dinsdag 7 februari 2023

Hoe creëren we een betere wereld, voor iedereen, wereldwijd? Mijn visie voor een betere wereld

Op het forum van De Standaard probeer ik reeds geruime tijd, in meerdere berichten (die elk slechts 1000 tekens mogen bevatten) mijn visie te geven voor een betere wereld.

Hieronder post ik een kopie van mijn belangrijkste berichten:

(1) Vluchtelingen: Zolang de oorzaken niet aangepakt worden blijft het dweilen met de kraan open. Politieke vluchtelingen zijn er door een slechte en/of onvoldoende werking van de VN, met een VN-Veiligheidsraad die gedomineerd wordt door de grootmachten, die met hun niet-democratische veto's hun nefaste geopolitiek kunnen blijven doordrukken. Veto's moeten verdwijnen en vervangen worden door democratische stemmingen met bijzondere meerderheden voor belangrijke beslissingen. En economische vluchtelingen zijn er t.g.v. de niet-solidaire organisatie van de wereldhandel, die veel te veel op bikkelharde wereldwijde concurrentie is gebaseerd. Dit zet landen tegen elkaar op, en doet grootmachten vervallen in nefaste egoïstische geopolitiek. Voor wanneer een solidaire en samenwerkende wereldeconomie, ten dienste van iedereen wereldwijd, uiteraard gepaard gaande met wereldwijde informatie campagnes tegen overbevolking. Een beter werkende VN en IAO moeten een rol spelen! (En uiteraard ook het IVV).

(1bis) (Toevoeging/verduidelijking van (1)). Mensenrechten (voor iedereen, wereldwijd) kunnen alleen maar gegarandeerd worden in een betere wereld, met een beter werkende en machtiger VN en IAO (deelorganisatie van de VN die méér moet opkomen voor de rechten van werknemers, wereldwijd), zonder veto's van de grootmachten in de VN-Veiligheidsraad, maar met democratische stemmingen met bijzondere meerderheden voor belangrijke kwesties. Politieke vluchtelingen (uit, bijvoorbeeld, Syrië, Irak en Afghanistan) zijn vaak een gevolg van de nefaste geopolitiek van de grootmachten én de terreur die daarvan een gevolg is. Vandaar dat de VN-Veiligheidsraad dringend democratischer moet worden, zonder veto's van de grootmachten. En economische vluchtelingen zijn er door de niet solidaire organisatie van de wereldhandel, die véél meer op samenwerking en solidariteit gebaseerd zou moeten worden, gestuurd door een beter werkende VN en IAO, die moet opkomen voor de rechten van iedereen, wereldwijd. (Informatiecampagnes tegen overbevolking ook nodig).

(2) 'De gelegenheid maakt de dief' (lijfspreuk voor sommigen) is een realiteit, algemeen aanwezig in het wereldwijd economisch systeem dat gebaseerd is op bikkelharde wereldwijde concurrentie. Wie écht een betere wereld wil voor iedereen (ook voor politieke en economische vluchtelingen) moet daarom kiezen voor een ethische en solidaire wereld, met een solidaire wereldhandel die gebaseerd is op samenwerking en dienstbaarheid aan het geheel, en waarbij mensenrechten gerespecteerd en gecontroleerd worden. Want anders 'maakt de gelegenheid de dief', en is er uitbuiting, misbruik, en mensonwaardige omstandigheden, en dat willen we toch niet? Enkel hierdoor én via een beter werkende en democratischer VN (met o.a. een VN-Veiligheidsraad zonder veto's voor de grootmachten, maar waarbij stemmingen voor belangrijke kwesties gebeuren met bijzondere meerderheden), en een gerespecteerde IAO en IVV (die mensenrechten wereldwijd moet bewaken) kan men een betere wereld voor iedereen creëren.

(3) De bikkelharde concurrentie in de wereldhandel ligt aan de basis van de nefaste geopolitiek van de grootmachten, die op zijn beurt aan de basis ligt van terreur (als verkeerde reactie), verschrikkelijke oorlogen (zoals recent in Syrië en Jemen) en een hele hoop politieke én economische vluchtelingen, die allemaal een beter leven verdienen (want dat is (of zou) een mensenrecht (moeten zijn)! Ook de klimaatverandering is moeilijk aan te pakken in een wereld die gebaseerd is op bikkelharde wereldwijde concurrentie. En dit is gewoon een waarheid die velen nog niet willen zien noch toegeven. Ook in de vele vergaderingen over de wereldhandel (zoals de G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G20, Bilderberg en Davos) blijven de wereldleiders blind voor deze problematiek en bestendigen ze, steeds opnieuw, de bikkelharde mensonterende concurrentie die aan de oorzaak van al deze problemen ligt. Handel moet gepaard gaan met mensenrechten, heel veel samenwerking, en regels...

(3bis - Aanvulling) De recente Russische agressie in Oekraïne en de onderdrukking van de Oigoeren in China (uiteraard ook die van de Tibetanen, alsook het bedreigen van Hongkong en Taiwan) wijzen er nogmaals op dat er iets grondig fout is aan de huidige wereldorde, en de diepere oorzaak daarvan kan gevonden worden in de organisatie van de wereldeconomie die véél teveel gebaseerd is op bikkelharde wereldwijde concurrentie. Ik heb dit vroeger al proberen aantonen in verschillende berichten die ik opnieuw post. En alhoewel ik het niet eens ben met de vaak gewelddadige betogingen van de black block's (dat zou veel vredelievender en niet gewelddadig moeten worden!), hebben de Andersglobalisten van het World Social Forum wél gelijk: sociale rechtvaardigheid is van levensbelang om als mensheid te overleven. De wereldeconomie moet gestuurd/bijgestuurd worden door een beter werkende VN. Landen die mensenrechten en arbeidsrechten niet respecteren moeten uitgesloten worden uit de wereldhandel! Geen uitbuiting meer!

(3.a) Nefaste geopolitiek van de grootmachten: 1) De VS: Ik som een aantal fouten van de VS op: Het afzetten van Mossadeq (democratisch verkozen seculiere leider in Iran) ten voordele van de Sjah in de jaren '50 (en toen ging het nog wel over de olie en het gas!), waartegen uiteindelijk een islamitische revolutie in 1979, uiteraard tegen de VS (bezetting van hun ambassade). In de jaren '80 steunde de VS de vreselijke dictator Saddam Hoessein van Irak, toen die van de situatie gebruik maakte om een Iraanse provincie aan te hechten (Iraans-Iraakse oorlog in de jaren '80), waardoor die moest tegen gehouden worden toen hij nadien (rond het jaar 1990) Koeweit binnenviel (Eerste golfoorlog van Bush senior leek me terecht). Maar in 2003 viel Bush junior Irak binnen op verkeerde gronden (Tweede Golfoorlog) en daardoor ontstond IS/Daesh (wordt vervolgd in bericht (3.b)...)

(3.b) (Vervolg) En in diezelfde jaren '80 steunde de VS Ossama Bin Laden en de Taliban in hun strijd tegen de sovjets in Afghanistan. Ok, toen was er wellicht nog het excuus van de koude oorlog tegen de sovjets. Stank voor dank, want in de jaren '90 keerde Ossama Bin Laden zich tegen de VS en richtte Al Qaeda op, met als grootste vijand de VS. (Dit gebeurde naar aanleiding van de Eerste Golfoorlog van Bush senior rond 1990, maar die interventie tegen Saddam Hoessein was terecht en Saoedi Arabië had toen hulp gevraagd aan de VS en toestemming gegeven aan de VS om zijn leger te stationeren op - al dan niet - 'heilige' grond...) En oh ja, in de jaren '70 was er die heimelijke steun van de CIA om rechtse dictators aan de macht te brengen in Zuid-Amerika (Pinochet in Chili en Videla in Argentinië). 2) Maar de sovjets deden het nog ruwer in Oost-Europa (Hongarije in de jaren '50 en Tsjechoslowakije in 1968) en nadien in Afghanistan. Huidig Rusland in Tsjetsjenië, Syrië en momenteel in Oekraïne.

(3.c) (Einde) 3) En wat China betreft weten we allemaal dat die ook niet democratisch zijn. Tibetanen werden al langer onderdrukt, Hong Kong en Taiwan worden bedreigd en dreigen hun vrijheid te verliezen, en natuurlijk is er ook de zware onderdrukking van de Oeigoeren. Maar de grootste bedreiging voor Europa gaat nu toch wel uit van het agressieve, dictatoriale en extreem nationalistische bestuur in Rusland, met de huidige oorlog in Oekraïne als hoogtepunt. En uiteraard blijven de VS, ondanks hun fouten in het recente verleden, onze belangrijkste bondgenoot onder de grootmachten. Maar we hebben nood aan een écht democratische internationale wereldorde, waarin arbeid en kapitaal in evenwicht worden gebracht, en men alleen lid kan worden als men arbeids- en mensenrechten respecteert, wat streng gecontroleerd moet worden door een beter werkende VN (en haar suborganisaties). Wie niet voldoet kan niet deelnemen aan de wereldhandel! En dát is de enige manier om een betere wereld te creëren!

(4) De wereld heeft nood aan 'sociale globalisering'. Het is door het uitblijven daarvan dat we zwaar in de problemen komen en steeds meer zullen komen. Gele hesjes, toenemende politieke en economische vluchtelingen, de opkomst en verdere groei van extreem rechts, klimaatverandering die uit de hand loopt en steeds moeilijker bestreden kan worden, enz, enz. Allemaal problemen die maar opgelost kunnen worden in een samenwerkende wereld, met een dienstbare wereldeconomie, ten dienste van iedereen wereldwijd. Een beter werkende VN en IAO (die mensenrechten moet beschermen en uitbuiting tegen gaan) moeten hierin een belangrijke rol spelen. En handelsovereenkomsten zouden verplicht juridisch afdwingbare clausules inzake mensenrechten (EVRM/UVRM) moeten bevatten, en dit wereldwijd. Landen die EVRM/UVRM overtreden zouden door de internationale gemeenschap (VN) gesanctioneerd moeten worden. Campagnes tegen overbevolking zijn ook nodig. Werk voor de VN én de G7, G8,..., G20, Bilderberg en Davos!

maandag 25 februari 2013

Koude Fusie / E-Cat (Deel VII) :

Vervolg (deel 2) van mijn berichten
op het forum van A. Rossi.



Voor het eerste deel van mijn bijdagen in The Journal of Nuclear Physics (het forum van A. Rossi), verwijs ik naar mijn vroeger bericht op deze blog :

Koude Fusie / E-Cat (Deel VI): Mijn berichten op het forum van A. Rossi (deel 1)



En vanaf hier nu het tweede deel van mijn berichten en reacties in The Journal of Nuclear Physics (het forum van A. Rossi):


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=629&cpage=3#comment-239247

Daniel De Caluwé
May 25th, 2012 at 7:11 AM

Dear Ioannis,

Based on your first message, I contacted a Dutch group of free-energy (Zero Point Energy) experimenters, that maybe have (at least some) of the equipment you mentioned in your first message.

But I don’t know if they can do the experiment, and I leave it up to them to react here, or to contact you via your e-mail address or at your website.

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=629&cpage=3#comment-239974

Ioannis
May 26th, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwé,

Thank you for your interest as also that you forwarded my message to free experimenters in your country. The valid information is the first message of me below yours. The previous will not help. They need a Data Logger system with at least 18-Bit Amplitude resolution, otherwise they will detect nothing. I already tried something as I mentioned which seems encouraging (I saw again the Aether Signal), but I have to make more experiments with other sensors too. Probably the next couple of day, I will publish some pictures of the equipment and the recordings.

I will look forward with great interest and patience, the results from other experiments! Thank you very much for your support!

Best Wishes

Ioannis Xydous

Electronic Engineer

Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
E-mail: SEPP@ioannisxydous.gr


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=58#comment-252382

Daniel De Caluwé
June 11th, 2012 at 5:11 PM

@Joseph Fine,

You wrote: ‘Case II: Multi-Stage/Cascaded

A 4-stage design with the same 227-10 kW modules could be organized having 10-Stage 1 units, 24 Stage 2 units, 57-Stage 3 units and 136 Stage 4 units. That is, 136 Stage-4 10-kW output units produce 544 kW-Electric with a total first stage electric input power demand of only 16.66 kW and a power gain of 544/16.66 = 32.6; that is, the 544 kW of electric output are produced using only 16.66 kW of electrical input.’

My answer: Theoretically you’re right, but practically, you need a turbine and an alternator after each stage (4 stages in total), and so the investment cost probably will be too high? ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=58#comment-252863

Joseph Fine
June 12th, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Pekka, Daniel, A.R.

Of course, you are right.

As an alternative, use a thermal-to-electric conversion factor of .4166, with a power gain of 2.5.

So, each group of six 10 kW modules requires an “average” electrical input of 10 kW. That same set or “clowder” of 6 cats produces .4166*60 = 25 kW, of which an “average” of 10 kW can be fed back to the input. (But, it sometimes needs 20 kW!!!)

That is, a net of 25-10 = 15 kW is available for further use, with apparently zero power input. Each clowder (of 6 cats) may sometimes require twice the average power of 10 kW (and zero kW in self-sustain mode). Assuming an average of 15 kW is available from each group or “clowder” of 6 modules, it is much easier to scale up.

If 120 modules are organized in 20 “clowders of 6 cats”, the average power production is 20*15 kW = 300 kW-E. That reduces the need for a plumbers nightmare of steam turbines et cetera. Each clowder will sometimes need 20 kW at the input, rather than 10 kW, (in self sustain mode, it needs zero input). The system has to be able to provide for this. Designing in extra groups/clowders (@ 15 kW output each) can help meet peak input power demands.

Best regards,

Joseph


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-302594

Daniel De Caluwé
August 15th, 2012 at 8:16 AM

From a farmer son of a small country (Belgium), with an Italian prime minister (Elio Di Rupo), I wish Dr. Rossi and all readers (especially Italian readers ;-) : Buon Ferragosto. Here in Flanders (Belgium), and in the past, the month of august was also called the ‘month of harvest’, so I guess that ‘Buon Ferragosto’ also means ‘I wish you a good Harvest’? In that case, this certainly is a good wish to Dr. Rossi, who, with his 600°C to 1200°C and also gas-driven Hot Cat (hot E-cat) will be able to produce electricity, and that certainly is a ‘good harvest’! So, I wish him and his team a ‘buon ferragosto’ again!


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-302612

Andrea Rossi
August 15th, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Dear daniel De Caluwè:

Thank you for your kind wish.
Warm regards and “Buon Ferragosto” to you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-302605

Daniel De Caluwé
August 15th, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Oh, what i forgot to ask in my previous message:

As the start-up time and the shut-down time both will be about 1 hour, am I right then that the Hot-cat (in the 1 MW plant and more) will be able to co-operate with renewable energy sources like wind-power and solar cells? I think yess, because 1 hour delay time still is fast enough to control or stabalize (the frequency and the voltage) of the electricity-grid, when there’s no wind and no sun. So in case of no wind, we quickly could start the Hot-Cat power plant, just in the same way as they do now with the gas-powered plants, that are easier to regulate than our big nuclear plants…

P.S. And have you heard of the problems with some of our big nuclear plants? We defenitly need the Hot-cat power plants!

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-302609

Andrea Rossi
August 15th, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Dear Daniel De caluwè:
Yes, our plants are fit to be connected and intergrated with the existing plants of any kind.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-303039

Daniel De Caluwé
August 16th, 2012 at 5:11 AM

Dear Wladimir,

When you first mentioned the article in nature, I’ve read it, and I agree: it is very similar to your QRT-theory, that you published in 2006. (I remember you also mentioned a difference with them, and I agreed with your arguments about that too).

So, I agree with you that you protested, because you worked out these ideas very much earlier, and you even published a book about QRT in 2006. By the way, I like your theory, and I hope to study it more carefully, like I hope to study many other theoretical articles in this blog.

Further I hope that the scientific world will be honest enough to recognize your work, and not to attack you first, but steal your ideas later. (Unfortunately this tactics is often used by not so honest people, and I experienced this also myself, but in a totally different field).

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-303437

Wladimir Guglinski
August 16th, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Dear Daniel De Caluwé,
thanks to your kind words

regards
WLAD


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733&cpage=2#comment-322950

Daniel De Caluwé
September 14th, 2012 at 4:58 PM

So, if I understood well, the working of the E-cat is not SF (Science Fiction), but based on SF (Spin Fusion)? ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733&cpage=3#comment-327233

Daniel De Caluwé
September 18th, 2012 at 6:14 AM

@Robert Curto,

At the moment and in Europe, renewable and variable energy sources (like wind-farms and solar cells) co-operate with gas-powered power-stations. (The gas powered stations take over the electricity production in case there’s no wind or sun). But here (and in the near future) comes in the big advantage of the (Hot) E-cats: As the E-cats can be started up in one hour, and be turned down in one hour, they certainly could co-operate with variable wind-farms and solar cells. (Based on the prediction and measurements of wind and weather, and on weather forecasts, we could quickly start up the necessary amount of Hot E-cats, to produce the electrical power that the wind and the sun fail to deliver, and this the E-cats do much quicker than gas powered plants (because they can be started up and turned down in 1 hour), and they also are more flexible (if they are switched on and of per 10kw module or even per 1MW unit) and cheaper (COP = 6, so the gas driven Hot E-cat plants produce electricity at a much lower cost than the ordinary gas-powered power-stations… ;-)

But of course, I know that the industrial E-cats (as well E-cat and Hot E-cat) also are very good for many industrial clients themselves (producing as well thermal energy (E-cat and Hot E-cat) as electricity (in the future with Hot E-cat)). And yes, compared with gas-powered power stations, the gas-driven Hot E-cats consume less primary energy (in this case gas) than the ordinary gas powered power stations, and certainly they gradually will take a growing share in the energy-mix, but I don’t think they will replace everything immediately. (There always will be an energy-mix of different energy sources, and being able to co-operate easily with renewable energy sources is a very strong point of the E-cats!)

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733&cpage=3#comment-328375

Robert Curto
September 19th, 2012 at 6:06 AM

Dear Daniel, thanks for the excellent information.
You explained the advantage of E-cats very well.

Robert Curto


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=1#comment-354329

Daniel De Caluwé
October 11th, 2012 at 10:34 AM

About Ether and the Michelson-Morley-experiment

Dear Wladimir and other readers,

About two years (plus four months) ago, I wrote something about ether and the Michelson-Morley experiment on the Dutch niburu-forum:

http://niburuarchief.info/showthread.php?tid=20448&pid=317784#pid317784

My opinion was and is that the Michelson-Morley experiment only proved that the speed of light was independent of the relative motion of the sender (of the light) in respect to the receiver, so the speed of the relative motion was not transferred to the (speed of the) light itself, and so their experiment proved (far in advance) this property of propagation of the light explained by Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity.

And based on this experiment, the scientific community rejected the existence of the ether, but in fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment only rejected a kind of a ether that transfers the relative movement (of sender towards receiver) to the speed of light. But if we suppose an ether that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver to the speed of light, than such an ether still would be possible, and could not be rejected by the scientific community based on the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Is such an ether, (that doesn’t transfer the relative movement of sender and receiver to the speed of light), possible? I think the answer is yes, especially when we envision a kind of ether that behaves like a higher dimension that supports the propagation of light, but that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver, who belong to the normal/ordinary (and lower) physical dimension.

Is there an interaction between the (lower and) ordinary physical dimension and the higher dimension of such an ether? The answer is yes:

i) For instance when we heat up a piece of metal that starts to glow and sends its light (based on the well known mechanism of excitation of electrons that send fotons when they fall back in their normal orbits).

ii) And also we know by experiment(s) that the speed of light depends of the physical medium where it is passing through. The speed of light is the highest in the vacuüm, but decreases in media with higher density. In the air, the speed of light is already a little bit lower, and in water the speed is lower than in air. (Also the laws of the breaking of the light are based on this). So if we suppose that light is propagated in the higher dimension of the ether, than by experiment we know that the fysical medium that surrounds it has influence on the speed of light in the ether. (So that’s a second kind of interaction between the higher dimension of the supposed ether and the lower physical world).

iii) And also via Einsteins’ General Theory of Relativity, we know that light is bend by the interaction of heavy bodies. So gravity, that is supposed to belong to the (lower) physical dimension ;-) , also has an influence on the propagation of light through our hypothised ether.

But to conclude so far: If we suppose or hypothise such an ether (in a higher dimension than the ordinary physical world), we know from the interaction explained under i), that electrons have to do with the interaction between the two worlds (the ordinary physical world and the higher ether dimension) and because of the measured interactions under ii) and iii), we also know that there’s also an interaction because of the mass mainly composed of particles (neutrons and protons) in the nucleus.

Does this make sense and/or can we do something with this? ;-)

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=1#comment-355205

Ioannis
October 12th, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwé and others,

I am tempted for once more to intervene on this discussion about the Aether without to have the intention to be annoying. Daniel, I believe that you put the subject on the right frame. Yes, the Aether as entity can be found on a higher dimension or better on a hidden dimension. The Aether is imaginary as I prove in my work: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

The Michelson-Morey Experiment brought null results since they were expecting to find an opposing “Aether wind” (translational motion) in regards to the motion of light. As you will see on my Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ , I propose an experiment (it does not need a set up) for the indirect detection of Aether: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/AetherDetection/

which is the effect of the imaginary Aether in our world. This effect makes all matter and non matter (free space) of the Universe to rotate with the Tangential Velocity of 348.43 Km/sec. The proposed experiment simply detects the rotational motion of the Universe. The experiments which took place so far for the measurement of our absolute motion in free space are the following:

(see also the below on the link: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/AetherDetection/ )

1925-26 David Miller: Interferometer, continuous light. Result: 208 Km /sec
1927 K.Illingworth: Interferometer, continuous light. Result: 369+/-123 Km/sec
1973 Stefan Marinov: Rotating mirrors, chopped light. Result: 130+/-100 Km/sec
1975-76 Stefan Marinov: Interferometer, Rotating mirrors, chopped light. Result: 303+/20 Km/sec
1976 Muller : Velocity towards Leo. CMB. Result: ~400 Km/sec
1977 G. Smoot : CMB Result: 390+/-60 Km/sec
1978 Wilkinson/Corey : CMB Result: 320+/-80 Km/sec
1978 Monstein/Wesley : Muon flux Anisotropy Result: 359+/-180 Km/sec
1984 Stefan Marinov: Coupled shutters, chopped light Result: 362+/-40 Km/sec
1986 E.Silvertooth : Rotating mirrors, chopped light Result: 378+/-? Km/sec
2006 M. Consoli : Analysis of rotating optical resonators Result: 276+/-71 Km/sec

2012 I.Xydous : Analysis of Earth’s Rotating Magnetic Field Result: for 348.43 Km/sec (theoretical), the Aether frequencies:
8.67mHz and 17.36mHz superpositioned on Earth’s long period Magnetic Field.

Comments and Conslusions:

i) The Aether is invisible and can be indirectly detected.
ii) Almost all of the above attempts of the past, as you will notice they have (the most of them) circular or closed loop topologies.
iii) Due to the (ii), they attempt to detect a circular motion.
iv) According to my theory and the above past experiments the conclusion is: The Aether of free space is INVISIBLE (IMAGINARY), STATIONARY (No translational motion) but ROTATING with a TANGENTIAL VELOCITY of 348.43 Km/sec.
v) All matter like: Protons, Electrons and every particle and sub-particle which comes into existence, enters our material Universe with this tangential velocity of 348.43 Km/sec.
vi) The Aether is the cause (actually in our real world is the spinning mass) of attraction between Proton-Proton in Nuclear Force. The Aether with other world has the power of a strong Gravitational Field, which shields against the Electrostatic Force. On page 14 on my paper SEPPv5, it is proved clearly in case of an Electron, the Gravitational constant is G=2.78E32 N*m2/Kgr2 on its surface. It is 1E43 times stronger than Earth’s Gravity.
vii) The new expression of Charge and Planck Constant include Aether’s Tangential Velocity. See page 37: Eq.98, Eq.99, Eq.100. It is very obvious! (I did not add something. It was always there, but wrongly interpreted due to the development of Quantum Physics all these years).

I strongly encourage everyone to read my work and I will be very glad to discuss all these. This work is completely formulated with simple Mathematics (of High School) and less philosophical. Nothing is left in the “Air”. There are complete (understandable mathematically formulated) answers on the following subjects:

Aether, Massless Neutrinos (exact imaginary mass, Upper and Lower Velocities), Dirac’s Magnetic Monopole, Complete Coulomb Force, Complete Magnetic Force, Complete Casimir Force, Nuclear Strong Force, Quantum Newtonian Gravity, Unified Field Force, Universe Properties: Age, Acceleration (actually deceleration), radius, Temperature, Aether Control, Antigravity, Space-Time Engineering and much much more….

I hope you will enjoy the ride!

Ioannis Xydous

Electronic Engineer

Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

Switzerland


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=3#comment-361751

Daniel De Caluwé
October 17th, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The strange thing about light/quanta of light/fotons is that the relative motion of the sender in respect to the receiver is not added to the velocity of light, as proven by Michelson-Morley and all other experiments done to prove that Einsteins’ theory of Special Relativity was right, and this is in contrast with all other mechanical phenomena tested en expierenced in our world. If I throw a ball or a bullet towards the reader, then that ball or bullet comes in with a higher speed when I also run towards the reader, so my (relative) speed is added to the speed of the ball or the bullet, but this is NOT so in the case of ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light), because they always come in at the same velocity, not dependend of the relative motion of the sender towards the receiver (proven by Michelson-Morley and many other experiments), so, if we treat fotons/quanta of light just as a form of very very very light matter, why doesn’t it behave as ordinary matter? Why is my speed not added to the speed of light if I move towards you? Does light/fotons/quanta of light belong to another higher dimension/realm, very close and with a lot of interactions with our ordinary world/matter, but because of this exceptional quality not really following the rules of the ordinary world/matter? And oh yes, in many ways, light/fotons/quanta of light behave like small and very very light bullets, because they move slower in water than in air and slower in air than in vacuüm, and these small and very light bullets (fotons) also are bend by heavy objects (like big stars and black holes), and there even is a doppler effect (frequency shift) like their is with sound in the air (think of the frequency shift of the sound when a train is passing), so from this point of view, light (fotons/quanta of light) seem and appear to behave normal, but there’s one exception: it doesn’t get the relative motion (of the sender in respect to the receiver), and this in contrast with all other things that move in this, our world. My question towards the scientific community is why? Why is the relative motion of the sender towards the receiver, and in the case of light, only transferred as a frequency-shift of the light (doppler effect; red-shift; blue-shift), and not as a change of the speed, like in the case of normal material objects/bullets, that always come in with the relative speed (of sender towards receiver) added to their own velocity?

But I agree, ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light) can move through space (and the vacuüm) without the existence of an aether or a carrier, we just can treat them as very very light material objects or bullets, moving through the vacuüm of space that is really empty, but why then, is the relative motion (of sender towards receiver) not added in their case, like is the case with all other material objects/bullets? Why these ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light) have this exception and behave different?


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-376827

Steven N. Karels
October 28th, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Estimate of eCat Isoptopic Changes

Assuming an eCat (Thermal or Hot) runs continuously for 6 months, has a 10 kW thermal output, what percentage of the Nickel is converted from one isotope to another isotope?

Fuel load is 20 grams – assume 10 grams are Nickel.

Natural Nickel isotope distribution: 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni(26.2%), 61Ni(1.1%), 62Ni(3.6%) and 64Ni(0.9%).

If we assume a Ni + H -> Cu -> Ni reaction only, then the following reactions are of interest

58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)
60Ni + H -> 61Cu (halflife 3.33 hrs) -> 61Ni (stable)
61Ni + H -> 62Cu (halflife of 9.67 sec) -> 62Ni (stable)
62Ni + H -> 63Cu (stable)
64Ni + H -> 65Cu (stable)

The mass defect for each reaction is about 1 amu. The total number of Nickel atoms is about 1.04 x 10**23. If all the Nickel atoms went through the change, about 4,260 MWh of energy would be released.

An eCat producing 10kW of power for 6 months will produce about 43.1 MWh of energy or about 1% of the total conversion energy.

Assuming the conversion probability is the same for all Nickel isotopes, we should have the following isotopic distributions:

58Ni(68.1% – 0.68% = 67.4%)
59Ni(0.68%)
60Ni(26.2% – 0.26% = 25.9%)
61Ni(1.1% – 0.01% + 0.26% = 1.35%)
62Ni(3.6% – 0.04% = 3.56%)
64Ni(0.9% – 0.009% = 0.9%)

Copper isotopes

63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.036 grams
65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.009 grams

A difficult task to measure micrograms of copper. However, the distinguishable isotope should be the presence of 59Ni at around 0.68% should be observable.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-378087

Daniel De Caluwé
October 29th, 2012 at 5:02 AM

Dear Steven N. Karels,

Roughly, I agree with your approach, but as there are no residual nuclear reactions when the E-cat is stopped, the first reaction that you mentioned (i.e. ’58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)’) will not occur, I think…

So, could it be that the first reaction does not occur because some of the (four) others are easier? (Remember that processes in nature always tend to follow the way of least resistance).

Kind Regards,

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-377613

Steven N. Karels
October 28th, 2012 at 11:12 PM

WaltC,

I think the salient point is that where there was no 59Ni in the sample before the start of the eCat reaction, at the end of six months of continuous operation, there should be a detectable amount. This remains true until several times the 76,500 year half-life.

Likewise, copper will be formed but in very small amounts.

CORRECTION

Copper isotopes

63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.036 grams
65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.009 grams

SHOULD READ

Copper isotopes

63Cu(3.6%*0.01 = 0.036%) of 10 grams = 0.0036 grams = 3,600 micro grams
65Cu(0.9%*0.01% = 0.009%) of 10 grams = 0.0009 grams = 900 micro grams

If we do not see the formation of 59Ni, then I would question the belief that a Ni to Ni operation is the majority energy producing process.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-378579

Steven N. Karels
October 29th, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Daniel.

I hope there is uniform probability for all stable isotopes of Nickel. If 58Ni does not participate in eCat reactions, we have lost 68% of the Nickel on the earth as a fuel.

I do not see why the 58Ni reaction should not work. Please explain.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-378642

Daniel De Caluwé
October 29th, 2012 at 12:03 PM

@ Steven,

As there is no residual radioactivity measured in the fuel after a short time (3 hours as affirmed by A. Rossi in his recent message) after the E-cat is stopped, I wrote that reaction number one (’58Ni + H -> 59Cu (halflife of 81.5 sec) -> 59Ni (halflife of 76,500 yrs)’) does not happen, and this because of the halflife of 76,500 yrs for the last step (59Cu -> 59Ni).

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-378685

Steven Karels
October 29th, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Daniel and Andrea Rossi,

The 58Ni + H -> 59CU could occur at some rate. The radioactive half-life of 59Cu is 81.5 seconds. So in terms of a 6 month run, essentailly all of the 59CU would convert to 59Ni. The 59Ni half-life of 76,500 years is long compared to the 6 month operation so essentially none of the 59Ni would be decayed.

The three hour time period — is that the radioactivity presents a half-life of three hours or that the measureable radioactivity is gone after three hours? Please clarify. If you can tell me the effective half-life of the residual readioactivity, it would help validate or discard the Ni-to-Ni reaction.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=5#comment-378942

Daniel De Caluwé
October 29th, 2012 at 7:08 PM

@ Steven,

1. If the measurement of the radioactivity was ok after three hours, then you could look at reactions with a half-life of 3 hours devided by 7 = 25.7 minutes. (After 7 times half-life, the number of nucleons that still can desintegrate has fallen back to less than 1%).

2. In my previous message, I wrongly wrote: ‘that reaction does not happen, and this because of the halflife of 76,500 yrs for the last step (59Cu -> 59Ni)’. But of course I meant the long halflife of 59Ni, which remains (low-)radioactive for a very long time. (I think it becomes 59Co (which probably is stable) by electron capture, but unfortunately only after a very long time. So to see if this reaction occurs, you could look at the presence of 59Co, but of course, because the activity is very low, only after a long time). Was the radioactivity of 59Ni not seen because it’s so low? Anyhow, I agree with ‘Man’ that it’s a potential health hazard, with a low but long during activity, but because they didn’t measure any radioactivity after three hours, I concluded that the first reaction you mentioned earlier could not happen. (59Ni remains low-radioactive for a very long time).

3. Why do you treat all possible reactions equal? Thinking, for instance, on QRT of Wladimir Guglinsky, there maybe are preferrable reactions? (Affinity to/possibility of proton-capture can be different for the different isotopes). And also, if the goal would be to obtain stable isotopes of Cu, I would prefer working with 62Ni (and 64Ni to a lesser degree), because with 62Ni we could get stable 63Cu (and with 64Ni we could get stable 65Cu), but as the transmutation to Cu is not the main energy-source, it probably is not interesting anymore?

4. Remaining 60Ni and 61Ni as interesting isotopes? ;-)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=6#comment-382359

Steven N. Karels
October 31st, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Daniel,

Sorry for the delayed response but Hurricane Sally — loss power, internet down plus some damage.

You are correct that after 5 half-life times, the residual radioactivity is small (~1%). But you multiply the half-life by five, not divide.

I did not include the 59Ni as a reaction because so little is produced that it would not affect the power output.

I used equal probabilities of reaction for all the stable isotopes because I have no information that one was favored over the other.

To Andrea Ross — Have you seen 59Ni detection in any of your long term (>6 months) spent fuel analyses?


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=6#comment-382765

Daniel De Caluwé
October 31st, 2012 at 3:38 PM

@Steven,

1. Sorry, but if you do not measure any radioactivity after 3 hours, you have to divide these 3 hours by 5 (3.13% nucleons still radioactive after 5 half-lives) or by 7 (0.78% of the nucleons still radioactive) to find a proxy (or rough estimation) for the possible half-life time of the nuclear reaction/transmutation that is involved.

2. And after 5 times the half-life time, you still have 3.13% of the original nucleons that are radioactive, and after 7 times the half-life time this is reduced to 0.78% of the original nucleons.

Kind Regards

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-387302

Steven N. Karels
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I did not mean to imply a 1 gram conversion to energy as that would be more than the total energy output observed. But I do appreciate the information that the loss may have due to loss of humidity. Making mass change measurements when the eCat has 4,000 times the change in mass can be very challenging.

a. Perhaps the conundrum could be explained in your instrumentation?

b. Can you see a 1% change in isotope distributions with your SEM?

c. For example, can you detect the natural Nickel isotope distributions of 61Ni and 64Ni?

d. Do you have any information on the accuracy and precision of the instrumentation used?


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-387639

Andrea Rossi
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Dear Steven N. Karels:
a- yes
b- no
c- not outside the natural range: remember that we enrich 62 and 64 Ni, whose changement in % is made before cherging
d- yes, and the margin of error is superior to the range
Warm Regards,
A.R.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-387992

Daniel De Caluwé
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:01 PM

@Sankar Hajra,

I can be wrong, but I don’t agree that you can explain ‘the invariant proposition’by ‘classical physics’. The fact that the speed of light remains a constant in vacuüm, and that it is not affected by the relative movement of the sender in respect to the receiver, is an unusal aspect of the behaviour of light/fotons, that cannot be explained by classical physics. But beside that one exeption, I agree with the rest.

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-388962

Daniel De Caluwé
November 4th, 2012 at 6:18 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

Although I don’t want to take part in a Q&A game, where you gradually (step by step) and eventually are forced to reveal the secret working of the E-cat (even when that maybe is against your initial will), the questions of some participants and your answers also make me curious, and therefore these questions: (but of course, if some of these questions would reveal too much of your secrets, I accept that you don’t answer them or even remove some of them)

1) Did you initially enrich Ni (to get more 62Ni and 64Ni) because you initially thought/presumed that the energy maybe was coming from the transmutation tot Cu (62Ni + proton -> stable 63Cu; and 64Ni + proton -> stable 65Cu)?

2) But, from the moment you knew that the transmutation to copper (Cu) only was a side-effect, did you try normal (not enriched) Ni back again?

3) And if yes (to question 2), did normal (not enriched) Ni also work and produces the same amount of energy?

4) If the enrichment of Ni (to get more 62Ni and 64Ni than naturally occuring) really is necessary to get the E-cat work (or to get the necessary amount of energy), could the fact that 62Ni and 64Ni, who are the most heavy of the stable isotopes of Ni, have most free (excess-) neutrons (6 neutrons in excess for 62Ni and 8 neutrons in excess for 64Ni), and that, thinking on QRT of Wladimir Guglinsky (where the structure of the nucleus is supposed/hypothised by a He-core, surrounded by deuterions (proton-neutron pairs) in hexagonal layers (with max 6 deuterons per layer)), so that more excess neutrons tend to enhance ‘proton-capture’ (to form deuterons in the outside hexagonal layers)?

Could that possibly be a mechanism? : ‘Proton-capture’ (62Ni/64Ni + proton -> (63Cu/65Cu)*, but not yet completely formed/finished, and therefore falling back (and/or via ‘pseudo electron-capture’ with beta and gamma radiaton that produces the heat) and going back and forth (because of the applied ‘frequencies’)?

But of course, I accept if you don’t want to answer the last question.

Kind Regards,

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-389077

Andrea Rossi
November 4th, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwe’:
1- No
2- No
3- No
4- Confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=4#comment-366849

Daniel De Caluwé
October 22nd, 2012 at 3:50 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

From the economical point of view, heating with gas is much cheaper than heating with electricity (gas bill will be lower than electricity bill), and as well for the Home E-cat as for the industrial Hot E-cat (also to produce electricity), replacing the electrical drive (electrical heating used when the E-cat is not operating in SSM (self sustaining mode)) by a heating with a gas burner is and would be a very big economical improvement, that will reduce the bill of the drive.

So, therefore my question: what’s the present situation of the gas-driven E-cat? Can and will it be used also in the Home E-cat? (It would be an enormous improvement, especially in the Home E-cat, where the electricity-bill would be replaced by a much lower gas-bill, so that we also economically could replace most of the smaller central heating units (like in appartements) by gas-driven Home E-cats…


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=4#comment-366893

Daniel De Caluwé
October 22nd, 2012 at 4:46 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

Is it possible to disclose the name of your Belgian Licensee (and/or the Licensee for the Benelux)? (I’m interested in who or what company that represents you in Belgium and/or the Benelux).


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=4#comment-367048

Andrea Rossi
October 22nd, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwè:
Our Belgium Licensee will contact you.
As for your suggestions and considerations, I am studying them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


En aangezien A. Rossi nu (sinds 2012, maar wel in tegenstelling met wat hij beweerde in 2011) beweert dat de vorming van koper waarschijnlijk maar een neveneffect is, schreef ik, een beetje ten einde raad, dit:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-390947

Daniel De Caluwé
November 5th, 2012 at 12:00 PM

@Steven N. Karels,

I think another mechanism is involved. I think the heavy isotopes loose neutrons.

Kind Regards,

Maar uiteraard kwam daar reactie op ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-391443

Herb Gillis
November 5th, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Daniel:
If the heavy isotopes lose neutrons then that would show up in the isotope analysis of the spent fuel. Unless I misunderstood something I think A.R said that he did not see significant changes in the nickel isotope distribution. Is my understanding correct?
Regards; HRG.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-392222

Daniel De Caluwé
November 6th, 2012 at 6:28 AM

@Herb Gillis,

Yes, I agree, if the heavy isotopes lose neutrons, then that should show up in the isotope analysis of the spent fuel, that should be different from the fuel they started with. But as the fuel always has been enriched (to obtain more 62Ni en 64Ni than naturally occuring), and as some measurements indicated that the spent fuel showed more or less the natural concentrations of the isotopes, I presume that the heavy isotopes lose neutrons in the process. But this doesn’t mean that there’s a strong neutron-radiation/flux (like in ordinary fission reactions), because I think here it happens in a smooth way. And the protons of the loaded hydrogen then are, in a certain way, a catalysator for this…

But I don’t think that Dr. Rossi likes that we communicate a lot or in detail about this, because this probably or gradually/eventually could reveal part of the working of the E-cat.

Kind Regards.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-393192

Joe
November 6th, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Daniel De Caluwe,

How do you imagine that a proton could be a catalyst for neutron emission?

All the best,
Joe


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-393993

Daniel De Caluwé
November 7th, 2012 at 7:59 AM

@Joe,

Pure speculative, and based on QRT, where the excess neutrons of the heavy isotopes (of 62Ni and 64Ni) are hypothised on the edge (and not in the center ;-) of the nucleus, and that they tend to pair with protons (also according to QRT), and combine this with an oscillating pressure wave (cfr. ‘frequencies’) of the loaded hydrogen… But just consider it as an idea coming out of brainstorming, and not as official science… ;-)

Because, if no significant amount of copper is formed, something else must happen, isn’t it? ;-)

(Maar aangezien A. Rossi in 2011 nog wél beweerde dat 'a significant amount of copper was formed', denk ik dat we hier een beetje op het verkeerde been gezet werden, en momenteel geloof ik wél dat er koper gevormd wordt, alleen wil A. Rossi daar niet veel over kwijt, immers dat beschouwt hij momenteel als één van zijn bedrijfsgeheimen.)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=763&cpage=3#comment-410905

Daniel De Caluwé
November 18th, 2012 at 5:46 AM

@Koen Vandewalle,

You wrote: “The point is: too much money in the world, makes that people do no longer want to work for it. So money, or value is very important to make the world go round.”

I think we gradually should evolve to a society and a world with a world economy where there’s more co-operation, that should replace the deadly competition we have now.

At the moment, we live in a world with a world-economy that is too much based on deadly competition, and this makes slaves of most people, especially the lower classes, but also mid- and even ‘higher classes’. The world economy should SERVE the people on earth (and also elevate poor and underdevelloped countries, instead of exploit them), and not make us/them slaves in a inhumane system of deadly competition and economic war. Competition always is praised that it makes people work, and that ‘it makes the world go round’, but there’s also a lot of destruction/abuse/exploitation (of the lower classes/poor countries) in it, and exaggerated competition certainly will destroy us, if we remain on this path. In the aquarian age, humanity should learn to co-operate, otherwise we will destroy ourselves. We need a world-economy that is based on co-operation and NOT on deadly/exaggerated competition. We need a world economy that is eventually steered by the united nations in an attempt to let people/countries co-operate to produce what is necessary according to the needs of the people. G3, G4, G5, G7, G8, G20, Bilderberg, … and so on, should focus more on co-operation, so that people/countries are inspired to co-operate (and survive together instead of destroy each other), so that we get a better world with no war and peacefull co-operation in the end. (The other path is deadly competition to its extreme, which will make enslaved enemies of us all, who finally will destroy each other).

A year ago, during the ‘Arab Spring’ and the economic problems in the eurozone, I wrote a small text in English about it:

http://hetstilleverzet.blogspot.be/2011/06/to-young-people-of-spain-and-in-middle.html

And no, I’m not an ideologic marxist or communist, who reduced the freedom in their countries, but I’m just convinced that we need more co-operation (in the (world-)economic field) to survive with so many people on this beautifull planet Earth. (The present system of exaggerated and deadly competition also reduces the freedom of most people on this Earth).

And as a beginning, capital and labour should be more balanced, and have an equal voice in the steering of our world economy. So the ILO (‘The International Labour Organisation’, which is part of the United Nations) should have a stronger voice in the world economy and in the meetings of the G3, G4, G5, G7, G20, Bilderberg, … and so on. (Think, for instance, of our European ‘Rheinland-model’, with a balanced representation (equal number of representitives of unions (employees) and employers in the government of our companies).

By giving the ILO (‘The International Labour Organisation’, which is part of the United Nations) a stronger voice in the important world-wide meetings that steer the world-economy, I hope the world-economy eventually will become more humane and more co-operative, so that more people (and more countries) will get out of the present slavery and will enjoy more freedom. (But I repeat: this is not marxism nor communism, but just a more enlighted/balanced vision for this world and its economy).

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=763&cpage=3#comment-416082

Daniel De Caluwé
November 21st, 2012 at 12:50 AM

@ Bernie Koppenhofer,
@ Jouni Tuomela,

Hydrogen embrittlement (Wikipedia)

But the present explanation seems to be pressure build up:

The mechanism starts with lone hydrogen atoms diffusing through the metal. At high temperatures, the elevated solubility of hydrogen allows hydrogen to diffuse into the metal (or the hydrogen can diffuse in at a low temperature, assisted by a concentration gradient). When these hydrogen atoms re-combine in minuscule voids of the metal matrix to form hydrogen molecules, they create pressure from inside the cavity they are in. This pressure can increase to levels where the metal has reduced ductility and tensile strength up to the point where it cracks open (hydrogen induced cracking, or HIC). High-strength and low-alloy steels, nickel and titanium alloys are most susceptible.

1. But, if also LENR is involved, then Ti also is a candidate for Ti-H fusion? ;-)

2. Also in nuclear reactors, this phenomenom is welknown. At the moment, there even is a problem in some of our Belgian nuclear reactors I think… So, if LENR is involved, then, via these problems, they also got a key to a better way of producing energy? ;-)

3. As the E-cat works with hydrogen at high pressure, they have to choose the right metals?

Steel with an ultimate tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa or hardness of less than 30 HRC are not generally considered susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. Jewett et al.[2] reports the results of tensile tests carried out on several structural metals under high-pressure molecular hydrogen environment. These tests have shown that austenitic stainless steels, aluminum (including alloys), copper (including alloys, e.g. beryllium copper) are not susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement along with few other metals.[3] For example of a severe embrittlement measured by Jewett, the elongation at failure of 17-4PH precipitation hardened stainless steel was measured to drop from 17% to only 1.7% when smooth specimens were exposed to high-pressure hydrogen.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=768&cpage=1#comment-432354

Daniel De Caluwé
November 30th, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Dear Wladimir Guglinski

Your arguments that support your theory (QRT) for light nuclei are very convincing.

But what about bigger nuclei? (Z > 8)

And what about the stability of very big nuclei, with a lot of protons and a lot of neutrons in excess (A >> 2*Z)? Are they also built up with a 2He4-core in the centre and deuterons (1H2) in hexagonal floors (6 deuterons in each floor), with all the excess neutrons on the edge?

Intuïtivly, it appears to me that with your model (QRT), very big nucleï with a lot of excess neutrons would be less stable (and much quicker involved in nuclear reactions) than according to classical theory, where a lot of protons (that oppose each other by Coulomb repulsion) are glued by much more neutrons (A >> 2*Z) in excess. So for very big nucleï/cores, more neutrons have to be in the centre and in between the protons, to glue (and hold) the core together (and probably relativly more protons are on the edge of the nucleus), but with your QRT, not the protons, but most of these excess neutrons are on the edge, and wouldn’t that make the core less stable?

Nevertheless, your arguments for smaller nucleï are very convincing to me.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=768&cpage=2#comment-439220

Daniel De Caluwé
December 4th, 2012 at 9:38 AM

@Robert,
@Steven,

1. Don’t forget that the E-cat (also the Hot E-cat) consumes 1/6th of the energy it produces. So, the gas driven Hot E-cat also consumes energy and produces CO2, but, of course, far less than with other conventional technologies.

2. If the E-cat can be started-up and shut down in only 1 (one) hour, than I think it could co-operate with renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

3. In the beginning, people were very enthousiastic and wrote that the E-cat would replace everything and also in a very short period of time. I personally did not agree with that point of view, because I knew it would take more time, and also that the E-cat would not replace everything. But I think the realistic truth is that it is a very good candidate to take an important part of the energy-mix, not only because it can take an important part of the base-load, but also because I think it can co-operate with variable and renewable energy sources like wind- and solar power stations. (And I think Dr. Rossi agrees with this point of view).

4. Concerning electrical cars: In a small country like Belgium, and especially in Flanders, where a lot of people are living at a short distance from each other, we could live with the small actiradius of the electric cars, but I agree, in the rural areas in the US, you need to cope with long distances, and therefore I understand that you are looking at possible futere developments of the E-cat (with direct conversion) to load the battery, but I think Dr. Rossi already wrote that this is far away in the future, because now he works on applications (like producing electricity with the gas-driven Hot industrial E-cat) that are very much needed en already useful at the moment.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=3#comment-490205

Daniel De Caluwé
December 22nd, 2012 at 6:29 AM

Dear Koen Vandewalle,

I suppose/presume you’re Flemish/Belgian, and I would like to exchange some information with you.

If you’re interested, could you please send me a message (to *** )

Kind Regards,

Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=6#comment-538192

Daniel De Caluwé
January 8th, 2013 at 3:11 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

1. In his recent message, Fibb wrote :

Steve Karels makes some great points about security and the potential ruthlessness of the opposition. Mr. Rossi, your potential market is much bigger than even the existing energy market (greenhouses in Antartica). Your entering a battle worth trillions of dollars per year. The opposition has deep pockets and a MASSIVE vested interest in the status quo, and could start 100 million dollar campaigns to discredit you and/or your products. FUD is the name of the game, or worse… sabotage. Please be careful and prepare for the worst. Seek progressive allies in government that you can count on, as many bought-and-paid-for politicians will be at the service of their fossil-fuel-energy overlords your technology will overthrow.

Reading this, one could ask the question if the present worldwide economic system, with its focus on exaggerated (and deadly) competition, really serves the people of the world???

2. As a citizen of Flanders (Belgium), I recently was informed by the (very alternative and futuristic) work of M. T. Keshe, who has his headquarters in Belgium, but appears to have problems with the Belgian government at the moment. (One of the problems is that they forbid the use (and demonstration) of his reactors in Belgium).

At the moment, I did not yet investigate the work of Mr. Keshe, so I don’t know if he really has what he claims he has, but I was positively struck by the way he introduces his new technology: He first did it by informing and sharing his technology to the governments of the world, and now he also addresses the people of the world via his website, so that his technology is open to everyone, and can be developed in a co-operative spirit.

3. When I compare your approach (via the sometimes evil market) with that of Mr. Keshe, we have to take into account that:

i) If Mr. Keshe really has what he claims he has, than his technology is potentially very dangerous (it can be abused in very wrong ways by evil people, making very dangerous weapons with it), but this is not the case with your solution, so you could work via the market, while Mr. Keshe is forced to do it by informing governments and sharing his technology with the people.

ii) The intellectual rights (IP) of Mr. Keshes’ inventions are already protected by his approved pattents, while you are still awaiting approval of your patents by the authorities. So, therefore I do understand that you could not work like Mr. Keshe, even when you wanted to.

4. At the moment, the Japanese already plan to build new (ordinary thermal or breeding) nuclear reactors, and in many other countries, governments intent to build new big coal fired power plants, so one could ask if your technology, that the world needs very much, comes quick enough to influence better decisions in these countries? Because, although you (and your team) work very hard, wouldn’t the introduction of the E-cat into the market be much quicker when you allowed all companies in the enery business to build and further develop E-cats, respecting your IP rights? Of course, I know, in that case, you need pattent-approval first.

5. Nevertheless and beside these considerations, and also because I know you have a good and very much needed solution, I wish you and your team a lot of success in 2013 and further on!

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
Flanders (Belgium)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=6#comment-539751

K. D.
January 8th, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Mr. Daniel De Caluwé and others.

This website is about of new kind of energy in progress of R&D by Mr.Rossi and his company.
You should understand from the experience of last two years, that Mr. Rossi is doing, what he said he will do.

Don’t mix it with some crooks like Mr. Keshe in Belgium or other one in USA John Rohner of Inteligentry.
Mr. Keshe for many years, plays on naive believers of his fantastic theories.
His real product are some speeches for which he cashes $1000.00 per chair.

I don’t comment about deposits he was taking for space flies into orbit and to the moon.
Or some kind reactors he promised to deliver in March of 2012, never done.
Probably he, same way as Defkalion dreamed to profit from Mr. Rossi discovery.

The other guy, Mr. Rohner is prospering by taking nonrefundable fee for application, to apply for for rights to buy licence, to have the right to develop non existing technology.
The real secrets of his business is, in using proper way the language of the law.

For readers with production capability, it is permissible to think where and how, the E-Cat can be useful in theirs production.
It absurd to think, that E-Cat will eliminate other sources of energy as coal or oil, what also Mr.Rossi says.
But it might be helpful to use those sources of energy by better way.

And dreamers about of the free energy should understand that there is no free energy.
Because there are some expenses to use of free energy, as it is with using, Sun light and gravity by wind mills, PV panels or hydro-power plants.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=6#comment-543366

Daniel De Caluwé
January 9th, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Dear K. D.,

1. Concerning Mr. Keshe: I didn’t discuss nor defend his technology, and I even wrote I did not yet investigate it, but I only referred to the way he introduced his technology.

2. You wrote: ‘It absurd to think, that E-Cat will eliminate other sources of energy as coal or oil, what also Mr.Rossi says. But it might be helpful to use those sources of energy by better way.’

My answer: I think I roughly agree, and I also knew that from the beginning, because this is what I recently wrote :

3. In the beginning, people were very enthousiastic and wrote that the E-cat would replace everything and also in a very short period of time. I personally did not agree with that point of view, because I knew it would take more time, and also that the E-cat would not replace everything. But I think the realistic truth is that it is a very good candidate to take an important part of the energy-mix, not only because it can take an important part of the base-load, but also because I think it can co-operate with variable and renewable energy sources like wind- and solar power stations. (And I think Dr. Rossi agrees with this point of view).

Kind Regards.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=2#comment-560574

Daniel De Caluwé
January 16th, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

1. I agree with Steven Karels’ point about DERs, but as I’m one of these guys that’s interested in replacing our present big nuclear power plants (and big coal or other fossil fuel fired plants as well), I wonder if, in the future, by doing further engineering research, it will be possible to enhance the scale of the individual modules (bigger than 10kWth each), without reducing the safety?

Because, if we would like to replace a 1000MWe nuclear power plant, we need about 2564 (based on 39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency (Carnot cycle with superheated steam)) to 3030 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency, like our present nuclear power plants, that work with a Carnot cycle with only saturated steam, which has a reduced efficiency) of your 1MWth plants.

2. But as your 1MWth plants have 100 10kWth units each, this makes 256400 (39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) to 303000 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) 10kWth units, that need to be refueled two times a year each, so that makes: 1404 (39% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) to 1659 (33% thermal-to-electrical efficiency) replacements of fuel each day! So, in the case of a 1000MWe power plant, wouldn’t a bigger scale of the individual units (bigger than the 10kWth you have now) be more optimal? (With less replacements of fuel each day, as only one of the improvements in this specific application)?

Kind Regards


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=2#comment-560735

Andrea Rossi
January 16th, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwè:
A piece of matter is made by 6.022 136 7(36) x 10^23 mol^-1 units.
Can you imagine a single molecule as big as all this the mess that could make?
I do not see why modules of 10 kW each are not good enough to make a 1 GW plant. The Whole Universe is made upon this system, and I prefer to learn from God that to outsmart Him. The problem is in the controls: they can be centralized.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=2#comment-563524

Daniel De Caluwé
January 17th, 2013 at 6:32 AM

@Steven,

You wrote: ‘Assume the number of 1MW Hot eCat units is 3650. That means 10 units are replaced per day.’

My answer: No, because every 10kW module needs to be refueled every 6 months (=two times a year), so in the case of 3650*1MWth units, you have to replace the fuel of 20*1MWth units each day, and this means you have to replace the fuel of 2000*10kW modules each day!

You wrote: ‘The knowledge that a 1MW Hot eCat really consists of 100 10kW Hot eCat units is irrelevant. The maintenance action is on the replacement level, not the component level.’

My answer: I do not agree, because each 1MWth unit is composed of 100 individual 10kW modules, each with their own fuel-cartridge, that has to be replaced two times a year, the maintenance action is on the level of each individual 10kW module! So, in your example, you need to replace the fuel of 2000*10kW modules each day!

But of course, as I have no idea what this would mean in terms of working hours, I’m not saying that this means more maintenance than with coal-fired power plants, I only wrote that scaling-up could be interesting/necessary and/or would be more optimal.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=2#comment-565414

Steven Karels
January 17th, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Daniel,

Thanks for correcting my factor of two error. I believe we disagree over only matter of words. For the Electric plant, they will probably replace 1 MW units, so as you computed, around 20 per day.

When the consumed units are returned to Rossi’s factory, they will need to replace at 2000 10kW components per day.

Assuming a sufficient supply of workers and 10kW components, this should not be a problem. They can scale up as needed.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=3#comment-571731

Daniel De Caluwé
January 20th, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Dear Prof. Stremmenos,

1. Thank you again for this objective clarification that, like your previous message some time ago, gives more information about how Ni-H ‘cold fusion’ came into being.

2. By these messages and clarifications, I now understand better who was involved and who contributed to Ni-H ‘cold fusion’ we have now. (In both messages, you mentioned not only your work, but also that of Prof. Focardi and the important contribution of Dr. Rossi).

3. But I do have a question: Pons and Fleishman worked with Palladium (Pd) and Deuterium (D), but who was the first to try with Ni (Nickel) and H (Hydrogen)? Was it Piantelli who first tried with Ni and H, although he did it with an oridnary Ni-rod and not with the more effecitive nano-powder? (In the case he started with Ni-H, he also made a big contribution, I think. But, I agree, in that case he cannot say he was the first to use a nano-powder).

4. Anyway, I thank you and all Italians who kept believing in ‘cold fusion’ and worked it out further with Ni-H

Kind Regards,
Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Flanders (Belgium)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=776&cpage=3#comment-579490

Christos Stremmenos
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwé
sorry for the delayed answer, …..translation problems …!. Thank you for the positive comments in my regards. I can state that I was not the first to use nickel rods. In fact, I was against it, after the observations I made on experiments which I had conducted at the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in Bologna.
I began to use nickel powders because I had observed, on the rods or foils, the formation of microscopic craters, within which “half the periodic table”(…!.), could be found (trasmutation!).
I tried to pass the information I had acquired on to Focardi and Piantelli, who replied that they had also detected the surface phenomena, but that powders (development of a surface) were unfeasible.
In any case, I continued to make use of nano-powders together with Prof. Paolo Cammarota, then Chair of the Institute of Metallurgy. We did not restrict ourselves to nickel powders, and we obained information at the level of resonant iterations in transition elements and electromagnetic fields (Ramman Spectroscopy); see my post Cold Fusion a Continuing Debate 1999 in the JoNP.
In those days, besides nickel, we were using everyting — Pd, Ti, Fe, and other transition elements. We all obtained some watt from our experiments, while Andrea Rossi, who worked with Ni powders from 1995, has been the first to make real energy with nickel, in the range of kWh, not of some watts or something alike. And so far nobody has been able to do the same!
Best regards,
Christos Stremmenos


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=9#comment-695312

Daniel De Caluwé
May 13th, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

1. Refering to your recent answer to Dr. Joseph Fine, and the fact that the Activator has a lower energy-production (about 1/10th of the Tiger in the example you gave in your answer to Joseph Fine) than the main part (Tiger) itself, do you agree that 1 system/E-cat (= 1 Tiger + 1 Activator) alone produces 35% of the time (when only the Activator is active) a lower heat output (in your example 1/10th) than the other 65% of the time (when the main part (Tiger) of the E-cat is active)? So, the thermal energy production of 1 element (= 1 Tiger + 1 Activator) fluctuates?

2. And to make the (thermal) energy production of a bigger system (with many individual E-cats (many Tigers and as many Activators, with each Tiger his own seperate Activator)) constant, and not fluctuating (between 1/10th when the Activator is active and 1 when the Tiger is active), do you solve that problem via the control system, making the different Activators work at different times, so that you get a smooth and constant (thermal) power output?

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=9#comment-695338

Andrea Rossi
May 13th, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Dear daniel De Caluwe’:
1- please read what I have already explained
2- see 1
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462&cpage=1#comment-711891

Daniel De Caluwé
June 5th, 2013 at 3:21 AM

@cipri,

1. Why do you react anonymously (you don’t give your full name) and don’t you react here, and write what’s wrong with it.

2. You also wrote: ‘Then when I further see that the author is a mechanical engineer, then one can really start to become worried. In normal case even the experimental physicists don’t have the mathematical skills to set up a good theory. (Not by accident galileo, newton, dirac, etc… were mathematicians), and mechanical engineer have in normal case even less mathematical skills, and this very visible through all the papers.’

Well, I can tell you this: In Belgium and for many people of my generation (I am born in 1958), the best students in physics and mathematics (in secondary schools and at the age of 18) were advised to become civil engineers (which in Belgium and probably many other countries was a very high level university study), and at that time many of the best students (in physics and mathematics) followed that advise and that direction. And I can imagine that for Brazil and many other countries this was the same. (For Russia, at that time still the Soviet Union, I don’t know…)

3. Unfortunately, many good mathematicians became active in the financial world, isn’t it? ;-)

4. People like A. Rossi follow a Galilean approach, have their own theory and come to good results.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806&cpage=15#comment-723892

Daniel De Caluwé
June 23rd, 2013 at 6:07 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

1. Some time ago, you expressed your discontent with the contence of the wikipedia page that gives false information and false accusations against you.

2. Long time ago, when I discussed (defending human influence in) climate change on the internet, I had similar problems, with google-searches that were manipulated towards pages with false accusations against me. It took me a long fight for many years to change that, and finally (already for some years) the situation became normal and neutral and not anymore deliberately against me.

3. But at the moment, and already for some weeks now, my blog ( http://hetstilleverzet.blogspot.be/ ) is not shown in a google-search anymore, but before that, and more than a year or some years, my blog always was shown in a google-search for my name. So, it has changed again against me! And I don’t think that google-Amerika is doing this (because I have the impression that in the past, they even tended to promote alternative and progressive views), no, I’m almost convinced that the manipulation is done in Belgium, by the liberal (blue) elite, who normally should promote freedom and the expression of alternative views, but who, in Belgium, and in a Machiavellistic way, only seem to promote their own (financial and political) intrests. So alternative views, that at first sight doesn’t support their pockets (or are against their financial and/or political intrest), are suppressed!

4. My blog ( http://hetstilleverzet.blogspot.be/ ) is defending your technology (a lot of pages are dedicated to it), and for the rest defends/expresses an alterative world-economic view (based on more co-operation, and less on exaggerated competition, but NOT in an extreme or Marxistic way, so my blog does not defend extreme and/or non-democratic views).

5. Knowing that you yourself were frustrated about the contence of a wikepedia page that was deliberately not objective but dedicated against you, I hope you help me in this fight against the manipulation of the internet, just by publishing this message on this forum (JNP), even when you don’t necessarily agree with my alternative view on the world-economy. (In my case I think the manipulation of the google-search for my name is done by the liberal elite in Belgium, and NOT by Google-Amerika, who tended to defend alternative views in the past).

P.S. To American readers: The liberal political faction in Belgium is not to be confused with the democrats in the USA, because I think that in the political spectrum of the USA, the Democrats represent more the left part of the country, promoting freedom of expression, and hopefully also freedom for all (or as many people as possible ;-) . But in Belgium, we still have democratic political parties more to the left, who fight for the rights (and the freedom) of all, and not only for the elite.

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Flanders (Belgium)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=10#comment-726131

Daniel De Caluwé
June 26th, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Particle Pals: Neutrino Experiment Shows Protons and Neutrons Pairing Up. (Scientific American) ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806&cpage=16#comment-728366

Joe
June 29th, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Wladimir,

There is a link posted by Daniel De Caluwe on June 26th, 2013 at 6:04 PM under your article from 2 months ago. It is to an article in Scientific American that describes how protons and neutrons seem to travel around within the nucleus as PAIRS, not as singles (at least 25% of the time anyway). This, of course, resembles the deuterons in your gravitational fluxes n(o). It is considered an “extreme view” of the nuclear dynamics.

Your friend John Arrington says, “You really have to understand those reaction mechanisms to know what’s going on…” Of course, you have already briefed him on your Quantum Ring Theory, but he does not cite your work for some reason. Maybe he just forgot. Perhaps you should refresh his memory with an email. Perhaps you should contact everyone who rejected your thesis and place their responses here on JONP. It would be quite the learning experience.

Do not forget to leave a comment at the end of the article in Scientific American.

All the best,
Joe


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=1#comment-728833

Wladimir Guglinski
June 30th, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Joe wrote in June 29th, 2013 at 5:26 PM in Electrical Catalyst

Wladimir,

There is a link posted by Daniel De Caluwe on June 26th, 2013 at 6:04 PM under your article from 2 months ago. It is to an article in Scientific American that describes how protons and neutrons seem to travel around within the nucleus as PAIRS, not as singles (at least 25% of the time anyway). This, of course, resembles the deuterons in your gravitational fluxes n(o). It is considered an “extreme view” of the nuclear dynamics.

Your friend John Arrington says, “You really have to understand those reaction mechanisms to know what’s going on…” Of course, you have already briefed him on your Quantum Ring Theory, but he does not cite your work for some reason. Maybe he just forgot. Perhaps you should refresh his memory with an email. Perhaps you should contact everyone who rejected your thesis and place their responses here on JONP. It would be quite the learning experience.

Do not forget to leave a comment at the end of the article in Scientific American.

All the best,
Joe

Oh, my God !!!!!
… the academic physicists will hate me more than are hating up to now !!!!!
The experiments insist in corroborate my new nuclear model rssss

Thanks, Joe,
I will refresh the Arrington’s memory.
But I am not sure he will enjoy it
rsssss

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=1#comment-731382

Daniel De Caluwé
July 4th, 2013 at 12:57 AM

@Peter Forsberg,

You wrote: “The problem currently is that the current paradigm of physics is in a state of crisis. There are too many anomalys. But the censorship of the state sponsored scientific institutions is too strong to even admit that.”

My answer: I don’t agree with you where you insinuate that the censorship is due to the fact that the institutions are ‘state sponsored’

My opinion and experience is different. For me, the best guarantee to have objective science is that scientists can work independently, and ‘state sponsorship’ often (maybe not always but more likely or often than not) is the best guarantee to obtain this. Because, if science only is sponsored by business-intrests, who often only seek their own growth and gain in a very competitive world, we quickly would loose all objectivity. And there are many examples who proove that. Think, for instance, on the discussion of the health hasards of smoking cigaretes. If the research is only done by the companies who produce and sell cigaretes, the results tend to be less objective, isn’t it? ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=7#comment-746973

Daniel De Caluwé
July 25th, 2013 at 4:38 AM

@ Joe,

Joe wrote: 2. Why do you differentiate between a physical phenomenon and its mathematical description? (Are not the 2 of them intimately related?)

My answer: Although it’s not up to me to answer to a question that was posed to Wlad (He can do that much better himself), but as I also watch this discussion with interest, I would like to take the opportunity to write that I think I understood well the point that Wladimir is trying to make here. To summarize, I think Wlad is right where he critisizes the approach of present nuclear physicists, because they use different mathematical models to try to fit or to explain each/different case/phenomenon, but without unifying underlying physic understanding. So they use many different incompatible mathematical models, to explain all nuclear phenomena, but these different mathematical models exclude each other, because they do NOT describe ONE (and the same) underlying physical reality, and this contrary to Wladimirs’ QRT, that hopefully could explain all nuclear phenomena, starting from ONE underlying explanation/theory.

But of course, this still does not prove Wladimirs’ Quantum Ring Theory (QRT), because to do that, his theory should explain (or predict) ALL nuclear phenomena and experiments, and this still has to be done (doing many experiments) by the scientific world. But to do that, and as his theory (QRT) already explains very well certain nuclear phenomena that present nuclear physics does not (because of the mutual excluding mathematical models that do not explain ALL nuclear phenomena), Wladimirs’ QRT first should be accepted as a candidate (in Hegelian dialectics: as a new thesis ;-) , starting a dialectic boxing match of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis)… ;-)

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=7#comment-747143

Wladimir Guglinski
July 25th, 2013 at 8:23 AM

Dear Daniel De Caluwé

you really got the point.

Unfortunatelly there are some physicists that have blind adherence to doctrines, and so it’s hard to them to face the true.
So, in order to try to save their theories threatened by some experiments, they use stupid arguments so that to deceive themselves.

As I said, I dont mind if a theorist is happy by cheating himself.

I only do not agree when he tries to convince me that I have to share his happyness.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=1#comment-750987

Daniel De Caluwé
July 29th, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I’m not a nuclear physicist, but back again, I agree with Wladimir. Electromagnetic (or other) interaction comes first, and mass defect is a consequence of it. A good physical understanding discriminates between causes and effects. And mathematical models that are made to try to fit the results of experiments, can be a helpfull tool to find new or better physical laws, but they always have to be accompanied by physical understanding, trying to build or to improve or to expand a physical model/theory that explains ALL phenomena and that is confirmed by ALL experiments. Otherwise, we have no understanding of what really happens, or we do not really understand how nature works, and we are not doing physics anymore. The purpose of physics is to understand how nature works, and if possible, to derive laws by which nature is governed. And the examples (of experiments) that Wladimir has given on this and other fora, really prove the inconsistency of present nuclear physics, so we need a better theory and/or more understanding to anchor the floating ship of nuclear physics… ;-) And Wladimirs’ QRT is a good candidate for this, but of course, it still has to be proven by many experiments.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=2#comment-752795

Wladimir Guglinski
July 31st, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Dears Joe, Daniel De Caluwé, Steven N Karels, and Erik

I made a sequence of figures so that to show clearly how the multiples of 6C12 in the structure of light nuclei contribute for the null magnetic moment µ =0 of excited nuclei with spin i=2.

In order to have i=2 and has µ =0 , the excited nuclei have to have the following structure:
———————————————————–
1- Pair number of complete hexagonal floors
2- One 6C12 in their structure beyond the pair number of complete hexagonal floors
———————————————————–

——————————————–
6C12 – zero complete hexagonal floor
Ex …….. i …….. µ
4438 …… 2 …….. ????
It has pair (zero) number of complete hexagonal floors
That’s why it has µ =0
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1098296_151025005094492_1033635707_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
8O16 – one complete hexagonal floor
Ex …….. i …….. µ
6130 … 3 …….. +1,67

There is no 6C12 in its structure
That` why it has µ= +1,67
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/46458_151025055094487_857178262_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
10Ne20 – one complete hexagonal floor + 2 deuterons
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1634 …… 2 …….. +1,08
Odd number of hexagonal floors
There is no 6C12 in its structure
That` why it has µ= +1,08
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/1013699_151025111761148_528668018_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
12Mg24 – one complete hexagonal floor + 6C12
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1369 …… 2 …….. +1,02
The structure of 12Mg24 has odd number of hexagonal floors
That` why it has µ= +1,02
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/968881_151025158427810_960725224_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
14Si28 – two complete hexagonal floors
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1779 …… 2 …….. +1,1
It has not the 6C12 in its structure.
That`s why it has µ= +1,1

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/998748_151025251761134_22653595_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
16S32 – two complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1779 …… 2 …….. +0,9
It has not the 6C12 in its structure.
That`s why it has µ= +0,9
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/533688_151025341761125_146223561_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
18Ar36 – two complete hexagonal floors + 6C12
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1970 …… 2 …….. ????
Note that 18AR36 is similar to 6C12, because:
• It has pair number of hexagonal floors
• The structure of 18Ar36 is perflectly symmetric
That`s why excited 18Ar36 has µ= 0 ,as also happens with 6C12.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/264502_151025458427780_191838296_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
20Ca40 – three complete hexagonal floors
Ex …….. i …….. µ
3737 …… 3 …….. +1,6
• Odd number of hexagonal floors
• There is no 6C12 in its structure.

That`s why it has µ= +1,6
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/1009806_151025655094427_1552401132_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
22Ti44 – three complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
Not quoted in Stone’s nuclear table
• Odd number of hexagonal floors
• There is no 6C12 in its structure.
So it cannot have µ= 0
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/45593_151025728427753_565915500_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
24Cr50 – three complete hexagonal floor + 6C12 + 2n
Ex …….. i …….. µ
783 ……. 2 …….. +1,24
Odd number of hexagonal floors
That` why it has µ= +1,24
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/1098370_151025775094415_1875904703_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
26Fe52 – four complete hexagonal floors
Not quoted in Stone table
There is no 6C12 in its structure
So it cannot have µ= 0
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/59551_151025918427734_69595936_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
26Fe54 – four complete hexagonal floors + 2 neutrons
Ex …….. i …….. µ
1408 …… 2 …….. +2,1
There is no 6C12 in its structure
That`s why it has µ= +2,1
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/45619_151025991761060_1447107323_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
28Ni56 – four complete hexagonal floors + 2 deuterons
Not quoted in Stone table.
There is no 6C12 in its structure
So it cannot have µ= 0
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/539582_151026065094386_2012557097_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
30Zn60 – four complete hexagonal floors + 6C12
Unfortunatelly it is not quoted in Stone table.
It has PERFECT SYMMETRY + 6C12
By considering the sequence of multiples 6C12 with perfect symmetry, the excited 30Zn60 must have 1=2 and µ= 0 , as the excited 6C12 and 18Ar36.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/548898_151026108427715_115439261_n.jpg
——————————————–

——————————————–
30Zn62 – four complete hexagonal floors + 6C12 + 2n
Ex …….. i …….. µ
954 …… 2 …….. +0,7
The two neutrons broke the symmetry of the pair number of hexagonal floors
That`s why excited 30Zn62 has µ= +0,7
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/581700_151026201761039_1513458539_n.jpg
——————————————–

Regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=2#comment-752959

Wladimir Guglinski
July 31st, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Dears Joe and Daniel De Caluwé

When we apply a force on a body it gets acceleration a according to Newton’s law F= m.a .

The application of the force F and the appearance of the acceleration a is simultaneous.

However the cause is the force F. The body accelerates because the force is applied.

It makes no sense to claim that, because of the cause and the effect are simultaneous, we may consider that the acceleration can be the cause too.
In another words, we cannot claim that the force appears because the body had started up to accelerate.The force cannot be the effect, and the acceleration cannot be the cause

This is what Joe refuses to himself to understand.

So, I give up

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=3#comment-757472

Daniel De Caluwé
August 5th, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Joe wrote: 2. I have already stated that the concept of cause and effect can be used to describe a sequence of events that we can witness (for example, falling dominoes). But the physical laws behind the sequence are not themselves sequential. Action and reaction occur simultaneously. Therefore, force and acceleration occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other. This contradicts your statement that force is the cause and acceleration is the effect. You stated that this would be true even if the two of them were simultaneous. That is just simply illogical. This is why mass defect and force of attraction occur simultaneously. Neither one is the cause or effect of the other.

My answer: Dear Joe, I often appreciate your contributions, but sorry, here your point is wrong and illogical! Because even when they work simultaneously, without action there’s no reaction! So action is the cause and reaction is the consequence/effect! If I smash my hand upon the table, I feel pain, because, yes, the table gives an equal and opposite reaction to my hand that smashes, and because of the reaction my hand is stopped abrubtly, so I feel the reaction of the table, but it is very clear to everyone that smashing the table is the cause, and the reaction force on my hand is the consequence/effect, even when they appear simultaneously! And it is not because the math is thus that the reaction force equals the action force in value (but they do have opposite directions), that there’s no cause and no effect! The action is the cause, and the reaction is the effect/consequence! (It’s not because the action force and the reaction force are equal in value and opposite in direction, that there’s no cause and no effect, because it’s easy to understand that the action force is the cause and the reaction force the effect!) And this is the difference between a purely mathematical approach and a physical approach, where in the latter, we know and understand that the action is the cause and the reaction the effect/consequence.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=816&cpage=3#comment-757507

Daniel De Caluwé
August 5th, 2013 at 5:15 AM

Dear Joe,

To make it clear even more scientifically, I have to add to my previous comment, this:

Reaction force equals action force (in value, but with opposite directions), so what is the cause and what is the effect?

Answer: The action is the cause, because without action there would be no reaction, and the reaction is dependent of the action, also in value (the reaction force equals the action force in value, so if I smash with a greater force on the table (to understate my statement ;-) ), the reaction force on my hand also will be greater, so also the value of the reaction force is dependent on the value of the action force, but the opposite is not true, because I can increase my action force very easily, but the reaction force, that is dependent of it, just has to follow with an equal value!)

So it’s not because the value of the reaction is equal to the action that there’s no cause and no effect! Mathematically they are equal (and maybe simultaneously) (but with opposite directions), but this doesn’t mean that we can’t derive a cause and en effect!


Bijkomende berichten toegevoegd op 22 november 2013:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=7#comment-786635

Daniel De Caluwé
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Dear Dr. Joseph Fine,

As explained by Michael Maier in his Atalanta Fugiens (1617) (see picture below), and because of the wrong interpretations of lower-grade alchemists, I’m afraid that the quick-silvery mercury that is missing, has spread as ‘Prima Materia’ (First Matter) in the environment… ;-)

Alchemical emblem depicting the omnipresence of the philosophical matter. “The Stone that is Mercury, is cast upon the Earth, exalted on Mountains, resides in the Air, and is nourished in the Waters.”[1] (Michael Maier’s Atalanta Fugiens. 1617.)

The only solution that I see is to use an alternative process, and this in combination with the invention of a quick-silvery (Mercury as planetary ruler of the astrological sign of the twins) and higher grade alchemist, because of:

…The caustic soda can also be concentrated to 50% and the salt removed. This is often by using an evaporative process with about three tonnes of steam per tonne of caustic soda…

If we take into account that the steam can be produced by the E-cat, and that ‘in 2011, the diaphragm process’ (that, from an environmental point of view is a much better process than the mercury cell process) ‘already accounted for 14% of total installed European chlorine production capacity’, we have found another possible application of the E-cat.

Kind and quick-silvery Regards,

Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=7#comment-786809

Joseph Fine
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Daniel De Caluwé,

Thank you for your answer.

Mercury should not be polluting the world’s air or its rivers and oceans.

Any improvements that reduce Chlorine and Caustic (NaOH) production costs, or other industrial processes requiring heat energy, while reducing or eliminating industrial scale pollution will be adopted not only because it saves money, but because it saves lives.

Mercurial (Hydrargyric) regards,

Joseph Fine


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=821&cpage=1#comment-802104

Daniel De Caluwé
September 18th, 2013 at 4:24 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

I saw a printing error in the text of Prof. Focardi:

At page 5 in table I-I, at the bottom of the page, the text says:

Cos(3pi/2 – x) = – Cos(3pi/2 – x), but this should be:

Cos(3pi/2 – x) = – Cos (3pi/2 + x)

But, of course, this is just a printing error.

I just checked the text only so far, and immediately posted this message (so I still do have to read the rest later), but what’s already very interesting in this text of Prof. Focardi, is that all the relations in table I-I at page 5 immediately can be derived from just looking at picture I-5 at page 4, and this without mathematical derivations! So it’s a very efficient way to learn or to review mathematics, and I certainly will read the rest of the text later.

Kind Regards,
Daniel


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=821&cpage=1#comment-802343

Andrea Rossi
September 18th, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Daniel De Caluwè:
I made a photo to the pages as they were, so typos have been conserved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=2#comment-847121

Daniel De Caluwé
November 4th, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

You wrote: How do you think can be explained the pull that makes the Universe constantly expand ? I share your scepticism about theories until experimentalists do give evidence of them.

My reaction: i) With the Hubble telescope, and using supernovae as reference, and also based on measurements of the red-shift (doppler effect) of far away (also in past time) systems, scientists (astronomers) found something very strange: In the first six to seven billion years (rough estimate) of the universe, the universe expanded with decelerating pace, this means that the expansion slowed down during the first six to seven billion years. But this is normal, and due to gravity. So, based on this first period (roughly the first 6 to 7 billion years of the Universe), everything looked like as if there would come a contraction after the period of expansion, and this due to gravity. But something very strange happened: instead of starting to contract or slow down further, suddenly (after 6 to 7 billion years), the expansion of the Universe did not slow down anymore, but started to expand with an ever accelerating pace, and for this change (steered by the ether?) there still is no explanation. So ‘dark energy’ was introduced, and ‘lambda’ (= Einsteins’ cosmological ‘constant’ is not constant anymore, but became time-dependent… (so far about ‘dark energy’)

ii) And a second problem is that astronomers also need the concept of ‘dark matter’ to explain the movement of many (most if not all) galaxies, where they have to introduce extra ‘dark mass’ to explain why these galaxies stay together. With the visible mass they measure, most (if not all) galaxies would fall apart and loose stars, but they are not ejected, but kept together (in the galaxy) by ‘dark mass’.

Both i) and ii) indicate that there’s something strange with gravity, isn’t it? It appears to be not constant (~M*m/r²) but variable, as if un unseen hand manipulates it, so that galaxies remain together, why they normally would fall apart, and that the expansion of the Universe did not slow down further (after the first 6 to 7 billion years), but suddenly started to expand with an ever accelerating pace.

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=2#comment-847142

Andrea Rossi
November 4th, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Daniel De Caluwè:
Very interesting, thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=2#comment-848784

Daniel De Caluwé
November 6th, 2013 at 6:44 AM

@Greg Daigle,

Thank you for your reaction and the interesting links, that summarize very good the present state of research concerning ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.

Especially what is written about the work of CERN physicist Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, cauth my eye:

Like his previous study featured on PhysOrg about a cyclic universe successively dominated by matter and antimatter, Hajdukovic’s paper on a dark matter alternative is also an attempt to understand cosmological phenomena without assuming the existence of unknown forms of matter and energy, or of unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry. In the case of the fast rotational curves of galaxies, he explains that there are currently two schools of understanding the phenomenon.

“The first school invokes the existence of dark matter, while the second school invokes modification of our law of gravity,” he said. “I suggest a third way, without introducing dark matter and without modification of the law of gravity.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html#jCp

And maybe I first have to study Hajdukovic’s work more deeply, but my first reaction was that I hope that the probability of the occurance of succesive big bangs is not too high, based on his theory? (Or in other words: if the Universe follows his theory, will it be stable enough? Or will it suffer from too much succesive big bangs? Sorry in advance if this reaction was premature, but it was my first reaction when reading his work…)

And as I also had an interest in theosofy in the past, I would like to put the attention of the readers of this blog to the fact that they also referred to the existence of ‘dark matter’, but they did it already – much earlier than the world of science ;-) – in 1881-1882, in a letter of Mahatma K.H. to A.O. Hume: ;-)

In other words we believe in MATTER alone, in matter as visible nature and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus (= ‘dark matter’ (Daniel)) …with its unceasing motion which is its life, and which nature draws from herself since she is the great whole outside of which nothing can exist. For as Bellinger truly asserts “motion is a manner of existence that flows necessarily out of the essence of matter; that matter moves by its own peculiar energies; that its motion is due to the force which is inherent in itself; that the variety of motion and the phenomena that result proceed from the diversity of the properties of the qualities and of the combinations which are originally found in the primitive matter” of which nature is the assemblage and of which your science knows less than one of our Tibetan Yak-drivers of Kant’s metaphysics.

And as a ‘spin-off’, I now also know what the ‘primary matter’ of the alchemists was: it was not ‘Mercury’, but they also referred to this ‘dark matter’… ;-)

Kind Regards,
Ir. Daniel De Caluwé,
Belgium


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=3#comment-848915

Andrea Rossi
November 6th, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Daniel De Caluwè:
I respect all the points of view, but I do not think any alchemist issue can be taken seriously in consideration in a scientific context.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=3#comment-849606

Daniel De Caluwé
November 7th, 2013 at 1:46 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

You wrote: I respect all the points of view, but I do not think any alchemist issue can be taken seriously in consideration in a scientific context.

My answer: I agree, but although I was inspired by and interested in theosofy, I’m not at all an adherent of alchemy, because the symbolic language they use always appeared too mysterious and too materialistic for me. And on this forum, I just made two references to it, and in the first reference, I just joked a little bit about it, because of the role that (the missing) Mercury also played in alchemy, but this was just playing with words.

And in the second reference, I just mentioned that only something like ‘dark matter’ (and not Mercury) could play the mysterious role of ‘the primary matter’ of the alchemists, but this was just a side-remark, and due to my first reference to it.

Nevertheless, I agree and I do understand that in the world of LENR, where scientists have to fight for scientific recognition, you can miss any reference to alchemy. So, if my messages gave the impression, I apoligize for it.

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=3#comment-851470

Daniel De Caluwé
November 8th, 2013 at 4:17 PM

@Robert Curto,

Nuclear fission of uranium-233, starting from thorium-232 (that caches a neutron and becomes uranium-233 via two beta-decays), certainly would be much better than the uranium-235(enriched)/238 (remains the main isotope) reactors we have now, and this for several reasons. The most important reason is that waste treatment is less complex, because, compared with U-235/U-238, only a very tiny fraction of actinides (like plutonium) are formed, and therefore the high radioactive waste (HR-waste) only must be safely stored for only a few hundred years, and not for a few hundred-thousands of years, which is the case for U-235/U-238 reactors. (The reason for this is the presence of U-238, via which Pu-239 is formed, by neutron capture and two beta decay’s).

So yes, reactors based on thorium-232 would be a big improvement. Unfortunately, this path was not choosen in the beginning of the nuclear age, and this for military reasons. (The development of nuclear weapons).

So, as a civil engineer, I immediately say yes, but as a theosofist, I still have a problem with all fission reactors:

The Invisible peril (by a master, through Benjamin Creme) :

…Unknown to men but evident to Us, the greatest harm sustained by men and planet in this sorry tale is caused by nuclear radiation. Men have gone far astray in the development of this most dangerous energetic source. Led astray by greed, and the false hope of vast profits, they have concentrated their experiments in ‘taming’ the most dangerous source of energy ever discovered by man, neglecting, meanwhile, a perfectly safe alternative use of the energy of the atom. Atomic fusion, cold and harmless, could be theirs from a simple isotope of water, everywhere available in the oceans, seas and rivers, and in every shower of rain.
Man must cease his ‘toying with death’. Atomic fission is the result of the atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; which erupted in Chernobyl and causes, subtly, death and sickness today. It is “that which stands where it ought not” and which must be renounced by man if he would prosper further.

Confident

Earth scientists are confident that they have, indeed, tamed the monster, and can keep it under control. They do not realize that their instruments are crude indeed, that they measure only the lower aspects of nuclear radiation, that stretching above these dense-physical levels are levels finer and more dangerous to the health and well-being of all. But for the tireless efforts of our Extra-planetary Brothers in assuaging this invisible peril in so far as the karmic law allows, our plight would be perilous indeed. Wake up, mankind!

See also here :

…The instruments which they have to check and measure the radiation are crude and cannot register the higher radiation. They recognize only the dense-physical plane but there are seven levels of matter. Above the dense-physical plane there are four planes which are etheric, but which are still matter. Our scientists cannot measure beyond some levels of the dense-physical plane, so crude are their instruments, while the worst effects of radiation are on the four highest planes. The growing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease at a younger and younger age is a direct result of this pollution. We have much to learn. A new humility is very much in order.

And, of course, this is not yet proven by science, and therefore it still cannot be an argument in a scientific discussion, but I personaly consider the source of this information very reliable. So, as a theosofist, I have doubts about any form of nuclear fission.

So I still prefer LENR, and I hope it will be made available soon.

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=3#comment-851741

Robert Curto
November 8th, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Daniel De Caluwe, I enjoyed reading your excellent post.
I don’t know if a Pebble Bed Reactor has a future, but you may want to read
this Article in Wired Magazine.
Google:
wired magazine pebble bed reactor
Click on:
Wired 12.09 Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom

Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA


Berichten toegevoegd op 26 november 2014:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=2#comment-948821

Daniel De Caluwé
April 26th, 2014 at 8:46 PM

@ Orsobubu,

I don’t agree completely with what you wrote in your last message.

You wrote: Differently from cosmic microwave background anisotropies and baryon acoustic oscillations, which are really observed, redshifts and galaxy’s receding speed are not yet really confirmed, so the existence of dark matter, dark energy, inflation and accelerating universe are having only indirect support and can be considered as ‘enigmatic concepts’.

My answer: Referring to what I wrote earlier on this blog ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829&cpage=2#comment-847121 ), I don’t agree with what you wrote above, because based on the well known spectrum of supernovae, that were used as a reference, astronomers have proven that in the first 5 to 6 or 7 billion years of the universe, we had decelerated expansion of the universe (deceleration due to gravity), but after that period, the universe suddenly started to expand with an – up to now – ever accelerating pace. So, astronomers have proven that our universe behaves and behaved like this, but, I agree, they cannot explain it. So they had to introduce the concept of ‘dark energy’ as a ‘deus ex machina’. But, of course, using red-shifts (of the wellknown spectra of supernovae) in their method, presumes that the speed of light is a constant in the vacuüm (special relativity), and from the moment you doubt the latter, then you can say that this is not well established science, but in that case you put everything under doubt. So, if you accept special relativity, and the fact that the speed of light is a constant in the vacuüm, than you also have to accept what astronomers observed (in 1998) with the Hubble telescope.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=3#comment-950218

Daniel De Caluwé
April 30th, 2014 at 2:57 AM

Satyam Brahma,
Yanam Brahma,
Anantam Brahma? ;-)

Although the discussion about evolution is off-topic on this forum, I want to react on the latest message of Silvio Caggia, because maybe he knows or maybe not, but what he wrote is very close to what theosofists (and esoteric buddhists, like Alice Bailey) believe. And like atheïsts, they don’t believe in a God outside our world and ourselves, but they do believe that the universe is a living entity, and that it has (there are) several (etheric?) layers, of whom only one (our physical world) is visibel.

Silvio wrote:

There are many layers.
Each layer is based on the layer below.
The layer below is “machine” for the layer above.
The layer above is “spirit” for the layer below.
Each layer has it’s own rules.
Eache layer “exists” even if you can’t see it.

My reaction: Higher, Silvio gave a description of the OSI-model (‘Open Systems Interconnection’ – model, with 7 layers, like X25) in telecommunication, isn’t it? Well, this model is very similar to what esoteric buddhists (like Alice Bailey) believe, because they also believe that there are 7 layers, of wich our visible world is only one (the lowest) layer. Think also about what I wrote about ‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’. Could it be that the evolution is driven by the higher (and invisible) ‘etheric’ layers, and that the universe is a living entity, giving us the posibility to gradually learn to know it and its secrets, and that it breaths in and out, so that we cyclically will experience periods of expansion and periods of contraction? (= Days and nights of Brahma, that take billions of years each) ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=3#comment-950324

silvio caggia
April 30th, 2014 at 10:24 AM

@Daniel De Caluwé
“maybe he knows or maybe not”

The second, my friend… :-)

“Silvio gave a description of the OSI-model (‘Open Systems Interconnection’ – model, with 7 layers, like X25) in telecommunication, isn’t it?”

OSI model inspired me, but it is about network communications. Here I describe a working computer stand-alone.

“Well, this model is very similar to what esoteric buddhists (like Alice Bailey) believe, because they also believe that there are 7 layers, of wich our visible world is only one (the lowest) layer.”

It’s not exactly my example. There is no specific number of layers, you can imagine other layers below transistors (material engineer, chemist, atomic phisics…) and above user level (looking inside info contents: this thread, this site…). No magic numbers (note: I used 8 layers). No special (i.e. lowest) layers.

I wanted only to say that we (individuals) are “structures”, made of many layers, and that we are part of other “structures” (family, firm, nation…) made of other layers. Many of these layers are invisible for many of us, but they exist.

Something similar to the Fredric Brown’s novel “the answer” :-)
http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=5#comment-955293

Daniel De Caluwé
May 13th, 2014 at 5:39 AM

@Wladimir,

You wrote: 1) Will the magnet continue its oscilatory motion without ever stop?

My answer: No, it will not continue its motion, because it finally will stop in a equilibrium position where its magnetic force (towards the metallic wall) Fm, which is also variable (!) and function of the distance between the magnet and the metallic wall (the magnetic field reduces with the distance!) will be equal to the repulsive force of the spring.

And the final equilibrium position of the magnet will be found by solving this equation:

Fm(x) = Fs(x) ~= k*x (in the case of a linear spring)

So, because of the friction (in the bearings) and the energy losses (in the spring), the magnet will oscillate around and finally end up in this position ‘x’ (at a distance of ‘x’ from the vertical metallic wall).

Kind Regards,
Daniel


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=5#comment-955300

Daniel De Caluwé
May 13th, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Sorry, I have to do a small correction in my answer:

In my previous answer I wrote:

Fm(x) = Fs(x) ~= k*x (in the case of a linear spring)

But this must be changed as follows:

Fm(x) = Fs(x) ~= k*(dmax-x) (in the case of a linear spring)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=5#comment-955328

Wladimir Guglinski
May 13th, 2014 at 7:34 AM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in May 13th, 2014 at 5:39 AM

@Wladimir,

And the final equilibrium position of the magnet will be found by solving this equation:

Fm(x) = Fs(x) ~= k*x (in the case of a linear spring)

So, because of the friction (in the bearings) and the energy losses (in the spring), the magnet will oscillate around and finally end up in this position ‘x’ (at a distance of ‘x’ from the vertical metallic wall).
——————————————–

COMMENT:

Daniel,
this is what the Classical Physics tell us.
However the aether does not exist in the Classical Physics, and therefore the complete equation considering the contribution of the aether does not exist in your equation.

So, let us wait what the experiment will tell us till the end of June:

———————————————
Mark wrote in May 13th, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Wlad,

I did the thought experiment, and the results of the test made, could be positive but also could be negative.
I guess I have to wait till late June for something more solid.
———————————————-

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=5#comment-955892

Daniel De Caluwé
May 14th, 2014 at 4:31 PM

@Wladimir and Mark,

What I learned from some video’s (Bearden – Bedini) in the past, is that _maybe_ (if the mechanism is real and works and if you’re very lucky ;-) ) you can succeed in subtracting energy from the ether/aether (or the vacuüm), by using what Bearden and Bedini call ‘Tesla-impulse-networks’. So you need to work with (electro-magnetic) circuits where switches are used, and then you have to look for the right frequency of switching. There are Bearden-Bedini video’s where they realised to subtract energy from the ether/aether/vacuüm, by using electro-magnetic circuits with switches that are opened and closed at certain frequencies, and when you use the right circuits with the righ frequencies, then the energy from the ether/aether/vacuüm comes in. There even was a situation with an experiment of Bedini, where somebody noticed that the environment cooled, while loading a battery with what Bedini calls ‘radiant energy’ (energy from the ether/aether/vacuüm), and this behavior is quite opposite to the normal heating of circuits by the Joule-effect. So, although this is against all rules of classical physics, you maybe will find some effects, by using rapid switching. And then it all depends of the fine-tuning of the circuits… But again, untill it is proven and widely accepted, at the moment, this still is not established science…

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=846&cpage=5#comment-955955

Wladimir Guglinski
May 14th, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Daniel De Caluwé
May 14th, 2014 at 4:31 PM

@Wladimir and Mark,

What I learned from some video’s (Bearden – Bedini) in the past, is that _maybe_ (if the mechanism is real and works and if you’re very lucky ;-) ) you can succeed in subtracting energy from the ether/aether (or the vacuüm), by using what Bearden and Bedini call ‘Tesla-impulse-networks’. So you need to work with (electro-magnetic) circuits where switches are used, and then you have to look for the right frequency of switching.
—————————————————

Daniel,
the Figueiredo Motor does not use electro-magnetic circuits

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_magnet_motors_work

I had replicated the Figueiredo Motor, and it works

It uses basically a paper sheet (the rotor) and a magnet. The rotor gyrates.
It has not practical use, since the energy generated is very small.
However it is the proof that energy comes from somewhere not explained by Classical Physics.

The extraction of energy from the aether by using LENR or magnetism occurs via several different mechanisms.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=3#comment-963382

Daniel De Caluwé
June 3rd, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Dear dr. Rossi and Peter Forsberg,

About the strong influence of human activities in climate change, of which I am very much convinced, we better agree to disagree, because otherwise I could spend the rest of my life in these never ending discussions, but a few years ago I decided to stop with it and go further with more usefull things. ;-) So you’re on the good side, dr. Rossi, because by inventing and developping further your E-cat, you contribute to find a solution (for many problems, of course not only to reduce human influence in climate change), and that’s much better than spending ones time in endless discussions, like I did a few years ago… ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=3#comment-963396

Daniel De Caluwé
June 3rd, 2014 at 11:58 AM

@Peter Forsberg,

It is true that plant growth increases with increasing CO2 concentration, but the sees and the oceans, that were responsible for most of the uptake in the eighties and nineties, are becoming much more acidic by it, (which also changes the sea-life/algae and their influence on fish), and tend to reduce their uptake, that was bigger in the eighties than in the nineties, and on land there was a strong opposite influence because of deforestation. (See Table 2)

So yes, there was and is a considerable uptake (in the nineteens about half of the emissions was absorbed, but mainly by the oceans and the sees (that unfortunately became more acidic, with consequences on sea-life (algae) and fish stocks), but which tend to uptake less in the future (!), and the projected increase of CO2-uptake on land will far from neutralise the manmade emissions, and the uptake could very well decline over time, or turn into a source of net emissions, because there also is a real risk of
large-scale carbon release from forests (once existing forests – given the foreseen climate changes – will suddenly find themselves outside their proper climatic ranges), and more generally from the accelerated turnover of dead biomass caused by
increasing temperatures…

See also (I admit, old links, but given as an illustration) :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/planting-trees-wont-save/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debit-or-credit/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-reassess-carbo/

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030721/full/news030721-6.html

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/000420/full/news000420-12.html

But if you insist, I prefer to agree to disagree… ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=3#comment-963403

Daniel De Caluwé
June 3rd, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Dear dr. Fine,

Our respiration (inhaling of air and exhaling of CO2) is, what climate scientists call ‘CO2-neutral’, because the carbon we exhale, is coming from our food we took from the biosphere, so by exhaling it, we give back (to the biosphere) what we took via our food.

But compared to this and to the contrary, the burning of fossil fuels, is NOT CO2-neutral, because in that case, we take carbon from the underground, that didn’t take part anymore in the exchange in the biosphere for millions of years, and by burning these fossil fuels, we bring that ancient carbon back in the biosphere, so this is NOT CO2-neutral anymore… (And by bringing in that carbon from outside the biosphere, and burning it, there is a corresponging reduction (!) of the oxygen level in the atmosphere… ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=4#comment-963576

Daniel De Caluwé
June 4th, 2014 at 1:44 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

A little bit inspired by the words of Patrick Ellul in his recent message, I write this:

After 64 laps around the sun, and 25 laps after the first anouncement of “a sustained nuclear fusion reaction” by Fleischmann and Pons, I wish you many more laps around the sun, and especially a lot of succes and a great breakthrough (and the recognition for all your very hard work), in this your 65th lap, that started today.

Congratualtions!


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=4#comment-963583

Daniel De Caluwé
June 4th, 2014 at 2:12 AM

Dear dr. Rossi, I forgot something in my last message, therefore this correction:
(It has to be perfect, and therefore, if possible, you could delete my previous message and change it by this one):

Dear dr. Rossi,

Inspired by the words of Patrick Ellul in his recent message, I write this:

After 64 laps around the sun, and 25 laps after the first anouncement of “a sustained nuclear fusion reaction” by Fleischmann and Pons, I wish you many more laps around the sun, and especially a lot of success and a great breakthrough, and the recognition for all your very hard work, in this your 65th lap, that started today.

And because of this special occasion, I wish to dedicate a song from Bob Dylan to you:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs13ou_bob-dylan-forever-young_music

or

http://vimeo.com/39546541

And the beautifull text you can find here:

http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/forever-young

Congratualtions!


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=4#comment-963648

Andrea Rossi
June 4th, 2014 at 5:56 AM

Daniel De Caluwé:
I like Bob Dylan, thank you very much,
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848&cpage=5#comment-965652

Daniel De Caluwé
June 9th, 2014 at 10:00 AM

@Continuum Discretum,

Thank you for your very interesting message.

The ‘cute, white, living rabbit that comes out of a worn out, filthy hat’, is the synthesis (or new knowledge or consciousness), as the outcome of the conflict between thesis and anti-thesis, isn’t it? The theosofy of Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme also know this dialectics as the fundamental soul-ray of humanity (as a whole), called the 4th ray of ‘harmony through conflict’, that also explains the history of humanity… And it’s also interesting to know that, according to Benjamin Creme, Hegel, who developed the concept of dialectics, had a 4th ray soul… So yes, humanity and its science evolve in a dialectic way, also demonstrated on this forum, and hopefully ‘pulling a cute, white, living rabbit out of a worn out, filthy hat’ on every turn… ;-)


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=4#comment-977579

Daniel De Caluwé
July 15th, 2014 at 3:35 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

Regarding the discussion about public or private funding of LENR, I can image that, in your case, you got a lot of dishonnest competition from wannebee competitors that are payed by taxpayer money (public funding), or by people who don’t play it very honestly, and was that the reason why, in your answer to Lande (who gave examples of the necessity of public funding in other fields), you wrote that LENR is a totally different thing.

But why? I personally strongly believe that we, the people of the world (and we’re already with 7 billion on this globe, and we will be with 10 billion in 2050 or so), need very much LENR, because, (although there still are sceptics, especially in the United States), I studied very deeply the present climate change, and I know there is a problem (mainly caused by human activities), and also I know our nuclear power industry and its plants very well, and I know we need a better solution. So, as the present technologies are not good enough and could bring us in danger on the longer term (as well fossil fuels as present nuclear industry), do you agree that there should be (and probably will be an increasing) intrest and even demand from the public, maybe already in the near future? I personally think this will legitimate public funding, for the simple reason that the world needs it.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=4#comment-977739

Andrea Rossi
July 15th, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Daniel De Caluwè:
If a LENR system works, it does not need public funding. If anything that works well needs funding, money arrives from investors. Think to Microsoft, Apple, etc. There are things that need public funding because they are important but do not produce profit, or the perspective of profits are too much distant in time to make them appealing for capital investments; in those cases is necessary that governments make funding: for example CERN, the conquer of Space, things like these. But it is not the case of LENR.
This is my opinion, obviously it can be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=10#comment-987862

Daniel De Caluwé
August 15th, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Dear Readers,

Although dr. Rossi can explain the Rossi Effect with present quantum fields theory, and although he doesn’t need a revolution in science, on this forum and with the E-cat of dr. Rossi, we’re not only witnessing a big revolution in energy technology, but with the messages of dr. Guglinsky also a revolution in science, and I would suggest: mark these pages in your favourites: ;-)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=9#comment-987216

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=9#comment-987498

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=9#comment-987537

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=9#comment-987815

So, thank you very much to both!


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=10#comment-988688

Daniel De Caluwé
August 18th, 2014 at 2:48 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

As I also know for a very long time that you have something very valuable (based on all previous tests and all information we got so far), I agree completely with the last message of Hank Mills, so, if the results of the Third Party Test (nr. 2) and the results of the 1MW plant (tested at the site of a customer) would turn out to be ‘negative’, we on this forum all know that in that case, it could only be because of commercial reasons, but not because your technology doesn’t work or isn’t valuable for the world. And because of the human influence in the present climate change, and the fact that the present nuclear technology is not good enough (because of safety and environmental issues) the world needs your technology very badly! So, even if the results would be ‘negative’, we on this forum know that this could only be for commercial reasons, and that you already have a product that – in that case- is almost ready for the market, so you and/or other researchers have to go on with your R&D work than!


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=10#comment-988751

Andrea Rossi
August 18th, 2014 at 6:48 AM

Daniel De Caluwé:
I did not say that. The results could be positive or negative and the implications in both cases will be relevant. In what measure I am not able to say, will depend on the results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=10#comment-988797

Daniel De Caluwé
August 18th, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

The point I try to make is this:

Because of human influence in present climate change, and because of the fact that the present nuclear energy technology is not good enough (safety and environmental issues), and in the case the results of the tests (mentioned below) would be ‘negative’, and imagine (hypothetical) to the level that IH would decide to stop funding your work, it’s my opinion that you or someone else should go on with your work, even if that would mean with public money, and this just for the reason that the world needs your technology (or the further development of it in case of ‘negative’ results). And confronted with the environmental problems of present solutions (fossil fuels and present nuclear technology), and the limitations of others (wind and solar), and the fact that the world population rises quickly (at the moment 7 billion people, and in 2040 or 2050 maybe 10 billion people on this planet, who will ask for the same living standard as we have now), we maybe need a kind of Manhatten Project (for the further development of Cold Fusion, LENR and/or QUAR), and why not, financed by the UN? (The public worldwide interest is or could be bigger than the private interests, working via the free market, but that’s just my opinion ;-)

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=3#comment-1008741

Daniel De Caluwé
October 9th, 2014 at 4:00 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

I’ve read the Report. Also from Belgium, congratulations with this positive report! Again a big step! As I read them calculating the energy radiation and the convection, having to calculate and fill in all the parameters, I couldn’t supress a smile, because, of course, with this big amount of excess energy, for people with eyes to see and ears to hear, this was already obvious with the simple caloremetric tests that you did yourself. I personally even prefer a simple caloremetric test, with a cooling fluid, measuring the flow and the delta T (Temperature difference) because honestly, that’s less complicated. But ok, the scientifc world now has, back again, a very decent report, measuring and calculating the excess energy in a different way. Kind Regards, and a lot of further success with you work, and with the 1MW plant at the location of the customer.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=3#comment-1008947

Andrea Rossi
October 9th, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Daniel De Caluwé:
Thank you for your attention; in the report is explained well why the Professors preferred a direct measure of the energy instead of through a heat exchanger.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1014593

Daniel De Caluwé
October 22nd, 2014 at 7:07 AM

Wladimir,

I think dr. Rossi just does not want that you use his E-cat and his Rossi-effect, as an extra argument, that your theory could be right. He just says that he didn’t need a new theory to explain the Rossi-effect, and probably will not need a new theory in the future (to reconcile for the increase of the relative abundance of the NI62 isotope in the latest independent third party test).

But this does not mean that your theory is wrong or not interesting, because you rightly refer to the other phenomena, that have nothing to do with the Rossy effect, and that show that, indeed, something could be wrong with the present nuclear physics theory.

So, both could be right. And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).

P.S. You have to understand that, on this website of dr. Rossi, who can explain the Rossi effect with present physics, probably doesn’t want that people associate the Rossi-effect with exotic or still controversial science, but this does not mean that your theory is wrong, because it explains the other (non-Rossi-effect) phenomena.

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1014681

Wladimir Guglinski
October 22nd, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 7:07 AM

And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).
——————————-

Dear Daniel
the academicians always had an irrational resistance against a New Physics.

When in the end of the 19th Century the radioactivity of some elements was discovered, some young physicists understood that a New Physics was required.

But Lord Kelvin never accepted it. He refused to look at to the New Physics, because he loved so much the Old Physics.
Such irrational resistance can be understood, since old scientists passed all their life dedicated to the Old Physics, and it is hard to them to accept that their theories were developed under wrong foundations.

Even Planck did not understand well the repercutions of the discovery of his postulate. There was need a young mind to understand it, and finally Einstein interpreted the Planck discovery by proposing the idea of the quantum of light. However, Millikan spent 10 years trying to prove that Einstein’s idea of the quantum of light was wrong.

Now we are seeing the birth of a New Era, similar to that when the young physicists like Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, started to develop the Quantum Mechanics.

Along the last 5 years many new discoveries had pointed out that many phenomena are impossible to occur by considering the current principles of the Standard Physics.

And many other discoveries are coming.
Soon or later the physicists will realize that a New Physics is an unavoidable need, like in the beginning of the 20th Century the young physicists understood the need of the development of a New Physics, the Quantum Mechanics.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015146

orsobubu
October 23rd, 2014 at 3:55 PM

>if comments go beyond the first page they are lost

Ok, now finally we know that Dark Matter is mostly made of my spammed messages. :) I changed the address.

Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects. I could be wrong but perhaps there is another diplomatic possibility to reconcile Rossi’s, Guglinsky’s and your views. It is known that for applications of gravity at non-relativistic speeds, the Newtonian theory gives satisfactory results. Might be the case that the phenomena that take place within the Sword, especially for what really matters to Rossi, namely patents, industrialization, replicability, etc. can be explained by dosing “with a degree of flexibility” the standard theory without getting rid of it? In the future, certainly will exist a more comprehensive physical theory than the Standard, may be the QRT or another one, in the same way that, for gravity, there is the theory of Einstein explaining the acceleration at relativistic speeds. Inside this new theory, LENR in particular and in general all the other contradictory observed physical phenomena, would be explained in a more complete (though never definitive) manner, as Wlad wrote in his last post; this would mean that even the complete description of the Sword physics would need a proper place inside the new theory but, from the point of view of the explanation of the supposed transmutations, etc especially in regard to their engineering optimization, today it would not be strictly necessary to dig further theories, while the subset tools in the Standard one remain permanently valid for the revolutionary annihilation purposes of the Sword. Only my 2 cents.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015312

Peter Forsberg
October 24th, 2014 at 2:24 AM

Dear orsobubu,

You wrote:

“Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects. I could be wrong but perhaps there is another diplomatic possibility to reconcile Rossi’s, Guglinsky’s and your views. It is known that for applications of gravity at non-relativistic speeds, the Newtonian theory gives satisfactory results. Might be the case that the phenomena that take place within the Sword, especially for what really matters to Rossi, namely patents, industrialization, replicability, etc. can be explained by dosing “with a degree of flexibility” the standard theory without getting rid of it? In the future, certainly will exist a more comprehensive physical theory than the Standard, may be the QRT or another one, in the same way that, for gravity, there is the theory of Einstein explaining the acceleration at relativistic speeds. Inside this new theory, LENR in particular and in general all the other contradictory observed physical phenomena, would be explained in a more complete (though never definitive) manner, as Wlad wrote in his last post; this would mean that even the complete description of the Sword physics would need a proper place inside the new theory but, from the point of view of the explanation of the supposed transmutations, etc especially in regard to their engineering optimization, today it would not be strictly necessary to dig further theories, while the subset tools in the Standard one remain permanently valid for the revolutionary annihilation purposes of the Sword. Only my 2 cents.”

I believe you are right!

Regards

Peter Forsberg


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015342

Daniel De Caluwé
October 24th, 2014 at 4:05 AM

@Orsobubu,

You wrote: Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects.

My answer:Well, first: i) I don’t see the E-cat as ‘a sword’, and certainly not with ‘annihilation purposes’, but as a very beautifull, important and necessary invention of dr. Andrea Rossi; and ii) I did not say that it could fit inside the Standard Theory, but that I believe its inventer, dr. Rossi, when he says that, untill now, he can explain the Rossi-effect within the present Theory, but I’m also a big admirer of dr. Wladimir Guglinsky, who combines knowledge, physical insight and intuïtion (at a very high level) to formulate his QRT, that already explains certain phenomena that present theories don’t, so his QRT certainly is a candidate.

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015171

Daniel De Caluwé
October 23rd, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Here is an article about it:

Hubble Telescope Finds Ring of Dark Matter

It appears to be an exceptionel ring of dark matter, due to a collision between two clusters:

The team created simulations showing what happens when galaxy clusters collide. As the two clusters smash together, the dark matter, as calculated in the simulations, falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back out. As the dark matter moves outward, it begins to slow down under the pull of gravity and pile up, like cars bunched up on a freeway.

“By studying this collision, we are seeing how dark matter responds to gravity,” said team member Holland Ford, also of Johns Hopkins University. “Nature is doing an experiment for us that we can’t do in a lab, and it agrees with our theoretical models.”

Tracing dark matter is not an easy task because it does not shine or reflect light. Astronomers can detect its influence only by how its gravity affects light. To find dark matter, astronomers study how faint light from more distant galaxies is distorted and smeared into arcs and streaks by the gravity of the dark matter in a foreground galaxy cluster. This powerful phenomenon is called gravitational lensing. By mapping the distorted light, astronomers can deduce the cluster’s mass and trace how dark matter is distributed in the cluster.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news98450367.html#jCp


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015185

Andrea Rossi
October 23rd, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Daniel De Caluwé:
Very interesting, isnt it?
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=8#comment-1015329

Daniel De Caluwé
October 24th, 2014 at 3:43 AM

Dear Andrea,

You wrote: Very interesting, isnt it?

My answer: Yes, and especially the way they detect it, is very interesting, and I agree with you where you wrote that it is now more difficult to say that dark matter does not exist.

Kind Regards


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=1#comment-1020568

Daniel De Caluwé
November 4th, 2014 at 7:05 AM

Dear dr. Rossi,

Did you try Cr instead of Ni, as suggested by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, the author of the article? And if yes, was the result positive? (Of course, I understand when you don’t want to answer this question because of protection of IP).

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=1#comment-1020584

Andrea Rossi
November 4th, 2014 at 7:49 AM

Daniel De Caluwé:
As you correctly say, I cannot give information about this issue, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=1#comment-1020636

Daniel De Caluwé
November 4th, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Dear Joe,

I’ve read your interesting contribution about Konstantin Meyl, and your suggestion that, maybe, free energy is involved in the working of the E-cat, but what about the gas driven E-Cat, where probably, a magnetic induction is not used anymore? If a gas driven E-cat works, without magnetic induction, there should be another explanation, isn’t it?

Kind Regards,

P.S. I appreciated very much your interaction with Wladimir on this forum, and I want to thank both of you for it.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1020778

Joe
November 4th, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Daniel,

Thank you for your kind words, and for reading the article by Prof Meyl.

I think tunneling is a strong candidate for the central process occurring in the E-Cat.
Two reasons are the following:

1. The hot spots on the E-Cat resemble vortex losses in a capacitor as explained by Prof Meyl. (Compare Fig 12 in the article by Prof Meyl with images of the large vertical E-Cat when not running.) And electric capacitance can be used instead of magnetic induction to create an oscillating charge density and near-field waves, to answer your question.

2. The lack of radiation from the E-Cat can be explained by re-absorption which is typical behaviour in near-field radiation. Some radiation does emerge though as EM waves.

All the best,
Joe


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1020914

Daniel De Caluwé
November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM

@JR,

Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).

Kind Regards,


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021095

Wladimir Guglinski
November 5th, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM

@JR,

Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
—————————-

Dear Daniel
I avoided to call it centrifugal force because the centrifugal force does not exist, I was sure Mr. JR would use it so that to refuse my argument.

.

=============================================
JR wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 7:31 AM

Dear Daniel,

If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.
——————————————

Therefore, according to Mr. Jr,
when a Formula 1 driver makes a turn too fast, instead of being vented out of the curve, the car is pulled towards the center of curvature … ha ha ha

My God …
… then the designers of Formula 1 tracks are crazy, because they put barricades and tires on the outside of the track, to protect against car crashes.

According to Mr. JR, the designers had to put these barricades on the inside of the runway, so cars do not be thrown into the center of the trajectory …
ha ha ha

Dear Mr. JR
your lack of knowledge of elementary physics is awesome.

In spite of the centrifugal force is a fictitious force, however due to the rotation of the nucleus the protons and neutrons are submitted to the tendency to be expelled from the nucleus, due to the INERTIA of their motion.

The protons and neutrons try to continue in a straight TANGENTIAL trajectory, and the strong nuclear force on the protons and neutrons have to avoid they be expelled from the nucleus by such INERTIA

This tendency due to the INERTIA is vulgarly known as centrifugal force. Within the nuclei the INERTIA is contrary to the strong nuclear force.

The value of such INERTIA tendency is Fc = m.V²/R, and (as I have shown here) it is at least 10 times of magnitude stronger than the strong nuclear force.

Therefore, the strong nuclear force cannot avoid the protons and neutrons to be expelled from the nucleus, because the action of the INERTIA on them is 10 times stronger.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021155

Wladimir Guglinski
November 5th, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM

@JR,

Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
—————————————–

Daniel,
let me explain it by an easy words.

Suppose you take a string and you tie a stone with mass “m” in its end.
And you put the stone moving with circular trajectory with speed V and radius R around your hand.

The stone tries to escape, applying a force on the string. So, you have to apply a force on the string, otherwise the stone go away with the string.

The force of the stone is given by Fc = m.V²/R.
Let us call it centrifugal force (note that, in spite of it is ficticious, however it is able to cause the rupture of a string, because it is actually due to the inertia of the stone, and the inertia is no ficticious).

The string is able to support a force Fs.

If the speed of the stone increases so much, the centrifugal force Fc will be stronger than the force Fs of the string, and the string will have a rupture, and the stone will go away.

Now let us apply it to the nucleus, as follows:

1- The stone plays the role of a proton

2- The string plays the role of the strong nuclear force

The strong nuclear force must be stronger than the centrifugal force Fc , otherwise the proton will move away, leaving the nucleus.

I showed by calculation that with a speed 10% of the light speed, the centrifugal force Fc on the proton is 500N, while the Coulomb force is 50N.

In the distance of 2fm (the radius of the nucleus 2He4), the Coulomb repulsion has the same magnitude of the strong nuclear force ( 50N ).

Therefore we conclude that the centrifugal force on the proton is 10 times stronger than the strong nuclear force.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021205

Wladimir Guglinski
November 5th, 2014 at 6:08 PM

On the ficticious centrifugal force

Dear Daniel De Caluwé

As the centrifugal force is ficticious, how can it cause the rupture of a string ?

Let me explain it.

Suppose you wishes to cause the rupture of a string A with your two hands. So, we have to apply on the string A two contrary forces with your hands, in order to cause its rupture.

Now let us to do an analogy with the case of a stone moving in circular orbit tied to the end of a string B, while you hold the other end with your hand.

With analogy to the rupture of the string A with your two hands (where two contrary forces are applied), it seems that two contrary forces must be applied on the ends of the string B. One force is applied by your hand, and the other force is applied by the stone (the centrifugal force, acting in contrary direction of the force applied by your hand).

Before the rupture of the string B, the force applied by the stone and the force applied by your hand must be equal (since the string was not disrupted).

But let us analyse it by applying Newton’s law. As the string B is submitted to two contrary and equal forces, the resultant on the string B is zero, and therefore it must be at rest (or to move in rectilinear motion).
So,
the centrifugal force does not exist, it is ficticious.

There is only one force: it is the force applied by your hand. And what is done by this force?
Well, in each fraction of time such force applied by your hand changes the direction of the stone motion. In other words, you need to apply a force (transmited by the string B to the stone) in order to change every time the direction of the motion of the stone.

In general, when we have to analyse a phenomenon in which a body has circular motion, the use of the centrifugal force simplifies the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon. In other words, in spite of we know that the centrifugal force is ficticious, however we use to consider its action, so that to simplify the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon.

But sometimes, along a discussion, often we find people like Mr. JR, and they adopt the strategy of refuting our arguments, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious. In this case, there are two situations:

1- The person uses this sort of argument because he does not understand the discussion

2- He uses this sort of argument with bad intent, in order to cause confusion to peoples who are reading the debate. By this way, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious and does not exist, he tries to convince the listeners that he is right, and his opposer is wrong.

So, each reader here has to conclude himself what is the case of our friend Mr. JR.
I simply wash my hands.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021208

Daniel De Caluwé
November 5th, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Dear Wladimir,

It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ ;-) ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond ;-)

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021220

Wladimir Guglinski
November 5th, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Daniel De Caluwé
November 5th, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Dear Wladimir,

It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ ;-) ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond ;-)
——————————————–

Daniel
we are not speaking about atoms.
We are speaking about nuclei.

The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).

On the Rotation of the Atomic Nucleus
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.53.778

Wikipedia:
Therefore there are several possible answers for the nuclear magnetic moment, one for each possible combined l and s state, and the real state of the nucleus is a superposition of them. Thus the real (measured) nuclear magnetic moment is somewhere in between the possible answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_moment

A simple model for nuclear rotation at high angular momenta
Abstract
A simple solvable model of particles coupled to a rotor is introduced. The solutions illustrate some properties of the nucleus rotating with high angular momentum.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269371900578

Single-Particle and Collective Aspects of Nuclear Rotation
The spectra of rapidly rotating nuclei reveal two distinct components in the build up of the total angular momentum, corresponding to collective rotation and alignment of orbital angular momentum of individual particles. Various aspects of the interplay of these two mechanisms are discussed. The pattern of collective excitations built upon an yrast state of aligned particle motion is analyzed on the basis of a simple model. For the strongly deformed nuclei, the relative contribution of alignment and collective rotation is characterized by two different moments of inertia referring to the yrast envelope and the collective bands. The behaviour of these moments in the transition region from superfluid to normal phase is considered. Finally, some of the consequences of the build up of angular momentum by alignment and collective rotation are considered for the region of the highest spins, where pair correlations are expected to play a minor role.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/24/1B/001

Chirality of nuclear rotation
FIG. 1. The discrete symmetries of the mean field of a rotating triaxial reflection symmetric nucleus (three mirror planes). The axis of rotation (z) is marked by the circular arrow. It coincides with the angular momentum~J.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0001038.pdf

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=2#comment-1021387

Daniel De Caluwé
November 6th, 2014 at 3:41 AM

Dear Wladimir,

You wrote: Daniel, we are not speaking about atoms. We are speaking about nuclei. The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).

My answer: Yes, I agree, we spoke about the rotation of the nucleus of the atom and not of the atom itself. I realised my mistake after I posted my previous message, but I did not correct it anymore. So my remark about the rotation of the nucleus when the atom is chemically bound (via electrosphere), was a stupid one, because the nucleus still rotates within the atom even when it is chemically bond (via the electrosphere) isn’t it? And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=3#comment-1021689

Wladimir Guglinski
November 6th, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 6th, 2014 at 3:41 AM

Dear Wladimir,

And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!
—————————————

Daniel,
and the situation becomes worst when some nuclei are excited. Their rotation is so fast that it causes the deformation of the nucleus.

See the figure at left in the title Recent physical results of the article High-spin physics ISP.
In the figure we see that a spheric nucleus is deformed when it is excited getting a high-spin, and there is a changing in the spheric shape: the nucleus takes the shape of an elipsoid, under the action of the centrifugal force:

Recent physical results
First evidence of magnetic rotation in nuclei around mass A = 80
“The conventional concept of nuclear rotation is based on the existence of a deformed mass distribution of the nucleus (see left figure).”
https://www.hzdr.de/FWK/MITARB/rs/highspin.html

Therefore,
under very fast nuclear rotation, the magnitude of the centrifugal force on protons and neutrons is very larger than that of the strong nuclear force (as calculated by me here in the JoNP).
Note that the nucleus is deformed due to the fast rotation, and therefore the excited high-spin nuclei would have to be desintegrated under the action of the centrifugal force, if protons and neutrons were bound via the strong nuclear force.

Nevertheless, those excited high-spin nuclei survive, and it means that the strong nuclear force is not the responsible for the nucleus aggregation.

regards
wlad


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=8#comment-1027410

Daniel De Caluwé
November 22nd, 2014 at 7:23 PM

@Wladimir Guglinski,
@Andrea Calaon,

Wow, I’m impressed! Calaon-Guglinski very convincing to me!

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=864&cpage=8#comment-1027435

Wladimir Guglinski
November 22nd, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 22nd, 2014 at 7:23 PM

@Wladimir Guglinski,
@Andrea Calaon,

Wow, I’m impressed! Calaon-Guglinski very convincing to me!
——————————-

Daniel,
it seems I have now two Andreas in my life

regards
wlad