On the report Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel, by Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno EssÚn
In the item 9. Summary and concluding remarks at the page 30, the authors write:
”In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable.
We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear
transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear
radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible.
Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental
results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and
that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly
most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing
theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. ”
Dears Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno EssÚn
According to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics, not only the cold fusion produced by the E-Cat is impossible.
Actually according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics
there are several nuclear phenomena impossible to occur, but the
experiments show they actually occur.
However, along decades the nuclear theorists have used to neglect them.
And so, the fundamental question arises:
As from the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics is impossible
to occur several nuclear phenomena observed in the nature, it makes no
sense to use such general knowledge in nuclear physics so that to
conclude that cold fusion is impossible to occur.
One among the phenomena impossible to occur is the emission of
the alpha particles by the uranium nucleus. The nuclear theorists use
to suppose that Gamow had solved satisfactorily the puzzle, but actually
his mathematical solution is unsatisfactory, as is shown in the article
Cold Fusion and Gamow’s Paradox:
As shown in the article, Gamow solved the paradox of the alpha particles emission by 92U238 by introducing another paradox.
Besides, it was experimentally observed that alpha particles exit the
nuclei 92U along a radial direction. This is impossible to occur by
considering the current nuclear models, because as the nuclei have spin,
and the alpha particle moves together with the 92U nucleus, then the
alpha particle would have to leave away the 92U by a tangential line.
Therefore, the emission of alpha particles by the 92U238 requires
another explanation, since the solution proposed by Gamow is
But it is impossible, from the current nuclear models, to find another
explanation for the emission of the alpha particles by the 92U. And
therefore we conclude that the emission of alpha particles by the
92U238 is also impossible to occur, according to the basic general
knowledge in nuclear physics
Then another fundamental question arises: perhaps cold fusion occurs
via the inverse the phenomenon which makes possible the emission of
alpha particle by the 92U238. And such assumption makes sense, because:
1) As an alpha particle can exit a 92U nucleus by a phenomenon impossible to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics…
2) … then a particle can enter within a nucleus by using the same
phenomenon used by the alpha particle when it leaves away the 92U.
Such hypothesis is just proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, as follows:
3) The alpha particle exits the 92U because there is a “hole” in the Coloumb electric field of the 92U.
4) And so, under suitable conditions of low temperature, a particle
can enter within a nucleus by crossing the “hole” in the electric field.
But of course a nuclear theorist would immediately to claim:
”It’s hard to me to accept a conjecture of a hole existing in the electric field of the nuclei”.
Well, I said the same to myself when I arrived to the conclusion on
the existence of that “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei, 20
years ago (at that time I did not have knowledge on the existence of
cold fusion, and my conjecture was consequence of other ponderations
based on other nuclear properties of the nuclei). That’s why at that
time I said to myself:
”The nuclear theorists will never accept this conjecture of mine”.
But 20 years ago I also had arrived to another unacceptable
conjecture (for the nuclear theorists): According to my new nuclear
model, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
According to the nuclear theorists, such conjecture was impossible 20 years ago, because:
a) From the current nuclear models, an even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape (theoretical impossibility).
b) A nucleus with non-spherical shape would have to have non-null
electric quadrupole moment, but experiments do not detect it for those
nuclei (experimental evidence refuting my nuclear model).
However, in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster,
in which the authors describe new experiments which detected that
even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, destroying a dogma
in which the nuclear physicists believed along 80 years, and therefore
confirming the impossible conjecture of mine:
But the authors of the paper published in Nature had to justify why
the experiments had never detected the non-null electric quadrupole
moment for those nuclei (a question faced by me 20 years ago). So, they
proposed an explanation. And their explanation is the same proposed in
the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006,
therefore 6 years before the paper published in Nature.
So, the journal Nature published a plagiarism of my conjecture, supposed to be impossible by the nuclear theorists, 20 years ago.
Other impossible phenomenon according to the basic general
knowledge in nuclear physics is the pear shape of the nucleus Ra224,
detected in 2013.
In order to explain the impossible shape of the Ra224, the Professor Peter Butler (University of Liverpool) proposed the following conjecture (which is impossible according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics):
The nuclei are divided by an z-axis:
Well, the impossible conjecture on the existence of an z-axis dividing the nuclei is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.
In the page 133 of the book it is written:
“The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics, and…”
As we see, many conjectures proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, considered to be impossible by the nuclear theorists 20 years ago, have been confirmed by experiments in the last 3 years.
Concerning the conjecture on the existence of a “hole” in the
electric field of the nuclei let us ponder about the following facts:
1) According to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei have two concentric fields. So, it is a double-field theory, and therefore it is rival to the Quantum Field Theory, which is a :mono-field theory.
2) According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is impossible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
3) In September-2014 I had invited the Dr. S.Lakshminarayana
(nuclear physicist) and Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , authors of the paper Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos
, published in the JoNP, so that to come here to explain us how is
possible to explain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei, according
to the current nuclear models. No one of them accepted to come here to explain it:
4) Well, as the null magnetic field of even-even nuclei with Z=N is a phenomenon impossible to occur (according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics), but the experiments show that such impossible phenomenon really occurs, is it reasonable to consider that cold fusion is also impossible by considering the same basic general knowledge in nuclear physics ????
5) The reason why the current nuclear models cannot explain the null
magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N is because all they were
developed from the initial premise of considering the mono-field concept of field used in the Quantum Field Theory.
6) If by the double-field concept is possible to explain the impossible
occurrence of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with
Z=N, then it is reasonable to suppose that from the double-field concept
is also possible to occur the impossible occurrence of the cold fusion.
7) Therefore the conjecture of a “hole” in the external electric
field of the nuclei deserves do not be discarded, because the existence
of cold fusion requires new principles missing in the Standard Nuclear
Physics. Without new fundamental principles (missing in the Standard
Nuclear Theory), it is impossible to explain cold fusion, and the Rossi’s E-Cat.
8) A particle can enter within a nucleus via the “hole” in the electric
field of the nuclei under special conditions which promote its entry.
Among of the special conditions, one of them is the alignment of two
directions: the direction of the oscillatory motion of the particle and
the direction along which all the “hole” of the electric fields of some
nuclei are aligned via the application of an external electromagnetic
oscillatory field (used in the E-Cat).
Concerning to your words ”but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding”, why do not apply them also to the experimental result obtained by Don Borghi ???
C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.
In his experiment, Don Borghi showed that one proton and one electron
at low energy can be fused so that to form one neutron, a phenomenon impossible
to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics.
That’s why the scientific community uses to reject (or to neglect) the
Don Borghi experiment, like she also uses to reject the E-Cat.
But as the results of the E-Cat are being accepted in the
universities of Bologna, Uppsala, and Royal Institute of Technology,
some questions must be put:
Why do you accept the results of the Rossi’s E-Cat reactor, and do not accept the results of the Don Borghi experiment?
What is the difference between the E-Cat results and the results of the Don Borghi experiment?
Well, the difference is mentioned in your article, when you say:
“ In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat
invention has a large potential to become an important energy source”.
This is just the point in which relies the difference between the
results obtained from the Rossi’s E-Cat and from the Don Borghi
experiment. While the E-Cat cannot be neglected, because a practical
use can be extracted from its working, the same does not occur with the
results of the Don Borghi experiment, because there is no way to develop
a technology from which to extract a practical use of energy from the
fusion proton+electron at low energy (at least in the present day).
But it is an error to neglect a scientific discovery when we do not
know how to use it in practical applications. In spite of we do not
know what to do with the results of the Don Borghi experiment,
nevertheless the experiment points out to us that some phenomena
(considered impossible by the nuclear theorists) may occur under suitable conditions.
Besides, as the fusion proton+electron at low energy is possible to
occur, probably the fusion occurs in some cold fusion reactions. And
therefore, by neglecting the Don Borghi experiment, the nuclear
theorists are suppressing one of the most important mechanisms we have
at hand from which we can be able to understand cold fusion.
Author of the book Quantum Ring Theory