Rossi Blog Reader

This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.

• Need more context? We also have Rossi's entire blog on a single page.
• You can also keep an eye on Defkalion's latest postings to their forums.
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics

  1. Eric Ashworth

    To Wladimir and Joe, Thanks for your reply to my questions regarding QE. I will be following your comments which I enjoy on this blog. The subject of aether regarding its existence is, I believe, an important missing link in physics which if ever proven will provide major advances in the understanding of a complex subject. My understanding of aether is that it is a grainy substance with no gravity value because it lacks a dimension of volume but represents a value of size energy i.e. not volume energy. It will respond to gravity because gravity has to sit within a volume. Maybe aether can only make so much volume energy/ matter within a given volume and any remaining aether has to fill the empty space between the manufactured volumes and thereby the free aether will never be at rest as it takes straight line projectories to cover as much distance in the shortest possible time. Could it be posible that if you split a rotating object then the two rotating objects will by means of the free aether be able to re-create its missing partner if it only needs one or two aethers. Could this explain the Gabriela experiment or am I completely off the mark. Regards Eric Ashworth

  2. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    As you know, I already answered to you regarding this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  3. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In considering the size of the nickel particles, it seems to me there must be an optimal nickel particle average diameter for the Rossi effect to work for industrial applications such as the Hot eCat. Assuming the eCat reactor is at temperature with the internal fuel close to but less than the melting point of nickel, then too small a nickel particle diameter and the particle will melt due to the nuclear event. Likewise, since the LENR effect appears to be a function of surface area, too large of a particle diameter will reduce the likelihood of an LENR effect. So there must be a “sweet zone” for the Rossi effect in terms of nickel particle size. Do you agree?

  4. Andrea Rossi

    Dan C.:
    Thank you for your intelligent comment. Obviously you refer to the Hot Cat. As a matter of fact the issue you raised is correct, anyway the images you have seen were not related to an industrial plant, but to a bench prototype.
    Thank you for your attention and your suggestion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  5. Dan C.

    DR. Rossi

    From images I’ve seen, it appears you still employ the flange on the reactor with the studs protruding out.

    This would indicate that the reactor would be positioned inside a boiler with the flange pressing against the wall squeezing the seal tight against that wall. As opposed to the flange being on the outside pressing the seal apart when under pressure & increasing the odds of springing a leak. Or worse, the reactor being jettisoned like a safety plug should the studs break off.

    Could one assume then that with the above configuration of the reactor mounted to the inner wall of the boiler, that the reactor core itself can be removed through the center of the flange without removal of the outer casing. This could involve just the hermetically sealed charge/insert or include the resistor coils imbedded in the ceramic insert should they need checked or replaced.

    I ask because in a comment you posted “When charges have to be changed the system is fast.”
    This configuration would be fast & possibly even done without shutting down the entire system to change a single dead reactor.

    Also with this design, The outer reactor shell could be built robust enough to last years or decades & become a physical part of the boiler. The reactor itself would then just be the core charge & resistor assembly.

  6. NCY

    Would it be possible to hook up a thermoelectric generator to an Ecat (with the Ecat as the heat source), produce electricity and with the aid of a small battery for a buffer, loop the electricity back into the Ecat for a demonstration device? Thermoelectic seems the simplest for this as they commonly have efficiencies of 5-8% which may be plenty for this application.
    NCY

  7. Andrea Rossi

    NCY:
    Any electric energy source is good for the E-Cat drive, provided :
    1- it must be alternate current ( the E-Cat cannot work with direct current)
    2- it must be e very elastic source, due to the control system technology
    3- it must have an efficiency enough to save the economic convenience of the E-Cat
    For these reasons the integration of the Seebeck Effect with the so called Rossi Effect does not work: so far the efficiency of the Seebeck Effect is too low ( max 5%, more likely 3%, minus the loss to convert DC into AC).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  8. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    Do you think that gas will substitute electric power to make the E-Cats work?
    I noticed all your public tests have been made using electricity.
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  9. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    We have an R&D section working on gas activated E-Cats, and I think we will be able to resolve the problems we have.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  10. JCRenoir

    Did you ever make experiments to treat with the Rossi Effect radioactive wastes from thermonuclear plants? There are rumors you did .
    JCRenoir

  11. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    Yes, with inconclusive results.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  12. Joseph Fine

    AR,

    Sorry. I sent the plot/picture of High Entropy Alloys without the article. The link to the original article is below.

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/09/04/a-metallic-alloy-that-is-tough-and-ductile-at-cryogenic-temperatures/

    Joseph Fine

  13. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you, useful link.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  14. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Can you explain better the “five sigma” thing?
    JCRenoir

  15. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    The classic example is the case of flipping a coin: you have a 50% chance that it will be face 1 and 50% that it will be face 2. Obviously if you flip 100 times the coin, it is unlikely you get 50 F1 and 50 F2, most likely you will get 45-55 times either one face or the other: this interval 45-55 is in this example “sigma 1″; means that if you find from 45 through 55 times a face flipping 100 times, there is no event at all, because it is normal. If a stretch of 10 is sigma 1, we will have a stretch of 20 = sigma 2, a stretch of 30= sigma 3, a stretch of 40= sigma 4, a stretch of 50= sigma 5; this means that the higher the value of sigma, the higher the possibility that there is something, that you are looking for, that makes a work: in the case of the coin, can be a trick that makes the coin fraudolent, in case of Physics can be a force that breaks the symmetry or something else. If you get a sigma 5 the probability that there is a break of the normality is very close to be certain ( in Physics nothing is certain, everything has a higher or lower grade of probability).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  16. Roberto

    Dear Andrea, two questions:
    The current international situation is affecting the delay of the report release?
    Without Focardi and the fantastic Italian academic world made ​​of humble people would have the E-Cat existed ?
    Regards, Roberto

  17. Andrea Rossi

    Roberto:
    I do not see how the current international situation could affect the report release. The Report of the ITP has been delayed by nothing but the necessity of a proper review. All Physicists know that the publication of an important paper can take from 6 to 12 months.
    Prof. Sergio Focardi has given a strong help to the development of the E-Cat.
    Many Professors from the Italian academic world have given an important contribution. The E-Cat is the result of an international team work without which the E-Cat probably could not have been born.

  18. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    Just saw this article on high-entropy alloys.

    The article only focused on cryogenic applications, but these materials may also have exceptional properties in high temperature applications.

    You may find these materials of some use in your R & D.

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/Rob-Ritchie-alloys-paper.jpg

    http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/12/5338 (Click on PDF; Open Access)

    High-Entropy regards,

    Joseph Fine

  19. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you, useful information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  20. Curiosone

    We are now going toward the period of the Christmas gifts, and books are among the more donated gifts: which book would you suggest to give as a gift in the LENR neighbourhood?
    W.G.

  21. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Sigma can be two different things:
    1- a boson of the family of Barions, inside the Hadron system. Is a virtual particle, can have positive, neutral and negative charge.
    2- a probabilistic interval that measures statistically the probability that an event is real: for example, sigma 1 makes the extraordinary event unlikely, sigma five makes the event close to certain.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  22. Curiosone

    What is “sigma” in nuclear physics?
    W.G.

  23. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Norman Cook ” Models of the Atomic Nucleus”, 2nd edition, Springer, 2010
    Is a gold mine.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  24. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    In Russia we have enormous reserves of gas: do you think we can take advantage from the E-Cats using gas?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  25. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    About the Gabriela’s experiment I finally got the setup schema:
    i.imgur.com/nwHb1qp.jpg
    The red line is the infrared path while the yellow line is the red light path. Yeah, a bit confusingly…
    It is very different from what I imagined from the article you posted here, there are not the two arms to apply my suggestions.
    Now I have some doubts that asked her (and still waiting for reply)
    1) What happens if NL2 is put before D2 (after b)?
    2) Why do you need to put the infrared beam (that hit O) before NL2?
    3) Whats happens if you reduce the distance between D3 and D2?
    I thing that you should maintain some reasonable doubt about this experiment till Gabriela answers these questions.

  26. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    If I well understood your thinking, the photon behaviour approaching a polarizer should be deterministic (its sub-particles have a determined distance between them) and not probabilistic (as QM says).
    So what should happen when a laser beam of vertically polarized photons approach a 45degree polarizer (or a beam splitter)?
    According to a deterministic approach all photons should get the same way…
    But experimental results say they get two different ways: 50% pass and 50% absorbed (or deviated in a beam splitter).
    Have I missed something?
    How your model explains the different behaviour of identical photons (same polarization)?
    I think that this is the core concept of QM, we must agree on this point before discussing about entanglement or Aspect experiment.

  27. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    This is an issue to be assessed by the publisher. The publication will not be made by us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  28. timycelyn1

    Dear Andrea,
    now that the 1MW plant has been delivered to your Customer, are you able to return to focusing your attention on the rest of the research you are pursuing, or does the 1MW plant still take up your time?

    Best wishes

    Tim

  29. Andrea Rossi

    Timycelyn1:
    I will have to control the operation of the 1 MW plant closely, but also participate to the R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  30. Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, when the ITP2 will be released, we can imagine an huge number of requests for the paper at the same time, and the web server could be overloaded, becoming unavailable.
    Are your IT guys aware on this issue?

    Best regards
    Alessandro Coppi

  31. Wladimir Guglinski

    Discussion on entanglement in the JoNP blog posted in ZPEnergy:

    http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3571

    .

  32. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    This issue has been described in the Patent granted to Andrea Rossi in Italy with priority April 2008.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  33. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The 1 MW units do not carry transportation troubles.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  34. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Of course small units are a viable option; the choice to limit the market to big units is dictated by commercial strategies integrated with IP issues. The destiny of the E-Cat is to be produced, if it works, in a mass of small and big models: your comment matches with Argon’s I answered to few minutes ago.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  35. Argon

    Dear Andrea! I respect your inventing merit and copyright. However, i would like to see alive the Rossi-Focardy effects creation of energy in the Ni-H systems and show this fact for my friends and students. Even simple and without the resources to long working model of a power of several watts. As an example, is a model internal combustion engine for school . They twisted and smoked, they can be taken apart and repaired, but for commercial engines are not competitors in any case, and not threatened anybody’s patents or business. Also the question of finance for the purchase of large E-сat will be perceived our potential sponsors much closer after meeting with the current model

  36. Andrea Rossi

    Argon:
    If and when the so called Rossi Effect will be produced in millions of apparatuses, it will be available universally as a car engine today. At the time of Dr Diesel it was not so easy to have engines, even small, in a classroom…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  37. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,

    Can you please explain now, after a few years, the reason why 1 MW was the minimum size of output that you offered to customers ?
    As people know, the (original) 1MW plant consists of modules of +/- 30kW.

    Since your R&D allows to have better control on the Rossi-Effect, nowadays it may be possible to have a continuous and guaranteed output with units smaller than 1 MW. Do you think that smaller units are a viable option ?

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  38. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Good news about the movement of the 1MW plant from your factory to the customers’ factory! Is transporting the plant a difficult procedure? I hope it is not something that is easily damaged.

    Best wishes,

    Frank

  39. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It seems to me there must be an optimal size for the nickel particles used in the Rossi effect. I suppose too large a particle and the surface area effect decreases. Too small a particle and the small particle melts by the generate energy before the thermal energy can be conducted away. Comments?

  40. Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    The 1 MW plant is in the factory of a Customer of IH. As far as I know, the Customer will not allow any video for the time being. IH has not jurisdiction in the factories of the Customers as for what is related to videos to be published. Eventually specific visits, as I already said, will be allowed, but it is too soon to talk about this. Report of the ITP: I do not think it will take too long before the publication, but this is just a supposition of mine.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Presently the manufacturing is made in the USA. I am not informed about a dislocation. In the USA you can find very skilled and efficient employees at any level.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You say that E-Cat production will be an international concern — do you expect to be manufacturing E-Cat plants outside the United States? If so, where do you anticipate production facilities will be located?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  43. Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    ‘If’ the report is positive, will you be able to supply at least some video or a photo of the new 1MW plant running to release at the same time

    At the very least, it will give the media a nice video-bite to play on the news? Perhaps you could speak with IH marketing (although I would hope they have thought of this already)!

    I really hope the report is released soon, I’m getting far too anxious! :)

  44. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Can you share with your readers any information about progress or setbacks in the effort to integrate the e-cat into a gas turbine aircraft powerplant?

    Thanks

    Bob

  45. Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    Yes, this is an issue on course in our R&D program. When we will have results worth to be communicated, we surely will give information. So far we are distant from valid results, honestly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  46. Andrea Rossi

    Thomas Florek:
    Yes, I have known William Mc Donough in the factory of IH in Raleigh, and he explained to me the cradle-to-cradle concept. Very smart guy and a brilliant speaker. I agree with the basics of his philosophy.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  47. Curiosone

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    Do you think that the study of Astrophysics can be useful for the LENR?
    W.G.

  48. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Yes, see for example the work of Raiola cited in the paper Focardi-Rossi. Astrophysics are an infinite source of information. Did you see the photos of the Universe published by NASA? What a wonderful thing!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  49. Hello Andrea,

    Recently people who follow news about the ECat have been discussing William McDonough, who has collaborated with Tom Darden in various projects. Mr. McDonough’s “Cradle-to-Cradle” site encourages industry to develop and enrich ecosystems (as opposed to minimizing harm).

    It would seem to be a Phenomenological approach to the industrial process.

    Are you familiar with William McDonough’s work such as “Cradle-to-Cradle”?

  50. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    I am very sorry, but whatever I say could be wrong and if I give just a guess, it could be taken as an information.
    I do not think it will take long, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  51. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    No, we made the control systems by our electronic engineers. We designed and produced all the control system inside our factory.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  52. DTravchenko

    Another question:
    Are there women in the ITP?
    DT

  53. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    I will continue my R&D work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  54. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi:
    What you will do if the results of the Independent Third Party will be positive?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  55. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    Yes, one. She is a nuclear physicist.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  56. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    I do not know, sorry.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  57. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Do you think the TRP has been completed, or do you think it is still being worked on?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  58. JCRenoir

    Please, Dr Rossi: is there a term upon which you could bet 1$ for the publication of the Independent Third Party Report?

  59. JCRenoir

    Are the control systems of the 1MW plant made by some specialist like National Instruments or similar?

  60. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 10th, 2014 at 6:25 AM

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Only for sake of truth, the “simple” explanation is based on QM, the “less simple” is a complete reformulation of phisics from the fundamentals as you ask, so in contrast with QM and Relativity. ======================================

    Dear Silvio,
    by reformulation of physics I mean from fundamentals agree to the logic.
    In my oppinion go back in the time is not agree to logic.

    I dont see advantage in replacing an old theory as Quantum Mechanics, developed from some absurd postulates as the Bohr Principle of Complementarity, by other new theory developed from new absurd postulates.

    regards
    wlad

  61. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 10th, 2014 at 12:35 AM

    Wladimir,

    Since you believe that aether and space are identical with each other, how would it be possible for you to know that there is a greater density of aether near a star since the measuring rod that exists near the star is contracted due to gravity to the same degree that aether is condensed? In other words, the greater density would look average (d=1) when measured using a contracted rod. (The only solution, of course, is to consider space as nonphysical and therefore beyond the influence of physical processes.)
    =============================================

    Joe,
    the fact that the physical properties of the aether cannot be measured by experiments does not mean that they do not exist.
    It is only a limitation of the technology available.

    Michelson did not succeed to detect the existence of the aether with his experimment, but today new experiments made via new technologies are proving its existence.

    regards
    wlad

  62. Roberto

    Dear Andrea, thanks for the answer
    obviously, as Italian this makes me very sad and disappointed, you are our new gioconda that gets out of hand.
    Roberto

  63. Andrea Rossi

    Nero of Florence:
    R&D and ITP work are both on course: the results are still pending and at last could be either positive or negative.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  64. Nero_of_Florence

    Dear Andrea, always you are telling of “negative or positive” … This is good for ITP and NDA, but… you must know how the e_cats – warm and hot ;-) – operate and what they are producing… What about this? I think you may be more affermative… all in your clear responsability… I apologize for my poor english and… good luck for your R&D… and busyness!

  65. Carlo Marcena

    I do not think that AR will be served a Golden Tapire …

    Warm Regards,
    CM

  66. silvio caggia

    @joe
    For sake of truth, in Reciprocal System time is ONLY an ASPECT of motion, 3Dtime is a deduction from postulates, not an ad hoc postulate. Material sector (3Dspace+clock time) and Cosmic sector (3Dtime+clock space) are ONLY PROJECTIONS. As you say Time and Space are mental objects. The only real thing is Motion.

  67. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    …, but if the results will be negative, the Golden Tapire will be served to me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  68. Giuliano Bettini

    Roberto:
    eventually, I think, if the results are positive, Italy will receive a “golden tapir”, to have lost an opportunity.
    http://nonciclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Tapiro_d‘oro.jpg
    Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  69. Giuliano Bettini

    Roberto:
    sorry, I don’t think so. :(
    Giuliano Bettini.

  70. Roberto

    Dear Andrea,
    As italian, I’ll give you a very direct question, Italy will have a direct and tangible benefit from your new technology compared to other countries?
    Roberto

  71. Andrea Rossi

    Roberto:
    If the results of the R&D and tests on course will be positive, the development of this technology will be based on an international concern. I must invite you to remind that the results could also be negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  72. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Only for sake of truth, the “simple” explanation is based on QM, the “less simple” is a complete reformulation of phisics from the fundamentals as you ask, so in contrast with QM and Relativity. Regards

  73. Joe

    Wladimir,

    Since you believe that aether and space are identical with each other, how would it be possible for you to know that there is a greater density of aether near a star since the measuring rod that exists near the star is contracted due to gravity to the same degree that aether is condensed? In other words, the greater density would look average (d=1) when measured using a contracted rod. (The only solution, of course, is to consider space as nonphysical and therefore beyond the influence of physical processes.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  74. Joe

    Silvio,

    Let us assume that time is physical.
    In that case, it would be described as linear since we observe events evolving in one temporal direction. But a linear dimension also implies a potential negative direction – a going backwards in time. But since we do not observe such a backwards evolution of events, we can safely and scientifically (since science is based on observation) conclude that time is therefore not a linear dimension. And what is more, if it is not a linear dimension, it is most certainly not an entity consisting of three linear dimensions. The Reciprocal System by Larson is really just an enforced symmetry on what we popularly call 3D space and 1D time, rendering a 3D time and 1D space. But such an act is gratuitous, a mere concoction that will most certainly fail in predicting physical phenomena. Any theory that is solid is derived from first principles – built from the bottom up. The Reciprocal System was built in a lateral movement – a horizontal work rather than the needed vertical one.

    All the best,
    Joe

  75. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- I am not involved in this
    4- we are considering how to prepare certified operators: this is an important issue
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  76. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    1 – Are there any E-Cat reactors in China at this time?

    2 – As Chief Scientist, do you get to choose who is hired to head the Chinese research project?

    3 – Where will the funding for the Chinese research project originate?

    4 – Have you considered opening an E-Cat acadamy for when the tech starts entering the market in a big way? Those who enrolled could study theory, operation of reactors, construction, safety, etc. Then they could be certified to work E-Cat related jobs in manufacturing, maintenance, servicing, inspecting, etc. I’d be interested in enrolling.

    Thank you.

  77. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 12:10 AM

    The two objects must have the same identical resonance. What would Wladimir think of this. As I have said this subject is fascinating. Regards Eric Ashworth
    =========================================

    Eric,
    my friend Dr. Claudio Nassif is the author of a new version for the Theory of Relativity, by introducing the concept the aether in the Einstein’s theory.

    Nassif already published 4 papers in the most prestigious journals of Physics, as for instance in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

    His theory is named Symmetric Special Relativity – SSR.

    In his theory Nassif shows that there is in the aether a sort of propagation of longitudinal waves with speed several times faster than the speed of light. They can cross the universe in few seconds.

    And Nassif supposed that such very fast interaction could be the cause of the entanglement in the Alain Aspect experiment.

    However such explanation supposed by Nassif cannot work, because such very fast interaction propagates itself LONGITUDINALLY along the aether.

    But in order to change the polarization of a photon there is need to apply a rotation in the photon. In order words, there is need to change the angular momentum. But the longitudinal propagations faster than light are not able to produce a change in the angular momentum of a photon, because they are longitudinal.

    That’s why your idea (similar to that supposed by Nassif) cannot explain the “apparent” entanglement in the Alain Aspect experiment.

    regards
    wlad

  78. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 12:10 AM

    The two objects must have the same identical resonance. What would Wladimir think of this. As I have said this subject is fascinating. Regards Eric Ashworth
    =========================================

    Eric,
    the polarization of a photon cannot be changed via resonance with other photon

    regards
    wlad

  79. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    @joe
    Quantum Entanglement has interesting explanations at the cost that you exit from the mainstream phisics…
    A “simple” explanation is that the entangled particles are connected THRU time… you find details in Transactional Interpretation o QM by John Cramer.
    A “less simple” explanation is that space and time are not phisical containers but only aspects of the real constituent of whole universe: scalar motion. We live in a projection of scalar motion in a 3D space+clock time reference system, but there is also a reciprocal 3Dtime+clock space reference system… You find details in Reciprocal System of theory by Larson.
    ================================================

    COMMENT

    Silvio,
    500 years ago Galileo said that science and logic cannot be divorced. If somebody creates a theory divorced to logic, you can be sure that his theory is wrong, because the Nature does not work divorced to logic.

    The problem of Modern Physics started when Einstein proposed a theory divorced to logic, where an empty space can have contraction and dilation.
    Following the Einstein’s example, the creators of the Quantum Mechanics, lead by Heisenberg, developed a theory divorced to logic too, because they supposed be impossible to create a theory in the field of quantum physics compatible with the logic.

    The origin of the crisis in the Modern Physics was the empty space proposed by Einstein.
    Because of the elimination of the physical space (aether) in the Theoretical Physics, many hidden mechanisms used by the Nature in the production of the phenomena were neglected by the theorists. And this is the reason why many of them used the desperate resource of trying crazy theoretical solutions.

    So, the physicists were induced to believe that Nature is no logic, and such conclusion opened the door for all the sort of theories based on several crazy hypothesis.

    In such a panorama, along the years, when a new paradox appeared defying the current theories, the theorist used to propose solutions divorced to the logic.

    Many experiments published along the 5 last years are showing that Quantum Mechanics was developed from wrong foundations. And the experiment published by the journal Nature in 2011 showed that Einstein’s theory of empty space is wrong.

    Therefore,
    it is not now the time to keep the crazy solutions adopted by some theorists along the years with the aim to explain paradoxes not solved via the current Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, because all those crazy solutions are based on the wrong foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

    It is now the time of starting everything again, from the zero, by introducing the concept of aether in the Relativity, and by introducing several new principles missing in the Quantum Mechanics.
    This is the only way.

    The Nature is not crazy.
    But crazy theories sometimes are proposed when some theorists develop them by starting up from the assumption that Nature is crazy.

    regards
    wlad

  80. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 9th, 2014 at 12:21 PM

    Wladimir,

    Aether (physical) and space (mental) are not identical with each other. How can you ascertain the dilation or contraction, i.e. the change in density, of aether without a FIXED space in which the aether could operate, and against which the aether could be measured?
    =======================================================

    Joe,
    I call density d=1 of the aether those regions far away of the presence of matter (for instance, the intergalactic space between stars).

    The density of the aether around a star could be established via the gravitational field of the star.
    Suppose that only one star was existing in the universe.
    The regions very far away of the star, where the gravity is practically zero, would be regions with density d=1 of the aether.
    In a point near to the star, the density of the aether would be changing proportional to the square of the distance between that point and the star.

    regards
    wlad

  81. silvio caggia

    @joe
    Quantum Entanglement has interesting explanations at the cost that you exit from the mainstream phisics…
    A “simple” explanation is that the entangled particles are connected THRU time… you find details in Transactional Interpretation o QM by John Cramer.
    A “less simple” explanation is that space and time are not phisical containers but only aspects of the real constituent of whole universe: scalar motion. We live in a projection of scalar motion in a 3D space+clock time reference system, but there is also a reciprocal 3Dtime+clock space reference system… You find details in Reciprocal System of theory by Larson.
    Note: both explanations require that you reconsider deeply the nature of time.

  82. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    You are right.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  83. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    The acronym should be ITPR, not TIPR because it is a report from an independent third party. It is neither a report from a third independent party nor the third report from an independent party, i. e. is an (ITP)R but neither a (TIP)R nor a T(IPR).
    Best regards, H-G Branzell

  84. Joe

    Wladimir,

    Aether (physical) and space (mental) are not identical with each other. How can you ascertain the dilation or contraction, i.e. the change in density, of aether without a FIXED space in which the aether could operate, and against which the aether could be measured?

    All the best,
    Joe

  85. Joe

    Eric,

    You bring up three important points:

    1. You are right to be concerned about the manner in which the physical world would connect to the mental world of space and time. The interface is very subtle. It is hard to tease the two worlds apart.

    2. The reason QE is a hard subject for QM is because QM believes that QE is fundamentally nebulous – probabilistic rather than deterministic. But I have already explained how a Nature based on uncertainty would not even exist.

    3. Many years ago, I had contemplated the use of an incompressible medium. But that brings with itself a whole new set of incongruities. (It would be possible to explain instantaneity over a short distance but not over a long distance what with disturbances of the medium with various physical phenomena.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  86. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    The evolution of our technology is permanent and depends on the R&D on course amd the tests. For obvious reasons, the most important test is the TIPR related one.
    IP is matter of out patent attorneys.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  87. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    thank you very much for your very positive answer.
    This opens new perspective on “positive or negative”.
    Did you or your team make important or structural modifications on the low temperature e-cat and high-temperature e-cat because of this improved control on the Rossi-Effect ?
    Will the patents, if ever granted, not be outdated or obsolete because of this ?
    I hope you and your team find a way out.
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  88. Eric Ashworth

    Joe, Regards your comment to Wladimir. You state ” So since space and time are non physical they are no impediments to the concept of instanteneity. Therefore, instantaneity can exist in reality. You could equally state that distance and duration are non physical concepts but without the physical these non physical concepts would not exist as a concept of reality. Instantaneity is an event that without the physical would not exist as a concept (as a conceived idea). The photon I think of as a minute physical structure and thereby is able to bring into existence the concept of space and time. I find physics fscinating but I am not academic and therefore non technical. This concept of entanglement with regards a split photon, if my understanding is correct, could it be that the word entanglement could be misleading?. As an example would it be accurate to describe a radio set entangled with a transmitter. As I see it, because there is no such thing as empty space, resonance is able to maintain a connection over any distance due to the aether i.e. not exactly an entanglement more of a ‘knock on effect’ moreso like two objects connected by a solid rod providing instantaneouse reaction. The two objects must have the same identical resonance. What would Wladimir think of this. As I have said this subject is fascinating. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  89. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 8th, 2014 at 6:19 PM

    Wladimir,

    1) ====================
    There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis being proven wrong. That proof can take either of two forms: logical or experimental. In the case of Aristotle, it is experimental.
    ==========================

    Galileo proved it not only experimentally.
    He proved it by logic.
    If you take a body with mass m and other heavier body with mass M and glue them togehter, the body with mass M+m needs to fall down slowly than the body with mass M, because the body with mass m will retard the falling down of the body with mass M.
    But the body with mass M+m must fall down faster than the body with mass M, because M+m is heavier.
    Therefore there is a paradox: the body with mass M+m cannot fall down slowly and faster than the body with mass M, and therefore all the bodies fall down with the same acceleration.

    ,

    2)=======================
    In the case of Einstein, it is logical. His example is self-contradicting as I have shown in my previous post.
    ========================

    Einstein’s theory is illogical because he supposed that space is empty. But as he realized that space must have dilation, then he decided to connect space and time, by creating the concept of space-time.

    However space and time are not connected.
    Actually space is physical (the aether).
    And time actually does not exist (it is only a mathematical concept used so that to measure the evolution of mass changings).

    A new experiment published in the journal Nature in 2011 prove be wrong Einstein’s concept of empty space:
    Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms

    .

    3)============================
    But there is no room for contradicting realities in science.
    =============================

    Yes, as said Galileo.
    That’s why I decided to develop my theory, in order to discover if it would be possible to eliminate the nonsenses of Modern Phusics (introduced firstly by Einstein).

    .

    4) ======================
    So his hypothesis – the physicality of space and time – must be wrong.
    ========================

    Not for the space.
    The space is physical.
    Only the time is non-physical, because actually time does not exist.
    The contraction and dilation of the space-time supposed by Einstein is actually due to the dilation and contraction of the aether

    .

    5) ======================
    There can be no experiment that will prove otherwise.

    So since space and time are nonphysical, they are no impediment to the concept of instantaneity. Therefore instantaneity can exist in reality.
    ============================

    Being the space physical, there is no way to have an instantenous interaction between two paticles aparted far away one of the other.

    .

    6) ===========================
    But as I have also explained in another previous post, the concept of QE is illogical and therefore can not exist realistically even though it is popularly associated with the concept of instantaneity.
    ==============================

    QE is illogical in Quantum Mechanics, because wrongly interpreted by quantum theorists.

    regards
    wlad

  90. Lata

    Hi Andrea,
    Is it possible to induce radioactivity in e-cat fuel through LENR reactions and then use the activated fuel for Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator(RTG). If this can be done, the end product will be simplified and it will be easier to protect the trade secrets because you will be giving away only the activated fuel not the whole e-cat setup. You already see transmutations in e-cat, so this should be possible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

    Regards,
    Lata

  91. Andrea Rossi

    Lata:
    No, it is not possible. Besides, we do not produce any radioactive residual, as well as we do not use any radioactive material. The E-Cat works in a totally different way. The thermoelectric device you gave the link of is a classic generator based upon the Seebeck Effect, that I know pretty well, having worked with it for many years. The particular application fueled by radioactive isotopes has been used by NASA in space devices like spaceships, satellites etc. As a source has been normally used plutonium. This application has been abandoned, due to the risk related to a possible fall of the apparatus on the surface of the Earth. All this has nothing to do with the possible applications of the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  92. Joe

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “Galileo proved that Aristotle was wrong by making the experiment in the Pisa tower.”

    There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis being proven wrong. That proof can take either of two forms: logical or experimental. In the case of Aristotle, it is experimental. In the case of Einstein, it is logical. His example is self-contradicting as I have shown in my previous post. But there is no room for contradicting realities in science. So his hypothesis – the physicality of space and time – must be wrong. There can be no experiment that will prove otherwise.

    So since space and time are nonphysical, they are no impediment to the concept of instantaneity. Therefore instantaneity can exist in reality.

    But as I have also explained in another previous post, the concept of QE is illogical and therefore can not exist realistically even though it is popularly associated with the concept of instantaneity.

    All the best,
    Joe

  93. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I was specifically asking about the units which were used in the configuration of the 1 Mev devices. I assume they were all tested with the same routine to assure consistent operating values. In this testing, were there large deviations in outputs and did they perform reliably with a minimum of failure upon startup procedures?
    Fond regards.

  94. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Wrong, we need a certification for the domestic E-Cats: no reliable insurances can give a proper and consistent insurance for non certified apparatuses.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  95. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    The report will contain the detailed description of the test. I am not able to answer because I have not been there continuously.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  96. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 5th, 2014 at 8:01 PM

    @Vladimir Guglinski
    By the way…
    Which is your model interpretation of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment?
    =================================

    Dear Silvio
    the error comes from this wrong interpretation by quantum theorists:

    ——————————————-
    If the apparatus is changed so that a second beam splitter is placed in the upper-right corner, then the two detectors will exhibit interference effects. Experimenters must explain these phenomena as consequences of the wave nature of light. They may affirm that each photon must have traveled by both paths as a wave else that photon could not have interfered with itself.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
    ——————————————-

    The error is because quantum theorist suppose that the photon is a wave-particle duality.

    The photon is NOT a wave-particle duality.

    The photon is a corpuscle formed by particle-antiparticle moving by helical trajectory, and the wave feature of the photon is due to its helical trajectory.

    In 2012 an experiment made by Aephraim Steinberg proved that the photon can have interference with itself, which was supposed impossible by the quantum theorists, because they dont know the true structure of the photon.
    http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404

    So,
    the photon is NOT a wave-particle duality, as believed the quantum theorists along 100 years.
    The photon is a corpuscle moving with helical trajectory, and its wave feature is consequence of its helical trajectory, and that’s why the photon can have interference with itself.

    The photon decides NOTHING in the Wheeler’s experiment, because the photon has AT THE SAME TIME the two features corpuscle and wave, because the photon is a corpuscle and the wave feature is due to the helical trajectory of the corpuscle.

    Therefore the quantum theorists had interpreted wrongly the Wheeler’s experiment, because they wrongly supposed that the photon cannot have interference with itself.

    regards
    wlad

  97. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea,

    1) Was the 1st TIP conducted on the older style Ecat?
    2) Was the 2nd TIP conducted on the newer style Activator-Ecat?

    Thanks in advance!

    God bless you,

    Tom Conover

  98. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    You must have run hundreds of units at this time. Can you tell us if their is a deviation of output you have measured between units? If so, how large(1% or more). Also, do you have any reliability numbers for successful unit operations you can release?
    Thanks for any information you can release.

  99. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    We did not note discrepances between them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  100. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 7th, 2014 at 8:02 PM

    Wladimir,

    I deduced that space and time are not physical through the use of reason.
    See my post on September 1st, 2014 at 6:42 PM.
    =================================

    Dear Joe,
    Aristotle also had deduced through the use of reason several assumptions, later proved wrong by Galileo, because Aristotle did not take in account some hidden mechanisms which work as cause of some phenomena. For instance, Galileo left two body with different masses to fall down from the Piza tower, and proved that they arrive at the same time in the ground, while Aristotle believed that heavy bodies fall down faster than light ones.

    Aristotle was suggested to think wrongly that lighter bodies fall down slowly than heavy ones because leaves of trees fall slowly, and he did not realize that leaves fall slowly due to their interaction with the air.

    So, dear Joe,
    it seems to me that you had been suggested to think that two entangled photons interact instantaneously because Alain Aspect experiment had suggested such conclusion to all the quantum theorists, because they do not know the structure of the photon, and so they are committing the same mistake commited by Aristotle.

    Galileo proved that Aristotle was wrong by making the experiment in the Piza tower.

    Dont you think that we have to undertake new experiments (like those suggested by me to Gabriela Lemos), so that to discover the true physical mechamisms of the photons entanglement?

    regards
    wlad