by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, India
e-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03,India
e-mail:lnsrirama@yahoo.com
Introduction
Unification means: finding the similarities, finding the limiting physical constants, finding the key numbers, coupling the key physical constants, coupling the key physical concepts, coupling the key physical properties, minimizing the number of dimensions, minimizing the number of inputs and implementing the key physical constant or key number in different branches of physics.
This is a very lengthy process. In all these cases observations, interpretations, experiments and imagination play a key role. The main difficulty is with interpretations and observations.
As the interpretation changes physical concept changes, physical equation changes and finally the destiny changes.
Universe is a very big laboratory and its life span is very large. Modern physics is having only and hardly 200 years of strong scientific background. Strong motivation, good reasoning, nature friendly concepts, simplicity and applicability are the most favorable and widely accepted qualities of any new model.
Note that in the atomic or nuclear physics, till today no one measured the gravitational force of attraction between the proton and electron and experimentally noone measured the value of the gravitational constant.
Physicists say, if strength of strong interaction is unity, with reference to the strong interaction, strength of gravitation is 10^-39. The fundamental question to be answered is: is mass an inherent property of any elementary particle?
To unify 2 interactions if 5 dimensions are required, for unifying 4 interactions 10 dimensions are required. For 3+1 dimensions if there exists 4 (observed) interactions, for 10 dimensions there may exist 10 (observable) interactions. To unify 10 interactions 20 dimensions are required. From this idea it can be suggested that with ‘n’ new dimensions ‘unification’ problem can not be resolved.
As the culmination of his life work, Einstein wished to see a unification of gravity and electromagnetism as aspects of one single force. In modern language he wished to unite electric charge with the gravitational charge (mass) into one single entity. Further, having shown that mass the ‘gravitational charge’ was connected with space-time curvature, he hoped that the electric charge would likewise be so connected with some other geometrical property of space-time structure. For Einstein the existence, the mass, the charge of the electron and the proton the only elementary particles recognized back in 1920s were arbitrary features. One of the main goals of a unified theory should explain the existence and calculate the properties of matter.
Stephen Hawking – in his famous book – says: It would be very difficult to construct a complete unified theory of everything in the universe all at one go. So instead we have made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or approximating them by certain numbers. (Chemistry, for example, allows us to calculate the interactions of atoms, without knowing the internal structure of an atomic nucleus). Ultimately, however, one would hope to find a complete, consistent, unified theory that would include all these partial theories as approximation, and that did not need to be adjusted to fit the facts by picking the values of certain arbitrary numbers in the theory. The quest for such a theory is known as “the unification of physics”.
Einstein spent most of his later years unsuccessfully searching for a unified theory, but the time was not ripe: there were partial theories for gravity and the electromagnetic force, but very little was known about the nuclear forces. Moreover, Einstein refused to believe in the reality of quantum mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its development.
The first step in unification is to understand the origin of the rest mass of a charged elementary particle. Second step is to understand the combined effects of its electromagnetic (or charged) and gravitational interactions. Third step is to understand its behaviour with surroundings when it is created. Fourth step is to understand its behaviour with cosmic space-time or other particles. Right from its birth to death, in all these steps the underlying fact is that whether it is a strongly interacting particle or weakly interacting particle, it is having some rest mass. To understand the first 2 steps somehow one must implement the gravitational constant in sub atomic physics.
Kirk Aboudi:
Radiations are well known and their definition is made on the base of their wavelength. No radiation is “strange”: every radiation has a specific wavelength spectrum. A radiation detector gets any ionizing radiation and shows the microSievert per hour generated by it. Strange or not as it might be, it has a wavelength from which depends its ionization potential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Do you belkieve to the existence of “strange radiations”?
Kirk
Craig:
The test will go on other 24 hours from now, will finish tomorrow morning.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How is going your test with the SK?
Liam Wright:
Because the evolution has never to stop. The Lugano type was good, but “good” is never enough. After the Lugano Report we have understood things that opened enormous space for further evolution: it would be a mistake not to explore this space.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Why did you change the technology of the Hot Cat if the Lugano type was good enough?
Annalisa Massenberg:
Now it’s 09.33 p.m. where we are of Sunday May 24th.
The plant is stable and the Hot Cat is remarkably efficient. So far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Can you give us an update of today from the 1MW E-Cat?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
As far as I know, 3 people asked you some questions about the theory of Stoyan Sarg Sargoythev (York University Toronto, Canada) : “Building Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”: http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=608&cpage=2#comment-204976
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563&cpage=7#comment-156995
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=23#comment-169380
You didn’t answer (or not really). Stoyan Sarg Sargoythev seems to take you very seriously. In the paper he calls you a “skilled researcher & inventor”.
Please let us know what you think about his theory.
Warms Regards / Olivier Auber
Dear Sebastian Trzaska:
The E-Cat are designed to sustain the temperature they have to work at. The limit depends on what are they designed for. The engineering changes depending on the utilizations for the high temperature E-Cats we are testing now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Mr.Rossi.
I’m wondering if ecat is protected against too high temperature on water inlet and what is the maximum acceptable water inlet temperature.
[…] Apps? Rossi Open to Allowing 3rd Party Addons to the E-Cat’s Heat March 18, 2012A question posted on Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics site raises an interesting question. Jim Rice […]
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
Probably you have not the slightest idea of the complexity of the Authorization to run a power plant.
We already have dealt with this issue, it is very complex. Not impossible, but very complex. Such an Authorization costs millions, sometimes tens of millions, and to put it in jeopardize to make a modification is a risk that nobody, reasonably, wants.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Re: Small town power plants
Mr Rossi: “Authorization problems” Why not give the problem to a young MBA and tell him to solve the regulatory/authorization problems?
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
Thank you, very interesting, but there is a tremendous authorization problem, as I said recetly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi: Wouldn’t towns like those described in this article be good prospective customers. These towns could have a large lobbying effect to change regulations for these small plants. It would be a great show case for your E-Cats.
http://nation.foxnews.com/federal-regulations/2011/12/20/obama-power-plant-regulations-zapping-small-town-usa
Dear Dr Joseph Fine,
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe:
1- maybe
2- no
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
1. Is the 1-hour startup or shutdown time due to
a) the limits of present technology which can be improved in the near future with a greater investment into the engineering side of the E-Cat
or
b) fundamental barriers in the science of the E-Cat reaction which can only be overcome through a great amount of research in the field of physics or chemistry?
2. Does a phenomenon exist at COP>6 that does not exist at COP=6?
All the best,
Joe
For those who want to learn more about Model Predictive Control, here is the Wikipedia link and link to info on the MATLAB toolbox for MPC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_predictive_control
http://www.mathworks.com/products/mpc/
Also, a lecture on MPC by Jay H. Lee of Georgia Institute of Technology.
cepac.cheme.cmu.edu/pasilectures/lee/LecturenoteonMPC-JHL.pdf
Joseph
cepac.cheme.cmu.edu/pasilectures/lee/LecturenoteonMPC-JHL.pdf
Dear Felize:
1- yes
2- MPC
3- seconds
4- The E-Cats can’t explode because they are intrinsecally safe.
I have erased the video you propose, because there is an AD of one of the Italian puppeteers of the Italian puppets , as we knew from our intelligence. Kind of a Troy Horse.
Warm Regards,
A.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
Probably you have not received my previous message. I would like to ask you the following questions:
– have you built a mathematical model of your reactor above 260°C?
– which control method are you using for your reactor? (PI/PID/MPC)
– what is the length of the control horizon of an industrial ecat? (seconds/mins/hours)
In my experience, stability problems can be always solved if your system does not explode during the recovery phase 🙂
Best,
Felize
Dear Hank Goranson:
This could be a realistic prospect ( very realistic) as well as the application of the E-Cats to a gas, coal or oil power plant could be a realistic prospect, and in this case we could have a very high COP. The big problem, here, is mainly bourocratic: to touch a power plant needs to modify the Authorizations: hic sunt leones ( here are the lions).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have mentioned that the original E-Cat and the E-Cat used in the megawatt plants represent different technologies. In these columns there has also been suggestions that nuclear reactors could be refurbished using E-Cat technology thereby making the standard nuclear fuel obsolete and your reaction to these suggestions have been that it should be entirely possible.
Now, most nuclear reactors can be divided into two categories, BWR and PWR reactors. My thinking then is that the original E-Cat technology would be best fit to refurbish a BWR reactor and the “fat cat” technology could be used to modernize a PWR reactor. Without exposing any commercial secrets, could you tell us if this is a realistic prospect?
Kind regards, Hank Goranson
Dear Joe:
1- yes
2- no
3- confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
1. Does the control unit maintain a COP of 6 for ANY value between 0 and 10 kilowatts of output power, especially in the low end of that range?
2. Theoretically, can a higher COP exist for very small values of output power WITHOUT creating new problems for stability?
3. Is the instability at higher temperatures due to
a) the higher speeds of the reactants
or
b) the higher rate of transmutation?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but, unfortunately, no, I cannot take this engagement. As I said, I hope to start the deliveries within the next Winter, I think it will be very possible within 16 month ( it was 18 two months ago).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi: I opened my mouth too wide (: and told my skeptical friends I would be getting my E-cat in nine months, is that possible?
Dear Frank Acland:
In due time, after the plant will be in operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Interesting: I wait for a proposal for a working apparatus to buy and test it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Congratulations again on a great invention. Wish you very best of luck with your goal of bringing the Ecat system to the mass-market. I understand that the electricity generation for home users is still an issue and you are working hard to integrate the Siemens turbine into the Ecat system.
I have recently found a possible engine alternative, that seems to be almost “custom made” for the Ecat. While I do realize that it may not be as efficient as the full blown turbine, this could be integrated rather quickly with the Ecat:
Please research the “SolarHeart” Low-Temerature Stirling Engine made by company in Colorado:
http://www.coolenergyinc.com
Take a particular look at their “solar” application here:
http://www.coolenergyinc.com/solar.html -> Its almost ready for ecat, as they say “just add water” (meaning ecat)
Of course, the solar energy could be easily replaced with the hot water generated by the Ecat. Their specification mentions that 260degrees C would be sufficient for optimal engine performance.
In addition, please look at their impressive portfolio of patents:
http://www.coolenergyinc.com/patentstrademarks.html
and examine patent 7,877,999 “Power Generation and Space Conditioning Using a Thermodynamic Engine Driven Through Environmental Heating and Cooling”.
While I do realize that it may be not as efficient as you’d wish, but it seems like their engine
a. is already in production
http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2237:cool-energy-announces-first-customers-for-solarheart-engines&catid=37:business-news&Itemid=241
b. could be easily integrated with home ecats
c. this company is based in the US (similar engineering standards and no language barrier)
d. they do own a substantial IP portfolio for such a small company.
e. seems like they could manufacture a power generating “ecat module” quickly.
Regards,
Adam
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Very interesting news came out of your interview with Oilprice.com — you mention that soon a 1 MW plant will be open to the public. Can you provide any more details about this plant? When will the public be able to view it — who will be able to visit, where will it be located, etc.?
Many thanks!
Frank Acland
Dear Italo R.:
Today a Reader emailed me the anagram of my name: ANDREA ROSSI = RISE AND SOAR. Well, let’s try in the storm either.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe:
All of them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Robert Tanhaus:
No, I referred to electrochemical energy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I saw the interesting interviews you gave to oilprice.com
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Limitless-Potential-of-the-E-Cat-An-Interview-with-Andrea-Rossi.html
and to couldfusionnow.org
http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=15308
You will need to prepare to give much more interviews after going realy public.
The world will want to know what happend to them from one moment to the other.
You stated some posts ago that you see an endothermic reaction in the beginning.
Could it be that it is an energy to mass reaction before the mass to energy reaction begins?
Have fun.
Robert Tanhaus