you, my friend, DON’T BET !

Warm Regards,

A.R.

“I am betting 2:1 that within 2015 the manufacturing of Ecats will not start,

this is the sole way to earn money with the Ecats !

Best

Dewey”

@Dewey: A bold move to suggest that Ecat manufacturing won’t start as of 9 years ago! 😉

Greg

Dewey:

You have full right to spend your money the way you like…let me suggest you, though: don’t bet !

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr Rossi,

I am betting 2:1 that within 2015 the manufacturing of Ecats will not start,

this is the sole way to earn money with the Ecats !

Best

Dewey

Jean Pierre:

We will supply the Ecat idoneous to be connected in the Country where it will be distributed, as it happens with any kind of appliances.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

To All our Readers in the USA:

The Team of Leonardo Corporation is delighted to wish you

Happy July 4th Holidays !

Jorge:

Please read the par. 2.1 and following in

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Hi, Andrea.

Please would you clarify a point for me? Various areas of the world supply electricity at different mains conditions to house holders who use single phase a.c. at 110 V or 230/240V and at different frequencies. There are also different designs and sizes for the necessary plugs and sockets in various countries, some plugs coming with an earth pin.

Suppose, for example, a person wishes to purchase a single 100W NGU unit and states that it is to be used to provide 240 V a.c. at its inverter’s output in order to run a bedside table lamp which incorporates a 60W/ 240V filament bulb and at normal brightness.

This lamp would have previously been connected to the mains at 240V using its three- pin plug which has an earth pin of such a length to open the protective gates of the live and neutral wires for safety as the plug is pushed into the mains socket.

Question: Will this inverter, that comes free with the single NGU, have one type of output socket on it no matter what country it goes to thus requiring a tourist- type adapter sitting between the plug and the inverter, or will the inverter come with the three- pin socket already built-in ready for the user to plug into and enjoy the same amount of light as previously?

Thank you for any clarification. Jean Pierre.

Dr Rossi,

where can I understand the function of the vacuum as shown in the photo published on X ?

Jan Srajer:

Thank you for your note; we know his patent very well, as you can see in par 2.1 of

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long range_particle_interactions

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr.Rossi

Nelson’s phenomenon is well known for coaxial transmitting tubes in the 500MHz band. I remember that it was solved with ferrite rings for the cathode feed and suitable tuning of the transmitting stage. This phenomenon sometimes caused an avalanche-like increase in tube current. It is interesting that this was known in the practice of UHF broadcasting technology, but it was not addressed in theory.

All the Best J.Š

Giulia Cristoforetti:

Yes, our Team tried to replicate the Nelson experiment described in paragraph 2.1 of

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

wherein we described the work.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Guglinski’s paper entitled “Incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law confirmed by the experiment Kegel et al.” was submitted to Applied Physics B in 17-Dec-2023 under the title “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields”.

The paper was rejected in 10-Jun-2024 with the following decision:

………………………………………………..

Decision on your submission to Applied Physics B

Applied Physics B

From:karthik.balakrishnan@springernature.com

To:wladski@yahoo.com

Mon, Jun 10 at 2:35 PM

Ref: Submission ID 06c49578-eca5-4982-940a-3f42fdb6eb0c

Dear Dr Guglinski,

Your manuscript “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields” has now been assessed. If there are any reviewer comments on your manuscript, you can find them at the end of this email. As possibly anticipated, with only one reviewer accepting the challenge, the manuscript and its premise has not been favourably received. Having struggled to get much interest from reviewers to accept to review your manuscript, I don’t think there is any benefit to be gained in trying to search for other reviews. The reviewer has made a critical analysis and highlighted where the deficiencies lie. I do not feel that even if you are able to resolve the critical points that a revision would be suitable for Applied Physics B.

Regrettably, your manuscript is not suitable for publication in Applied Physics B.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I’m sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion and hope you will not be deterred from submitting future work to Applied Physics B.

Kind regards,

Jacob Mackenzie

Editor

Applied Physics B

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer 1

Detailed remarks

Journal: Applied Physics B

Manuscript: “Coulomb Law review through an atomistic structure of the electric fields”

Author : Wladimir Guglinski

The manuscript submitted by the author to ‘Applied Physics B’ provides a review on a well established law of physics that plays a role in both classical and quantum electrodynamics. In particular, he demands that the electric field has an ‘Atomistic structure’ (?) to provide some modification in the mathematical statement of the Coulomb’s Law. Curiously enough, the author believes that nuclear theories should have been developed without taking recourse to the use of symmetry principles. In any way, the physical model for the atomistic structure of the electric field is discussed in Section 2 where the reader has been asked to consult ref. 5 ( a book written by author himself ) of the article. I am afraid if his viewpoint will be acceptable to others.

It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years. In the present paper he has tried to provide a detailed account of his ideas which, he believes, can be used to write a more accurate mathematical form of the law. As I could follow he has not referred to any work which supports his viewpoint. There exists a vast amount of literature on the physical implications and modification in the properties of the Coulomb systems. See for example, Metrologia 41, S159 (2004) and Phys. Rev .B of April 2013 (Authors : J. Hofmann et al). One important work along this line of investigation has been published relatively recently in Phys. Lett. B. – Monopoles on string-like models and the Coulomb’s law (Authors : D. M. Dantas et al ). In this context it is useful to remark that no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.

The analysis presented on He4 in section 7 is physically inconsistent. Next there are a few appendices which provide only confusing information. The content of section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments. Similar confusing logic has been used throughout the paper to put forward what the author refers to as ‘atomistic structure of electric fields’

In a recent paper (Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 152502 (2023) ) Kegel et al studied the monopole transition form factor for – particle excitation from its ground state to the resonance via an electron scattering experiment. By confronting their experimental findings with state of the art theoretical calculations the authors of this work conclude that modern nuclear forces including those derived using chiral effective field theory fail to reproduce the excitation of the particle. The author of the paper under review believes that the work of Kegel et al supports the proposed ‘atomistic structure of electric field’. This is not true.

I do not recommend the paper for publication.

………………………………………………..

Guglinski sent the following email to the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Jacob Mackenzie:

………………………………………………..

Wladimir Guglinski

From:wladski@yahoo.com

To:Applied Physics B

Wed, Jun 12 at 7:30 PM

Dear Dr. Jacob Mackenzie

Editor, Applied Physics B

I am sending a Reply to the Report of the Reviewer-1, where it is shown that he used unacceptable arguments.

Please find the Reply attached.

Regards

W. Guglinski

…………….Reply to Dr. Jacob Mackenzie…………

Dear Dr. Jacob Mackenzie, Editor, Applied Physics B

The Report is unacceptable, because the Reviewer 1 is a pseudoscientist. The reason why he is a pseudoscientist is very easy to understand, as explained ahead.

1- Science is developed through experimental observation. It is experiments that decide whether a theory is correct, or whether it is unacceptable, if the theory is in disagreement with experimentally obtained results. This article submitted to Applied Physics B mentions several experiments that are at odds with current theories. But the Reviewer simply ignored such experiments, and he did so in order to support his pseudoscientist point of view. After mentioning two articles, from 2003 and 2013, on physical implications and modification in the properties of the Coulomb systems, he explains his understanding of the scientific method, saying: “In this context it is useful to remark that no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.” Well, but several experiments are demonstrating that current theories are wrong, and the Kegel et al. is one of them. And what is the implication of this fact? The implication of this fact (that so many experiences in the last 30 years are at odds with current theories) is this: some fundamentals of these theories are wrong. And the question to ask is this: do we have to continue maintaining our current understanding of science, even though we know that physics has been developed through some wrong foundations, which do not exist in Nature???? The Reviewer’s opinion is that “yes”, no theory of physics can be developed by neglecting the current understanding of science, without caring that this current science has been contradicted by new experiences, despite it being obvious that some foundations of this current science are in disagreement with the true foundations existing in Nature. And therefore another question we have to ask is this: keeping all the foundations of current physics, among which some are wrong, can we obtain a theory of physics that identifies with the reality existing in Nature? The Reviewer believes so.

2- The Reviewer begins his Report by saying: “The manuscript submitted by the author to ‘Applied Physics B’ provides a review on a well established law of physics that plays a role in both classical and quantum electrodynamics”. Well-established law of physics??? This well-established law of physics is demolished by the Kegel et al experiment. So what the Reviewer claims is a well-established law? And is quantum electrodynamics a well-established law? Let’s see:

a) What is the physical structure that makes up the electric fields of elementary particles? According to quantum electrodynamics, two protons repel each other through the exchange of photons. But photons do not have an electrical charge. So, how can photons, which have no electrical charge, cause an electrical repulsion between two protons? And now comes another paradox: do a proton and an electron also attract each other through the exchange of photons? How is it that photons, which have no electrical charge, can at the same time cause repulsion (between two protons) and also cause attraction between a proton and an electron?

b) The Reviewer will claim that quantum electrodynamics is confirmed by experiments, and that this fact confirms the absurdity that it is photons that cause Coulomb repulsion and attraction.

c) However, there is no calculation in the theory of quantum electrodynamics that calculates the electrical charge of a proton, based on the hypothesis that it is photons that make up the electric field responsible for the repulsion between two protons.

d) But in Section 21 is the following Abstract from a paper of mine published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays:

Here is presented the math objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation of QED. It is calculated that the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which compose the electric field of the proton, have electric charge e0 = 5.06532.10-45 C, and from this value of e0, together with the fundamental constants KO, c, h, and = 1/137, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, achieving the value e= 1.6026.10-19 C, very close to the experimental e= 1.60218.10-19 C.

e) Therefore (based on the hypothesis that the electric field of a proton has an atomistic structure, composed of quantum vacuum fermions), the electric charge of a proton is successfully calculated. A success that does not exist in quantum electrodynamics.

f) And now we have to ask ourselves:

i) Did the Reviewer read my article published in Physics Essays? No, he didn’t read it, because in his Report he says: “It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years. In the present paper he has tried to provide a detailed account of his ideas which, he believes, can be used to write a more accurate mathematical form of the law. As I could follow he has not referred to any work which supports his viewpoint”.

ii) Therefore, contrary to what the Reviewer says, my “viewpoint” is proven by a mathematical work (something that does not exist in quantum electrodynamics, because in QED the electrical charge of a proton is not calculated from the exchange of photons between two protons).

iii) But if the Reviewer read my article, and did not consider the mathematical calculation as an irrefutable work that proves my point of view (about the atomistic structure of the electric field), then the Reviewer has no respect for mathematics, and this reinforces the evidence that the Reviewer is a pseudoscientist, as in addition to dismissing experimental results that contradict current theories, he also rejects mathematics.

iv) Finally, if the Reviewer has not read my article published in Physics Essays, this shows that he made a very superficial analysis of my article submitted to Applied Physics B. And this superficial analysis was due to the fact that he is a pseudoscientist, because from the beginning of reading my article the Reviewer already started from his point of view that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, and from this point of view he already concluded that my theory is wrong, and that he did not need to evaluate my work seriously.

v) Theorists’ reliance on QED is somewhat paradoxical. Because the theory works based on an absurd mechanism. Let’s look at this.

According to quantum electrodynamics, two protons interact electrically through the exchange of photons. So obviously in QED the mathematics to be developed would have to be based on the properties of photons, since they are the promoters of the interaction between two protons. But suppose that in Nature protons do not interact through the exchange of photons. Therefore, if QED were developed through mathematics developed from the properties of photons, the QED results would certainly be totally different from the results obtained in experiments. As a result of this situation, QED theorists had to invent some abstract mathematical concepts, such as bispinor, for QED mathematics to obtain good results. Now, what the hell is the physical meaning of a bispinor? Is it just a mathematical “adapter”?… whose purpose is to make QED mathematics compatible with the physical mechanism existing in Nature? Irrefutably, it follows that the mathematics of QED is confusing, because even the QED theorists do not know how to explain how the Nature produces this MAGIC, from which a proton attracts an electron with both them exchanging photons.

vi) Suppose that the Reviewer is sure that quantum electrodynamics is correct, because it is successfully confirmed by experiments, and therefore the theory of the atomistic structure of electric fields cannot be correct, since the two theories work through two different mechanisms of interaction. But in Section 23, entitled “Mathematical equivalence between two systems”, the question of the experimental success of quantum electrodynamics is discussed. This experimental success of QED may be a consequence of the mathematical equivalence between two systems, the ph-ph System considered in QED and the f-f System existing in Nature. If physicists really honestly want to find a theory free from absurd paradoxes and free from conflicts with experimental results that disprove current theories, they must investigate this mathematical equivalence. Once the mathematical equivalence is confirmed, it will be understood why QED is so successful, and it will be proven beyond any doubt that electric fields really have an atomistic structure. But the Reviewer prefers to deceive himself, believing that a QED full of absurdities and paradoxes can be the theory that explains what really happens in Nature. Galileo would never believe in QED, because in his opinion a theory that coexists with absurdities cannot be correct.

3- About Section 7. The Reviewer begins saying: “The analysis presented on He4 in section 7 is physically inconsistent”.

It is easy to understand the Reviewer’s reason for saying that the analysis on He4 is inconsistent. Because it is very easy for a pseudoscientist Reviewer to claim that an analysis is inconsistent. A serious Reviewer needs to prove that the analysis is inconsistent, showing what the inconsistency of the analysis is. Let’s see what the objective of the analysis in Section 7 was.

a) The analysis in Section 7 refers to a structure of 2He4 in which the two protons touch. In a 2He4 structure with the protons touching, the proton radius will be 0.838 fm (see Figure 12 of Section 11). This value 0.838 fm is measured in experiments.

b) But the analysis in Section 7 shows that, as a result of the nuclear properties of 2He4 (spin, magnetic moment, Pauli Exclusion Principle) it is impossible for the structure of 2He4 to be with the two protons touching.

c) For the structure of 2He4 to be possible (as a result of nuclear properties, spin and magnetic moment), 2He4 must have the structure shown in Figure 11 of Section 10.

d) The proton radius was measured with great precision at the Paul Scherrer Institute, obtaining the value 1.67824 fm.

e) In Section 10, a mathematical calculation is presented that demonstrates that, from the structure of Figure 11, the proton radius must be 0.695 fm, much shorter than the radius considered in the Standard Model of particle physics.

f) So, everything was calculated.

g) Where is the inconsistency alleged by the Reviewer?

h) The analysis in Section 7, and the calculations in Section 10, aim to demonstrate that, as a result of the value of the radius of 2He4 measured by the Paul Scherrer Institute, the proton radius has the property of shrinking when it penetrates the atomic nuclei .

i) But according to the Standard Model, the proton’s radius never shrinks. In the Reviewer’s opinion “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, and that was the reason he said that the analysis in Section 7 is inconsistent. But the Reviewer confused theory with experimental result. The radius of 2He4 measured at the Paul Scherrer Institute is not my theory. It is an experiment. And it is precisely experiments that prove that a theory is wrong. The proton radius, which is obtained from the radius of 2He4 measured by the Paul Scherrer Institute, demonstrates that the proton radius contracts, and therefore in this case the Standard Model is wrong. And this conclusion is obtained from an experiment carried out by the Paul Scherrer Institute, it is not a theory, and therefore there is no inconsistency in the analysis of 2He4 in Section 7.

4- Again about Section 7. The Reviewer says: “Next there are a few appendices which provide only confusing information”.

My book Quantum Ring Theory was published in 2006. In this book a new nuclear model with a central helium-4 is proposed. In the book it is predicted that nuclei with Z=N pairs, and with Z>7, have an ellipsoidal shape. If the Reviewer had read my book in 2006, he would have said: “This nuclear model is inconsistent and unacceptable, because it is absurd, since nuclei with Z=N evens have zero quadrupole momentum, measured by experiments, and therefore these nuclei have a spherical shape “. And the Reviewer would also add his favorite argument, which characterizes his understanding of current science: “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”. But in 2012 the journal Nature published the article “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing experiments that detected that nuclei with Z=N evens, such as 10Ne20, have an ellipsoidal shape, confirming what was predicted in 2006 in the book Quantum Ring Theory. Therefore, this correct prediction of my nuclear model invalidated the dogma that the Reviewer believes in, because my theory was created neglecting the understanding of science up to 2006, and the 2012 experiments proved that the understanding of science up to 2006 was wrong, and my theory was right, even though in my theory I had neglected the understanding of the science that existed in 2006. This correct prediction of my theory, despite neglecting the understanding of science in 2006, demonstrates that this dogma, in which the Reviewer believes, is pure fantasy that only a pseudoscientist can believe.

Conclusion: in 2006, if the Reviewer had read my book Quantum Ring Theory, he would certainly reject my nuclear model stating that the model is physically inconsistent and absurd, because “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”. So now, in the same way, after analyzing the three Appendices of Section 7, he made the same mistake he would have made in 2006 if he had read my book Quantum Ring Theory.

It should also be noted that the three Appendices of Section 7 are supported by mathematical calculations. In particular, the value of the magnetic permeability constant o was obtained by mathematical calculations in Appendix 2. There is no such thing as confusing mathematics. But there are two possibilities for a mathematical calculation: either the calculation is correct, or the calculation has a calculation error. To claim that Appendix 2 “provides only confusing information”, an honest Reviewer has to demonstrate that the math is wrong. But in the case of a pseudoscientist Reviewer, who values dogmas and rejects mathematical calculations, we can understand his reason for claiming that Appendix 2 only contains confusing information, because:

a) the mathematical calculation proved that the value of the magnetic permeability constant within atomic nuclei is around 100 times higher than nuclear physicists suppose.

b) and this fact, demonstrated mathematically, a pseudoscientist Reviewer cannot accept, as he believes in the dogma that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”.

5- About Section 8. The Reviewer says: “The content of section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments”.

Again, it is very easy for a pseudoscientist Reviewer to claim that the content of Section 8 is based on unacceptable arguments.

Firstly, Section 8 addresses three matters:

c) The fact that physicists assume that the strong force must exist (for the stability of atomic nuclei to be possible) as their assumption is based on the hypothesis that the Coulomb repulsion can only be counterbalanced by the strong force.

d) In Section 8 it is clearly demonstrated that the decay of 4Be11 proves that the existence of the strong force is impossible.

e) Section 8 deals with the mechanism responsible for the automatic balance between the magnetic force and the centripetal force.

Which of the three issues is based on unacceptable arguments, as stated by the Reviewer? Let’s check.

i) Is it an unacceptable argument to say that physicists consider the existence of the strong force mandatory? Hmm… it seems not.

ii) The fact that the decay of 4Be11 is impossible to happen (if the strong force were responsible for the stability of atomic nuclei) is a FACT. It is not an ARGUMENT. It is a fact discovered EXPERIMENTALLY, which is clearly explained in Section 8. If the Reviewer disagrees with my very clear explanation (which makes it clear that the decay of 4Be11 is proof that the strong force does not exist), then the Reviewer necessarily needs to find an explanation for why the proton returns to the nucleus of 4Be11, under the action of the strong force, despite it being at a distance of 7fm from the nucleus (since the strong force only acts at a maximum distance of 3fm). Thus, when the proton, at a distance of 7fm from the nucleus, returns to the nucleus, the proton obviously disagrees with the Reviewer’s opinion, when he says: “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science.”. Because the proton understands nothing about the current understanding of science. And when the proton goes back to the nucleus of 4Be11, that’s not a theory. That is a FACT, which proves that strong force does not exist. Unfortunately, as a pseudoscientist, the Reviewer refuses to pay attention to experimental results because they undermine his understanding of current science.

iii) The balance between magnetic and centripetal forces is well-known, and if the balance within atomic nuclei really occurs through the dispute between magnetic force and centripetal force, then obviously the balance mechanism described in Section 8 also occurs within atomic nuclei, as exposed as follows in the Section 8:

“In resume, the centripetal force works together with the electric repulsion between protons. But if the proton starts trying to move away the nucleus, the growth of the orbit radius contributes for the decrease of the centripetal force. And what is the best: with the growth of the orbit radius, the velocity decreases, and as centripetal force varies with the square of the velocity, Fc= mV2/R, then the combination between the magnetic and centripetal forces performs an automatic system regulating the balance of forces inside atomic nuclei, remembering that the Coulomb repulsion force also diminishes with the growth of the orbital radius”.

If this is where the unacceptable argument alleged by the Reviewer lies, he needs to explain better how the balance between magnetic force and centrifugal force occurs.

6- The Reviewer is totally wrong with his supposal that “It appears that author has been working on the controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years”.

The author began his scientific research in 1990, because current theories are full of absurd conjectures, such as Einstein’s proposal that space is empty, but has the property of contracting. That is nonsense, an empty space cannot contract or expand. The author began analyzing the various models of nuclear physics in early 1993. And the conclusion he reached was that none of those models could explain some nuclear properties of atomic nuclei. And at the end of 1993 he came to another conclusion: only from a model with a central helium-4 could be possible to explain the properties of the atomic nuclei, and from there he began his new nuclear theory. In the book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, in addition to the correct prediction that atomic nuclei with Z=N pairs have an ellipsoidal shape, there is also the prediction that atomic nuclei are divided by a Z-axis, which passes through the center of the central helium-4. On page 123 of the book is this sentence: “The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics”. In 2013 the journal Nature published a paper about an experiment, which detected that Ra224 is pear-shaped: “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams, Nature, 497, 199–204”. That experiment forced the nuclear theorists to conclude that atomic nuclei have a Z-axis, around which protons and neutrons have different distributions. This correct prediction, obtained by the nuclear model with a central helium-4, is reported in more detail on page 14 of the author’s book Subtle is the Math, published in 2021.

Even at 1993 the author was already convinced that electric fields must be formed by electrically charged particles that fill the ether (quantum vacuum). However it was only in 2015 that he began to reflect on what the structure of this field should be like, but he still did not suspect that Coulomb’s Law was incomplete. It is wrong the Reviewer’s supposal that the author began to have suspicions about the standard Coulomb’s Law as a result of having investigated the “controversy of the inverse square law for Coulomb interaction during the last few years”, because the author was not aware of this controversy. He came to the conclusion that Coulomb’s Law is incomplete because, among other reasons, he did not like asymptotic freedom, which seemed to him to be an ad hoc desperate proposal to explain why Coulomb repulsion is not able to break the attraction between quarks. In the author’s opinion, the quarks can bond because inside the proton the true Coulomb repulsion is F= KQq/dX, and as d is very short, and X decreases with the decrease of d, then the Coulomb repulsion between two quarks is very smaller than the repulsion calculated by the Standard Coulomb Law F= KQq/d2. The desperate hypothesis of the existence of asymptotic freedom must be discarded.

7- The Reviewer was wrong when he said: “The author of the paper under review believes that the work of Kegel et al supports the proposed ‘atomistic structure of electric field’. This is not true”. Let’s see why.

It is not only the Kegel et al experiment that confirms the atomistic structure of electric fields. Another fact that confirms this is my successful calculation of the electric charge of the proton, based on the electric charge of the fermions that make up the electric field, published in Physics Essays, which the Reviewer completely ignored, showing that he does not consider mathematics seriously. Another piece of evidence that reinforces the hypothesis of the atomistic structure of the electric field is the fact that, taking into account that Coulomb’s Law is very weak for the very short distances between two quarks, then to consider that repulsions between quarks are very weaker than calculated through the Standard Coulomb Law is much more plausible than to consider the desperate hypothesis of asymptotic freedom. The Reviewer’s claim, that “no physical theory can be built neglecting our current understanding of science”, implies that the fundamentals of current physics must always remain, even if some new experiment demonstrates that some of these fundamentals must be wrong. As a result of this understanding of science, alleged by the Reviewer, the following happens:

a) Since some fundamentals of current physics are wrong, it is obvious that new experiments always appear whose results do not fit with current theories.

b) And what is the solution adopted by theorists when this happens? The solution is very simple: a new ad hoc conjecture is introduced into the theory, with the aim to save its foundations. Let’s look at some examples:

I) The ad hoc strong force hypothesis was adopted because theorists found no other solution.

II) Wu’s experiment disproved the Law of Conservation of Parity. Theorists had to introduce ad hoc conjectures to explain the parity violation.

III) The collapse of Coulomb’s Law within the proton required an ad hoc conjecture, asymptotic freedom.

IV) As a result of all current nuclear models being in disagreement with the structure of atomic nuclei existing in Nature, there is always a need to introduce some ad hoc hypothesis into the theory, such as the chiral effective field theory hypothesis.

V) And now, with the result of the Kegel et al experiment, it has become evident that incorporating the ad hoc chiral effective field theory contributed to NOTHING.

Conclusion on the strong force hypothesis:

The strong force and asymptotic freedom are two theories that disagree with Occam’s Razor, because they are two ad hoc hypotheses designed to solve a problem that can be solved with just one theory. The strong force was proposed to resolve the issue that physicists assumed that there was no attractive force of sufficient magnitude to balance the Coulomb repulsion of protons within atomic nuclei. Asymptotic freedom was proposed with the same objective, but to explain the permanence of quarks inside the proton, since according to the Standard Coulomb Law the strong force was already insufficient, and therefore it was necessary to find another solution. Adopting the hypothesis of the incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law, both problems are resolved, and Occam’s Razor is satisfied.

8- And finally, the author will satisfy the Reviewer’s curiosity, as he said this: “Curiously enough, the author believes that nuclear theories should have been developed without taking recourse to the use of symmetry principles”.

The author deeply analyzed all current nuclear models, and came to the conclusion that none of them is capable of explaining all the properties of atomic nuclei. And faced with this failure of all nuclear models, he came to the conclusion that in the structure of atomic nuclei there is a helium-4 occupying the center of the nuclei. The most rigorous test to verify the validity of a nuclear model is done through a theoretical calculation: from that model to obtain the value of the magnetic moment of all atomic nuclei in the periodic table. If the nuclear model fails in this task, the verdict is ruthless: THE MODEL IS WRONG. The most difficult magnetic moments to get theoretically a value close to the experimental are the exotic light nuclei. For example, all current nuclear models fail to calculate the magnetic moment of the 5B10 nucleus. The theoretical value is very below the experimental value. And all nuclear models also fail to calculate the quadrupole moment of 5B10. In other words, 5B10 is the thorn in the side of current nuclear physics. The structure of 5B10 is shown in the cover of my book New Nuclear Physics, published in 2024 by Amazon.com, and this 5B10 structure can be seen by accessing the Amazon website. From the structure of the 5B10, you can see why it is so exotic.

For the theoretical calculation of the magnetic moment of medium and heavy nuclei, current nuclear models achieve satisfactory results, because in such nuclei the laws of probability prevail, as a consequence of the distribution of many protons and neutrons in the structure of the nuclei, and this distribution approaches of a distribution that follows the laws of symmetry (especially if Z=even). But in the structure of light nuclei, because there are few protons and neutrons, statistical laws do not prevail, and the consequence is that the structure of exotic light nuclei is very far away of what is expected from a structure ruled by the symmetry.

The author is convinced that the structure of atomic nuclei existing in Nature has a helium-4 in the center of these nuclei, because through this structure adopted in his theory, the magnetic moment of exotic light nuclei is successfully calculated (a task in which fail all current nuclear models). In the author’s book New Nuclear Physics the magnetic moments of exotic light nuclei are successfully calculated.

………………………………………………..

Prof. Jacob Mackenzie sent the following reply:

………………………………………………..

eicaphb

From:editor_aphb@soton.ac.uk

To:wladski@yahoo.com

Cc:Karthik Balakrishnan

Sun, Jun 16 at 6:18 AM

Dear Dr Guglinski,

We have received your appeal and whilst I fully appreciate your point of view and I agree that we were not able to provide an acceptable peer review of your submission, my key point of concern remains, which is the unsuitability of this manuscript for Applied Physics B. Neither myself nor our editorial board members are nuclear physicists and as such do not have the relevant expertise to provide adequate peer review. I appreciate that you must be having a challenging time to get what you see is a fair hearing for your work and I am sorry that we are not able to support you in this venture.

I wish you well in finding the right balance for your paper in presenting the objective science without the integrated storyline of how you arrived at your conclusions, and that this helps you find a suitable destination for your work.

Kind regards,

Jacob

——

Associate Professor Jacob Mackenzie

Editor in Chief Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics

Zepler Institute – Optoelectronics Research Centre

University of Southampton

Editor_APHB@soton.ac.uk

+44 2380592693

………………………………………………..

Dr Rossi,

one of the most interesting references of the paper

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

is the US Patent 6465965 of L.Nelson: did you try to replicate the phenomenon described in the paper I cited above here in paragraph 2.1 ?

Errata

Where is written:

“In my article submitted for publication to Applied Physics B, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted”

in the letter sent to Prof Maria Borge it is written:

“In my article submitted for publication to European Physical Journal A, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted.”

The paper by Wladimir Guglinski, entitled “Incompleteness of Coulomb’s Law confirmed by the experiment Kegel et al.” was submitted to European Physical Journal A in 28-Dec-2023.

The paper was rejected by the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Maria Borge in 09-Jan-2024, with the following Decision:

…………………………………….

Decision Letter (EPJA-107633)

From: mgb@cern.ch

To: wladski@yahoo.com

CC: epja.bologna@sif.it

Subject: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-107633

Body: 09-Jan-2024

Dear Professor Guglinski:

Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”.

However, the paper is considered of very low impact and therefore outside the aims and scopes of EPJ A.

Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.

Sincerely yours

Professor Maria Borge

Editor in Chief

European Physical Journal A

mgb@cern.ch

epja.bologna@sif.it

Date Sent: 09-Jan-2024

…………………………………….

In 26-06-2024 the website Physics News published “Understanding the interior of atomic nuclei”, where it is described a new experimental discovery about a nuclear property yet unknown by the nuclear theorists.

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-interior-atomic-nuclei.html

Then today, 29-06,2024, Guglinski sent the following letter to Prof. Maria Borge:

…………………………………….

Dear Editor-in-Chief Prof Maria Borge

A new experimental discovery is confirming what is predicted in my new nuclear theory.

The authors of the experiments explain the new discovery at this link:

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-interior-atomic-nuclei.html

They say:

“In laser spectroscopy, a photon couples to a nuclear particle. The fact that the nuclear particle simultaneously interacts with other protons or neutrons has so far been ignored. The coupling of photons to interacting nuclear particles can be taken into account by considering so-called two-body currents”.

In my article submitted for publication to Applied Physics B, this interaction (until now ignored by nuclear physicists) is predicted.

In the explanation of what happens with the structure of the 3Li7, 4Be7 and 3Li6 nuclei, in Figure 10 of the article, it is explained how two interactions occur between the central 2He4 and the orbits of the deuterons and neutrons that rotate around the Z-axis:

the Coulomb repulsion and electromagnetic attraction caused by the rotation of deuterons and neutrals around the Z-axis.

Also, below Print 2 on page 12, is this explanation about calculating the magnetic moment of lithium-6:

“Total magnetic moment of lithium-6 has two components:

1- First component- Intrinsic magnetic moment of deuteron, = +0.857 N. The proton and neutron spins are caused by the counterclockwise their rotation around the axis crossing the centers of each of them, inducing 1.913 N for the neutron and +2.793 N for the proton.

2- Second component- Magnetic moment caused by proton charge moving around Z-axis, which is negative rotation R(-), and so rotation of 1H2 induces negative magnetic moment, which will be calculated.”

In my two books Subtle is the Math and New Nuclear Physics the calculation of the magnetic moment of atomic nuclei is also done considering the contribution of the electromagnetic interaction of protons, neutrons, and deuterons that rotate around the Z-axis.

More information: T. Miyagi et al, Impact of Two-Body Currents on Magnetic Dipole Moments of Nuclei, Physical Review Letters (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.232503

Regards

W. Guglinski

…………………………………….

@Roberto

Yes, you are right.

I think that the most important references in the bibliography of the paper

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

are the # 20, 1, 23

JPR

Wilfried:

Never defy case; remember what happened last year ?

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea

On what do the last 10% for presentations depend? Why is it so complex to make the presentations, even though the problems with the E-Cat seem to have been solved and a final presentation was already prepared last year?

Best Regards

Wilfried

Frank Acland:

1- 90%

2- 90%

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

What do you consider are the probabilities for:

1) E-Cat-powered EV demo in 2024

2) E-Cat-powered solar system demo in 2024

Many thanks,

Frank Acland

@Jean Paul Renoir,

I agree with you, but want to add that to fully understand how the Ecat works are very useful the lectures of all the patents cited in the References of

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

Jean Paul Renoir:

Congratulations,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Andreas:

I suggest you to buy the solar system and eventually integrate it with the Ecat,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Ukranian:

Are you sure you want to confirm this bet ? My suggestion is: don’t do it !

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea and all,

it is interesting that in the moment i am thinking about installing roughly 10 kwp solar modules plus a 10kw/h power storage due to the decreasing prices here in Germany, the discussion here heads to the same direction.

As i am following the ECAT now for about 10 years and my bets and hopes are still with Andrea and the ECAT, would someone recommend waiting for the ECAT or buying a solar solution at that low prices at the moment?

Thanks to all and Andrea,

Andreas

Dr Rossi,

I had to read many times the paper

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

to understand how the Ecat works, and I am fascinated of the genius in it; now I will try to replicate,

Best

JPR

I’ll bet you $1,000 that there won’t be the demo and production in 2024 and 2025.

Klas:

We calculate the retrofitting proce to be around the 30% of the Ecat price,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Steven,

Asking GPT-4, you could get well-documented values for the actual energy production from a 300W panel.

The Stockholm figure is reasonably comparable to the actual performance of a solar panel I installed last year.

Avg. Solar Irradiance Energy Production* Panel cost $ /kWh

(kWh/m2/day) (kWh/10 years) (200 $/kWh/10 years)

Chicago 3.9 4265 0.05

Stockholm 2.5 2738 0.07

Nairobi 5 5475 0.04

* 0.5% yearly efficiency loss due to degradation is not included here

With 90% efficiency, the 10-year production for 300W NDGU is 10*300 W*8760 h*0.9 = 23652 kWh.

A 300W NGU generator cost of 750 $ offers a cost/kWh of 0.03 (750 $/23652 kWh)

I conclude that NGU appears competitive worldwide, even if you only consider the cost/kWh of the source component.

For professional analysis of the actual total cost/kWh of electricity production, you use an LCOE calculation where all relevant factors are included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

For solar, the installation and site costs become a significant part of the total.

In addition, costs resulting from not running 24/7, season variations, and weather conditions are examples of additional factors.

For a full 20-year LCOE, you should include the cost of one NGU generator recycling after ten years.

As all parts are recycled, I estimate the actual recycling cost to be less than 50%.

Best regards

Klas

T.Angerer:

Thank you for your support to the work of our Team and for your suggestion,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Rossi,

Your invention would turn the whole world upside down. Many energy companies would become superfluous, whether in terms of oil or gas extraction or electricity production and grids.

Every country, no matter how small, including city states, would become independent. Not only independent of energy, but also of imports of agricultural products – thanks to vertical farming.

Leonardo needs a million pre-orders, but your invention is something totally new and there are therefore many doubters. That is why it is particularly important to provide evidence that the ecat works. Evidence that EVERYONE can see, e.g. in short videos. You have at least one finished 3 KW ecat module. I would have a lot of ideas for tests to convince many people that the ecat works.

Simply waiting until the one million pre-orders are there and only then publishing these proofs/videos does not lead to the goal. Your invention would be extremely important for mankind. Please take all possible steps to make it a success.

Yours sincerely

T.Angerer