Rossi Blog Reader
This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's
Journal of Nuclear Physics,
sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Updated: 2024-07-27 08:50:09.109348Z
3
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I suggest you develop a 300W, 36VDC or a 400W, 48VDC unit. This unit would be designed to integrate with solar panel interfaces such a microinverter or string inverter. The unit should be capable of serial connections to accommodate a serial string voltage of at least 1,000VDC when dealing with string inverters or their equivalent.
I suggest that each unit have a remote output enable to control whether the output power is enabled or disabled. And some form of communication with a unique ID or address, health information, total operating time, voltage, current, power, temperature, and other important data. The communications port might be a hardware port or something like a bluetooth compatible communications capability.
This would be a direct replacement of solar panels for new designs but designed for 24/7 continuous power output.
The savings would be in reducing the required land space, they could be located inside buildings, they would not require surface cleaning, and they would operate continuously and independent of weather.
Although this conceptual unit could be constructed by 3 or 4 100W NGU units, a single unit would facilitate handling, installation, communications, and simplify integration.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
maybe you are interested in these answers i ask at Chatgpt:
Me: At what price per kWh of energy would vertical farming become profitable: 1. when growing vegetables 2. when growing wheat 3. when growing potatoes.
Answer chatgpt
Determining the specific price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) at which vertical farming becomes profitable for growing vegetables, wheat, and potatoes involves several factors, including the costs of operations, the yield per square foot, market prices for each crop, and the specific energy requirements of the farming process. Here are some general considerations for each crop: (i shortened the answer)
Based on the above considerations and general market conditions:
Vegetables: Below $0.10 to $0.20 per kWh
Wheat: Below $0.05 to $0.10 per kWh
Potatoes: Below $0.05 per kWh
These figures are rough estimates and can vary significantly based on local conditions, the specific technology used in vertical farming, energy prices, and market demand. To make a more precise assessment, a detailed financial analysis considering all costs and yield expectations is necessary.
I hope the ecat come to mass production soon.
Best regards
Z.Roeden
Z. Roeden:
Thank you for this information and for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Roberto Ridolfi,
I agree with you, but I think that the most important theoretical legacy of Andrea Rossi will remain the paragraphs 6-7 of the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
that have been already replicated
@Jan Srajer
While http://www.ingandrearossi.net is very important, I agree with you,
Best
Roberto
@Horst Dieter Preschel
I know these pages, but the comprehensive memories are more clear. It seems to me that the development is reaching the starting position. In that case, it will be commercially good for the general public to get to know the inventor. Business strategy is sometimes more important than the invention itself.
Warm Regards J.Š.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
what would happen if i plug in 2 x 2KW electric heaters to a 3KW ecat ngu:
1) Will they, because it is an ohmic load, just heat with 2 x 1,5KW?
2) It will shut off?
Best regards
Reinhard
Reinhard:
2
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
will the scheduled Demo be held in the same location where it was scheduled last year?
Best Regards, Giuseppe
Giuseppe Censorio:
Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rossi,
I have read the history document, my admiration for you and your very careful work on the Ecat products.
The 1M 100Watt units as a goal for the world and the start is also very clear to me.
Thank you and good luck in October with the 2 demonstrations,
kind regards Jitse
Jitse:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Jan Šrajer
If you have not already done so, you should take a look at the following pages
https://ingandrearossi.net/
Kind regards
Dieter
Horst Dieter Preschel:
Thank you for the important citation; I endorse it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Egregio ing. Rossi
volendo organizzarmi per la demo di ottobre quando pensa potrà comunicare i relativi riferimenti (luogo, tempi, durata etc) ?
Aldo Greco:
The attendance, for security reasons, will be very limited and restricted to persons professionally involved in our industrial and commercial activity; the public will assist through the streaming that will cover the whole event,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
would you, or the Leonardo Corporation, accept a private order to equip the VW ID Buzz GTX long version (or any vehicle) with E-Cat and adapt it to the battery system? Or do you insist that the manufacturer must do this?
Best Regards
Wilfried
Wilfried:
No, because his would be very dangerous: it would result in severed assistance and guarantees by the manufacturer, should you manipulate his systems.
Only a manufacturer can adopt our system, integrating it in his ones.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Are the new electronics for adapting the E-Cat to the car battery designed in such a way that it can be easily or even automatically adapted to other vehicle-battery combinations?
Would they accept a customization as an order?
I still want a VW i-buzz gtx long version with E-Cat technology.
Best Regards
Wilfried
Wilfried:
1- Basically yes, with some adjustments for the specific situations
2- I do not understand what do you mean: can you rephrase ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
For the EV demonstration:
1. Will the same track used (the one in Italy, as I recall)?
2. Will same cars be used (same manufacturer, same model)?
3. What speeds do expect to achieve?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. yes
2. yes
3. this is a date we will give the day of the event,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
1. Is the Ecat SKLed safe against falling from 1m
2. Will Ecat SKLed still work at 9V?
3. Is the Ecat SKLed rain resistant?
4. Is the Ecat SKLed resistant to frequent switching on and off
Warm regards
Jan Srajer:
After I will complete my work, maybe I will follow your suggestion. Now I do not have time.
Thank you for your suggestion, though,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
True, this blog is such a memory, but far more significant are the memories of life as a whole. I’d say it’s about time someone wrote your life experiences: Where did you grow up, where did you go to school, who are your friends and enemies and finally how did you come up with the idea that led to the production of the E-cat. After all, your life, from the point of view of an ordinary reader, resembles one big adventure.
All the Best J.Š.
Is the life time of the Ecat SKLed 100 000 hours independently from the luminous flow ?
Warm Regards,
Jan Srajer
Jan Srajer:
Too soon, but, perhaps, this very blog is de facto my memoirs
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
Please, could you or someone close to you write your memoirs?
All the Best J.Š
Dr Rossi,
In the demo of the Ecat powered EV, will there be an independent expert of the car manufacturer to certify the genuinity of the cars original batteries ?
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Does it mean that the Ecat 100 Watt will also be presented in October?
Kind regards, Jitse
Jitse:
Probably,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
This post on X today – https://twitter.com/LeonardoCorpor3/status/1814999793636147354 – states that you will do the EV demonstration in October.
Does this mean that you are confident you have resolved all the issues surrounding charging an EV with the E-Cat NGU?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
Yes, after a long and very hard work our Team did it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Will the demo of the E-Cat powered EV be made with two EVs, one powered by the Ecat , the other only with the original battery, at the same speed to see if the Ecat powered lasts more ?
Hunter:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Bees,
An interesting post. One correction – 4 100W NGU units, connected in series, will produce 48 VDC at 400 Watts. Instead of a simple control device, one could use a diode bridge that accepts both inputs: one input from the solar panel; and the other input from the NGU units; and outputs whichever input has the highest voltage. In this conceptual system, the solar panel would likely provide the 400W/450 Watts around local noon time. All other times would be the NGU units.
You might also consider using only 3 NGU units in series, to save costs, to get more time that the solar panel is producing the greater power.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I wonder if four E-Cat SKLep NGU devices were assembled in a case and installed as a ‘backpack’ for a typical 400/450W solar panel (in a pass-through style, like an optimizer), could they provide 100W of continuous electrical power at 48V? Additionally, with a simple control electronics, could they activate when the voltage produced by the panel ceases, as normally occurs at sunset or due to any other issue. Of course, the cost impact per panel would be significant; however, on an industrial scale, the cost could be significantly reduced, ensuring widespread adoption comparable to that of photovoltaic systems, of which this would become an important integration, transforming them into 24-hour production systems. Such an installation, for example, composed of 10/12 panels, thus a small system, would make available 1KW/1.2KW of power even in the absence of sunlight… I think it would be fantastic.
Peter Bees:
You made a good point.
Anyway, particular custom assemblies will be discussed when we will be ready to deliver. In general, any kind of assembly can be contained in a box similar to the one shown in
http://www.ecat.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Stevan Nicholes Karels:
1- yes
2- ok
3- no
4- please see the data sheet on http://www.ecat.com ( remember that NGU and SKLep is the same thing )
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. On the EV car demonstration, do you currently have a functional integration, undergoing validation testing?
2. Same question for the solar panel supplementation demonstration.
3. Do you have working prototypes larger, than 3kW. If so, how large?
4. What dimensions on the 100W NGU?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Idea for non-Tesla Semi Charging System
I suggest that charging while operating an EV Semi is not required nor even smart. Charging while driving increases circuit complexity (and cost) and can result in damage to the EV Semi battery system.
First, I excluded Tesla Semis because they have so much tied into their Tesla Charging network that they would not consider such an approach.
Second, the risk or damaging the EV Semi batteries is zero when you do so under non-operating conditions, i.e., parked.
Consider a relatively small NGU device on a Semi, e.g., a 40-kW unit. It could be used in one of three (or more) conditions:
1. Each night it charges the EV Semi while the Semi is at the home base with enough time slowly charge the EV Semi battery system.
2. On overnight trips when at a motel. This avoids the cost of the first Charging station.
3. When the Semi runs out of charge in an unplanned manner. Charging enough to get to the home base, the next charging station, or to a motel.
The cost savings would likely pay for the attached NGU charging system in avoidance of buying a 250kW charging station at the home base, or avoiding the first charging station of day, each day, on a long multi-day trip. In addition, cost per kW-hr at charging stations is high.
For the home base, the company has a decision to make when there are multiple EV Semis that need nightly charging.
You could have one high capacity (high kW) charging unit that sequentially charges each EV Semi. This requires manpower to move EV Semis and plug them in.
You could have multiple relatively low-capacity charging units. One for each EV Semi. Conceptually, the EV Semi driver parks his EV Semi at one of the charging stations, plugs in, and leaves.
The approach which I favor is an EV Semi mounted unit that can charge its Semi, independent of location.
In addition, EV battery systems last longer when slowly charged.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels,
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers:
Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the paper
” Geometric Model of Atomic Nuclei ” by Prof. Ilya A. Boldov
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
I know you’re careful about business. But could your advertising activity be more aggressive?
Warm regards
Jan Srajer:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
It seems to me that at this time you are the decisive link in all events, where the world will go. Please proceed wisely and judiciously.
All the Best J.Š.
Dr. Rossi,
In 2011 you had the first public demostration of the e-cat and I started following your journey.
From there I think you recived a lot of interest, discredit, suggestions, envy and support.
Looking back was it the right time? Knowing what you know today would you still do that demostration?
Would you do it earlier or far later or would you wait until 2024?
After 13 years I still can’t wait to have a working e-cat in my hands.
Best,
Alessandro
Alessandro Ferrari:
We made enormous progress that we couln’t reach without all we did so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
why complicated tests with the Ecat?
Everyone would be happy to see the ecat working with electric kettle and electric heating.
Just keep the tests simple.
Car producers could make tests with their EV on their own. It has not to be your job.
Best regards
Z.Roeden
Z. Roeden:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Use of NGU technology of Electric Semis – No Charging During Operation
Assume a Volvo VNR Electric 6×4 Semi
Specs
Range of 275 miles
Battery – 565 kW-hr
Operational Modes
Drive max range during the operating shift, returns to base, and recharges during non-operating hours.
Assume 10 hours per day operating shift — 14 hours non-operating time.
charging during non-operating time.
onboard NGU capacity = 565 kw-hr / 14 hours = 40 kW
NGU cost per semi = $100K.
Breakeven time (assume cost of $0.20USD per kW-hr)
565 kW-hrs per day * $0.20 / kW-hr = $113 savings per day
Assume 250 working days per year = $28,250 per year.
Breakeven time = about 3 1/2 years.
Note: If semi runs out of charge away from the base, it simply stops and self-recharges.
Steven Nicholes Karels,
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers,
Please go to
http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published in other posts of this blog,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Charging an EV battery System, while in operation, is exceedingly challenging, as your development teams found out.
Normal charging occurs when the EV is stationary. The EV battery system is either directly charge (e.g., high voltage) or using an onboard charger.
The onboard charger is usually in low kW region and is too limited for high-speed driving. High speed driving requires medium to high kW of power.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Yes, plus many other issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
You have said that higher energy outputs (as in configurations for EVs) need that external complex system of capacitances moderated by AI.
My questions are:
1) Do individual 10W NGUs also require internal surge protection?
2) What about when NGUs are ganging together for smaller configuration of, say, 10 NGU units?
Gregory Daigle:
1) yes and they have it already
2) they too are protected
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andre Rossi,
You posted “to avoid the accident happened in October 2023”
Please describe the accident. Was it:
1. The EV had a road accident;
2. The EV battery system was damaged;
3. The eCat was damaged; or
4. A fire erupted.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
2 and 3
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Regarding the new system you have developed to solve the October 2023 problem:
a) How long have you been testing it?
b) So far, has it had any failures in charging the EV?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
a) we are working on it since October 2023
b) too soon to answer
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Is the Ecat that we will see powering the EV in the next test directly connected with the battery of the car ?
Ulrich:
No, it is not.
Between the Ecat and the EV battery there is a complex system of capacitances, to avoid the accident happened in October 2023; besides, there is a sophisticated control and management system made by our Team, that I dare to define, for its complexity, a piece of A.I.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
I think that the theoretical core of the Ecat interpretation in the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
consists in the very low entropy charge aggregates; this reverse difference of entropy should be against the third principle of thermodynamic: how do you resolve this problem ?
All the best,
Rupert
Rupert:
Good point.
The Third Principle of Thermodynamic can be overcome by a “creative” act, in our case the induced on electrons dV/dT that allows to the electrons to reach the critical threshold of density necessary to the formation of the coherent charge clusters that generate the reverse entropy delta and consequently the Zero Point Energy eventually transferred to the electrons not in phase.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another NGU Application
Cell Phone Charger
There about 8 billion cell phones out there.
The average cell phone uses 4.5 watts.
One 10W NGU could continuously charge a cell phone for up 11 years. Longer than the lifetime of a cell phone before it is replaced.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Notwithstanding your recommendations, I bet that no demos will be made in 2024
Anonymous:
Good luck !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another NGU Application
Consider Refrigerated Trailers
They have a fossil generator of the equivalent capacity of 8 to 26 kW. New units cost about $100,000 USD each.
Assume NGU 3 kW units are used.
This could very advantages when the trailer is sent by rail or on long distance trips.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I’m very much looking forward to upcoming demonstrations – will you be demonstrating the E-Cat working with solar panels soon?
Ron Stringer
Ron Stringer:
We are working also on this demo,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
do you think that reading the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
an expert of the matter could reproduce the experiment cited in its paragraph 6 ?
Thank you if you can answer
Giordano
Giordano Bevilacqua:
Yes, it would be possible,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Donald Chandler,
I used ExCel. My math is correct.
Dr Rossi,
will an Ecat NGU assembly of 200/300 W be contained in a box similar to the last photo of the Ecat NGU published on X ?
Best
Roberto
Roberto:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Stefen
Check your math. I reckon about 200-250W per person.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Another Possible NGU Application
A human requires about 550 liters of pure oxygen per day.
1 MW of electrical power can provide 50 liters of pure oxygen per minutes using electrolysis.
There are 1,440 minutes per day.
Therefore, 550 L per day would require 7.63 kW of electric power.
Consider an underwater diver. 3 3kW NGUs could possibly provide an indefinite of oxygen from the surrounding water.
Thoughts?
Dr Rossi,
where are you going to spend your Summer holidays ?
Anonymous:
Where my work is: we are preparing the imminent demos, but I take the chance of your comment to wish all our Readers to enjoy their Summer Holidays !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The Ecats used in the next demos will be NGU or SKLep ? There is some confusion,
Best
Norman
Norman:
NGU and SKLep are suffixes of the same item; we just added the acronym “NGU” for “Never Give Up” after the accident happened in 2023, so the name became “ECAT SKLep NGU”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You need a way to demonstrate the 3kW NGU unit.
Consider an internet demonstration, similar to lamp demonstration, but with the 3kW NGU driving a DC/DC converter. The DC/DC converter hides any proprietary output information.
The DC/DC converter drives a resistive load. Fans are used to cool the DC/DC converter and the resistive load.
Analog or Digital metering of the converter output voltage and current.
And, of course, a digital clock shows time, either elapsed or date/time.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Is the Zitterbewegung relevant to the Ecat NGU ?
Sergio:
It’s fundamental; please read the paragraph 2.2 and 5 of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello DR Rossi
The Oil Drop Experiment.
https://youtu.be/K1AyA8NBLMw?si=DOiECfI0Eje3YtaJ
Regards
Sam
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for the information,
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
Lina:
never above the background: Min 0.06 max 0.17 uS/h ( microSievert per hour )
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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.
Manuel Cilia:
Thank you for your suggestion,
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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,
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.
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)
“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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 !
Dr Rossi,
where can I understand the function of the vacuum as shown in the photo published on X ?
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.
Mr. Rossi
Can the E-CAT-SKL also supply electric energy to an electric motor?
Warm Regards
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
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 ?
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
………………………………………………..
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
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
Wilfried:
Never defy case; remember what happened last year ?
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
Frank Acland:
1- 90%
2- 90%
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@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
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
Jean Paul Renoir:
Congratulations,
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
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.
I’ll bet you $1,000 that there won’t be the demo and production in 2024 and 2025.
Dear Readers:
Please go to
http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published in other posts of this blog,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This is what a search with Bing says:
For instance, a 400-watt solar panel, under ideal conditions and receiving four hours of peak sun daily, can produce 1.6 kWh of power daily or about 584 kWh per year.
Lars Lindberg:
Thank you for the citation,
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
Klas:
We calculate the retrofitting proce to be around the 30% of the Ecat price,
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
T.Angerer:
Thank you for your support to the work of our Team and for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
you posted:
“You should compare the cost/kWh, not the cost/kW 24 h/day, 365 days/year in the timespan of 10 years; so far we are not able to know if our cost/kW will decrease; it will depend mainly on the economy scale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”
Analysis
Time period: 10 years = 87,600 hours = 3,650 days.
NGU: Assume 100% usage, 300W of power output, cost is $750.
NGU produced power is 300W * 87,600 hours = 26,280 kW-hrs
Or
35.04 kw-hr/$ or 2.83 cents per kW-hr.
Solar Panel:
Assume 400W capable, gives an average of 300W per 10-hour day. No output during the other 14 hours per day. 400W solar panel costs $200. Lifetime of 25 years.
Energy produced = 300W * 10 hrs/day * 3,650 days = 10,950 kW-hrs
Or
10.950 kW-hrs/$200 = 54.75 kW-hrs /$ or 1.83 cents per kW-hr.
Note: The solar panel has a warranty of 25 years.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight, but your math needs a double check, considering, among other considerations, that:
1- 400 W of solar panel power is the max power you can reach in a day, and the time per day average across the 4 seasons around the planet is a couple of hours;
2- a solar plant is not limited to the panel, but is a complex system with many components;
3- the 25 years of lifetime are contingent with serious maintenance issues, whose costs depend on the specific situations…etc
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
Finally the last question. the operating price of E-CAT-SKL maintenance will be lower, higher, comparable to the price of fuel the E-CAT-SKL?
Warm Regards
Jan Srajer:
Absolutely !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
Congratulations. The Florida Panthers won. A good example to follow.
All the Best. J.Š.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Solar panels are now priced at about $200USD for a 300W solar panel. Depending on the location, they provide power for about 1/3 of a day (over a period of 24 hours). So, the average cost per Watt of electrical power is about $2USD per Watt – averaged over a 24-hour period of operation.
Your current price is $2.50USD per Watt for the NGU technology.
Do you foresee your price decreasing as the cost of solar panels decreases?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
You should compare the cost/kWh, not the cost/kW 24 h/day, 365 days/year in the timespan of 10 years; so far we are not able to know if our cost/kW will decrease; it will depend mainly on the economy scale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another application for NGU Technology – Canoe/boat trolling motor
A typical trolling motor, that could attach to the side of a canoe or fishing boat, requires 12VDC and up to 50Amps. There are commercially available mounting adapters, batteries, and electric trolling motors.
How about using 6 100W NGUs to power a canoe or small fishing boat?
I did, several years ago, an overnight canoe trip by oar. A long duration trolling motor would have made the journey so much more enjoyable.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Are you still collaborating with Physics Professors ?
Anonymous:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On the 3kW units, I suggest that you allow the option for increasing the output voltage of the 3kW unit so that the current is reduced below 15Amps. If this is done, then the 3kW unit can directly interface with many inverters, which typically have a maximum current limitation of 15 Amps (or greater).
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
will you make the Ecat NGU demo at the same time and place of the Ecat-powered EV demo ?
Germana:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
is there any power version of the ECAT NGU capable of lighting (without using LED)?
If yes, which version?
If no version of ECAT NGU is able to light (without using LED), please simply write/admit it.
Best Regards
Emil
Emil Growatt:
Strange question: the Ecat generates electricity and any kind lamp ( with exception of candles ) are powered by means of electricity; as a consequence of this fact, obviously the Ecat SKLep NGU can light any lamp ( with exception of candles ),
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
One theoretical question: Would it be possible to use E-CAT-SKL in space as a particle generator for a rocket engine?
Warm Regards
Jan Srajer:
I am not able to answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
If a vacuum is not needed to initiate ZPE, then in the future it will be possible to obtain energy from materials other than nickel and lithium. Am I right?
Warm regards J.Š.
Mr. Rossi
Is the E-CAT-SKL electomagnetically compatible with the environment?
Warm Regards
Jan Srajer:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
Do you think it is possible to get ZPE energy without using a vacuum?
Warm regards J.Š.
Dr Rossi,
Still about the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
the zero point energy derives from a reverse difference of entropy, is that correct ?
Best
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes, the reverse difference of Entropy, not to violate the Third principle of Thermodynamics, needs a “creative” act to start a series of ceosequent evolutions, in the case of the Ecat System represented by the dV/dT induced to the electrons to start the formation of coherent charge clusters, as explained in the paper you cited,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
An Application for the 3kW NGU device – direct supplemental 3-Phase Power Generation
Assumption – The 3kW NGU unit can output 60VDC at up to 50Amps.
Enphase has developed a 3-phase microinverter – IQ8P-3P-72-E-US. In single quantities it has a price of $165.50USD. Up to 12 such units may be connected to run in parallel using a 3-Phase 20Amp breaker. The unit has a CEC efficiency of 97.5%. It is Grid Safe.
Consider using two 3kW NGU units. Each 3kW NGU units will power 6 microinverters. A string of 12 such inverters will feed a 20Amp 3-phase circuit breaker. I selected a Square D EGB34020 3-Phase circuit breaker with a cost of $357.94USD. This subsystem would produce 5.7 kW of power to flow into the electrical grid.
Duplicate this ten times and you can output 200Amp 3-phase power to a grid transformer to convert the energy to high voltage transmission power with a continuous production of 57kW.
Do the above same 18 times and you have 1MW of 3-phase power, synchronized to the electrical grid.
Microinverter cooling is by natural convective cooling.
This could easily be added to a substation. Adding remotely controlled switching would allow controlling the amount of power flowing into the electrical grid.
For each generated MW of power, 2,160 3kW units would be needed.
Instead of a large GW power generation complex, each substation could have its own generation capability – subject to grid power being available to voltage and phase synchronize the generated power.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
The production price of E-CAT-SKL will be higher, lower, comparable, compared to the production price of the car?
Warm Regards
Jan Srajer
Jan Srajer:
Thank you for your attention to the work of our Team,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr.Rossi
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
It is just the beginning, or so I think, of looking at a new model of the atom. There will certainly be new theories in this area. Niels Bohr said that eventually the most fantastic theory will prove to be correct.
In your case, this will happen when the world sees your invention in action.
Today we can only guess what the consequences will be.
All the best.J.Š
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
I imagine you are continuing twenty years since to be under strong pressure, so, due to the importance of your work, can we know how is presently your health ?
Are you still playng tennis now and again ?
All the best,
Roberto
Roberto:
Thanks God all my periodical control visits show a good situation, probably a legacy of my agonistic career when I was young.
Yes, I still play tennis regularly with my wife: in general, while growing differently young through the passing time, the quality of tennis decreases, but in my case this doesn’t happen, because my tennis can’t get any worse…
Thank you for your concern,
Warm Regards
A.R.
A Theoretical Point Design for a Solar Farm in Saudi Arabia
Assumptions
Assume LG 400W Bifacial solar panels, tied in a string series manner.
Assume an EG4 18KPV-12LV hybrid inverter is used.
Standard Temperature Conditions (STC): 20 degC. 1,000 W/m2 solar
Saudia Arabia
Lattitude: about 24 degrees
Minimum Temperature: -12 degC
Maximum Temperature: +52 degC
Solar Panel Characteristics
Nominal Power output under STC: 400W
STC Bifacial Power Output: 450W
Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) @ STC: 49.7 Volts
Maximum Current – Bifacial: 8.65Amps
Temperature Coefficient – Voltage: -0.26 %/degC
EG4 Hybrid Inverter Characteristics
Full Power MPPT Voltage Range: 120 to 500V
Nominal MPPT Voltage: 360V
Maximum input current per MPPT: 2 MPPTs of 12.5Amps; 2 MPPTs of 15Amps
Maximum number MPPS inputs: 4
Maximum Utilized Solar Power: 18kW
Recommended Maximum Solar Panel Power: 21kW
Point Design
1. Determine maximum number of solar panels in a string. The string voltage must never exceed the inverter’s maximum voltage.
Determine worst case solar panel output voltage:
Vmax = 49.7V + (-2.6 * 49.7V / 100) * (-12degC – 20degC) = 91.05V
Maximum number of solar panels in series = 500V / 91.05V = 5.49 => 5 solar panels in series.
Note: MPPT current limitation does not allow solar panel strings in parallel.
2. Maximum power per solar panel string = 5 * 450W = 2.25kW (bifacial)
Nominal string voltage = 5 * 49.7V = 248.5V
Assume 2 strings input to one EG4 18KPV-12LV power: 2 * 2.25 kW = 4.5 kW
Note: Inverter can accept up to 21 kW of PV power but is can use only 18kW of solar power. Maximum solar panel power only occurs during daylight hours, maybe 6 – 10 hours per day. Assume 6 hours per day in this analysis.
3. Solar Panel Supplementation – 8 kW per inverter.
2 strings with 5 solar panels per string = 10 solar panels per inverter.
NGU supplementation of 800W electrical per solar panel or 8 each 100W NGU s per solar panel. Each string will have a total of 5 x 8 NGUs at 12V per NGU = an NGU string voltage of 480V, which is lower than the 500V inverter limit. Each NGU string will have a current of 8.33 Amps.
4. Power analysis: Each inverter can provide up to 12kW electrical power.
In one day, the total NGU-provided output power will be 8 kW * 24 hours = 192 kW-hrs. Assuming 6 hours of full solar panel output = 6 hours * 4.5kW = 27 kW-hrs from solar power. Combined power = 192 kW-hrs + 27 kw-Hrs = 219 kW-hrs per day. During mid-day, the inverter can output 11.5 kW of power. In the evening hours, the inverter would provide 8kW of power.
5. Implementation
While the solar panel power would be supplemented by the NGUs in this point design, the NGU power would run to the inverter on separate power lines from the solar panel string power lines.
Alternatively, if the NGU power were to directly add to the solar panel power using the same conductors, this could be done in multiple different designs, consistent with the limitations imposed by the inverter input requirements. Each possible design would need to go through a similar analysis.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
how can photovoltaic installation companies understand and decide which version of E-CAT to pre-order ?
Best Regards
Emil Growatt
Emil Growatt:
The basic module is the 100 W; everybody can pre-order a multiple of 100 modules to cover his power needs; the price/W is the same, whatever the version; when we will be ready to deliver we will contact the Clients for the details and the possible optionals, and the order confirmation ( or cancellation, depending on the Client’s will ).
As you know, no money is requested at the pre-order phase, and if the Client, whatever the reason, will cancel the pre-order , no money will change place.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi will you be creating 19 inch rack version of the Ecat unit so we can slide them into standard cabinets or will that be up to us to make.
Thanks
Dr Rossi,
You wrote here that your manufacturing centers are in the USA and Europe. Are you planning to manufacture also in Asia, Africa and Australia ?
Best,
Jimmy
Jimmy Hunt:
Yes. We have patents granted also in Asia, Africa and Australia, and we have important contacts in the making.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
reading the paragraphs 5,6 and the experiment description of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
I think I have understood how the Ecat works. I think the plasma is still the source, am I wrong ?
Thank you for your immense work,
Udo
Udo:
You are not wrong,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Bifacial solar panels are used to collect sunlight energy from both the front and the rear of the solar panel. This might be a ground array with the front side pointed the average elevation angle of the sun (based on latitude). It could also be mounted vertically, like in a fence, with the side pointed south and with alternating, adjacent, solar panels with the front side alternating. This has the advantage of picking up energy during diffuse light conditions such as clouds or snow on the ground.
The NGU supplementation device should be able to be mounted beneath the bifacial solar panel so as to not cast a shadow on adjacent solar panels.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
One application that you might incorporate into your PV solar panel supplementation is to use excess power to cool the augmented solar panel.
The efficiency of any solar panel decreases as it heats up. Also, you are limited by the downstream electronics as to how much voltage and power the electronics can accept. When the sun is high and greatly illuminating the PV solar panel, it will increase its temperature, cause both by the surrounding environment and the solar radiation. Diverting some of the NGU output power to direct air on the underside of the PV solar panel will help reduce the PV solar panel’s temperature. This will result in improve PV solar panel lifetime and increased output power.
You would need to study this further, but it might make sense to use excess power to cool the air directed at the PV solar panel.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Here are the stats of your papers on Researchgate I found today on
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
Total Readings: 142000 (of which 130090 only for “Ecat SK and long range particle interactions), more than the 99% of 1.5 millions of publications on Researchgate
Research Interest Score Index: 2905, higher than the 99% of 1.5 million publications on Researchgate
Recommendations: 11244, more that the 99% of 1.5 million publications on Researchgate
Most Reads by Cathegories: Chemical Engineers, Electronic Engineers, Theoretical Physicists, Researchers
Most Reads by Seniority: PhD Students, Professors, Seniors
Most Reads by Geographic Areas: USA, Europe, Asia
And counting…
Prof
Prof:
Thank you for the update,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers:
I made 2 important corrections in the comment with my answer to Keith T !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi
Ahh I now see Donald Chandler posted it below.
Ivv bc should check more carefully
It’s interesting article I think
Thanks
Stephen
Stephen:
Yes, the comment of KeithT was important,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I had a problem with my apple the screen has a technical problem, half works normally the other part doesn’t.
My new on use my email was to old I only can read them, can jou change it in ijtsmabv1@gmail.com
Jitse:
OK
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rossi and Kieth T,
I was yesterday wondering if this recent article article in Phys org could be important:
https://phys.org/news/2024-06-interact-extreme-intensities-schwinger-limit.amp
Was it already raised here ? Its an interesting coincidence if not.
Best Regards
Stephen
Within your ResearchGate paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long-range_particle_interactions
You refer to [8] the 2017 paper: F. Celani, A.O. Di Tommaso and G. Vassallo – The Electron and Occam’s Razor;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274514_The_Electron_and_Occam's_Razor
Within this paper the magnetic flux density (B field) produced by a non-point like electron is deduced, equation (30), a value is obtained of 4.414004 x 10^9 V s m^-2 = Tesla. Although not stated in the paper this value is also the Schwinger limit for a magnetic field before nonlinearity. (Also for an electron the E field = B field x speed of light, the resulting value is also a Schwinger limit);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit
Regards,
Keith Thomson.
KeithT:
I agree with your comment: it is another confirmation of the Zitterbewegung electron model.
See also the paragraph 1.5 of the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/380122888_charge_clusters_low_energy_nuclear_reactions_and_electron_structure
wherein is explicitly written that the Schwinger limits are equal to the values of the electric and magnetic fields generated by the motion at the speed of light of the electron charge.
Thank you for the links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Yet another NGU application – dedicated power to AI servers.
“The agency says current data center energy usage stands at around 460 terawatt hours in 2022 and could increase to between 620 and 1,050 TWh in 2026 — equivalent to the energy demands of Sweden or Germany, respectively.”
A typical single server might require 3 kW or less of electrical power.
AI servers would be continuously in use and they will draw constant power. NGU technology would replace Uninterrupted Power Supplies (UPS) and they would generate their own power. They would pay for themselves in avoiding grid power costs.
Many data centers have raised floors where the cable runs are found. A 3 kW NGU unit, since it generates little or no power, could be located under a server rack. Or. they could generate all the power for all the servers in a data center.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Interesting article here describing a chain reaction production of photons, electrons and positrons.
https://phys.org/news/2024-06-interact-extreme-intensities-schwinger-limit.html
Donald Chandler:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Donald Chandler,
Thank you for this interesting publication; an important feature of this blog is its richness in scientific contributions updates made by the readers,
Cheers
Ruby
Dr Rossi,
Today the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
reached 130 000 (onehundredthirtythousand) total readings, more than 1.5 million papers published on Researchgate,
and counting…
All the best,
Prof
Prof:
Thank you for the update,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
From your answer to Anonymous yesterday I understand that the control system of the Ecat will be able to run it in parallel with the solar system connected to the grid, avoiding all the complications related to a new grid connection: did I understand correctly ? This way any solar system will keep generating electricity also if the panels will be in the dark or under the snow, correct ?
Weleda:
Yes, you are correct,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Good morning,
Also a considerable area: controlled mechanical ventilation of buildings, whether individual or collective housing. Very often at fixed speed via an asynchronous motor, and flow timing via belt pulley, we have a simple box on the roof, and “fine” regulation is done via variable flow vents in sensitive rooms (bathroom). bath, kitchen). So 8560h/year of operation between 3/4 and 4/4 load if it was calculated correctly..
Gicquel:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another NGU application – Traffic Control Lights
“The LED traffic signal bulb uses approximately 15 watts of power, compared to the average of 100 watts of power used by the traditional incandescent halogen bulb.”
“There are approximately 272,000 traffic signals in the United States, each playing a crucial role in managing traffic flow and safety at intersections.:
The traffic control lights (“Stop Lights”) commonly use an AC to 24VDC converter. Therefore, two 10W NGU units could autonomously power a traffic control unit.
Even when grid power was lost, the traffic control lights would continue working.
The mean time between failure for an LED traffic control light is 50,000 hours. The NGU lifetime is estimated at 100,000 hours.
Over the 50,000 hours of operating lifetime (on the average), assuming an average consumption of 15W, 750 kW-hrs would be consumed. At $0.20 USD per kH-hr the cost savings would be $150 USD. The cost of the two 10W NGU is estimated to be $50 USD.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Maybe your point with the solar systems is that they could be something like a troyan horse to make the Ecats to produce their energy immediately in parallel, allowing the solar systems in the whole world able to make energy 24 hours per day, 365 days per year even if it snows, rains, night and day, just exploiting a grid connection just ready immediately ?
This could be a revolution !
Anonymous
Anonymous:
Yes. Probably we will be able to make the connection very easy. Our Team is working very well on this issue and I am very optimistic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi
Does the plasma of the Ecat described in
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
,that is the source of the zero point energy, have a polarity bias ? I mean: do the electrons composing it have a polarity ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Best,
Jorge
Jorge:
Good question; the issue is already explained in the paper you cited; I will send a photo to EW to show the issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another NGU Application – Cell Phone Towers
“There are about five million cell phone towers worldwide, 640,000 of which aren’t connected to an electrical grid and largely run on diesel power. One study estimated that 75,000 new off-grid towers would be established in 2012 alone.”
“The average cellular base station, which comprises the tower and the radio equipment attached to it, can use anywhere from about one to five kilowatts (kW).”
Cell Phone towers require energy 24 hours per day. This would make cell phone communications possible even in the event of electrical grid failures.
1 kW to 5 kW equals approximately 10 to 50 100W NGU units.
Powering only the diesel power units would require between 6.4 million 100W units and 32 million units. Powering all Cell phone towers would require between 50 million and 250 million units.
Thoughts?
Last month you have shown high vacuum system in a lab of Leonardo Corporation which is used to make the E-Cat SKLep NGU.It would be appreciated if you could show other parts of the lab and the workshop with the many prototypes you have built till now. A photo of some of your coworkers would be a delight.
M.M.:
We may only publish images that do not unveil particulars we deem restricted; notwithstanding this, we will publish some more images,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The demo you will make with the Ecat NGU will be in SSM mode on the base of the theoretical principles explained in
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
?
Anonymous:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Can you tell us where are manufactured now the Ecats ?
Anthony:
USA and Europe,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Russian and Ukranian ( in alphabetical order ):
I am responding to both of you in a peaceful context.
In Russia and Ukraine both I have friends and I hope soon, very soon, to meet them all together when we will be ready to deliver the Ecats they all have pre-ordered; obviously, I also hope to continue to serve all the Clients we will reach in both these Countries.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
@Ukranian,
You are responsible for the problems you have now: should you have been more intelligent two years ago this special operation could end much before
@Mr Rossi: will you serve your Ecats also in Russia ?
In Ukraine, more than 50% of electricity generation was destroyed. In Ukraine, emergency shutdown schedules have put into effect. Consumers receive electricity every 2 hours (2 hours on / 2 hours off , or even worse). Can you make efforts or negotiate to supply the eCat to Ukraine?
Below is my submission about SKLeps to the United Kingdom Parliament. Because there is to be a parliamentary election in July there is no guarantee that my submission will be further considered but it will remain in the record. Re-reading my submission, I should have inserted ‘when run at full power’. There are 652 other submissions :-
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/122626/html/
Written evidence submitted by Paul Dodgshun (GRI0001)
My current price for grid electricity is 30p/kwh. The running cost of the SKLep is zero but the capital cost is £2000 per kw. Depreciation over the predicted lifetime of 100,000 hours is 2 p/kwh. Therefore, SKLep electricity costs 15 times less than grid electricity or 5 times less than mains gas when used for heating.
At these prices all other generation or capital expenditure on the grid will be massively uncompetitive. It should be kept in mind that expenditure that further increases the cost of grid electricity will accelerate the rate at which consumers abandon the grid and generate all their own electricity.
Detail regarding SKLeps can be read at the URL:
http://ecatthenewfire.com
July 2023
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for your action.
Strongly appreciated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In response to a question on the solar panel integration, you posted
“As I already answered, we will explain the details of the integration of the Ecat with solar systems when we will be ready to deliver the Ecats.”
Do you plan on a demonstration of the solar panel supplementation this year?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Maybe, yes,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Are you still convinced that the Zitterbewegung phase coherence plays a role in the rationale of the Ecat mechanism ?
All the best,
Roberto
Roberto Ridolfi:
About the ZBW rationale in the Ecat mechanism, I confirm the point of view explained in the paragraph 2.2 of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
You will find there also important references along the text.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
could you already tell us the date of
1) the demonstration of the ecat work with PV
2) the demonstration of the ecat work with an electric heater
If not, maybe the month or season?
Best regards
Simon
Simon:
We didn’t yet schedule the dates, but it should be around the third quarter of this year, as well as the test with the EV,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
that’s very nice that integration is possible.
However, 4 million owners of photovoltaic power plants are more interested in this question:
Is any Ecat model capable of directly lighting (without using LED) onto photovoltaic panels?
If yes, which version of the Ecat?
Best Regards
John Whitney
John Whitney:
As I already answered, we will explain the details of the integration of the Ecat with solar systems when we will be ready to deliver the Ecats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
have your technicians managed to find out which particular version of Ecat (10W, 100W) will be able to shine directly (without LED) on the PV panels?
Best Regards
John Whitney
John Whitney:
The integration of the Ecat with solar systems will be possible with any Ecat assembling,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
“Puerto Rico has no coal reserves and produces no coal. The Commonwealth has one coal-fired electricity generating plant, located at Guayama. The 454-megawatt plant began operations in 2001. Puerto Rico consumed 1.4 million tons of coal in 2021, the lowest amount since 2018. Almost all of it was bituminous coal to fuel the power plant. Puerto Rico plans to phase out coal-fired electricity generation by 2028.”
This single plant, if converted to NGU technology, would require about 4.6 million 100W NGU units.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels,
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Reading the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
I understood that a key point is the “long range interactions”.
Can you suggest references related to this issue ?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Yet another eCat NGU Application – American Samoa
“Because it is an isolated island group, American Samoa must produce all the electricity it consumes. The territory has almost 50 megawatts of total electricity generating capacity. Diesel generators supply more than nine-tenths of American Samoa’s electricity, nearly all of it on the main island, Tutuila. The American Samoa Power Authority (ASPA), a government corporation, owns and operates two generating plants on Tutuila that have about 45 megawatts of combined diesel-fueled capacity. Captured waste heat emitted by diesel generators at ASPA’s power plants on Tutuila also produces electricity. In 2021, American Samoa also had more than 5 megawatts of grid-connected solar powered capacity. In addition to electricity, ASPA provides drinking water, solid waste removal, and wastewater treatment. Pumping, treating, distributing, and collecting water uses a significant share of the electricity ASPA generates.”
The 5 MW of grid-connected solar power could be converted to NGU-supplemented units for 24/7 electricity production.
The remaining 45 MW of capacity could use NGU units to replace the diesel generators. Shipping and handling the diesel, which must be shipped to the island, is expensive. In addition, the carbon emissions would be reduced.
Using 100W NGU units for 50 MW of electricity generation would require 500,000 units. This is 1/2 of your published target. Maybe a target program by the US Government could be developed?
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels,
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I’ve been on the preorder list for Ecat devices for a long time, and the one, main hesitation I’ve had, from the very start, was that the devices come in a form that is a partial kit rather than as a turnkey solution– that is, a device that’s usable immediately out of the box.
If you were to offer a turnkey option for the Ecat-120v that looked and functioned similar to this: ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQLX82NQ ) and, conceptually, was not much more complex than the current non-turnkey option, I’d definitely increase the size of my preorder (and be willing to pay more than the $2.50/W).
Question: Would you ever consider offering a Turnkey Option, like the one mentioned above, to your preorder list?
Best Wishes,
WaltC
P.S.- As a “figure of merit”, Power Station listed above (as an example) costs $0.68 per watt-hour of capacity. An Ecat-based solution would be more than 1000 times cheaper than that.
WaltC:
Thank yu for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I wish you an Happy Birthday !
And add my best wishes for your ECAT, and for all the JoNP readers,
to see your invention soon available on the market.
Buon Compleanno !
Renato
Renato:
Thank you for your kind wishes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.