Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 137 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science


ECW E-Cat World


Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times



Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2021 @ 11:28:33 GMT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Such subject must be considered from two viewpoints:

1- Why nuclear theorists reject the possibility of the existence of cold fusion?

The answer is simple: because from the standard Coulomb’s law F= KQq/d² there is need to consider the existence of the strong nuclear force, so that to explain the stability of atomic nuclei. And from the assumption that strong nuclear force really promotes the stability of atomic nuclei, then theoretically cold fusion is impossible to occur.

But experiments show that cold fusion exists. Then the second question is:

2- How can cold fusion be possible, as by considering the standard Coulomb’s law it is impossible?

The  answer is again simple: because the standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete. Coulomb’s repulsions (and attraction) does not follow the equation F= KQq/d² for distances shorter than Bohr’s radius.

For distances shorter than Bohr’s radius, Coulomb’s law is F= KQq/d^(X+Y), where X decreases with the decrease of the distance between the charges “Q” and “q”, and Y grows with relative speed between the charges.

In my book “Subtle is the Math” the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) is proven by calculations, in the first paper of the book, entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure constant”.  

And why does Coulomb’s repulsions vary with the parameter Y in the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) ?

This happens because, as shown in that paper, the line-forces of the electric fields are composed by particles (captured from the quantum vacuum) that move with the speed of light. The interaction of the fields of two charges Q and q depends on their relative velocity. The faster is their relative velocity, than stronger is the interaction between the particles that compose the fields of the charges Q and q.


1- If two charges Q and q are moving against each other with relativistic speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q varies proportional to V+c, since the particles of the quantum vacuum (that compose the electric fields of Q and q) are moving with velocity “c”.

2- If the charge Q is at rest, and the charge q is moving away the charge Q with relativistic speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q varies proportional to c-V.  This explains why, in the U238 alpha-decay, despite the potential energy of the alpha particle is 27 MeV when it leaves the U238, in the experiments it is detected with only 4 MeV. As shown in my book “Subtle is the Math”, the Gamow’s hypothesis of quantum tunneling is not able to explain this paradox.

In the stars, the relative velocity between particles as protons, deuterons, etc., plays a fundamental role in the process of nuclear synthesis, because the repulsion between two protons moving against each other grows with the growth of their relative speeds, and that’s why, despite the strong nuclear force does not exist, in the stars the fusion between two protons is very hard. Otherwise, if the velocity did not play a fundamental role, the Sun of our planetary system would waste its hydrogen in some few minutes.

Perhaps we may say that such property, of the growth of Coulomb’s repulsions with the growth of the relative velocity between two charged particles, represents a strong force. It is a special type of strong force, with depends on the speed of the two charges.  But it does not exist for two charged particles (with low speed), inside atomic nuclei.

From this new Coulomb’ law there is no need to consider the strong nuclear force.  Several puzzles of nuclear physics are solved by considering that strong force does not exist. For instance, it explains why two neutrons do not form a dineutron, whereas by considering the strong force two neutrons would have to fuse and form a dineutron, since there is not repulsion between them, but they have a strong attraction by the strong nuclear force.  The Heisenberg’s proposal of isospin does not solve the puzzle.

In resume, from a new nuclear physics, in which the strong force does not exist, the cold fusion becomes possible.

Therefore, acceptation of the existence of cold fusion depends on the acceptation that standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete.

This question, as to why nuclear physicists reject cold fusion, is beyond the understanding of most people interested in cold fusion issues. For example, yesterday I submitted an ad here on ZPEnergy, communicating the publication of my book Subtle is the Math, by St Honoré. And Editor Vlad didn't run my ad in "Home" because he mistakenly assumes that my book has nothing to do with the subject of cold fusion. [vlad: it was posted here]

But actually, as my book is proposing new laws for the foundations of physics, its content concerns all fields of physics.




Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, October 29, 2021 @ 12:06:42 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Dr. Guglinski, as you and many of our readers know by now, I have posted all (or the vast majority) of your submissions to ZPEnergy.com, since 2004 when you decided to share some of your theoretical work with us (if you use "Search" tool on "Guglinski" you'll see what I'm talking about).

Nevertheless, as you certainly realize, your work is too theoretical (often too fundamental for the science of physics). Many of our readers did not find it very suitable for this site, a much more "pragmatic" news site in the field of new energy research (with focus on ZPE/vacuum energy). Our mission statement established that limitation from the start (please review it again).

Consequently, I decided to continue to publish your new submissions but, rather than in the home page, they will appear in the comments section of your latest home page post (such as "Latest from W. Guglinski theoretical research"). Patrons of our site will still be exposed to your theoretical work through our "Latest Comments" menu.

Thank you for your understanding Wladimir and best wishes to you.


On why Andrea Rossi' cold fusion theory is wrong (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, November 04, 2021 @ 11:18:16 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGuglinski: Andrea Rossi wrote the article “E-Cat SK and long-range particle interactions”, in which he proposes the explanation on how takes place the cold fusion in his Ecat:

Rossi's theory is wrong because he uses some current foundations of physics, which are not the true foundations existing in nature, because some fundamental laws are missing in the current theories.

Let us see some of the fundamental principles, existing in nature, that are missing in the current theories.

1- The standard Coloumb law F= KQq/d² is incomplete.

Such subject was already exposed here in ZPEnergy:

The Coulomb law is actually F= KQq/d^(X+Y).
Therefore, it makes no sense to try to explain cold fusion from an incomplete Coulomb's law, because in the short distances inside atomic nuclei the value of "X" is less than 2, and therefore the strong nuclear force does not play the role supposed by the nuclear theorists.

2- The missing of an atomistic structure of electric field in quantum electrodynamics.

In my book Subtle is the Math it is proposed the atomistic structure of the electric fields, as shown in the figure ahead, showing the proton and its electric field.

Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

Fermions with electric charges, (that together with other fermions compose the quantum vacuum) move with the speed of light in the proton electric field.

Figure 2 shows the interactions of the fermions of the electric field of a proton A with the fermions of the electric field of a proton B.

As seen in the Figure 2, the fields of the two protons interact through the interaction between the fermions that compose their electric fields.


Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

According to quantum electrodynamics, the interaction between two protons takes place through the exchange of photons. Figure 3 illustrates the difference between the mechanism considered in quantum electrodynamics, and the mechanism proposed in my theory.


Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

Note that in the System f-f the interaction occurs through two fermions, each one with its spin. But as this mechanism is missing in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the theorists had to replace (what is missing in QED) by a mathematical concept, the bispinor.

The model of electric field of the Figure 2 is proposed in the first paper of the book Subtle is the Math, whose title is "Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law, and fine-structure constant". In the paper, it is also calculated the value of the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum, which compose the proton electric field.

Perhaps you would like to claim:

"The main idea of the paper is based on such classical notions like particle's motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have been given fundamental roles.  This is evident from the figures presented in the paper.  These notions are untenable in the microscopic world where the wave-particle duality is essential even if the author feels "strange" and the gauge field plays an essential role.  They have been supported by experiments for many years.  The paper will not be understood and never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not a subjective (like the one the author thinks "strange"), but an objective evidence of defect of the standard interpretation, which is missing in the present paper".

Well, this is just what did the Reviewer of the journal European Physical Journal Plus, Dr. Hiromichi Nakazato. He used the argument above for rejecting my paper.

But along the time he was working in the review of my paper, I was working in another paper, and I found the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE required by Nakazato, as follows: from the value of electric charge of the fermions calculated in my paper, and using my model of electric field, I have calculated the charge of the proton.

The value, calculated in the second paper of the book Subtle is the Math, is e= 1.6026.10^-19 C, very close to the experimental e= 1.60218x10^-19 C.

The paper was also published in Physics Essays, in 2019, with the title "Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum":


As conclusion, the success of QED in being the most stringently tested theory in physics is due to a coincidence:  the System ph-ph used in QED is mathematically equivalent to the System f-f existing in the nature, which is considered in my theory.

So, the real mechanism of interaction between fields existing in nature is missing in Rossi's theory.

3- Missing of anisotropic space inside atoms in quantum mechanics

Andrea Rossi uses the Zitterbewegung model of electron in his theory.
But the Zitterbewegung model used up to now is wrong, because in all alternatives of Zitterbewegung models it is missing the anisotropic space inside the atoms.

The Zitterbewegung model existing in nature is proposed in my paper "On the missing anisotropic space inside atoms in quantum mechanics", published in 2021 by Physics Essays (and also in my book Subtle is the Math):

Beyond the advantage that from this new model of atom are eliminated several paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics (as for instance the phantasmagoric property of the electron to disappear from a level and instantanenously to appear in another level, without to travel the space between the two levels), from this New-Zitterbewegung model are calculated successfully the energy levels of the hydrogen atom (also of the helium and lithium atoms).

The calculation, made in a Excel spreadsheet, is so easy that in the book Subtle is the Math the reader is invited to calculate himself the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, as seen here:

In resume, there is no chance Andrea Rossi to develop a satisfactory theory, from a Zitterbewegung-electron model in which is missing the anistropy of space where moves the true Zitterbewegung-electron model existing in nature.

4- Missing of the fundamental law that rules the Zitterbewegung

All the particles move with Zitterbewegung, as photons, mesons, neutrinos, electrons, protons.
And the fundamental law that rules the Zitterbewegung motion of particles is illustrated in the Figure 4:

Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem


Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

This property of the Zitterbewegung explains, without the paradoxes introduced by Einstein, why Michelson did not succeed to detect the influence of the speed of the Earth in the velocity of the light measured in the experiment, when the photons move toward the direction of the Earth's displacement, and when the photons move in contrary direction of the Earth motion.

Therefore, many of the fundamental laws existing in nature are missing in Rossi's theoretical work. His theory has no chance to be correct.

Re: On why Andrea Rossi' cold fusion theory is wrong (Score: 1)
by WGUGLINSKI on Tuesday, November 09, 2021 @ 19:25:04 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Well, dear Vlad,

everything indicates that Andrea Rossi used some kind of blackmail to intimidate you, because you decided to remove my article from HOME from ZPEnergy.

Damn, so even in ZPEnergy there is censorship????

How sad... While the scientific community tries to boycott Andrea Rossi's ecat, in turn Andrea Rossi tries to boycott any scientific proof that his theory is wrong...

It's a true science comedy...
... or rather... pseudoscientific comedy...

Wladimir Guglinski


Re: ZPEnergy "censorship" (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, November 14, 2021 @ 12:41:48 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Dear Wlad,

Please understand that nobody blackmailed or intimidated me in any way; since this site is managed and supported entirely by me, the only "censorship" you perceive it is happening here is mine.

I explained to you why I'm going to post some of your submission to the "home page" as comments to your older posts here: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3943&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0#15821.

Please understand that I'm doing my best to give you another platform to make your controversial research in theoretical physics known, but this is a site for general public information and your posts are way above our understanding for most of us. I have a degree in power engineering, but still, I refrain from making a judgement on the validity of your research, cause my physics background doesn't go deep enough... but I post you submissions out there, just in case somebody has the adequate knowledge and can help or challenge you.

Best personal wishes,


What is controversial in physics? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, November 15, 2021 @ 11:24:33 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by WGUGLINSKI: First of all, I am very thankful to the Editor Vlad.

However, I would like to explain what is really controversial in theoretical physics, because such a subject is very controversial.

My theory is not controversial. Controversial are the current theories of physics.

They are controversial because in current theoretical physics were adopted fundamental principles that make no sense. They violate the Logic.

For instance, Einstein proposed that the space is empty, but it has the property of contraction, and it is able to produce the magnetism. This makes no sense. This is controversial. Something empty cannot have contraction. And something empty (that is, something that does not exist), cannot produce magnetic fields.

Other example: according to current quantum mechanics, the electron disappears from a level in the atom, and instantaneously appears in another level, without to travel the space between the two levels. This is controversial. An electron that disappears from a position and appears instantaneously in another position moved with infinite velocity, because in the equation E= v.t the time is zero, and so v= E/0 = infinite. This nonsense brings down Einstein’s relativity.


In my theory the new foundations are all them in agreement to Logic. Besides, my theory is supported by results comproved by mathematic calculations.

So, if somebody accuse my theory of being controversial, then he has to conclude that the mathematics is controversial.

Well, this conclusion is right. The mathematics is controversial.

But not the math used by me, because I don’t use math abstract concepts as the imaginary number, or any other math concept created with the aim to achieve results that conciliate the theory with the experimental results.

To show that math is controversial is among the objectives of my book Subtle is the Math, where it is shown that a controversial math was introduced by Einstein, and it was used successfully along the 20th Century, and continues being used.

The math used by Einstein (and used up to now by the physicists) does not reflects what really happens in the realm of Nature. Many fundamental principles adopted in current Theoretical Physics do not exist in Nature. But with the introduction of suitable artifices in the math, as the imaginary number, it is possible to achieve to results that are confirmed by experiments.

A good example is the coupling light-matter used in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, the interaction between two electrically charged particles is promoted by the exchange of photons between them, as shown in the Figure 1.

Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

Can we be sure that such mechanism proposed in QED is really the same mechanism existing in nature?

This is controversial. First of all, there is not in current theoretical physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than 70 years the Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture:

“From the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will determine the value of the fine-structure constant and will thus explain the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually occurring in Nature.


QED is considered the jewel of physics, because of its accuracy, confirmed by experimental results.


But among the imaginary number used in QED, there is other interesting abstract math apparatus used in the theory: the bispinor.

In the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure constant”, published in the book Subtle is the Math, it is proposed that the interaction between two electrically charged particles occurs actually through the interaction of the “electricitons” of the electric fields, which move with the speed of light, as seen in the Figure 2.


Não foi fornecido texto alternativo para esta imagem

So, what is the real mechanism that promotes the interaction between two fields?

Suppose that:

1-   The real mechanism existing in Nature is by the “System f-f”, shown in the Figure 2

2-   However, by using the math adopted in QED, through the adoption of the imaginary number, together with the bispinor, the “System ph-ph” shown in the Figure 1 is mathematically equivalent to the “System f-f” existing in Nature.

Then obviously QED can be successful, because its mathematical apparatus is equivalent to the mathematics of the “System f-f”, existing in Nature.


In the end of the book Subtle is the Math is proposed to theorists a challenge: to prove the mathematical equivalence between the “System ph-ph” and the “System f-f”.

If such mathematical equivalence be proven mathematically, two conclusions will be achieved:

1-   The mathematics used by the physicits is indeed controversial.

2-   QED is successful thanks to a “mathematical coincidence”, the equivalence of two systems: the “System ph-ph” adopted in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature.


But the physicists are afraid to accept this challenge. Because if the mathematical equivalence of the two systems be proven, this will prove that QED does not work through the fundamental principles existing in Nature. And what is worst: it will be proven that the mathematics used by the physicists is controversial.


In my book Subtle is the Math is shown that the own Lord used the imaginary number when He built the Universe. Then somebody obviously could  claim: well, if the own Lord used the imaginary number, then there is not any on controversy in the math used in Modern Physics, since the own Lord used the imaginary number, when He had created the Universe.

But the question is not so simple.

The math used in current physics is controversial because the theorists start from some initial assumptions, which do not exist in Nature, and then they have to introduce some math tools not introduced by the Lord. For instance, in current theoretical physics is considered that symmetry plays a fundamental role in the working of the Universe. But in my book “The New Nuclear Physics” (to be published in 2022) is shown that symmetry does not play any fundamental role in the structure of atomic nuclei, as nowadays nuclear theorists believe.

Other example: Einstein started from the hypothesis that the space is empty. But the Lord did not create the Universe from an empty space. Then Einstein used the imaginary number in a different way of the way used by the Lord, because Einstein and the Lord had two different starting points: Einstein supposed that the space is empty, whereas the Lord has created the spaces as not empty. Therefore Einstein’s mathematics is different of that used by the Lord.

Other example is the difference between the “System ph-ph” used in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature. The Lord did not use the bispinor, when He created the Universe, he used only the imaginary number. But the theorists had to introduce the bispinor, because in their theory there is not the atomistic structure of the electric field. Thereby, as something very fundamental is missing in QED (the atomistic structure of electric fields), there was need to create a new math apparatus, the bispinor, which the Lord did not use, because He created the atomistic structure of the electric fields, and so the Lord did not need to use the bispinor in His Mathematics.

So, the mathematics used by the Lord is different of the mathematics used by the physicists, despite, from the introduction of some additional math tools, it is possible to establish an equivalence between the mathematics of the Lord and the mathematics of the physicists. And the physicists did it successfully along more than hundred years.


Cold fusion in Researchgate (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, January 09, 2022 @ 23:16:45 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Submitted by Wladimir_Guglinski: ABSTRACT

In 2015, the Physical Review Letters magazine published an article in which the authors presented a wrong calculation procedure for the magnetic moment of the animated 12Mg24. Here, the repercussion of this error in Nuclear Physics is analyzed, and one of the implications is that the theory was developed from wrong fundamental principles. One of the repercussions will be the understanding of cold fusion (since for decades it was rejected by nuclear physicists as being impossible under current principles of nuclear physics) because if proven that the fundamentals of nuclear physics are definitively wrong, then through a new nuclear model (which works by new principles) theoretical feasibility for cold fusion can be obtained.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.