The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion

[Mitch]

In a recent article in C&EN, Steve Ritter writes about a cold fusion presentation at the recent ACS Chicago meeting. The article can potentially be read as lumping the loony-toony crack-pot conspiracy theorists cold fusion with the very real and valid field of low-energy nuclear reactions dealing with cold fusion. So, lets talk about the differences...

Article: http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i17/html/8517sci2.html

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
In this branch of nuclear chemistry there is a subfield called cold fusion. In "cold fusion" a heavy nucleus (Z>2) is accelerated and bombarded against a target composed entirely of Lead(Z=82), or Bismuth(Z=83), or other near neighbor. The term cold fusion is applied for these reactions because when these two nuclei come together they have an excitation energy of ~10-15MeV which is very small when you compare it to other types of nuclear fusion. Since the excitation energy is so low, the newly formed element is stable to fission and thus tends to stick around long enough to be detected by "conventional" means. Some examples of cold fusion reactions exploited in this way are shown below.

• ²⁰⁹Bi + ⁵⁸Fe -> ²⁶⁶Mt + ¹n <~~Reaction lead to the discovery of Mt
• ²⁰⁸Pb + ⁵⁸Fe -> ²⁶⁵Hs + ¹n <~~Reaction lead to the discovery of Hassium

Loony-Toony Cold Fusion
Loony-Toony Cold Fusion is the fusion of two light nuclei at room temperatures. The following 4 reactions are the typical cold fusion reactions investigated by the crack pots.

• ²H + ²H -> ³He + ¹n(2.45 MeV) (eqn.1)
• ²H + ²H -> ³H + ¹H(3.0 MeV) (eqn.2)
• ²H + ²H -> ⁴He + gamma-ray(23.8 MeV) (eqn.3)
• ¹H + ²H -> ³He + gamma-ray(5.5 MeV) (eqn.4)

[/color][/list]

Here is how the non-nuclear chemists test for cold fusion. They stick D₂O in an electrochemical cell, turn it on, measure the heat coming out and compare it to the amount of energy that went in. Sounds like a very reasonable scientific thing to do; If the
heat out is greater than the energy in, than a fusion event has to of occurred to account for this mythical-ether like heat output. However, this is a horrible prehistoric way to look for fusion; It would be like calculating an area of an integral by cutting it out from a sheet of graph-paper and weighing it.

Reasons Why Loony-Toony Cold Fusion is bull...

• We've looked for the heat and can't find it. There is no excess heat generated from these kinds of reactions that can not be accounted for. See Henderson et al.'s paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01588282 
• Lets just do the freshman Physics and see if it makes sense with our knowledge of physical chemistry.
  In order to fuse, two nuclei need to overcome the coulomb force and touch each other, so lets calculate the coulomb energy for this configuration.
  
  So, for the case of a deuteron on deuteron...
  k = 8.9876×10⁹ N m² C^-2, q1=q2=1.602x10^-19 C, r = 2.8 x 10^-15 m.
  Which by my calculation equals to 8.2 x 10^-14 J
  
  Now we know the energy necessary to put two +1 charges close enough in order to undergo fusion. How fast must the two nuclei travel in order to have enough kinetic energy to overcome this 8.2 x 10^-14 J barrier?
  The Total Kinetic Energy(KE):
  KE = .5(mass of deuteron)(velocity)² + .5(mass of deuteron)(velocity)² = (mass of deuteron)(velocity)²
  
  velocity = [KE / (mass of deuteron)]^1/2
  velocity = [ 8.2 x 10^-14 J / (3.3 x 10^-27 Kg) ]^1/2
  velocity = 4,984,825 meters per second!
  
  To get atoms moving that fast will require a high temperature, higher than can be achieved with water for sure. We've all taken Physical Chemistry so lets see what Temperature it will take to have gas molecules traveling that fast (notice how I already assume that fusion in the liquid phase is phony-bologne). If I assume the deuteron behaves as a monatomic gas then...
  
  Translational kinetic energy = (3/2)kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is temperature.
  
  T = (2/3)KE / k = (2/3)(8.2 x 10^-14 J) / (1.381×10^-23 J / kelvin) = 3,958,484,190 Kelvins
  
  This temperature can not be reached by an electrochemical cell! This is all just complete rubbish.
  
  (Notes: (1) It would of been proper to use the energy in the center of mass instead of the lab-frame. (2)The correct coulomb barrier for real nuclei is approximately half of what was calculated using the formula above, which is only meant for rigid hard charge spheres.)
• In (eqn.3) and (eqn.4) above, a very high mono-energetic photon(gamma-ray) is emitted. It is ridiculously simple to put a gamma detector in front of the electrochemical cell and look for the very specific photon that comes out with an energy of 23.8MeV or 5.5MeV respectively. From (eqn.1) an energetic neutron is emitted; it is also very simple to put a scintillating liquid around the electrochemical cell and look for the stereotypical slow-rise time of a neutron signal.

In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion. The C&EN readership would be well served if more coverage of valid nuclear chemistry research was reported too. Hint-hint.

Link to article: http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i17/html/8517sci2.html

Mitch
[/size][/list]

[sbkrivit]

Hi Mitch,

There are a few reasons why New Energy Times doesn't call this subject "cold fusion" anymore, either with, or without the Looney-Toons attribution.

1. We accept that the hypothesis of fusion is speculative and that this assertion is unproved.
2. There are numerous examples of reactions observed in the field that clearly cannot be caused by fusion.
3. There is a theory (published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal) by Widom and Larsen, that claims to be able to explain most of the "cold fusion" phenomena without requiring one to invoke magic spells. Take a look at www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory.

Let me know what you think.

Best regards,

Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

[Mitch]

sbkrivit: The general gist I get from the above link is that some unbeknown phenomena is creating thermal neutrons, and it is those thermal neutrons that are leading to observed heat increases.

I doubt this is happening, but I can knock out the claim that this is from electron capture on deuterium(²H) or that this is from, protons(¹H).

I made a nice little calculator for these types of things. Link: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?page=scripts#Nuclear%20Reactions%20Calculator

Reactions:

• Electron Capture on Hydrogen
  ¹H + 1e^- ---> ¹n
  Q = -0.78153017800003 MeV
• Electron Capture on Deuterium
  ²H + 1e^- ---> ¹n + ¹n
  Q = -3.0059569539999 MeV

A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants; No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy.

[Maz]

Perhaps on the cathodes of these palladium-deuterium cells, there is some local spike in temp when the deposition occurs?  Some funky surface energy exchange that yields just enough energy for it to become statistically plausible....

Bah, I'm grasping at straws.  I can't really offer a good excuse for this one.   

[Borek]

Lets just do the freshman Physics and see if it makes sense with our knowledge of physical chemistry.

T = (2/3)KE / k = (2/3)(8.2 x 10^-14 J) / (1.381×10^-23 J / kelvin) = 3,958,484,190 Kelvins

This temperature can not be reached by an electrochemical cell! This is all just complete rubbish.

Strong words - but based on wrong assumption that you NEED high temperature.

In pyroelectric fusion necesary energies are obtained by using strong electric field; no need for billion Kelvins range. Muon-catalyzed fusion occurs at room temperature, d nucleus charges are in a way 'shielded' by the muon charge which allows them to get close enough that tunelling effect allows fusion. While in these cases you neeed to put more energy in then you can get out, they clearly show that fusion at room temperature is possible.

See wikipedia for references.

Now, I am not telling that cold-fusion of the Fleischmann-Pons type is possible, but I think your analysis doesn't take whole picture into account.

[lewisglarsen]

Lets just do the freshman Physics and see if it makes sense with our knowledge of physical chemistry.

T = (2/3)KE / k = (2/3)(8.2 x 10^-14 J) / (1.381×10^-23 J / kelvin) = 3,958,484,190 Kelvins

This temperature can not be reached by an electrochemical cell! This is all just complete rubbish.

Strong words - but based on wrong assumption that you NEED high temperature.

In pyroelectric fusion necesary energies are obtained by using strong electric field; no need for billion Kelvins range. Muon-catalyzed fusion occurs at room temperature, d nucleus charges are in a way 'shielded' by the muon charge which allows them to get close enough that tunelling effect allows fusion. While in these cases you neeed to put more energy in then you can get out, they clearly show that fusion at room temperature is possible.

See wikipedia for references.

Now, I am not telling that cold-fusion of the Fleischmann-Pons type is possible, but I think your analysis doesn't take whole picture into account.

Mitch, Maz, and Borek:

In a sense, all of you are correct.  Please note that there are short, "plain English" summaries of our 4 published papers down below. They will hopefully provide you with a high-level conceptual overview of what we are doing in each of our papers before having to delve into the details of the physics and mathematics.

Using the Widom-Larsen theory, we can now answer three important questions about anomalous LENR experimental results that previous "cold fusion" researchers have been unable to answer to the satisfaction of the mainstream physics community for the past 18 years. These questions and our answers to them are:

Question 1 - If LENRs are truly based on the process of fusing two positively charged deuterons, then how is the Coulomb repulsion barrier overcome at the moderate temperatures and pressures that prevail in LENR laboratory experiments? It is well known that stars such as our sun require temperatures of millions of degrees and enormous pressures to trigger nuclear fusion.

Widom and Larsen answer - LENRs do not involve strong interaction fusion of charged deuterons or protons. Rather, LENRs involve the weak capture of surface electrons (bathed in a soft electromagnetic radiation field) by collectively oscillating "patches" of protons or deuterons located on metallic hydride surfaces. Under such conditions, protons or deuterons in the "patches" can react directly with surface electrons, thereby producing "ultracold" ultra low momentum neutrons which then function as uncharged "nuclear catalysts." Such neutrons are always locally absorbed by nearby nuclei, triggering additional "weak" nuclear transmutation reactions (which create different chemical elements) and the release of heat. Importantly, there are no Coulomb barriers to such weak interactions; so extremely high temperatures and pressures are not required, as is the case with strong interaction fusion processes. The neutrinos that are always produced when neutrons are created simply radiate off into space; they don't really interact locally with anything on Earth.

Question 2 - Why aren't large quantities of high momentum (energetic) neutrons produced in LENR systems, as would be expected from typical nuclear fusion or fission processes?

Widom and Larsen answer - As stated above, weak interaction nuclear reactions are not Coulomb barrier penetrating as would be the case with strong interaction nuclear fusion. Furthermore, the initial weak nuclear interactions produce only ultra low momentum neutrons that are locally absorbed by nearby nuclei. Accordingly, we would not expect biologically significant quantities of energetic neutrons to be externally detected in LENR systems, which is exactly what has been observed in thousands of experiments.

Question 3 - Why aren't large quantities of "hard" gamma/X-ray radiation seen in LENR experiments that have also produced substantial amounts of excess heat and/or nuclear transmutations? It is widely appreciated that the anomalously large excess heat and/or transmutations observed in LENR experiments cannot be explained by a chemical process without invoking nuclear reactions. However, typical nuclear processes such as fission or fusion would be expected to emit copious, lethal doses of energetic X- and gamma rays during experiments. So, why aren't all the many LENR experimentalists dead from hard radiation poisoning?

Widom and Larsen answer - The expected gamma rays are in fact produced when ultra low momentum neutrons are locally absorbed by nuclei in LENR systems. However, surface electrons bathed in "soft" low energy radiation also have the unique ability to quickly and efficiently absorb "hard" gamma rays and convert the gammas' energy into other "soft" radiation --- that is, mostly into the form of many more soft infrared photons (heat). Thus, in LENR systems, hard gamma ray photons in the energy range between 0.5 MeV and 10.0 MeV are locally absorbed and converted directly into heat. Importantly, in the relatively rare cases in which gamma radiation has been detected experimentally in LENR systems, the observed quantities of hard radiation are relatively small (not biologically significant) with energies that are strongly suppressed above about 0.5 MeV, exactly as predicted by our theory. So, LENR systems have intrinsic built-in gamma shielding, a remarkable property by any standard.


According to our theory, primary end-products of LENRs include stable isotopes, beta and alpha particles, "soft" electromagnetic radiation (in most LENR systems, predominantly infrared along with some barely measurable amounts of low-energy X-rays), and neutrinos. The ~1 MeV electron neutrinos, of course, radiate without any consequence into the environment.

Also according to our theory, in LENR systems, extremely neutron-rich, unstable intermediate reaction products turn into stable elements very quickly via cascades of rapid beta decays. In the case of LENRs, these very neutron-rich intermediates probably have half-lives measured in milliseconds, seconds, minutes, or at most hours --- typically not days, months, or many years. We believe that this is exactly why LENR systems do not produce large quantities of long-lived radioactive isotopes like existing commercial fission reactors; importantly, there are no known nuclear waste disposal issues with LENR systems.

Generally, X-rays, when detected, comprise small fluxes of "soft" photons. Biologically dangerous quantities of really "hard" (MeV+ energy) X- and/or gamma rays have never been observed in thousands of experiments with LENR systems over 18 years.

In our opinion, the phenomenon of LENRs is not predominantly strong interaction fusion or fission. According to our work, LENRs are mainly driven by the weak interaction. Sadly, the "cold fusion" people have doggedly pursued an incorrect D-D fusion paradigm since 1989. That problem, along with substantial misdirection of experimental work and other related "wheel spinning," is one of the many reasons why the field stagnated for so long, as noted in numerous critical comments made by outside scientists during the last DOE "cold fusion" review panel back in 2004.

(1) Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006), "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"

The mass of electrons embedded in collectively oscillating surface plasma oscillations can be markedly increased (renormalized) by the extremely high electric fields (> 10*11 volt/meter) occurring in surface layers of protons or deuterons of loaded metallic hydrides. The resulting "heavy" electrons can react spontaneously with local protons or deuterons to produce neutrons and neutrinos. Neutrons created collectively under these conditions have almost virtually zero momentum or equivalently very long quantum mechanical wavelengths which dramatically increase neutron absorption in the neighborhood of condensed matter surfaces. These ultra low momentum neutrons can catalyze local nuclear reaction networks. Examples of such reactions are provided.

(2) http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269, "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"

This preprint (submitted to a refereed journal) provides a theoretical explanation for effective suppression of gamma radiation and efficient absorption of ultra low momentum neutrons in LENR systems. It is explained why neutron absorption by nearby nuclei in LENR systems do not result in the external release of large, easily observable fluxes of hard energetic gammas and X-rays. Specifically, we show that surface electrons bathed in already soft radiation can convert the hard gamma radiation into soft radiation. The number of gammas in the energetic region from 0.5 MeV to 10.0 MeV is strongly suppressed at the condensed matter surface and the energy appears as softer (less energetic) heat radiation. The short mean free paths of both ultra low momentum neutrons and hard gamma radiation are computed in the neighborhood of condensed matter surfaces. In LENR systems, the gamma absorbing layer of surface electrons already bathed in soft radiation has the ability to stop a very dangerous ~5 MeV gamma ray in less than two nanometers -- two-billionths of a meter. With existing materials technologies, it would take ~10 cm of lead, ~25 cm of steel, or ~1 meter of very heavy concrete to accomplish the same degree of shielding.

(3) http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472, "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"

This preprint (submitted to a refereed journal) discusses a model for the anomalous patterns of nuclear abundances experimentally observed in metallic hydride cathodes of electrolytic chemical cells. These experimental transmuted nuclear abundances have been something of a scientific enigma since they were first published by Prof. George H. Miley in the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The data is interpreted as primarily the result of a neutron absorption spectrum. Ultra low momentum neutrons are produced (along with virtually inert neutrinos) by the weak interaction annihilation of electrons and protons when the chemical cell is driven strongly out of equilibrium. Appreciable quantities of these neutrons are produced on the surface of a metal hydride cathode in an electrolytic cell. The ultra low momentum of these neutrons implies extremely large cross-sections for absorption by various "seed" nuclei present on or near the surface of a cathode in a chemical cell, increasing their nuclear masses. The increasing masses eventually lead to instabilities relieved by beta decay processes, thereby increasing the nuclear charge. In this manner, "…most of the periodic table of chemical elements may be produced, at least to some extent.” The experimentally observed pattern of distinctive peaks and valleys in the transmuted nuclear mass-spectrum reflect the neutron absorption resonance peaks as theoretically computed employing a simple and conventional neutron optical model potential well. An intriguing possibility is briefly noted in the paper. The varieties of different elements and isotopes that we find in the world around us were thought to arise exclusively from nuclear reactions in stars and supernova explosions. However, recent astrophysical calculations have indicated some weaknesses in the above picture regarding the strengths of the neutron flux created in a supernova. Our paper suggests that, “It appears entirely possible that ultra low momentum neutron absorption may have an important role to play in the nuclear abundances not only in chemical cells but also in our local solar system and galaxy."

(4) http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059, "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"

This latest paper (submitted to a refereed journal) aims to answer an important question posed by many astute readers of our earlier publications on this subject. Assuming that one believes the rest of our physics, can we show computations demonstrating that these claimed proton to ultra low momentum neutron conversions can take place at the substantial rates observed in the laboratory?

In this preprint, we discuss how to compute low energy nuclear reaction rates for the process of radiation-induced electron capture by protons or deuterons producing new ultra low momentum neutrons and neutrinos. For protons or deuterons in the neighborhoods of surfaces of condensed matter metallic hydride chemical cell cathodes, the radiation energy required for such nuclear reactions may be supplied by the applied voltage required to push a strong charged electric currents through certain chemical cells. The rates of the resulting ultra low momentum neutron production are computed from the standard electroweak theory in satisfactory agreement with the available experimental data.

I hope that this helps answer some of your questions.  Sorry for the long-winded answer, but given the points that you all raised, I wanted to provide you with more than just a "sound bites" response.

[Grejak]

Hi lewisglarsen,
The explanations listed above, and in the papers sound quite unreasonable to me.  Luckily, there are several very simple tests that could be performed in order to show the validity of the explanations provided.  Strangely enough, over the last decade, no attempt has been made to actually try to test the crackpot theories and explanations put forth by the cold fusion enthusiasts. 

For the gamma rays:
An easy way to test this is to start with a known source with some high energy lines.  ⁵⁶Co might be nice to try this with (it should be made pretty easily using the ⁵⁶Fe(p,n) reaction), it has a 77 day half-life and plenty of gamma lines over 2.5 MeV with nice intensities.  You can then collimate the source such that the gammas are covering a known area (ie the size of a flat electrode).  Then place your apparatus in such a way that the gamma rays must pass through the electrode.  A redesign of the cell slightly may be in order, perhaps make the casing out of a thin, low Z material and then lay it on its side and use a thin, flat electrode, but that is pretty simple to do.  Once you do this, all you need to do is take two spectra, one with the cell on and one with the cell off, to see if there are changes.  According to the 'heavy' electron idea, these gamma rays should be absorbed and not seen on the other side of the electrode.

For the neutrons:
If you are producing heat, then you will also get a large flux of neutrons.  Provided that your theories on neutron absorption are correct, then you will also produce a few short-lived products that can be detected with a nice accuracy on any type of gamma detector.  The palladium should be activated to ¹¹¹Pd which decays to the 7.45 day ¹¹¹Ag, plenty of time to watch for the decay considering the number of neutrons that you would expect.  If you run long enough, then you would also suspect a significant capture on the ¹⁰²Pd which forms the 16.9 day ¹⁰³Pd.  That isotope is also long-lived enough to detect via its gamma radiation.  In fact, the quickest way to test this would simply be to put a Geiger counter next to the cell after finishing a run.  If the reading is above normal, then you can count it on a detector.

Another point of interest:
In this paper: http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 you state that hard prompt gamma rays will have a mean free path of ~3.4x10^-8 cm and therefore will be absorbed within the first nanometer.  You also provide a number density of 10¹⁵ cm² ‘heavy’ electrons.  This corresponds to a depth of ~ 3x10^-8 cm, which is shorter than the mean free path.  So if that is the correct number density of ‘heavy’ electrons, then you would still see at least half of the gamma rays.

[Mitch]

RSC covered it as well apparently: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/22030701.asp

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Mitch  said: 
“This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. ”


Let’s respond to Mitch question.


A free electron moves through the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung), as Schrodeinger pointed out after an analysis of the Diract’s equation of the electron.

Then let’s see what happens when a proton captures an electron and they form a neutron, as happens in the experiments of Borghi, Conte-Pieralice, and Taleyarkhan.

A free electron is moving with helical trajectory, with speed v<<c. 
It has two sort of energy:

1- Kinetic energy E_K due to its speed v.
2- Energy E_Z due to its zitterbewegung.

When the proton capturates the electron and they form the neutron, the electron loses the zitterbewegung.  So, the energy E_Z is conveted to kinetic energy, and the total energy of the electron passes to be E_T = E_K+E_Z, and therefore its speed increases, and it stays gyrating about the proton with speed V>>v.

The electron’s speed within the neutron’s structure n=p+e one can get from the Kurie’s graphic on the neutron’s decay, and in the paper Anomalous Mass of the Nêutron it is calculated that this speed is 92% of the light speed, after the instant when the electron is captured by the proton and starts go gyrate about it. 
This relativistic velocity V=0,92c increases the electron’s mass. 
By this way, within the neutron, the electron’s mass increases from its repose mass 0,511MeV to 1,291MeV (calculated in the paper).

The mass of proton is 939,3MeV.

Therefore n=p+e has a mass:  938,3+1,291 = 939,6 (which is the mass of neutron obtained from experiments).


The spin 1/2 of the electron is a result of the combination of its intrinsic spin with its zitterbewegung. 
Schroedinger was the first to consider such hypothesis. 
See Wikipedia:
Zitterbewegung (English: "jitter") is a theoretical helical or circular motion of elementary particles, in particular electrons, which is responsible for producing their spin and magnetic moment. The existence of such motion was first proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1930 as a result of his analysis of the wave packet solutions of the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons in free space
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CZEiPQAcf0cJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung+zitterbewegung&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=br

Then, when the electron is captured by the proton, it loses its zitterbewegung, and so it loses its spin 1/2.  Within the neutron the electron becomes a boson, and so the neutron is formed by a fermion (proton) and a boson (the electron that lost the spin).




So, before to understand cold fusion, we neeed to have a complete understanding of the nuclear phenomena.  However we dont have it.


In the Introduction of my book QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is written in the page 4:
....................................................
“Perhaps one would like to say that the foundations for cold fusion are the same of that proposed in Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, in Jan-2004 the cold fusion researcher Dr. Dimitriy Afonichev sent me an e-mail where he said the following:
‘I think that occurrence of cold fusion can be explained on the basis of the existing theories’.
Truthfully his words transmit not merely a personal opinion, because actually several theorists those try to explain the cold fusion occurrence share his viewpoint. However such opinion is very intriguing, since the own academic community is agreeing that the existing theories in the branch of Nuclear Physics are unable to explain even the ordinary nuclear properties, as confessed by Eisberg and Resnick in their book Quantum Physics, where they say in the first page of the Chapter 15:
‘Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this acknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons’.
So, as the existing theories are unable to explain the nuclear properties responsible for the hot fusion occurrence (which occurs according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics), it's hard to believe that such existing theories could explain nuclear properties that would be responsible for the occurrence of some so much complex as it is the cold fusion (which occurs by infringing the principles of QM). “
....................................................


For a layman to understand easily that said in the Introduction of my book, take for instance the interaction between two neutrons.
Two neutrons have no repulsion.  But in a short distance, they are attracted by the strong force.  So, after interacting within a nucleus, two neutrons would have to form the 0n2, and would never separate anymore.
But 0n2 does not exist in nature.  Heisenberg tried to explain it with the introduciton of the concept of Isospin.  Unfortunatelly the isospin is an abstract mathematical concept. 
Two neutrons tied strongly by the strong force cannot be separated by an abstract concept, because an abstract concept cannot produce a FORCE capable to win the force of attraction by the strong force.
Only a FORCE of repulsion can win the force of attraction.
A NEW NUCLEAR MODEL (that shows what is the force of repulsion between two neutrons in short distances) is proposed in my book Quantum Ring theory.



In 2002 the Infinite Energy magazine has published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytc Fusion” , in which I have proposed some improvements to be addopted, in order to avoid the missing of replicability.

In 2003 in the ICCF-10 Lets and Cravens exhibited their experiment, in which they have adopted the suggestions of mine in my paper published in 2002 by IE.


In my book I propose an explanation for Lets-Cravens experiment, showed in paper entitled “Lets-Cravens Experiment and the Accordion-Effect”


The Accordion-Effect is a nuclear property unknown by nuclear theorists, and it is responsible for the resonance that takes place between a nucleus (for instance Pd) and the oscillation of deuterons due to zero-point energy.


After reading some of my papers, the late Dr. Eugene Mallove said in 2004: "Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas".
That's why he suggested to put my papers on a book form, and to publish it.

However, Dr. Mallove did not read my papers concerning the new nuclear model.

WHY COLD FUSION IS NEGLECTED BY ACADEMICIANS

The stronger reason why the scientific community neglects cold fusion is because its occurrence requires a neutron model n=p+e formed by proton and electron. However such theoretical model violates the Fermi-Diract statistics.

But a model of neutron n=p+e that does not violate Fermi-Diract statistics is proposed in the book QUANTUM RING THEORY (QRT), as I alredy explained in the begginning of this comment.

Two papers on the neutron new model n=p+e of QRT are available in the Internet.
They are:

1) ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON
2) NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON

Before to post here the two links, I would like to give some enlightenment on the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON, as follows:



1) When we analyze the mass of pions according to the current Standard Model, we arrive to contradictory conclusions about the mass M(d) of the quark down and the mass M(u) of the quark up.
In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that we arrive to the following two conclusions:

CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)



2) Look at the chemical reaction Na+Cl->NaCl
QUESTION: what is the matematical formalism underlying such a chemical reaction?
ANSWER: No one. The chemical reactions have not been established through the mathematical formalism.

The chemical reactions have been established based on the LOGIC, and such a procedure was viable because the chemists had the help of a property of the chemical reactions: the mass of the reagent elements does not change after the reactions. For instance, the mass of Na is the same in the two sides of the equation Na+Cl->NaCl.

In the case of the high energy nuclear reactions the discovery of the equations became very complicated, for two reasons:

1) Either particles can desintegrate by discharging energy, or particles can be created, by the transformation of energy to matter.

2) In the model adopted by the theorists, the addition of spins is applied to all the reactons.
However in the beta decay the addtion of spins cannot be applied (but there is conservation of the total angular momentun, because in the reactions there is creation of neutrinos and antineutrinos).

Such anomaly in the addition of spins in the beta decay made the situation to be very bad, and the theorists could not apply the LOGIC for the discovering of the mechanic of high energy reactions, as the chemists made in the Chemistry.

That’s why the theorists tried to solve the problems by the mathematical formalism, through the Lie symetries as SU(2), SU(3), etc.
But the result was unsatisfactory, as one can understand easily. There are particles that does not fit to the theory, and that’s why Murray Gell-Mann felt the need of proposing ad hoc bandages, like the Strangeness.

As the theorists did not discover the true cause of the beta decay anomaly, they impute to other cause the occurrency of that anomaly: they state that the parity is not kept in the beta decay.

By addopting the “spin-fusion” hypothesis proposed in QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is explained the anomaly of the beta decay, and from such a way the high energy reactions can be explained through the LOGIC, in the same way as occurred in Chemistry for the establishment of the chemical reactions.

The two links are:

NEW MODEL OF THE NEUTRON:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/NewMODELneutron.html

ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/NEUTRONmodel.html

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Mitch said:
"In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion. "


Mitch,
I would like to know if you continue supporting such opinion of yours.

What do you think about the explanation for the question risen by you ?
You supposed cold fusion be impossible to occur because you had considered its occurrence from the old model of neutron.
But I showed to you that cold fusion is theoretically possible if we consider a new model of neutron.

As cold fusion is being confirmed by several experiments, but you had shown that cold fusion occurrence is impossible if one considers the current model of neutron, the conclusion is obvious: cold fusion occurrence is proving that it is correct the new model of neutron n=p+e, otherwise there is no way to explain theoretically the cold fusion occurrence.
And as cold fusion is confirmed by experiments, then it is confirming the new model of neutron.

What do think about ?

[W.GUGLINSKI]

I sent the message bellow to Dr. Antony Leggett (Noble Laureate in Physics), with copy to several persons:

Dr. Antony Leggett
The nuclear chemist Dr. Mitch Andre Garcia, administrator of a chemistry
 forum in the internet, tried to prove that cold fusion is theoretically
 impossible.

 I showed him that cold fusion is possible when we adopt a new model of
 neutron composed by a proton and electron, in which the electron loses its
 zitterbewegung when it is captured by the proton.

 The discussion is here:
 http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0


 Dr. Mitch did not reply.
 So, we have to conclude that he changed his opinion about what he said
 earlier:
 "In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps
 perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion. "

Only Dr. David Bradley sent me the following reply:

> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:26:10 +0100
From: david.bradley@gmail.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
 Subject: Re: cold fusion theoretically possible
 
 Briefly, what evidence is there for your new model of the neutron?

db




About DR. Bradley:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:QivYO9BgaXcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bradley_(engineer)+david+bradley&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=br





And I sent him the experimental evidences:

1- 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.

2- E. Conte, M. Pieralice, "An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron," Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.

3-  R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, "Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation," Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).

.

[Mitch]

I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay.

Mitch

[W.GUGLINSKI]

In spite of Einstein had discovered that energy and mass are equivalent through the relation E=mc2, however he did believe that never would be possible to use this equivalence for getting energy through the convertion of matter to energy.
The physicist Leo Szilard was who showed to Einstein that was possible, yes, theoretically to get energy from the conversion of matter to energy, by making neutrons to shoot uranium nuclei, in order to provoke hook-hup fission reactions of uranium nuclei.
But the practical performance of this theoretical possibility did depend on many empirical parameters to be fited, and several years of work by hundred of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians in the Manhattan Project for the building of the first atomic bomb.
In the same way, the Quantum Ring Theory proposes a new nuclear model (that has some nuclear prooperties unknown by the nuclear physicists) through which the cold fusion is a viable theoretical possibility.
Nevertheless, as said the researcher Edmund Storms, “for a model to be useful, it must tell me what elements I should mix, of what concentrations, and in what physical environment to make the process occur in a predicted way”.
Well, in the same way as happened in Manhattan, for the new nuclear model of QRT be converted in a useful model according to Edmund Storms requirement, many empirical parameters shall have to be fited, and this will require many physisists working together.
While this does not happen, the cold fusion theorists try to find a theory for cold fusion with the same foundations of the current Nuclear Theory.  We can compare this theoretical attempt of the cold fusion researchers with which would happen in Manhattan, if the physicists in there should try to build the atomic bomb by using the classical foundations of the Newton’s Mechanics. That is, without the principles of Quantum Mechanics the physicists would not succeed in the building of the atomic bomb.  In the same way, whithout the principles of QRT the physicists shall not succeed in making a theory for cold fusion.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Letter sent to Christy Frazier

Managing Editor of Infinite Energy Magazine

(2 November 2007)

CONSPIRACY AGAINST

QUANTUM RING THEORY

Christy Frazier
Managing Editor, Infinite Energy

cc. Bob Wever, Steven Krivit, Nancy Kolenda, David Bradley, Naveen Dankal, Peter Jones, Jed Rothwell, Antonny Leggett


Dear Christy

I have noted that there is a s conspiracy against my Quantum Ring Theory among cold fusion researchers and journalists that divulge the cold fusion experiments.

Interestingly, somebody has deleted my book from the bibliograpy of the Wikipedia page on cold fusion (my book has been added to that page in July-2007, by the physicist Trever McFaddon).

Many cold fusion researchers and journalists believe that cold fusion will be explained by a theory proposed by some eminent theorist of an important research institute.  For instance, the journalist Bob Wever says in his blog Strategy Kinetics:
“Many believe that the work of MIT's Peter Hagelstein--a tenured professor of electrical engineering--is exemplary and if verified experimentally, stands in line for a Nobel prize.”
http://www.strategykinetics.com/2006/02/cold_fusion.html#more

So, there are theorists that hope to win the Nobel prize with a successful theory able to explain cold fusion.  And of course that they don’t want my Quantum Ring Theory as an opponent.

Actually it is funny why the people believe that Hagelstein’s theory is able to explain cold fusion occurrence, since his theory is unable to explain even a single question like that arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch in his blog Chemistry Forum., where Mitch wrote:
“In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion”
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

So, Hagelstein’s theory or any other theory on cold fusion did not convince Mitch on the viability in cold fusion.

But after reading the response to his question posted by me according to Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch wrote:
“I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay”.
And we realize that Mitch is not quite sure anymore that cold fusion viability is impossible, after reading the explanation according to Quantum Ring Theory.


It is of interest to note that cold fusion researchers complain that there is a conspiracy of the academics against the cold fusion occurrence.
But the own cold fusion theorists have a conspiracy against the QRT, which is the unique theory able to explain the cold fusion occurrence.
It’s only a new paradox in the history of the science’s development.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[Mitch]

A major reoccurring theme with cold fusion research has been the failure of other researchers to replicate the work. I will be more than willing to collaborate with any researcher on their cold fusion experiments. I have ready access to alpha, beta, gamma and neutron counters and am eager to put this issue to rest.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Mitch,
then you could start from trying to repeat the Conte-Pieralice experiment, which is not difficult to perform.

The most interesting aspect of the experiment, as pointed out by Conte and Pieralice, is the following:

We should add that the aim of the experiment was to measure the possible synthesis of a proton and an electron into a neutron. It was not our purpose to effect calorimetric measurements.  It was an unexpected result that we discovered that the aluminium cathode melted in the water during the experiment.
All previous calculations that we performed, accounting for the radioactive source at such low activity, excluded the possibility of the melting of the cathode. 

The paper is ahead:

Technical Note Submitted to Infinite Energy as a Letter to the Editor:
AN EXPERIMENT INDICATES THE NUCLEAR FUSION OF
THE PROTON AND ELECTRON INTO A NEUTRON

ELIO CONTE¹   and MARIA PIERALICE^2
1Centro studi Radioatività, I.U.I., via Dante Alighieri 254/256, 70122 Bari, Italy; E-mail conte@teseo.it
²I.S.O.I., C.N.R., 70100 Bari, Italy; E-mail pieralice@teseo.it

Abstract
An experiment was performed that indicates that a proton and an electron may fuse at low temperatures and at low energies to form a neutron plus a neutrino.  The aim of the experiment was to obtain the nuclear fusion of protons and electrons to neutrons at low energies.


The Experiment
As we shall see, the primary task of the experiments was to have the proton essentially at rest, and the electron having a minimal threshold energy of 0.80 MeV.  An electrolitic cell was employed, having a Pt-anode and an Al-cathode with dimensions of 1mm x 1mm x 1mm. (This was a fine aluminium gauze of cubical form suspended by a Pt electrical lead wire.)
The anode was made of pure Pt shaped as a gauze cylinder, having a skeleton made of 1mm diameter wires supporting the spot-welded mesh made of 0.35 mm diameter wire.  The mesh dimension was 5 x 4 mm² and the anode overall size was 48 mm high with a 12 mm inside diameter.
The cell itself was a cube of Pirex glass having an edge dimension of 100 mm.  It was open on its top.  For the electrolyte, we used an alkali metal suphate, Na₂SO₄ or Li₂SO₄ , 1 M in disltilled H₂O.  The cell dimensions depend upon the size of the aluminium sample, but are not critial otherwise.  A d.d.p. of 12 volts and a constant current of 100 mA were utilized.

In this manner, hydrogen entering aluminium existed there as protons, essentially at rest.  The diffusion, d, of protons in aluminium was considered to be around 10^-15 m² / s  and the depth, L , was estimated on the basis of the simple diffusion law 
L= (pi . delta . t).

During the electrolytic process, a beam of electrons was forced to hit the aluminium cathode, and so induced a direct interaction of the protons and the electrons.  A radioactive source of  ⁹⁰Sr + ⁹⁰Y was utilized, having activity about 2.39 KBq (overall uncertainty (+-)10%).  The radioactive source was a disk having a diameter of 20 mm with implanted ⁹⁰Sr + ⁹⁰Y  by electrodeposition.  It was fixed external to the cell and the electron beam was collimated in order to hit directly the surface of the aluminium cathode with a geometry estimated to be 2.pi at a good approximation.
Maximum energies E_B of the electrons were considered to be 0.54 MeV and 2.27 MeV respectively for the two isotopes with Ê_B  of 0.20 MeV and 0.93 MeV respectively.  The loss of energy in H₂O for the electrons of 1 MeV was considered to be about 200 eV / mi , and the penetration depth of these electrons in aluminium was calculated to be about 0.4 cm.  Bremsstrahlung was also considered in order to estimate the actual energy of the electrons hitting the protons.  The electrons were forced to be very close to the cathode.  No particular effect was expected for the electrolysis owing to the presence of the electrons.

Concerning the neutron detection, we used a low-level BF3 detector having cylindrical geometry with a 100 mm basic radius and 250 mm height.  The BF₃ detector was connected to a multichannel analyzer, Canberra S20 assisted by a computer, for recording neutron events only, not energy.  In fact, as it is well known, the BF₃  counter is sensitive to thermalized neutrons and all information regarding the neutron's original energy is lost since it utilizes the thermal-neutral capture process

n + ¹⁰₅B ->⁷₃Li + alpha

The BF₃ counters were positioned in direct contact with the external surfaces of the cell and thus with a geometry able to collect all the emitted neutrons.  In these conditions, the geometry was considered to be 100%.  Sixty neutrons / hour were counted during an active experiment, versus the case in which the experiment was performed without using the radioactive source (two to three neutrons / hour).
Before starting the experimentation, some measurements concerning the neutron background were performed in our laboratories using the instrumentation above.  The background controls were executed for several months and a value of two or three neutrons / hour was obtained.
The experiment gave the following results.
a)   A mean value of 60 neutrons / hour (overall uncertainty 8% ) was measured during the experimentation by the BF₃ detector placed to measure neutron emission from the electrolytic cell;  all the measured neutrons were detected by the multichannel analyzer.
b)   An anomalous production of heat was observed during the experimentation so that the aluminium cathode melted entirely after one hour of experimentation.
c)     This melting did not occur during control experiments with no radioactive source present.
   The experiments giving the results (a) and (b) were repeated in our laboratories thirty times, and they always gave reproducible results.

We should add that the aim of the experiment was to measure the possible synthesis of a proton and an electron into a neutron. It was not our purpose to effect calorimetric measurements.  It was an unexpected result that we discovered that the aluminium cathode melted in the water during the experiment.
All previous calculations that we performed, accounting for the radioactive source at such low activity, excluded the possibility of the melting of the cathode.  The aluminium cathode melted only when we used the radioactive source and not in the course of the same experiment but without the beta source.
We were not equiped to follow and measure the temperature rise in the cell.  In a repetition of the experiment we are considering measuring parameters to investigate the melting of the cathode.

Conclusions
   We are convinced that we observed the cold fusion of protons and electrons into neutrons.  In 1920, E. Rutherford1 introduced the historical hypothesis of the neutron viewed as a compressed hydrogen atom, and we developed a theory2 in which the proton can be made to interact with the electron via a non-local, non-potential interaction due to the mutual overlap of the wavepackets.
In the experiment we used an electrolytic cell for a target.  The aim was to have a deliberate combination of protons and electrons in a physical situation that promoted wavefunction overlap.  It is such overlap of the wave functions between the electron and the target that , we believe, causes the process.  Considering the formation of the neutron, we have to exclude here the possibility that the process was due to free electron capture decay of a proton creating a neutron and a neutrino in the final state.  The Q-value for this process is -781 KeV, so the electron cannot be captured from a bound state, but must have a threshold kinetic energy greater than 781 KeV.  The cross-section for free electron capture decay is extremely small.  We do not have knowledge of previous calculations of this cross-section, but we may expect it to be similar to the cross section for the reverse process, neutrino capture by a nuclear target with emission of an electron.  In fact, at this threshold value of the energy, the Coulomb potential may be ignored.  Neutrino capture cross-section at about 1 MeV above the threshold are less than 10^-20 barns³.


We may attempt to state what the measured cross-section for our process was.  A 2.4 KBq beta source was used.  Considering that the solid angle of the 1 mm3 target from the source was 2pi , the electron flux was 2.4 x 10⁵ cm^-2s^-1.  As hydrogen concentration in the target we may assume that of the water, N_H = 6.7 x 10²² .  Also assuming the detection efficiency of recoil neutrons was 100%, then the obtained neutron rate of 60 per hour corresponds to a cross-section of roughly

( 1.7 x 10^-2 ) neutrons / s
Tal = --------------------------------------------- = 1.4mb
(2.4x10⁵cm^-2s^-1)(6.7x10²²cm^-3)(10^-3cm³)     

which is more than seventeen orders of magnitude higher than expected.  Thus, the explanation that we have given for such process seems correct.  A neutron is formed by the cold fusion of a proton and an electron.

References
1.   Rutherford, E. Proc. Roy. Soc. A97, 374, 1920
2.   Conte, E. Physics Essays 1, 70, 1992; 6, 532, 1993, 7, 429, 1994; 8, 51, 1995; 8,605, 1995; 9, 4, 1996; 10, 511, 1997; Hadronic J., 16 4, 261, 1993
3.   J. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics, 209, Springer-Verlag 1996.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Don Borghi's experiment


The first experimental verification of the synteshis of neutrons from protons and electrons was achieved by C. Borghi, C. Giori and A. Dall’Olio in the 1980’s via a test conducted at the CEN laboratories in Recife, Brasil, and published⁽¹⁾ later in 1993.

The experiment is today known as Don Borghi’s experiment from the leader of the team, the late Italian priest-physicist C. Borghi, formerly of the Deparment of Physics of the University of Milan, Italy, who dedicated his research activity to the test.

Don Borghi’s experiment constitutes the first historical verification of Rutherford’s conception of the neutron, and is rather remarkable because of its simplicity.



Contents
1 The experiment
2 Additional independent experiment
3 Taleyarkhan’s experiment
4 New clean energy
5 Theoretical implications
6 The dispute between skeptics and cold fusion theorists
7 Criterion of acceptance for a cold fusion theory
8 The fundamental requirement
9 See also
10 References



The experiment

In essence, the experimenters created in the interior of a cylindrical metal chamber (called klystron) a gas of ionized hydrogen (free protons and electrons) originating from the electrolytical separation of water, and kept the gas ionized via an electric discharge. Since protons and electrons carry a charge, they could not escape from the metal chamber.

Close to the outside of the chamber, the experimenters put a variety of fissionable and non-fissionable material and, after periods of time ranging from days to weeks, they detected transmutations in that material, thought to be caused by a flux of neutrons. In the absence of any other source, said neutron flux appears to originate from the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons in the interior of the klystron. Since the neutrons are neutral, once created inside the klystron, they can escape confinement and cause the detected nuclear transmutations.



Additional independent experiment

An separate and independent experimental test⁽²⁾ of the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons, although using a different procedure, was announced by E. Conte and M. Pieralice in 1999, with results that confirm those by Don Borghi et al.

An interesting result was reported in their paper:

We should add that the aim of the experiment was to measure the possible synthesis of a proton and an electron into a neutron. It was not our purpose to effect calorimetric measurements. It was an unexpected result that we discovered that the aluminium cathode melted in the water during the experiment.

All previous calculations that we performed, accounting for the radioactive source at such low activity, excluded the possibility of the melting of the cathode. The aluminium cathode melted only when we used the radioactive source and not in the course of the same experiment but without the beta source.

We were not equiped to follow and measure the temperature rise in the cell. In a repetition of the experiment we are considering measuring parameters to investigate the melting of the cathode.



Taleyarkhan’s experiment

Other experiments⁽³⁾, with results suggesting that a neutron must be formed by a proton and an electron, was made by Taleyarkhan, by using sonoluminescence. His experiment was a subject of controversy since its publication in 2002.

The controversy continues to this day. Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles, has recently completed an analysis of the Taleyarkhan results claiming that Taleyarkhan had most likely misinterpreted the radioactive decay of standard lab materials for the byproducts of nuclear fusion.[1]

Taleyarkhan has been cleared of deliberately fabricating his results⁽⁴⁾ though attempts to replicate his experiment have not generated evidence of cold fusion.[2]

Taleyarkhan maintains there is emission of neutrons above the neutron background in his experiment, which means that there are nuclear reactions.

Most theorists claim that it is considered theoretically possible to generate hot fusion temperatures in imploding bubbles using sound.

However the occurrence of nuclear reactions in Taleyarkhan’s experiment cannot be credited to hot fusion reactions, because in 2002 Suslick and Didenko made another version⁽⁵⁾ of Taleyarkhan’s experiment in which they showed that the greatest portion of energy in his experiment is wasted in chemical reactions, and so the remaining energy is not enough to produce hot fusion.

As a consequence, some researchers believe Taleyarkhan’s experiment requires an explanation by considering cold fusion reactions.


New clean energy

The neutron is one of the largest reservoirs of clean energy available to mankind. The possibility of practical utilization of neutronic energy depends in a crucial way on the nature of the neutron's constituents. If the neutron has a quark structure n= (d,u,d) as supposed by current theories, no possibility exists to utilize the energy contained in the neutron.

On the contrary, if Rutherford’s conception of the neutron should be correct, and the electron is indeed one of the physical constituents of the neutron, the possibility of utilizing the clean energy contained in the neutron's structure becomes real, and within our technological reach.

The definitive experimental verification that the electron is a physical constituent of the neutron would have additional theoretical and industrial implications of fundamental importance. On theoretical grounds, such a verification would require a profound revision of the current theory of strong interactions, from its current version possessing no practical applications, to a form that has direct and important practical applications⁽⁶⁾.



Theoretical implications

The stronger theoretical argument used by a skeptical against cold fusion occurrence is supported by mathematical calculations, as shows the nuclear chemist Andre Mitch in the Chemistry Forum under title The difference between cold fusion and cold fusion  http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0


1- Even if anomalous heat is indeed created in the cold fusion experiments, however the skeptical alleges that some unbeknown phenomena is creating thermal neutrons, and it is those thermal neutrons that are leading to observed heat increases, as shown by the skeptical Andre Mitch (in the link already quoted above).

 

2- But skepticals as Andre Mitch doubt this is happening, and reply as he did: "I can knock out the claim that this is from electron capture on deuterium(²H) or that this is from, protons(¹H), as follows :


Reactions:

Electron Capture on Hydrogen

¹H + 1e- ---> ¹n

Q = -0.78153017800003 MeV

Electron Capture on Deuterium

²H + 1e- ---> ¹n + ¹n

Q = -3.0059569539999 MeV "



And the skeptical Andre Mitch concludes:

“A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion, because the question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the theories proposed by cold fusion theorists , I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants; No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy."

This sentence is fatal to cold fusion theorists, says Andre Mitch: “No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy"

Therefore, it’s impossible to find theoretical answers for this question from the current foundations of current theories, as proven mathematically by Andre Mitch.


Besides, there are several reasons why cold fusion is considered theoretically impossible to occur, and that's why the Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann said in a lecture in the Portland State University in 1998: "It's a bunch of baloney. Cold Fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists"⁽⁷⁾ .

Gell-Mann's belief can be understood by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Theory , where it is written:

Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is that current theories describing conventional "hot" nuclear fusion cannot explain how a cold fusion reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion.[27][28] The 1989 DoE panel said: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Current understanding of conventional "hot" nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate: (a long list, which supports Gell-Mann's belief, follows this sentence)


Then now it is easier to understand why the Nobel Laureate Dr. Gerard t’Hooft said about the Borghi’s experiment: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony” ^[8] .

Nevertheless, Dr. t’Hooft said it in 2001. Along the years there was a growth of additional experimental confirmations, as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion:

In the early 90's, Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stanislaw Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, developed an alternative experimental technique called codeposition, involving electroplating cathodes with a particular ratio of palladium and deuterium[2]. In 2006, they reported evidence of what they said was high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface.[3] Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31) although interpretations vary.[4]
Besides Taleyarkhan was finally exhonorated from suspicion, and other experiments are confirming that the reality of cold fusion occurrence is today unquestionable, as related above.


Along the years it is also growing the quantity of proposed theories, as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Theory in the following items:

·  Bose-Einstein Condensate-like

·  Mossbauer effect-like

·  Multi-body interactions

·  Enhanced cross section

·  Mitchell Swartz and others have theorized

·  John C. Fisher has proposed a theory based on hypothetical polyneutrons.

·  In 2005, Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory

·  An informal proposal in 2000


However no theory is successful, and therefore 5 questions arise, as consequence of the LOGIC:

1- From the proposed theories, is there anyone with chance to explain cold fusion?

2- If yes, how?

3- If no, why?

4- Is there a fundamental requirement to be satisfied by any cold fusion theory?

5- Is there a criterion to be applied to a candidate theory, in order to discover if it is able to be successful, or not?


The dispute between skeptics and cold fusion theorists

The skeptics claim that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible. Unlike, the cold fusion researchers who state that it is possible, since they believe the experimental results show that cold fusion is a reality.

Where is the origin of such a theoretical controversy?

The controversy exists because of the situation that occur because of the long list that supports the Gell-Mann's belief.


In resume, the controversy is the following:

1- The skeptics claim that cold fusion is impossible because there are some fundamental requirements that must be satisfied, but it is impossible they can be satisfied.

2- The cold fusion theorists have no answers for explaining those fundamental requirements arisen by the sceptics. So, the theorists continue trying to find new theories, but the fundamental requirements are never answered.

3- Whereas the cold fusion theorists do not listen to the skeptics claim, because the theorists are sure that cold fusion is possible, since they believe their experiments prove its existence. Though the skeptics believe such experiments are flawed, as Andre Micth and the Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann.


Criterion of acceptance for a cold fusion theory

The theoretical explanation for Borghi’s experiment requires a cold fusion theory, since the electron and proton have fusion at low energy when they form the neutron in his experiment.

Many theories have been proposed for explaining cold fusion along the years.(Kenneth Shoulders, Edmund Storms, Paulo Correa, Dimitryii Afonichev, Peter Hagelstein, Mitchell Swartz , John C. Fisher , Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen).  And obviously all they are essays, since till today no theory was successful to explain cold fusion occurrence, as we infer from the long list that supports Gell-Mann's belief that cold fusion is impossible.


However theres is a fundamental requirement that any canditate to be a cold fusion theory must be able to satisfy, which is that point arisen by Andre Mitch. Because if a theory does not satisfy that point arisen by him, obviously he will not accept the theory. That's why he said that no theory is able to satisfy that point (because he was ignorant of the exitence of the zitterbewegung, as he confessed in the end of the debate: "I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response. Sorry for the delay" ).

The fundamental requirement has been inferred from experiments, because the fact that the neutron has a greatest mass than the sum of the masses of proton and electron is infered from experiments. So to be acceptable, a cold fusion theory must be able to satisfy such fundamental requirement, otherwise the theory cannot be acceptable.

This is obvious, since if a cold fusion theory fails in explaining a fundamental requirement, sure that it cannot be successful in explaining cold fusion, because the cold fusion reactions occur according to that fundamental requirement, as pointed out by Andre Mitch. If a theory does not satisfies the point arisen by Mitch, obviously he would not accept the theory, because it failled in explaining his question.


Anyone can propose a cold fusion theory. But:

· obviously the theory becomes publishable only if it satisfies some fundamental criteria that any scientific theory must satisfy...

· ...and besides, even if it is published, it can be successful in predicting and explaining cold fusion experiment if it satisfies the fundamental theoretical requirements that any cold fusion theory must satisfy to be successful, and one of them is that fundamental point arisen by Andre Mitch.


After published, such theory constitutes an essay, as are essays all the proposed cold fusion theories, because no one of them was successful till now, as we infer from the long list that supports the Gell-Mann's belief.


But if one proposes a cold fusion theory, and his theory is unable to surpass the fundamental requirement, then obviously such new essay has not chance to be successful in explaining cold fusion experiments, and therefore it cannot be taken seriously.


The fundamental requirement

The repose mass of the proton and electron are:

proton: m_P = 938.3 MeV/c²

electron: m_e = 0.511MeV/c²

Total mass: m_T= 938.811MeV/c²

A structure of the neutron n = p+e would have to have a mass m_N < 938.811 MeV/c², since there is a loss of mass. However, it is known from experiments1 that neutron’s mass is m_N = 939.6MeV/c².

Therefore, any canditate to be as an acceptable cold fusion theory must be able to give answer to the following fundamental question: where this additional mass of neutron comes from?

which was the Mitch conclusion in the begginning of the item "Theoretical implications", and which we emphasize here:

And the skeptical Andre Mitch concludes:

“A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion, because the question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the theories proposed by cold fusion theorists , I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants; No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy."


And the fatal sentence to cold fusion theorists:

No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy

Attention must be paid to the fact that the fundamental requirement is only the first step that any cold fusion theory must satisfy. Even if the requirement is satisfied, it no means that the theory will be successful in explaining cold fusion. To be successful it must satisfy other additional requirements, as for instance why a neutron formed by proton+electron has spin 1/2, because a model n=p+e seemingly violates the Fermi-Dirac statistics. But the main among the additional requirements obviously it’s to explain the cold fusion results, which is an obvious thing: because if a theory does not explain the results of the experiments, it is not a successful theory, and therefore it is not acceptable. Because a theory that is unable to predict and to explain the results of the experiments has only one destiny: the garbage. However, if a candidate cold fusion theory does not satisfy the first fundamental criterion, it cannot continue as a candidate, because it has failed to surpass the first step in the criterion of evaluation, established from the point arisen by Andre Mitch. There is something of logic in here: suppose there is a stairs that somebody must go up. If the person is not able to surpass the first degree, he cannot continue going up the stairs.


References

1. 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.

2. E. Conte, M. Pieralice, “An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron”, Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.

3. R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, “"Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation"”, Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).

4. Second Inquiry Exonerates Taleyarkhan: http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2007/02/second_inquiry_exonerates_tale.html

5. Y.T. Didenko, K. S. Suslick, “"The energy efficiency of formation of photons, radicals and ions during single-bubble cavitation"”, Nature, vol 418, 394 - 397 (25 Jul 2002) Letters to Nature.

6. R. M. Santilli, “The Physics of New Clean Energies and Fuels According to Hadronic Mechanics”, Journal of New Energy, V. 4 , No. 1, pg. 125, 1999

7. E. Mallove, CSICOP: "Science Cops" at War with Cold Fusion, Infinite Energy, V. 4, No. 23, 1999)

8. W. Guglinski, Quantum Ring Theory, pg. 3, Bäuu Press, 2006

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Arguments used by Wiki members
for deleting the article Don Borghi’s experiment:

*I don't see how this is notable. [[User:Maxamegalon2000|Maxa]]

*the experiment is not notable [[user:bobby1011|Handschuh]]

*The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go. [[User:Alberon|Alberon]]

*If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have reliable source and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. [[User:Save Us 229|]]_





Reply by Guglinski:

ON THE NOTABILITY OF THE DON BORGHI’S EXPERIMENT

Why the academic theorists do not allow

Don Borghi’s experiment  becoming notable

The results of Don Borghi’s experiment, if confirmed in universities, requires the total reformulation of current Theoretical Physics.  So, his experiment introduces a conflic of interests in in the realm of Physics, as follows:

1-The interest of Science : Concerning the question of the science’s development, there is interest to repeat the Don Borghi’s experiment, in order to discover definitivelly if its results are correct.  Because if Don Borghi’s experiment is confirmed, the current theories of Physics must be changed.  Therefore for the science the experiment’s confirmation, or not, has a fundamental interest.

2- The interest of academic theorists : As Don Borghi’s experiment threatens the current theories taught in universities, and the academic theorists want to protect their prevailing theories, there is not interest to confirm the experiment in the universites.




But there is another reason why the academic theorists do not have interest in repeating Don Borghi’s experiment.  It is because they believe that are correct the current theories, and therefore the results of Don Borghi’s experiment cannot be correct.

That’s why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Gerardus ‘t Hooft said: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”.

So, Dr. ‘t Hooft bets that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong.  After all, Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded his Noble Prize with a theory developed on the foundations of the current prevailing theories.  And therefore there is a conflict of interests:

a)  For if Don Borghi’s experiment is correct, the theory from which Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded the Nobel has been developed on the basis of doubtful principles.  But he cannot believe that his theory can be under the shadow of any suspiction.  Then it’s obvious that he is sure that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong, and Dr. ‘t Hooft supports his conviction in his theoretical views.  So there are hard reasons why Dr. ‘t Hooft doesn’t want to see such experiment verified in any university.

b) But many theorists (like R. M. Santilli of the Institure for Basic Research) have interest to verify the experiment, because they think that there some troubles with the prevailing theories.  And if Don Borghi’s experiment is verified and confirmed, their suspiction will be confirmed too:  that indeed there are serious troubles in Theoretical Physics.






I bet that Don Borghi’s experiment is correct.  My suspiction is supported in theoretical reasons, as happens in the case of Dr. ‘t Hooft.  So, we disagree in the way we see the foundations of Modern Physics.

That’s why in 2001 I suited in law two Brazilian universites, in order to oblige them to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment.  They are:  the Federal University of Minas Gerais-UFMG, and the Federal University of Juiz de Fora-UFJF. 

As a judical support, I used the Brazilian Constitution, which prescribes that any university must promote the science’s development.  So, as the Don Borghi’s experiment is of the science’s interest (as explained in the item 1 above).  And I used such an argument, trying to convince the judge to oblige via judicial the two universities to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment.  Unfortunatelly the judge did not give to the Brazilian Constitution the respect that it merits, and he considered that request had not judicial support to oblige the two universities to perform the experiment.

As conclusion, Don Borghi’s experiment is notable

in the realm of Physics

But the academic physicists undertake very hard efforts in order

do not allow that such notability of Don Borghi’s experiment

leak to the knowledge of people

[lysdexia]

• Electron Capture on Hydrogen
  ¹H + 1e^- ---> ¹n
  Q = -0.78153017800003 MeV
• Electron Capture on Deuterium
  ²H + 1e^- ---> ¹n + ¹n
  Q = -3.0059569539999 MeV

A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants; No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy.

"phenomena is"? "would of"?  What a dolt.

Subtract Q₂ from Q₁, subtract e-capture from Q₂, add LTCF.  It may need antineutrinos to start.  One knows thas the output of fusion can supply the activation barrier for another fusion. Hot fusion and beam fusion are foolish because much of the heat is wasten in bringun up the temperature rather than the population of tangled and bound states.  So cold fusion could be thouht of as time travel.  Where are the helium detectors?

cold fusion news and more: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/browse_frm/thread/2522a37fec9d305d

[lysdexia]

In this paper: http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 you state that hard prompt gamma rays will have a mean free path of ~3.4x10^-8 cm and therefore will be absorbed within the first nanometer.  You also provide a number density of 10¹⁵ cm² ‘heavy’ electrons.  This corresponds to a depth of ~ 3x10^-8 cm, which is shorter than the mean free path.  So if that is the correct number density of ‘heavy’ electrons, then you would still see at least half of the gamma rays.

Where'd you get the depth?

[lysdexia]

Mitch  said: 
“This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. ”


Let’s respond to Mitch question.


A free electron moves through the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung), as Schrodeinger pointed out after an analysis of the Diract’s equation of the electron.

Dirac

Then let’s see what happens when a proton captures an electron and they form a neutron, as happens in the experiments of Borghi, Conte-Pieralice, and Taleyarkhan.

A free electron is moving with helical trajectory, with speed v<<c. 
It has two sort of energy:

1- Kinetic energy E_K due to its speed v.
2- Energy E_Z due to its zitterbewegung.

When the proton capturates the electron and they form the neutron, the electron loses the zitterbewegung.  So, the energy E_Z is conveted to kinetic energy, and the total energy of the electron passes to be E_T = E_K+E_Z, and therefore its speed increases, and it stays gyrating about the proton with speed V>>v.

One elèctròn at v<<c has no zitterbewegung, which is a artefact of virtual Schwinger fases: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Zitterbewegung.  You must pay for H, so you didn't answer Mitch's question.  Maybe you can resort tom vacual splitting...

The electron’s speed within the neutron’s structure n=p+e one can get from the Kurie’s graphic on the neutron’s decay, and in the paper Anomalous Mass of the Nêutron it is calculated that this speed is 92% of the light speed, after the instant when the electron is captured by the proton and starts go gyrate about it. 
This relativistic velocity V=0,92c increases the electron’s mass.

By this way, within the neutron, the electron’s mass increases from its repose mass 0,511MeV to 1,291MeV (calculated in the paper).

Nonsense, the velocity and mass aren't complex.  And where does this sustem's greater mass come from?

Then, when the electron is captured by the proton, it loses its zitterbewegung, and so it loses its spin 1/2.  Within the neutron the electron becomes a boson, and so the neutron is formed by a fermion (proton) and a boson (the electron that lost the spin).

Where does the spin go?

For a layman to understand easily that said in the Introduction of my book, take for instance the interaction between two neutrons.
Two neutrons have no repulsion.  But in a short distance, they are attracted by the strong force.  So, after interacting within a nucleus, two neutrons would have to form the 0n2, and would never separate anymore.
But 0n2 does not exist in nature.  Heisenberg tried to explain it with the introduciton of the concept of Isospin.  Unfortunatelly the isospin is an abstract mathematical concept. 
Two neutrons tied strongly by the strong force cannot be separated by an abstract concept, because an abstract concept cannot produce a FORCE capable to win the force of attraction by the strong force.

Two neutròns do repel by u&darr;d&uarr;d&uarr;|u&darr;d&uarr;d&uarr; &rarr; u&darr;|d&uarr;;d&uarr;|u&darr;;d&uarr;|d&uarr;; where d-d repulsion is greater than overall magnetic copuland.  In nuclei, deuteròns and dideuteròns are what pair up as there are no repellent quarks.

Only a FORCE of repulsion can win the force of attraction.
A NEW NUCLEAR MODEL (that shows what is the force of repulsion between two neutrons in short distances) is proposed in my book Quantum Ring theory.

But your book is junk.

The stronger reason why the scientific community neglects cold fusion is because its occurrence requires a neutron model n=p+e formed by proton and electron. However such theoretical model violates the Fermi-Diract statistics.

But a model of neutron n=p+e that does not violate Fermi-Diract statistics is proposed in the book QUANTUM RING THEORY (QRT), as I alredy explained in the begginning of this comment.

It also breaches conservation of linear and angular momentum.  (p + e &rarr; n does.  p + e &harr; p+e would be true, however.)

1) When we analyze the mass of pions according to the current Standard Model, we arrive to contradictory conclusions about the mass M(d) of the quark down and the mass M(u) of the quark up.
In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that we arrive to the following two conclusions:

CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

So?  Mass is variant.

2) Look at the chemical reaction Na+Cl->NaCl
QUESTION: what is the matematical formalism underlying such a chemical reaction?
ANSWER: No one. The chemical reactions have not been established through the mathematical formalism.

The chemical reactions have been established based on the LOGIC, and such a procedure was viable because the chemists had the help of a property of the chemical reactions: the mass of the reagent elements does not change after the reactions. For instance, the mass of Na is the same in the two sides of the equation Na+Cl->NaCl.

If you knew anything about maths or cinematics, you would realise the above kemic reaction as incomplete, for the same momental reason: Na + Cl &rarr; NaCl &rarr; Na + Cl &rArr; Na + Cl &harr; NaCl.  Le Chatelier's princip hints at what's needen for irreversibility, Gibbs's state function as well: Na + Cl &rarr; NaCl + E_radial.  Now the bodycount on both sides is the same.

As the theorists did not discover the true cause of the beta decay anomaly, they impute to other cause the occurrency of that anomaly: they state that the parity is not kept in the beta decay.

It's way better than your magic disappearing act.

[lysdexia]

New clean energy

The neutron is one of the largest reservoirs of clean energy available to mankind. The possibility of practical utilization of neutronic energy depends in a crucial way on the nature of the neutron's constituents. If the neutron has a quark structure n= (d,u,d) as supposed by current theories, no possibility exists to utilize the energy contained in the neutron.

You say everyone's nuclear fissile thermòelèctric generators are imaginary?

And how do you explain tripolar potentials in scattering experiments with protòns, neutròns, and deuteròns if you don't welcome quarks?  Of course they wiped off your rambly, presumptuose essay: http://google.com/search?q=Mojo+Jojo.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Well, finally a shenaniger comes in here.


Shenaniger is a theorist that becomes hysterical when he faces facts that defy the theoretical dogmas in which he believes.

So, in order to continue supporting his dogmas, he uses the Shenanigan Method or Argumentation. 
By using the Shenanigan Method, he tries to deceives not only his opposer, by mainly to bamboozle himself with stupid arguments.

It is not difficult to debunk a shenaniger, since he tries to support his claims with silly arguments.

Mr. lysdexia actually is Mr. Autymn. 

So, let us debunk Mr. Autymn, as follows:



1-  First of all, there are two interpretations for the zitterbewegung: one proposed by Schrodinger, and other by Krekora at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung

Krekora proposal is only a desperate attempt trying to explain why the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation.  However his hypothesis only introduces new paradoxes in Physics.

So, we have to consider Schrodinger's solution, because it eliminates the paradoxes.







2-  Tthe link quoted by Mr. Autymn:

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Zitterbewegung

belongs to the forum sci.physics


Well, some months ago I posted my paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON in the Yahoo's forum free_energy, where Autymn is moderator.

Several times I asked to Autymn his opinion about the paper of mine, and he deleted all my posts, because he did want to face facts that defy his dogmas.

But as Autymn cannot delete my paper linked in here, and he cannot avoid the people to read the paper, then he tries to confuse the people with crazy arguments.








3- So, let's finally show that Mr. Autymn says foolish things.

In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that form current Particle Physics we arrive to the following contraditory conclusions on the masses of quarks up and down:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

And now Mr. Autymn claims:   "So?  Mass is variant."


Mass is variant ? 
What a hell.
Then suppose that Mitch has a mass m_M = 80kg, and Mr. Autymn has a mass m_A = 120kg.

And suppose that Mr. Autymn develops a theory, in which he arrives to the following two conclusions:
a) m_M = 80kg > m_A = 120kg
b) m_M = 80kg < m_A = 120kg

80kg > 120kg
80kg < 120kg



Yes, indeed Mr. Autymn is crazy.  And what is worst.  He believes that everybody in here is crazy too.

Interestingly, these two contraditory conclusions shown in my paper were the reason why Mr. Autymn deleted my posts in the forum free_energy.  After all, he did not enjoy that mistake of Particle Physics.  And so, he deleted my post in there, and by this way he resolved the problem.


However here he cannot delete my post, since he is not the moderator.  Then as solution he tries to convince everybody with stupid arguments.  A sort of solution in general used by the shenanigers.







4-  Do you want to laugh a lot?

Then look at what Autymn said in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/29661

where he tried to refute my new model of neutron n=p+e,
proposed in the paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON.

Autymn said:
"The [inner] radius of the elèctròn is bigger than the
[inner] radius of a protòn or neutròn"

Any doubt that such a guy is crazy ?

[lysdexia]

Well, finally a shenaniger comes in here.


Shenaniger is a theorist that becomes hysterical when he faces facts that defy the theoretical dogmas in which he believes.

So, in order to continue supporting his dogmas, he uses the Shenanigan Method or Argumentation. 
By using the Shenanigan Method, he tries to deceives not only his opposer, by mainly to bamboozle himself with stupid arguments.

It is not difficult to debunk a shenaniger, since he tries to support his claims with silly arguments.

Yes, You.

Mr. lysdexia actually is Mr. Autymn. 

So, let us debunk Mr. Autymn, as follows:

Neither of me sounds lik a Mr., dolt.

1-  First of all, there are two interpretations for the zitterbewegung: one proposed by Schrodinger, and other by Krekora at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung

Krekora proposal is only a desperate attempt trying to explain why the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation.  However his hypothesis only introduces new paradoxes in Physics.

So, we have to consider Schrodinger's solution, because it eliminates the paradoxes.

Back up your claim.

Well, some months ago I posted my paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON in the Yahoo's forum free_energy, where Autymn is moderator.

Several times I asked to Autymn his opinion about the paper of mine, and he deleted all my posts, because he did want to face facts that defy his dogmas.

But as Autymn cannot delete my paper linked in here, and he cannot avoid the people to read the paper, then he tries to confuse the people with crazy arguments.

I'm not a moderator, dolt; the moderators often even censor my posts for my attacks.

You need help: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/paranoid_delusion

3- So, let's finally show that Mr. Autymn says foolish things.

In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that form current Particle Physics we arrive to the following contraditory conclusions on the masses of quarks up and down:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

And now Mr. Autymn claims:   "So?  Mass is variant."


Mass is variant ? 
What a hell.
Then suppose that Mitch has a mass m_M = 80kg, and Mr. Autymn has a mass m_A = 120kg.

And suppose that Mr. Autymn develops a theory, in which he arrives to the following two conclusions:
a) m_M = 80kg > m_A = 120kg
b) m_M = 80kg < m_A = 120kg

80kg > 120kg
80kg < 120kg

I said mass, not a (one) measurement.  Congratulations, you are no smarter than a creationist.

Yes, indeed Mr. Autymn is crazy.  And what is worst.  He believes that everybody in here is crazy too.

worst -> worse
I believe nothing.  The beliefs are yours.

Interestingly, these two contraditory conclusions shown in my paper were the reason why Mr. Autymn deleted my posts in the forum free_energy.  After all, he did not enjoy that mistake of Particle Physics.  And so, he deleted my post in there, and by this way he resolved the problem.


However here he cannot delete my post, since he is not the moderator.  Then as solution he tries to convince everybody with stupid arguments.  A sort of solution in general used by the shenanigers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojo_Jojo#Voice

4-  Do you want to laugh a lot?

Then look at what Autymn said in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/29661

where he tried to refute my new model of neutron n=p+e,
proposed in the paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON.

Autymn said:
"The [inner] radius of the elèctròn is bigger than the
[inner] radius of a protòn or neutròn"

Any doubt that such a guy is crazy ?

Coulomb's law is not crazy.  Now put up or shut up.

[lysdexia]

Oh, and my mass is/was 52 kg, not 120.

[lysdexia]

It's essential for the mass spectrum of up and down to overlap; otherwise, both nucleòns would inverse decay intom &Delta;^&minus;, which is heavier.  Atoms beyond protium would be impossibil.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

1)  Autymn is a guy that studied a lot of theories, but he does not know how to connect them to the subject under discussion.

That's why he says things without sense, as this one:
"Nonsense, the velocity and mass aren't complex"

My God !!@!
What a hell it has connection with the subject ??








2)  Autymn also is unable to understand the crazy things said by himself.
For instance, concerning the question:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

now he claims:
"I said mass, not a (one) measurement.  Congratulations, you are no smarter than a creationist."

So, as Autymn is unable to understand the foolish things he states, let us put in another way, as follows:

From his argument that "So?  Mass is variant" Autymn is able to develop the following NEW AUTYMN'S THEORY, concerning the mass m_e of electron and the mass m_p of proton:

====================================

NEW AUTYMN THEORY:

CONCLUSION 1:  m_e < m_p
CONCLUSION 1:  m_e > m_p

====================================

Why not?  After all, as Autymn claims that mass is variant, then:
ACCORDING TO AUTYMN:
a) the mass of electron can be greater than the mass of proton,
b) and at the same time the mass of the electron can be smaller than the mass of proton

My God...







3) Autymn also believes in fantasy, because he is sure that experimental results must be negleted face to theories in which he believes.

Now he claims:  "Coulomb's law is not crazy.  Now put up or shut up"
Because the entire sentence that he said concerning the electron's radius is the following:
"The [inner] radius of the elèctròn is bigger than the
[inner] radius of a protòn or neutròn, by Coulomb's
law and mass-energy equivalense."

So, let us compare what he states with the experimental results:
...while scattering of fast electron beams proves (since the 1980's) that the electron radius must be below 0.1fm, and the value obtained then in the epola model is 0.094fm
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Xw2_EQLbvVMJ:flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/APR03/baps/abs/S3610007.html+electron+radius&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=br

In the papers of mine concerning the NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON, it is considered the radius of electron according to the results of experiments, which is a criterion required by the scientific method.
I dont consider fantasies, as Autymn uses to do.


But he is right.  We have to shut up when we talk to crazy guys.

The problem with crazy guys is that they do not realize that they are crazy.
But sure other people realize it easily, simply by looking the madness they state.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Foundations for cold fusion

Is there need of new foundations for cold fusion ?

There is a controversy.

Some theorists say “yes”.
Another ones say “no”, because they allege that occurrence of cold fusion can be explained on the basis of the existing theories.

However from the basis of the existing theories there is no way to surpass some theoretical troubles, as for intance as shown in the article Don Borghi's experiment. 
And so it seems that the controversy is over, and we have to respond “yes, there is need of new foundations for cold fusion.


Criterion to establish new foundations for cold fusion
So, a cold fusion theory must be proposed on the basis of new foundations.

But is there a criterion to appraise what new foundations are acceptable, or not, on the basis of which a cold fusion theory must be developed?

Such a criterion was never proposed before.

However there is a criterion that we can consider seriously, which is the following:

CRITERION FOR NEW FOUNDATONS:

New foundations, to be acceptable,
and from which a cold fusion theory
can be developed with chance to be successful,
must be able to supply us a model of nucleus
from which we can explain ordinary nuclear phenomena not explained yet
from the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics

In another words:

1- There is not yet in current Nuclear Physics a unique  model of nucleus, capable to explain the ordinary nuclear phenomena, as magnetic moments, binding energies of nuclei, electric quadrupole moments, magic numbers, etc.  There are several nuclear models, and each one of them is applied to explain a certain nuclear property.  Besides, those several nuclear models are incompatible.  And it’s hard to believe that Nature uses several different and incompatible structures for producing the nuclear phenomena.


2- If one wishes to find a successful theory able to be applied to cold fusion, first of all it’s indispensable to discover the true structure of the nuclei, i.e, it is indispensable to discover a UNIQUE model of nucleus, capable to explain all the ordinary nuclear phenomena.  Such argument makes sense, because since Nuclear Physics is unable to explain some ordinary nuclear phenomena from a 'unique coherent nuclear model, it’s reasonable to expect that from the foundations of Nuclear Physicis it’s impossible to develop a successful cold fusion theory.


3- The fact that from the basis of the current Nuclear Physics there is no way to explain some ordinary nuclear phenomena is emphasized by Einsberg and Resnick, as they state in their book Quantum Physics:

“Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this cknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons”.

So, as from the current foundations of Nuclear Physics some nuclear phenomena cannot be explained, it is reasonable to expect that such current foundations cannot explain cold fusion too.


4- If new foundations are successful to explain the ordinary nuclear phenomena phenomena not explained from the old foundations of Nuclear Physics, then we can hope that a cold fusion theory developed from these new foundations can explain cold fusion occurrence too.


New foundations proposed in quantum ring theory
Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) was not developed with the aim to look for new foundations for a cold fusion theory.  Instead of, it was developed with the objective to find new foundations and models from which one could explain phenomena that have not explanations from the existing theories.

In the branch of Nuclear Physics, QRT proposes a new nuclear model from which we explain


The “shrink-stretch” of 92U238
The nucleus of 92U238 has an intriguing behavior, that cannot be explained from the nuclear models of current Nuclear Physics, as explained ahead.

92U238 has pair number of protons (92) and pair number of neutrons (146).  So, the nucleus is symmetric.

When 92U238 is excited, its shape changes.
*Let us analyse what we have to expect that must be such changing of U238, from the current Nuclear Physics.
According to Nuclear Physics, protons and neutrons have aleatory distribution within the U238, similar to the molecules of air within a basket ball.

If we supply air to a spherical basket ball with radius R, its radius increases from R to R+a, along all the directions (that is, the growth of “a” is the same in all the directions, in order that the final form of the basket ball continues to be spherical).
Consider a nucleus U238 with spherical form and radius R, earlier to be excited

From the current Nuclear Physics, we had to expect that, when excited, there would be a growth of the radius in all the directions, from R to R+a, in order that “a” would be the same in any direction, similar to what happens with the basket ball. 

So, the U238 would have to have a “contraction-expansion” along the time, as shown in Figure 1, like happens to a basket ball too (if we take a full ball and supply to it an additinal portion of air, and remove it, and supply it again, and remove it, and so on).


http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig1.gif


However the experiments have shown that such prediction that we expect from the nuclear models of Nuclear Physics is wrong.  Because the U238 actually changes its shape as shown in the figure 2.


http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig2.gif


The variation in the form of U238 is 30%, and from Nuclear Physics there is not theoretical explanation for such a strange behavior of the nucleus of uranium.



The new nuclear model proposed in QRT
In Quantum Ring Theory the protons and neutrons are distrubuted along the z-axis in hexagonal floors, and in the center of the nucleus there is a central 2He4, as shown in the Figure 3. It is named Hexagonal Floors Model.


http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig3.gif

It is shown in the book QRT that from such model we calculate the binding energies of nuclei, magnetic moments, nuclear spins, etc. 
:In particular, the theoretical binding energies of light nuclei as 1H2, 1H3, 2He3, 2He4, 3Li, 4Be, 5B, 6C, and 7N, cannot be calculated from current Nuclear Physics.  But they are obtained from the Hexagonal Floors Model, and agree to empirical data.

Note that between the hexagonal floors there is a distance Δd, and when the nucleus is excited several distances Δd are submitted to a contraction-expansion phenomenon, like happens to the belows of an accordion.  Such phenomenon is named Accordion-Effect in Quantum Ring Theory.

So now we can understand why the U238 has that behavior shown in Figure 2, when it is excited, as we realize by looking at Figure 4, where several distances between the floors increases from Δd to ΔD.

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig4.gif


The Accordion-Effect in the paladium
Obviously the accordion effect occurs in all the nuclei.  However those ones that have a pair number of protons and a pair number of neutrons, as occurs to the 92U238, have the biggest effect of contraction-expansion.

So, the phenomenon occurs in the 46Pd, which has a central 2He4, and 7 completete hexagonal floors, and two 1H2 (each one far away of the central 2He4).

All the nuclei are submitted to the accordion-effect everytime.  A free deuteron 1H2 is also submitted to another sort of motion:  an oscillation due to the zero point energy, everytime.
If the motion of a nucleus Pd due to the accordion-effect gets resonance with the oscilation due to the zero point energy of a free nucleon 1H2, such resonance can help the cold fusion occurrence.

If the two motions are aligned toward the same direction through an electromagnetic field, it’s easier cold fusion to occur by the capture of the 1H2 by the nucleus Pd.


The LENR within the hydrogen atom
There is something missing in the hydrogen model of Quantum Mechanics, as we realize from the successes of Bohr’s hydrogen model (see Successes of the Bohr atom).

In the new hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory there is a dilation of the space (aether) within the electrosphere of the proton.  Such a dilation of the aether is due to the repulsive gravity (the same repulsive gravity that causes the expansion of the Universe, and predicted in Einstein’s theory through the cosmological constant).

It seems that such dilation of the aether within the proton’s electrosphere causes a sort of interaction that Don Borghi called non-Coulombic interactions.

In his paper, Don Borgi wrote:
“We have tried to see experimentally whether there is some interaction between electric charges, other than the Coulombic one, and whether it may produce some kind of bound states between a proton and an electron, electrically neutral but different from a hydrogen-atom state.  This requires that the stronger, and quicker, Coulombic interaction may be avoided by means of a high-frequency ionizing e.m.field.  This field succeeds in maintaining a "cold" plasma i.e., a considerable number of protons mixed and colliding with an equal number of free electrons, for a time much larger than 10^-8 sec.  This limit is suggested by the known average recombination time of the ionized hydrogen atom”.

So, it seems that the non-Couloumbic interactions detected in Don Borghi’s experiment are the LENR responsible for cold fusion occurrence. And LENR is present within the hydrogen atom.

The Editor Eugene Mallove of Infinite Energy Magazine read the paper where it is proposed the new hydrogen atom of Quantum Ring Theory, and in March 04-2004 the Managing Editor Christy Frazier sent by e-mail the following words to the author of QRT:

“Thank you again for submitting your paper, Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom, to Infinite Energy Magazine (Manuscript #03-06). Our editor is aware of the possible implications presented for LENR and hydrino physics by this paper.”


References
*R. Eisberg, R. Resnick, ‘’Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles’’, John Wiley & Sons, 1974
*Quantum Ring Theory
*Don Borghi's experiment
*Successes of the Bohr atom

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Quantum Ring Theory
at
Temple University

*Temple University (Philadelphia-USA) holds the
*Center for Frontier Sciences, responsible for the publication of
*Frontier Perspectives, a semiannual journal.






“Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?”:  a rival book

Extracted from Frontier Perspectives⁽¹⁾:

On September 2002, the Center for Frontier Sciences held one of
its most successful international workshops, titled
“Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?  Possible New Developments
in Quantum Theory in the 21st Century”. 
Sixteen eminent physicists and philosophers presented findings, ideas
and speculations concerning the future revolution in physics, in the light
of quantum mechanics’ intriguing revelations.

The prestigious publishing house, Springer Verlag has undertaken the
publication of a book based on the lectures and panel discussions held
 during that momentous workshop.  ''Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?''
(Elitzur, A. C., Dolev, S. and Kolenda, N., Editors) is now available and is
 a prominent addition to Springer-Verlag’s new collection, “The Frontier Series”. 

Contributing authors include Nobel Laureates Anthony Leggett and
Gerardus t’Hooft, following a foreward by Roger Penrose.

"Quantum Ring Theory" and "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics?" are two rival books.  They both present findings and ideas concerning the future revolution in physics.


The main difference between the two books lies in the following:

a) Quo Vadis QM? has been written keeping the fundamental foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

b) Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) shows that some fundamental principles are missing in Quantum Mechanics, and there are other ones that must be replaced.  According to QRT, among the fundamental concepts missing in Quantum Mechanics, one is concerning the question on the new model of neutron, required by a cold fusion theory canditate to explain cold fusion experiments.


Therefore, the fundamental difference between the two rival books lies in the fact that in Quo Vadis QM? the cold fusion existence is neglected, while in the book Quantum Ring Theory the cold fusion occurrence is taken in consideration.

The neglection of cold fusion research by the theorists that colaborated in the book Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics can be resumed in this sentence of Dr. t’Hooft in 2001 concerning the Borghi’s experiment:

“There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”⁽²⁾. 

From the principles of Quantum Mechanics cold fusion occurrence is impossible to occur, as stated by the Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann at a public forum (lecture at Portland State University in 1998):

“It’s a bunch of baloney.  Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists”⁽³⁾.

Many other theoretical restrictions against cold fusion viability can be seen in the Wikipedia’s article "cold fusion".



So, concerning possible new developments in Quantum Theory in the 21st Century, the book Quo Vadis QM? does not take in consideration the theoretical implications that cold fusion occurrence requires.  Unlike, in the book Quantum Ring theory these implications are taken in consideration.





Quantum Ring Theory quoted in Frontier Perspectives

Quantum Ring Theory, the rival book of the Quo Vadis QM?, is now quoted in Frontier Perspectives⁽⁴⁾:

Guglinski, Wladimir. (2006)

Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion.  Boulder, Co.:  The Bäuu Institute Press.

In Quantum Ring Theory Guglinski presents a new theory concerning the fundamental nature of physics.  Here, the author argures that the current understanding of physics does not showcase an accurate model of the world.  Instead, he argues that we must consider the “aether”, a notion originally developed by Greeck philosophers, and by considering the nature of “aether” and its role in physical processes, Guglinski is able to create a theory that reconciles quantum physics with the Theory of Relativity.  As part of his new theory, Guglinski showcases a new model of the neutron and this model has been confirmed by contemporary physical experiments.





The problem of spin of the electron in the nucleus

A reviewer of the Infinite Energy Magazine wrote the following review on the solution proposed in QRT:

“The basic question here is can a classical model (which postulates a trajectory for the electron) cast any light on the inner workings of the nucleus? Most physicists would respond with a resounding NO. However, it generally happens that classical models have quantum analogs and thus can prove suggestive in at least a qualitative way. For instance, without the classical Hamiltonian energy expression there would be no clue to how to write the Schrödinger equation. And the classical energy expression would not exist without trajectory pictorialization. Therefore one cannot reject Guglinski’s “helical trajectory” model (or similar models due to Bergman and others) out of hand as useless to physics. We don’t know what the final physics will be, if any.
Moreover, Guglinski’s model may solve the problem of spin of the electron in the nucleus.”





Experiments that confirm the new neutron model of QRT
The new model of the neutron n=p+e proposed in Quantum Ring Theory is confirmed by the following experiments:

*Don Borghi’s experiment⁽⁵⁾

*Conte-Pieralice experiment⁽⁶⁾

*Taleyarkhan’s experiment⁽⁷⁾


*Additional experiment: 
The fundamental background on the Guglinski’s new model of neutron n=p+e is the solution proposed in Quantum Ring Theory for a question considered unsurmountable by the most quantum theorists:  how to conciliate a model of neutron formed by a proton and electron with the Fermi-Diract statistics.  In QRT the Fermi-Dirac statistics is conciliated with the neutron model n=p+e through the spin-fusion hypothesis, which received an experimental corrobotation in 2006 from the ARPES experiment^[8] (Angle-Resolved Photoemission Spectroscopy), performed by the staf of Dr. Changyoung Kim, of Yonsei University, where they did succeed to apart the charge and the spin of an electron.



References
1- N. Kolenda, “From the editor’s desk”, Frontier Perspectives, V. 14, No.1, 2005

2- W. Guglinski, ''Quantum Ring Theory'', pg. 3, Bäuu Press, 2006

3- E. Mallove, ''CSICOP:  “Science Cops” at War with Cold Fusion'', Infinite Energy, V. 4, No. 23, 1999

4- N. Kolenda, ''New books received'', Frontier Perspectives, V. 16 , No. 1 , 2007

5-   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.

6- E. Conte, M. Pieralice, ''An Experiment Indicates the Nuclear Fusion of the Proton and Electron into a Neutron'', Infinite Energy, vol 4, no 23-1999, p 67.

7-  R.P. Taleyarkhan, C.D. West, J.S. Cho, R.T. Lahey, Jr., R.I. Nigmatulin, and R.C. Block, ''Evidence for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation'', Science, vol 295, pp 1868-1873 (March 8, 2002) (in Research Articles).

8- First direct observations of 'spinons' and 'holons' seen after 40-year hunt - http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/august23/spinon-080906.html


 

[lysdexia]

1)  Autymn is a guy that studied a lot of theories, but he does not know how to connect them to the subject under discussion.

Autymn is not a guy, retard.

That's why he says things without sense, as this one:
"Nonsense, the velocity and mass aren't complex"

My God !!@!
What a hell it has connection with the subject ??

You wrote complex numera—not my fault.  So what has "God" to do with the subject?  You must be a creationist.

2)  Autymn also is unable to understand the crazy things said by himself.
For instance, concerning the question:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

now he claims:
"I said mass, not a (one) measurement.  Congratulations, you are no smarter than a creationist."

So, as Autymn is unable to understand the foolish things he states, let us put in another way, as follows:

From his argument that "So?  Mass is variant" Autymn is able to develop the following NEW AUTYMN'S THEORY, concerning the mass m_e of electron and the mass m_p of proton:

====================================

NEW AUTYMN THEORY:

CONCLUSION 1:  m_e < m_p
CONCLUSION 1:  m_e > m_p

====================================

Why not?  After all, as Autymn claims that mass is variant, then:
ACCORDING TO AUTYMN:
a) the mass of electron can be greater than the mass of proton,
b) and at the same time the mass of the electron can be smaller than the mass of proton

I claimd against b; b is your claim only, so shut up you liar.

My God...

is Fake.

3) Autymn also believes in fantasy, because he is sure that experimental results must be negleted face to theories in which he believes.

Now he claims:  "Coulomb's law is not crazy.  Now put up or shut up"
Because the entire sentence that he said concerning the electron's radius is the following:
"The [inner] radius of the elèctròn is bigger than the
[inner] radius of a protòn or neutròn, by Coulomb's
law and mass-energy equivalense."

So, let us compare what he states with the experimental results:
...while scattering of fast electron beams proves (since the 1980's) that the electron radius must be below 0.1fm, and the value obtained then in the epola model is 0.094fm
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Xw2_EQLbvVMJ:flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/APR03/baps/abs/S3610007.html+electron+radius&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=br

Your mistake here is the same as the one I dashd on free_energy: rest mass is not relativistic mass.

[lysdexia]

Foundations for cold fusion

Is there need of new foundations for cold fusion ?

You are a pathòlògic spammer, babbler, and liar:

The “shrink-stretch” of 92U238
The nucleus of 92U238 has an intriguing behavior, that cannot be explained from the nuclear models of current Nuclear Physics, as explained ahead.

You regularly make claims about current theory's inability to explain your fantastic anòmalies, many of which I proved wrong on free_energy.  Here is another.

92U238 has pair number of protons (92) and pair number of neutrons (146).  So, the nucleus is symmetric.

When 92U238 is excited, its shape changes.
*Let us analyse what we have to expect that must be such changing of U238, from the current Nuclear Physics.
According to Nuclear Physics, protons and neutrons have aleatory distribution within the U238, similar to the molecules of air within a basket ball.

There is only one summetry here, between exchange pairing.  There is absolutely no relation with the overall shape of its nucleus.  A sfairic nucleus would most-likely apply tom a nucleus with full shells of protòns and neutròns, and would correspond with "magic num(b)ers".  Neither uranium's count of nucleòn is a magic numer.  Therefore, it has no obligation to be sfairicly-summetric.

The variation in the form of U238 is 30%, and from Nuclear Physics there is not theoretical explanation for such a strange behavior of the nucleus of uranium.

All paired elèctronic orbitals in the p block and later are lumpy.  How do you explain tham?

[lysdexia]

Your mistake here is the same as the one I dashd on free_energy: rest mass is not relativistic mass.

here: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+m0+m1

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Please somebody show me where is the connection between:
..................................................................................................
1- "The [inner] radius of the elèctròn is bigger than the
[inner] radius of a protòn or neutròn, by Coulomb's
law and mass-energy equivalense."

and

2- rest mass is not relativistic mass.
.................................................................................................
What a hell rest mass or relativistic mass have any connection with electron's radius? ??









You wrote complex numera—not my fault

Then, Mr. Autymn, please show us where it is written a complex number in my text:
..................................................................................................
The electron’s speed within the neutron’s structure n=p+e one can get from the Kurie’s graphic on the neutron’s decay, and in the paper Anomalous Mass of the Nêutron it is calculated that this speed is 92% of the light speed, after the instant when the electron is captured by the proton and starts go gyrate about it. 
This relativistic velocity V=0,92c increases the electron’s mass.

By this way, within the neutron, the electron’s mass increases from its repose mass 0,511MeV to 1,291MeV (calculated in the paper).

And your stupid comment:

Nonsense, the velocity and mass aren't complex.  And where does this sustem's greater mass come from? ??
..................................................................................................









There is only one summetry here, between exchange pairing.  There is absolutely no relation with the overall shape of its nucleus.  A sfairic nucleus would most-likely apply tom a nucleus with full shells of protòns and neutròns, and would correspond with "magic num(b)ers".  Neither uranium's count of nucleòn is a magic numer.  Therefore, it has no obligation to be sfairicly-summetric.

The nuclear model used to calculate the electric quadrupole moment is the Collective Model, that takes in consideration the collective distortions.
However from the Collective Model there is no way to explain the uranium distortion as shown in the figure:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig2.gif

Besides, as from current Nuclear Physics the distribution of nucleons is RADIAL, the shape of the nuclei with Z= pair and N=pair would have to be spherical

The electric quadrupole moment is:

q= Z { 3x² - ( x² + y² + z² ) }

where q is the electric quadrupole moment (if q = 0 the nucleus has sphericall form)



The density of nuclear charge is p, and in their book Eisberg and Resnick say:

It's clear then that q= 0 if the density of nuclear charge is spherically symmetrical, because in such a case x² =y² = z².  If p  is not spherically symmetrical, there will be at least an axis of symmetry toward the direction about which the the angular moment of the nucleus has precession.  In the typical cases, the density of load is an ellipsoid with the symmetry axis determined by this direction.

Well, but neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!.  Therefore we dont have to expect they would change the shape of a nucleus with Z=pair and N=pair, by considering the current Nuclear Physics.

[lysdexia]

What a hell rest mass or relativistic mass have any connection with electron's radius? ??

Learn to read ahead, and ahind.

You wrote complex numera—not my fault

Then, Mr. Autymn, please show us where it is written a complex number in my text:

I am not a Mr.  Stop! callin! me! one!

0,92c; 0,511MeV; 1,291MeV are complex.  They are ordered pairs in traditional notation for the Argand plane.  Europè is not that smart.

The nuclear model used to calculate the electric quadrupole moment is the Collective Model, that takes in consideration the collective distortions.
However from the Collective Model there is no way to explain the uranium distortion as shown in the figure:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/pesWIKI-fig2.gif

what Collective Model?

Besides, as from current Nuclear Physics the distribution of nucleons is RADIAL, the shape of the nuclei with Z= pair and N=pair would have to be spherical

where's your proof?

Well, but neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!
neutrons have not charge !!!!.  Therefore we dont have to expect they would change the shape of a nucleus with Z=pair and N=pair, by considering the current Nuclear Physics.

so?

[W.GUGLINSKI]

0,92c; 0,511MeV; 1,291MeV are complex ?

v= 0,92c is a velocity, v = 0,92x300.000km/s = 276.000km/s

v = 270.000km/s is complex in the mind of a mad person only



m_e = 0,511MeV is an abreviated form of writting the repose mass of the electron:

m_e = 0,511MeV/c²

The repose mass of the electron:
m_e = 0,511MeV/c² = 9,1x10^-31kg







what Collective Model?

The Collective Model was proposed by Aage Bohr, son of Niels Bohr, and takes in account the collective distortions within the nuclei






I am not sure either you are insane, Mr. Autymn, or your intention is to bother everybody in here with your vandalism.

But no matter what is your actual intention, I will not waste my time with your insanity anymore.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Binding energies
of
lightest nuclei
calculated from
the
nuclear model
of
Quantum Ring Theory

In current Nuclear Physics, the energy that keep the cohesion of nuclei (binding energy) is calculated from the Liquid Drop Model


However the Liquid Drop Model supplies values for binding energy starting from the oxygen nucleus.
For the light nuclei ( below oxygen ) the model supplies results totally unsatisfactory.


In particular, the 2He4 has an anomalous (too high) binding energy, which the current nuclear theory cannot explain.



From the new nuclear model proposed in QUANTUM RING THEORY the theoretical values of the binding energy of light nuclei have been obtained.
Look at the results as follows, compared with the experimental values.



Values in MeV:



1H3
experimental:  8,47
theoretical:  9,61 (page 115 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics




======= 2He4: ======
experimental:   28,30
theoretical:  27,68 (page 116 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics


Binding energy of the last proton of 2He4:
experimental: 19,8
theoretical:  19,95 (page 116 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics


Binding energy of the last nêutron of 2He4:
experimental: 20,60
theoretical:  21,79 (page 116 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics
=====================



5B10
experimental: 64,75
theoretical:  64,00 (page 116 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics




6C12
experimental:92,20
theoretical:  94,17 (page 116 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics



7N14
experimental:  104,66
theoretical:  96,00 (page 117 of the book QRT).
NOTE: it’s impossible to calculate it from the models of current Nuclear Physics




⁸O16
experimental:  127,62
theoretical:  131,83 (page 117 of the book QRT)





The theoretical values are shown in the paper NEW NUCLEAR MODEL, which begins in the page 109 of QRT.



From the QRT we also calculate the binding energy of the other nuclei above the ⁸O16.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

YUKAWA’S MODEL
versus
NEUTRON MODEL
of
QUANTUM RING THEORY

Let’s compare the neutron model of QRT with the Yukawa model.  As we know, all the doors of all libraries in the whole world are opened to Yukawa’s theory.





NEUTRON MODEL n=p+e PROPOSED IN QRT:

1- The neutron model of QRT does not violate any fundamental principle of Physics .


2- The neutron model of QRT does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and it explains why the magnetic moment of the electron is three order of magnitude larger than that of the neutron.


3- From this model one explains the time decay of a free neutron (about 15 minutes)


4-  From the model n=p+e one calculates the quadrupole moment of deuteron:
experimental = 2,7x10^-31
theoretical = 2,7x10^-31  (see eq. (15) in the page 101 of QRT)


5-  From the model n=p+e one calculates the magnetic moment of the neutron:
 experimental = -1,91
theoretical = -1,99  (see eq. (41) in the page 103 of QRT)


6- From the model n=p+e one calculates the magnetic moment of the deuteron:
 experimental= +0,857
theoretical= +0,857 (see eq. (45) in the page 103 of QRT).


7- From the model n=p+e we get the distribution of load within the neutron, confirmed by the experiments (see figure 10 in the page 108 of QRT).


8- From the model n=p+e one calculates the magnetic moment of 1H3:
 experimental= +2,979
theoretical = 3,007 (see page 222 of QRT). 
NOTE:  the experimental value +2,979 cannot be explained from the current nuclear theory (pay attention that the theoretical value expected from the Schimdt’s graphic is smaller than the experimental value, as seen in the figure 8 at the page 134 of QRT


9- The QRT’s model n=p+e is corroborated by the three experiments:  Borghi, Conte-Pieralice, and Taleyarkhan.
Borgh experimenti:
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.





Let us see now the mesonic model.




NEUTRON MODEL n=p+m BY YUKAWA:

1- The Yukawa’s model violates the fundamental principle of energy-mass conservation, which is a fundamental principle of Physics


2- The Yukaw’s model does not explain any property of the neutron


3- From the Yukawa’s model it is impossible to explain the 15 minutes of the neutron’s decay (from the model n=p+m the neutron’s decau would have a time decay in order of 10^-23s (see page 92 of QRT), which is the time decay by the strong force, since in the Yukawa’s model the proton and the meson have interaction by the strong force.


4-  From the Yukawa’s model one cannot calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron or any of nucleons like 1H2, 1H3, 2He3.  Also it is impossible to calculate the electric quadrupolar moments of any nucleons.


5- From the Yukawa model one cannot get a theoretical distribution of load agree to the distribution obtained experimentally, which is seen in the figure 10 at the page 108 of QRT)


6- The Yukawa’s model generates a paradox: a deuteron, according to Yukawa’s model, cannot have a relativistic speed (see page 85 of QRT).


7- The Yukawa’s model does not fit to the experiments made by Borghi, Conte-Pieralice, and Taleyarkhan.
Actually the theoretical results expected from the Yukawa’s model are denied by all the experiments made with the neutron up to now

The accidental success of Yukawa’s theory
versus
the accidental successes of Bohr model

The theory proposed by Yukawa foresaw that the mass of meson had to be 100.
The mass detected from the experiences was 140. Therefore it had a 40% difference, and the forecast of the theory was not a wonder. But it has aggravations still more. Look at how many mesons exists in Nature:

Type        mass (MeV/c²)
Meson π    140
Méson K    490
Méson η    549
Méson η'   958

Let us consider then that 40% of error are a good forecast, since the physicists had considered that the error made by Yukawa is acceptable.

1 - Forecast: mass of 230 – if his theory had foreseen a mass of 230, an allowed error of 40% results in 92 (that is, 230±92). As 230-92=138, this value would be confirmed by the real value of 140 detected experimentally. Therefore, if he had foreseen a mass between 100 and 230 he would have made right too.

2 - Forecast: mass of 350 - Now the allowed error is 140. As 350+140 = 490, this value fits to the mass of meson K. In this case that, if the theory had foreseen a mass  350, the forecast would be confirmed too.

3 - Forecast: mass between 350 and 1000 - Any value foreseen in this band would give good result, because the forecast would give a value next to 490, 549, or 958.

Conclusion: Yukawa could have foreseen the following masses:
Any value between 100 and 230
Any value between 350 and 1000
All they would be confirmed experimentally.

He would make a bad foreseen with a mass next to 300 only. However, in a band between 100 the 1000, any forecast (except between 270 and 320) would give a good  result, according to acceptance criterion that the physicists had adopted when considering the Yukawa’s forecast as acceptable.
The error possibility is very remote. Any forecast would come out right.
One perceives that the rightness of Yukawa cannot even be considered coincidence, because he did not have chance to make a mistake. If somebody hides a needle in a straw-loft, and we thread the hand in the straw and find the needle in the first attempt, this is coincidence. But if somebody places thousand of needles in the straw-loft, and in the first attempt we get to find a needle, this is not coincidence: it had little possibility to make a mistake.
But let us be indulgent and let us call coincidence the Yukawa’s forecast. Isn’t surprising that physicists accepted it with opened arms, as a confirmation of the theory?

And look at what an irony (or perhaps rather to characterize it as against-sense): the physicists consider coincidence the successes of the atom of Bohr.  And they do that although of being a mathematical feat that one cannot contest alleging coincidence, because from the laws of probability it is impossible they are accidental. There must really have some linking with the reality in the atom of Bohr.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Successes
Of
Bohr hydrogen model

Bohr’s hydrogen model

In Bohr’s model of hydrogen atom a corpuscular electron turns about a proton. There are several orbits, which radii are R= n², where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...  The first orbit near to proton is called “fundamental”, and it is designated by n=1.  The other ones are n=2, n=3, etc.

The electron can jump from one orbit to another. 
When the electron jumps between two orbits, the hydrogen atom emits a photon.



The two forces acting on the electron

Imagine that the electron jumps from the orbit n=2 to the orbit n=4. When the electron performs this jumping, the hydrogen atom emits a photon which wavelenght was calculated by Bohr in the following way:

a)  he considered that in the orbit n=2 the electron (in the instant when it jumps) is under the action of two forces, F_E and F_C, that are in equilibrium.

b) F_E is the electric force of attraction between the proton and the electron, and F_C is the centripetal force due to electron’s circular motion.

c) And in the orbit n=4 the electron is also under the action of two forces F’_E and F’_C that are in equilibrium.


Other photons can be emitted, for instance when the electron jumps from n=1 to n=2, or from n=1 to n=3, etc.  But the calculus always considers that the electron is in equilibrium between two forces, the electrical and the centripetal, when the atom emits a photon.

Therefore, in the Bohr’s model
the centripetal force has
some misterious connection with the emission of photons

Bohr model replaced by the atom of Quantum Mechanics

When the atoms of a gas are excited (for example by an electric discharge), they emit light. After passing through a prism, and projected in a screen, the light appears in the form of lines. The physicist Balmer had discovered that these lines follow a defined standard, and for the hydrogen atom he found the mathematical formula of the standard. However nobody knew why those lines appeared,  nor why they had that distribution according to Balmer formula.


Niels Bohr who deciphered the mystery. Inhaled in the work of Planck, Bohr had the idea of applying his postulate in the hydrogen atom.

In the Bohr’s hydrogen atom model an electron gyrates about a proton, in a circular trajectory, named fundametnal status. By exciting the atom, the electron jumps to another orbit, and in this jump it emits energy (photon).


In the atom of Bohr the electron can gyrate only in orbits which radius are the following:  1, 2, 4, 9, 25.  So, in his theory the angular momentum of the electron is quantized, having always values that are entire multiples of the Planck’s constant h. That is, the angular momentum can have values h, 2h, 3h, 4h... only.

This quantization of the angular momentum was seen with perplexity by the physicists of that age. After all, by what reason the electron was forbidden to turn in any orbit with any radius, and with any angular momentum?


Another problem with the Bohr’s model is that according to Maxwell’s theory an electron moving in circular trajectory would have to emit radiation, to lose energy because of this, and finally this electron would have to fall down into the nucleus. To prevent this inconvenience, Bohr proposed a postulate according to which the electron can turn about the nucleus without emitting energy.


Basically, the Bohr’s model was classic in the Newtonian conception, but Bohr applied quantum concepts on it. It was therefore a hybrid, classic-quantum model.


The blow of mercy on the Bohr’s atom came with the perfectioning of the spectroscopic measurements, when was verified that the hydrogen atom emits some very thin lines, which from his model  could not be explained. Moreover, his model did not succeed to explain the helium atom.


In view of the unsurmountable difficulties that the model faced, the physicists had started to look for  new solutions, and finally it appeared the Schrödinger’s theory, that conceptually was totally distinct of the theory of Bohr, and was efficient in explaining the atomic phenomena where the Bohr’s model failed.  And as could not leave of being, the physicists had arrived at the conclusion that the model of Bohr was incorrect.


In the theory of Schrödinger the classic concepts of the Bohr’s model had been discarded, giving place to the new concepts that had been established in the Quantum Mechanics, namely:

1 – The electron left of being corpuscular, passing to be considered a probability cloud.

2 – The concept of trajectory of the electron was abolished

3 – The electron does not peruse the space that separates two levels of energy

4 – The mechanism of emission of photons is different in the two models (we will speak about ahead)




The mistery of the Bohr´s atom

Although the failure of the Bohr’s model, however a great mystery persisted, as it is explained as follows.

The values that if one gets from the Balmer’s formula relate to the energies (photons) emitted by the hydrogen atom. To get those values with his model, Bohr considered that, in the instant when the atom emits a photon, the electron is in equilibrium due two forces: the force Fa of attraction with the proton, and the centripetal force Fc due to speed of rotation to about the proton.

Therefore, in his model, in the instant of the emission of photons the electron is under the action of centripetal force , that is, in the mechanism of emission of photons from the model of Bohr there is the performance of a centripetal force on the electron.
In another words:

the emission mechanism depends
inexorablely
on the action of a centripetal force

Well, the model of Bohr obtained fantastic results. For example, by using his model, one calculates ¹ the Rydberg constant.  Compare the value gotten from:

the experiments:  R_H = 10.967.757

the theoretical calculation: R_H  = 10.968.100

Impressive, isn’t?
Coincidence ?

Only if we believe that it is coincidence with the same faith with which a religious one believes miracles.  Moreover, the Bohr model supplied other spectacular results. From the laws of the probability, it is impossible that it can be mere coincidence. And therefore there is something of truth in his model.

That’s why Schrödinger said:

''It is difficult to believe that this result is merely an accidental mathematical consequence of the quantum conditions, and has no deeper physical meaning''². 

He believed that Bohr’s successes would be consequence of unknown mechanisms, and he tried to find them. 


The conclusion is that centripetal force really plays some function in the instant when a photon is emitted by an atom.


But just here the great mystery is. The mechanism of emission of photons from the Schrödinger’s theory does not admit that one assumes that the centripetal force plays some role in the emission of photons. The mechanism of emission of photons according to Quantum Mechanics is by resonance, a total incompatible process with the hypothesis of centripetal force on the electron in the instant of the emission. In short, the theory of Schrödinger does not admit centripetal force, and therefore the Bohr’s model must be completely wrong, so that the model of the Quantum Mechanics may be correct.

But we already saw that mathematically, from the laws of probability, it is impossible that the model of Bohr can be completely  wrong. The centripetal force must have some linking with the mechanism of emission of the atom, and in this in case it is lacking something in the Quantum Mechanics.

In another words:

a) Whereas the model of Bohr cannot be completely   wrong, as they certify the laws of the probability…

b)… on the other hand the model of the Quantum Mechanics cannot be completely  certain, because it states that the Bohr model is completely wrong  .


Therefore there is here a great mystery that defies the Quantum Mechanics.

That’s why the theorists decided to state that the spectacular successes of Bohr’s theory are accidental.  In a paper³ in which proposes the helical trajectory of the electron for unifying the relativity with the quantum theory, the physicist Natarajan writes, commenting the success of Bohr theory in explaining the espectra bands: 

“But this significant sucess along with
the other spectacular successes of Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom
 is now considered by physicists as ‘accidental’
after the development of Quantum Mechanics”.

But as said Schrödinger it’s hard to believe that Bohr’s successes are accidental.  Actually it is impossible, from the laws of probability.  It’s probable that Schrödinger started to suppose that Bohr’s successes could have connection with the electron’s zitterbewegung.  Schrödinger and Heisenberg had a different view on the question of how Quantum Mechanics would have to be developed.  Schrödinger would like to follow the way by considering the zitterbewegung as an electron’s helical trajectory.  While Heisenberg proposed to develop Quantum Mechanics by considering that the concept of trajectory could not be kept in the theory.  Such Heisenberg’s view is today known as the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and it prevailed in the development of the theory. 


Believing that Bohr’s successes are accidental, the theorists  believe in the inadmissible, because it’s comfortable, but actually they deceive themselves.  Unlike, as Schrödinger did not accept to deceive himself,  he abandoned the dispute with Heisenberg, when realized that the Theoretical Physics had followed that way preconized by the interpretation of Copenhagen.   
In short, it’s hard to believe that Bohr model has not a botton of truth.



End of the mistery of Bohr’s successes

Quantum Ring Theory⁴ was developed according to the Schrödinger’s view on the zitterbewegung, interpreted as the electron’s helical trajectory

The mistery of Bohr’s successes is explained through a solution proposed in QRT, where it is proposed a new hydrogen model, with the following fundamental new proposals:

a) In the new hydrogen atom, the electron moves through a helical trajectory about the proton

b) The space of the electrosphere about the proton has dilation, due to the repulsive gravity (the same repulsive gravity that causes the expansion of the Universe, as predicted in Einstein’s theory when he proposed the cosmological constant)

c) This new hydrogen atom conciliates the Bohr’s hydrogen model with the Schrödinger’s equation

d) Actually the Schrödinger’s equation is the mathematical solution for the hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory



Bohr’s botton of truth

Quantum Ring Theory shows that:

1- Bohr’s model is wrong.  However there is a botton of truth in his model, because in spite of the emission of photons have no connection with the centripetal force, however the centripetal force on the electron exists in the instant when an atom is emitted, and the value of such force is the same of the force that the proton attracts the electron, as predicted in Bohr’s model.

2- The atom model of Quantum Mechanics is correct.  However it is partially wrong, because a centripetal force exists on the electron in the instant of a photon’s emission, as predicted by Bohr’s theory (Bohr made a mistake because the centripetal force predicted in his theory has no connection with the emission of the photon, which actually happens by a resonance phenomenon, as correctly predicted in Quantum Mechanics), and emphasized in Quantum Ring Theory.



References

1- R. Eisberg, R. Resnick, ''Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles'', John Wiley & Sons, 1974

2- E. Schrödinger , ''On a Remarkable Property of the Quantum-Orbits of a Single Electron'', 1922

3- T. S. Natarajan, ''Unified Conceptual Foundation for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics'', Physics Essays, V. 9, No. 2, 1996, pg 302

4- W. Guglinski, ''Quantum Ring Theory – Foundations for Cold Fusion'', Bäuu Press, 2006

[enahs]

I am not trying to sound like a jack-hole here. But why do you keep posting your essays here? Would it not make more sense to make your own site and collect your essays in logical manner and categorizes them and such?

[W.GUGLINSKI]

I am not trying to sound like a jack-hole here. But why do you keep posting your essays here? Would it not make more sense to make your own site and collect your essays in logical manner and categorizes them and such?


enahs,
Mitch has started in here a discussion trying to prove that cold fusion is theoretically impossible to occur.

I am trying to show that cold fusion is today considered impossible to occur by the most theorists because they analyze the cold fusion phenomenon by the current foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

By the same as Mitch or anybody has the right to argue that cold fusion is impossible, I have the right to try to support that cold fusion is theoretically possible

Perhaps you may not have interest in the subject.
But it is possible there are people with opinion different of yours.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Several Conspiracies
Against
QUATUM RING THEORY
 

There are several conspiracies against Quantum Ring Theory (QRT), and each one of them occurs thanks to many groups of physicists afraid of seeing the dogmas they believe to be threatened by some proposals in QRT.


The first conspiracy has taken place in 1989, among the theorists of the Center for Frontier Sciences (CFT).
In the end of 1998 the editor Nancy Kolenda sent me the issue V. 7 No. 1 of the journal Frontier Perspectives, where in the page 40 the CFT’s President Peter Liacouras comments the aim of the journal : 

“One of its purposes was to examine critically frontier research projects
that hold promise of future breakthroughs”. 

Whereas in the page 45 of V. 8, No. 1 (1998) the editor A. C. Elitzur wrote:

“I am proud to state:  The Center for Frontier Sciences
offers its stage to any theory, hypothesis, or model
that challenges prevailing scientific views by means
of sound scientific methods of research and reasoning”.

So, as the proposals of QRT fulfills the premises of the CFT, then I ingenously supposed that my papers would be approved for publication in Frontier Perspectives, and I started to send my papers to that journal.

The first paper that I sent was the original version of the paper Michelson-Morley Experiment for Protons, in which it’s shown that the de Broglie’s interpretation of the duality wave-particle misfires if we perform the Davisson-Germer experiment under a procedure that detects the influence of the Earth’s speed in the wavelength of a proton.
This new version of Davisson-Germer experiment is called “Michelson-Morley Experiment for Protons”, where we have:

1- The inferferometer used by Michelson is replaced by a crystal.
2-  The ligth is replaced by a flux of protons.

From this new version of Michelson-Morley experiment we realize that the relation λ = h/p cannot be explained from the current viewpoint that the duality wave-particle is a property of the matter, as proposed by de Broglie.  Instead of, we must consider that the duality is actually a property of the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) of the elementary particles, as shown in the paper Michelson-Morley Experiment for Protons.

This new version of Michelson-Morley experiment was originally proposed in another version, by using electrons instead of protons.  By this way I kept the original speed v=4000km/s of the electrons, used by Davisson and Germer, and showed that the results obtained by them would be changed by the speed of the galaxy.

However the referee of Frontier Perspectives rejected the paper by using an unacceptable argument.  He stated that the speed of the galaxy does not influence the diffraction into the crystal.
Well, but the diffraction into the crystal depends on the electron’s wavelength.  And as the speed of the galaxy changes the electron’s wavelength, as consequence the speed of the galaxy influences the diffraction into the crystal, yes.

As we realize, the referee used the same argument that Einstein used to explain the original experiment made by Michelson and Morley. 
But the argument used by the referee was absurd, because as the electron is a particle, it must be submitted to the principle of addition of speeds. 
In short, Einstein used correctly the argument that the speed of the Earth does not influce the speed of light, because the light is not particle, and so we cannot apply to the light the principle of addition of speeds.  Unlike, in the case of the electron we cannot apply the same procedure used in the case of light.

As the referee proposed to use in the case of the electron the same argument used by Einstein in the case of ligth, it means that the referee was proposing a new Theory of Relativity, in which the electron is not submitted to the principle of addition of speeds (therefore violating an old well-known principle of Physics).

At that time I did not realize why the referee was using that absurd argument as a strategy to decline my paper, and I discovered the reason later, by reading other issues of the journal Frontier Perspectives.
But in order to avoid controversy, I wrote a new version of the paper, in which the electron is replaced by a proton.  By this way, the proton’s velocity must be 60km/s, and its diffraction into the crystal is influenced by the speed of the Earth, in order that I have eliminated the controversy concerning the influence of the speed of the galaxy (this new version is published in the book QRT).

But let us understand now why the theorists of CFT does not accept the new interpretation for the duality wave-particle, by considering the zitterbewegung of the elementary particles.

By reading other issues of Frontier Perspectives, I realized that all the theories proposed in that journal are supported by fundamental interpretation on the duality as proposed originally by de Broglie.  That is, it   s fundamental for the theories proposed in that journal to consider that the duality is a property of the matter.  And not in the field of Physics only.  Actually several papers published in the journal propose to explain the nature of consciousness, and all the essays take as a point of departure that the duality is a property of the matter.  And in order to protect such dogma in which they believe (and supports all the theories that they propose), the scientists of CFT reject any evidence that proves to be wrong their dogma.

So, at the first time in my life I understood that although Quantum Ring Theory challenges prevailing scientific views by means of sound scientific methods of research and reasoning, however in general the most scientists prefer to keep themselves loyal to their dogmas, by avoiding to face strong evidences that disprove the prevailing theories they try desperatelly try to save.  In the case of the scientists of CFT, such a procedure is obviously a betray to the slogan of that center, and it represents a conspiracy against Quantum Ring Theory, for the scientists of CFT reject QRT because the theory  debunks the hypothesis according which the duality is a property of the matter.



Other conspiracy against Quantum Ring Theory comes from the academic physicists.  But such conspiracy is not a suprise.  The academicians conspirate against any new theory that defies the dogmas of current Modern Physics, in order that QRT is only one among several new theories against which there is a conspiracy.
Nowadays 95% of the physicists deposit their hope in the string theory, and they do not tolerate any rival theory.  The string theorists  will lose their hope and change their mind after May 2008 only, when the experiments in the LHC will show that do not exist the particles predicted in string theory, which existence has been proposed from the hypothesis of supersymmetry.

All large organisations resist change: Machiavelli described some of the reasons for resistance to change in government organisations more than 400 years ago.






Paradoxically, another conspiracy against Quantum Ring Theory takes place among the theorists, researchers, and journalists devoted to the branch of cold fusion.
Look for instance the paradoxical behavior of the journalist Steve Krivit, who wrote in the begginning of this discussion:

Hi Mitch,
There is a theory (published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal) by Widom and Larsen, that claims to be able to explain most of the "cold fusion" phenomena without requiring one to invoke magic spells. Take a look at www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory.
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

And Mitch just showed what he thought: he debunked easily the Widom and Larsen theory.

Sure that Steve Krivit had to be feeling himself very unhappy, since Mitch destroied easily the viewpoint from which Krivit tried to defend the cold fusion theoretical viability.

But I showed that Mitch’s argument against cold fusion viability can be eliminated by considering the electron’s zitterbewegung.  So, my argument would have to give back to Krivit his hope to continue supporting his viewpoint that cold fusion is theoretically viable. 

In short:  We had to expect that Krivit would have to jump for joy... he would have to recover his cheerfulness... he would have to be overjoyed by realizing that his viewpoint had yet a chance to be saved by a new way of reasoning !!! 

And as he is the Editor of New Energy Times, we had to expect that Krivit would have to write in his journal that some theoretical restrictions against cold fusion occurrence can be eliminated from the new foundations proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

Paradoxically, Krivit haven’t this normal reaction that we had to expect from any person who, after facing his hope destroyed by hard arguments, suddenly such person retrieves his hope by discovering a new wounderful happening that gives back to him the chance to continue believing in his hope.

Krivit kept himself silence.  He did not write a word.
And his silence means that he actually did not weep for joy when he realized that QRT is able to eliminate the Mitch’s argument against cold fusion theoretical viability.

Why ?

Well, we can speculate the reasons.
It seems that the theorists and researchers that deal to cold fusion use a strategy face the scientific community, and from such a strategy they hope to break slowly the resistance of the academicians against cold fusion.
The first point of the strategy is to claim that actually there is not cold fusion, as alleged Krivit in the begginning of this discussion:

There are a few reasons why New Energy Times doesn't call this subject "cold fusion" anymore, either with, or without the Looney-Toons attribution.
1. We accept that the hypothesis of fusion is speculative and that this assertion is unproved.

That’s why, for instance, that in order to avoid that the Taleyarkhan’s results can be taken as cold fusion occurrence, they changed the name ”cold fusion”, and now they call it ”table fusion”. 
Actually it’s funny to realize that scientists can believe that the change of a name changes the nature of an experiment.  It’s very funny indeed to realize that nowadays the most scientists enjoy to bamboozle themselves, believing that by replacing a name they solve the theoretical problems.

The libraryan Jed Rothewell claims that cold fusion reality does not depend on its theoretical explanation, because the experimental evidences constitute an unquestionable fact.  From the scientific viewpoint he is right.  However the cold fusion researchers have the hope of getting funds from government institutions, in order to support more and more the cold fusion researche.  That’s why it’s important to convince the academic theorists on the theoretical viability of cold fusion.
Of course that a cold fusion theory cannot defy the prevailing theories of Modern Physics, because it’s hard to believe that the academicians could accept a theory that implies the flaw some principles of the current theories.  Probably this is the stronger reason why Quantum Ring Theory is a victim of conspiracy from the cold fusion theorists.  They think there is no chance to expect from the academicians that they can accept the replacement of some fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, as for instance to replace the old de Broglie’s interpretation on the duality by the zitterbewegung hypothesis, because it implies the collapse of Quantum Field Theory.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

I wrote a new book, entitled THE MISSED U-TURN, in which the foundations of Quantum Ring Theory are explained for the layman.  This new book also helps the scientists in general to understand easily the proposals of the theory.

An Indian theorist (a reviewer in physics) is improving my bad English, and we hope to have this book ready in the begginning of 2008, when we will start to look for a publisher.

The Chapter 15 is finished with the following words:

Let us finish this chapter with a phrase that may become famous in the future, when the cold fusion will be explored for marketability, which ofcourse will leave the scientific community in an uncomfortable and ridiculous situation if they persist to deny the occurrence of the phenomenon.  When Thomas Edison invented the electric lamp and illuminated a big house (which was visited by thousand of people who came by train in overcrowded convoys for seeing the novelty), an eminent profesor of a university cried out that the invention was a fraud.  And the Scientific American magazine published a note saying that it would be “almost a public calamity if Mr. Edison should employ his great talent on such a pueriility”(14).  Well, if it were a fraud, but more efficient and thrifty than the gass lamp, then in such a case long live the fraud !  And if the cold fusion is a fraud, as claimed by the physicists, and if this fraud is more thrifty than all the energy sources available as of today, then wellcome to cold fusion !

Probably the university professor and the editor of Scientific American were bought by some dull producer of the business line for the gas suply, who saw his business theatened by the Edision’s invention.  But the smarter producers at once realized that the electric lamp was a gold vein.  High investment would be necessary to build the electric-power plants and the network of electric distribution along with the tax each family would be paying to have their house supplied by electric energy.  In the case of cold fusion is different.  Each building will  have its own generator, which will supply the residents with cheap energy.  The residents will meet together each quarter and will have this generator that will supply the energy to fill up the needs of each house.  It can be the banckruptcy of the energy factory agents.

A phrase, deploring the rejection of cold fusion by the physicists, and which has not beome renowned yet (try to divine why) was said by a famous person, of great prestige, author of “2001 A Space Odissey”, and honoured with the title of Sir for having forseen the systems of communication via satelite in an age when the radios were still made  with valves (imagine the size of a baterry that would be necessary to supply years of power to a transmitter,  a computer with valves, and the satelite weight, if the transistor had not been invented, which only became feasible as a result of the foresight of Sir Arthur Clarke).  Here is his opinion:
“The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science”





Last week the reviewer sent me an email, where among other things he said the following:

Hi, Wladimir
Also at one point you mention about the coldfusion reactor/generator which will be used to light up the houses.It would have to be refilled with coldfusion fuel after every couple of months or so.You think we can mention something about its design if you have something in mind ?It would just make it look more interesting.

And I sent him the following answer:

Hi, ND

1) Particularly, I find very interesting the cold fusion reaction with K2CO3 shown in the Naudin’s website:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrtpwr.htm
because of its simplicity.  Even a cook can do it in a kitchen.





2)  Did you see the link bellow in the Atomic Motor blog?

A Miracle or Another False Hope?
Monday, November 5, 2007
Australian Inventor Makes Bold Cold Fusion Claim
http://atomic-motor.blogspot.com/2007/11/miracle-or-another-false-hope.html

3)  Sometimes I am in doubt if cold fusion will be merchantable in the future

In his book available in the internet, Jed Rothwell comments that cold fusion is not economically viable yet, because the materials involved in the process have a short useful life (one or two weeks).
There is need of an effort made by physicists and engineers, in order to find materials with useful life longer than two weeks.

But no matter if cold fusion either will become economically viable, or not, the question is the following:

a) Nobody knows whether cold fusion will become economically viable, or not.  And the companies that sell and distribute electric energy do not know it too.

b) But even if in the future we discover that cold fusion is economically not viable, neverthelless the fact is the following:  the companies are afraid, and they undertake efforts in order to not allow the development of the cold fusion technology.

c) So, independently of the fact if cold fusion economic viability in the future is only a dream, or not, nowadays there is a fact:  the companies try to avoid the possibility of the dream to become reality, because if the dream becomes reality, the companies could not avoid the people to get their own energy from the cold fusion reactors working in their houses.

Best wishes
WLAD

[W.GUGLINSKI]

GAMOW’S PARADOX

An alpha particle leaves out a nucleus 92U238 with energy 4,2MeV, in spite of the Coulombic barrier is 8,8MeV.

Nuclear theorists consider that such paradox was solved by Gamow. 
That’s why in Quantum Ring Theory the emission of alpha particle by 92U238 is named Gamow’s paradox.

However Gamow solved the paradox by introducing other new unacceptable paradoxes, as shown in Critique to the Models of Nuclear Physics, which is the paper number 10 of the book Quantum Ring Theory.  Gamow’s theory is analized between the pages 129 and 132 of the book.

Therefore Gamow’s theory actually is unacceptable, and so the paradox concering the emission of particles 2He4 by the nucleus 92U238 actually is not explained in current Nuclear Physics.


The most nuclear theorists believe that Gamow’s theory is satisfactory.  They believe it because it is confortable to them, since it’s hard to confess that current Nuclear Physics has not satisfactory answers for conventional nuclear phenomena. 
And so the nuclear theorista actually bamboozle themselves by believing that Gamow’s theory solved the paradox of the alpha decay.




Cold fusion and Gamow’s paradox

In the Wikipedia’s article on cold fusion, it is writen the following:

Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is that current theories describing conventional "hot" nuclear fusion cannot explain how a cold fusion reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion.[27][28] The 1989 DoE panel said: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Current understanding of conventional "hot" nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate: (There is a long list following this sentence).


Nevertheless we can also to write the following:

1- There is currently no accepted theory to explain Gamow’s paradox

2- Current understanding of conventional nuclear phenomena shows that Gamow’s explanation is not adequate to explain the alpha decay

CONCLUSION:
Since current understanding of current conventional nuclear phenomena
is unable to explaind Gamow’s paradox,
there is no reason why we have to expect that such current understandig
be able to explain cold fusion occurrence

The alpha decay according to QRT

The Figure 1 shows the model of a fermion acording to QRT (in that figure it is shown the electron)

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig1-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 1

where we see:

1- A body ring

2- The rotation of the body ring induces a flux of gravitons (the red field that crosses withing the body ring).  In QRT it is named principal field Sp(e) .  The flux of gravitons is named flux n(o).  It agglutinates electric particles, in order that the principal field Sn(e) is surrounded by an electric field.

3- The rotation of the principal field constituted by gravitons induces the secondary field constituted by a flux of particles electrically charged (the blue field in the figure).  It is named Sn(e) in QRT.  As it’s constituted by particles electrically charged, such field captures magnetic particles of the aether, and so the field Sn(e) is a Coulombic field.


The proton is similar.  It has a principal field Sp(p), and a secondary feld Sn(p).

The neutron is composed by proton+electron, and so the secondary field Sn(N) of a neutron is neutral, because it is the overlap between the fields Sn(p) of proton and Sn(e) of electron.

However it is impossible to have the overlap between the fields Sp(e) and Sn(e) in the structure of a neutron.  That’s why it’s impossible to have a nucleon 0n2 in nature, because there is repulsion between the principal fields Sn(N) of two neutrons.  As is known, Heisenberg tried to explain it from the concept of isospin.  But the isospin is a mere pure abstract concept, and it does not point out to us the CAUSE why two neutrons are not formed in nature (the isospin is only a mathematical concept that describes what happens, but it does not tell us why it happens (because as two neutrons have not repulstion, then two neutrons agglutinated by the strong force would never separate after they get together).


From such a model of fermion we calculate the binding energy of light nuclei (it’s impossible to calculate from the current Nuclear Physics).

The theoretical calculation of binding energy of light nuclei from the nuclear model of QRT is possible because there are three sort of energy involved in the process of packing.
The figure 2 shows them

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig2-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 2

The nuclei are formed when the fluxes n(o) of a nucleon 2He4 captures protons and neutrons.  The figure 3 shows the formation of the 3Li6, where we see that the fluxes f-1 and f-2 of the central 2H34 (green) has captured a nucleon 1H2 (red).

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig3-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 3

As we realize from the formation of the 3Li6, when a nucleus X is formed by several protons and neutrons, the secondary field Sn( X ) is formed by the overlap of the many fields Sn(p) and Sn(N) of protons and neutrons.

The sequence of nucleons capture by the central 2He4 gives the levels of energy in each nucleus.  The Figure 4 shows the sequence of capture in the formation of 5B10 , 6C12, and 7N14.

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig4-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 4

The Figure 5 shows the nucleus 8O16, with its central 2He4, surrounded by its secondary field Sn(8O16).

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig5-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 5

Among the paradoxes of Gamow theory, we have to mention the fact that his theory is unable to explain why the alpha particles are always emitted under the following condition:

=======================================
CONDITIONS OF ALPHA PARTICLES EMISSION:

1- The particles alpha are emitted with null angular moment
2- They leave out the nucleus starting from the nuclear  “center”,
that is, it leaves through a radial direction
3- At once they are expelled from the nucleus, they move outside by a linear trajectory
4- The trajectory is basically unidimensional.
=======================================
 

As the nucleus has a spin, we had to expect that, according to current Nuclear Physics, when a particle 2He4 crosses the Coulombic barrier it woud have to leave out it by:

==========================
A) a tangential direction
B) and with no null angular moment
C) and not from the nuclear center
==========================
because:

1- As the 2He4 has a charge
2- As it has to cross a charge (the Coulombic barrier)
3- As the nucleus has a spin
4- Then the 2He4 must be arrasted by the Coulombic barrier when it crosse it
5=  And so the 2He4 must leave out by the tangent.

Only a neutron could leave out the nucleus in a radial direction (starting from the nuclear center).


But we can realize why the 2He4 leaves out along a radial direction by looking at the Figure 6, where we see the alpha decay according to the nuclear model of QRT:

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig6-GAMOW.gif
FIGURE 6

Of course the protons and neutrons have oscillation within the nuclei, due to repulsions and zero point energy of the particles.  And we realize that the central 2He4 has an oscillatory motion within the nuclei ALONG THE Z-AXIS  DIRECTION AS SHOWN IN THE FIG. 6, because the oscillation along the z-axis direction is imposed by the structure of the nucleus (because protons and neutrons are distributed in hexagonal floors along the z-axis direction).
That’s why the 2He4 leaves out the nucleus by fulfilling the conditions of alpha particles emission, quoted above.


Also, we see that the 2He4 does not perfurate the secondary field Sn(U238) of the nucleus 92U238.  The 2He4 actually leaves out the nucleus

And as the secondary field Sn(U238) is responsible for the Coulombic repulsion, we realize that the alpha particle does not need an energy 8,8MeV for escaping from inside the nucleus.  That’s why the 2He4 can scape from within the 92U238 with only 4,2MeV of energy.

But as the 2He4 can leave out the a nucleus without perforating the Coulombic secondary field Sn(92U) of the uranium, then probably a particle can penetrate within a nucleus by that hole in the secondary field, with no need to perforate the Coulombic field too.

Sure that there is need of special conditions for a particle to penetrate within a nucleus through that hole.  It is not a question of supplying a great energy, as happens in the case of hot fusion, when the particles need to perfurate the secondary field. 

In cold fusion a particle can penetrate within a nucleus through the hole in the secondary field only from a process of resonance. 
For instance, suppose that a deuteron will be captured by a nucleus Pd.  Earlier its capture, the deuteron’s oscillation (due to its zero point energy) must be aligned with the oscillation of the central 2He4 of the Pd, along the z-axis direction.

The accordion-effect can help the resonance.



 

[W.GUGLINSKI]

TWO CORRECTIONS IN THE TEXT
GAMOW’S PARADOX

CORRECTION 1:

However it is impossible to have the overlap between the fields Sp(p) and Sp(e) in the structure of a neutron.  That’s why it’s impossible to have a nucleon 0n2 in nature, because there is repulsion between the principal fields Sp(N) of two neutrons.  As is known, Heisenberg tried to explain it from the concept of isospin. 




CORRECTION 2:

Also, we see that the 2He4 does not perfurate the secondary field Sn(U238) of the nucleus 92U238.  The 2He4 actually leaves out the nucleus by crossing the lack (“hole”) in the field Sn(U238), as we see in the Figure 6.

http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/AAAfig6-GAMOW.gif

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Hi, Mitch

You said:

A major reoccurring theme with cold fusion research has been the failure of other researchers to replicate the work. I will be more than willing to collaborate with any researcher on their cold fusion experiments. I have ready access to alpha, beta, gamma and neutron counters and am eager to put this issue to rest.v


Then I suggested you to perform the Conte-Pieralice experiment, in order to verify the results claimed by Conte and Pieralice.


So, I suppose that many are interested to know:

Mitch,
Did you make
the Conte-Pieralice experiment ?

1) If you did, what results did you find ? 
Did you get the results obtained by Conte and Pieralice ? 
Tell us


2) If you didn't, why

[Mitch]

No it was not done. I have no problem verifying if someone else's apparatus works, but I do not have the time to construct my own from scratch.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:12:24 AM
To:  ibr@gte.net



Dear Dr. Santilli
There is chance the Don Borghi experiment can be repeated by the nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia.

Along a discussion in a forum, after asking him if he did perform your experiment,  he said:
"No it was not done. I have no problem verifying if someone else's apparatus works, but I do not have the time to construct my own from scratch"

See the discussion in the link:http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0 


Would you have interest to supply him the apparatus ? 


Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Re: Don Borghi experiment‏
From: ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:11:53 PM
To:  Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Thanks for the info., yes, I would gladly support him. My klystron is currently on loan top another department of physics and the colleagues there have already confirmed everything. They are now obtaining fine info I did not have the equipment for. I shall keep you posted.

Please tell me how to help

Thanks and regards

Ruggero

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Mitch,

Dr. Santilli can supply everything you need to perform the Don Borghi experiment.


Do you accept to make it ?


Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

FROM: Guglinski
TO: Santilli

Dear Dr. Santilli

I feel that Mitch tries to be a honest scientist.
However I think that he is afraid of reprisal from the scientific community, if he accepts the invitation of repeating the Don Borghi's experiment.

As you know, the academic scientists apply hard penalty against those ones that defy the scientific community with experiments that disprove the prevailing theories, as do not approving research grants, do not allowing to teach in universities, cutting funds for research, etc.


But let me tell you what I think about Don Borghi's experiment.

Actually I think that Don Borghi's experiment has already been performed in some universities worldwide, and several academic physicists already know that the results of Don Borghi's experiment have been confirmed in some universities

And there are academic theorists who know that in the future Don Borghi's experiment will be accepted by the scientific community, and a new physics will be required.

However theorists like Gell-Mann and G. t' Hooft do not want to be alive when Don Borghi's experiment finally will be accepted by the scientific community in the future.  That's why they undertake efforts with the aim to prolong the time along which the experiment is not accepted in the universities.

Don Borghi's experiment, to be accepted in the universities, will have to wait the death of several academics, when a new generation of scientists will grow free of the lies that keep the prevailing scientific dogmas.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Cremonini and Don Borghi’s Experiment

When I was a young student, and I read at the first time the life of Galileo, of course I couldn’t believe that a scientist could have a reaction like that when Cremonini rejected to look at the satellites of Jupiter in the Galileo’s telescope.

Galileo invited Cremonini to go to his house and to look at the telescope, but Cremonini refused the invitation, by replying:

There are no satellites in Jupiter.  Either there are spots in the lens of your telescope or the spots are in your eyes.


Reading that response said by the scientist Cremonini, I became stupefied.  I did not understand how a scientist could refuse to look at an experiment, and to face the truth.  That was irrational.  Actually he was a pseudo-scientist, a betrayal of the scientific method, afraid that his personal dogmas could be destroyed by the facts.

And at that time, when I was young, I supposed that such irrational betrayal to the scientific method happened only in the age of Galileo.


However we realize that nothing has changed.  Scientists like Gell-Mann and G. t' Hooft are the Cremonini of the present day, because they betray the scientific method by refusing to face the results of Don Borghi’s Experiment.

To be irrational in face of facts that destroy their dogmas is a characteristic of the scientists of the whole time.


Cremonini never dies.  He is alive forever, always when a scientist faces facts that disprove what he believes.



In the future, when Don Borghi’s Experiment will be finally accepted by the scientific community, the students at that time also will not understand why a Noble Laureate in Physics could refuse to face the Don Borghi’s Experiment.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

VERY IMPORTANT AND URGENT‏
From: ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 5:52:33 PM
To:  Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dear prof. Guglinski,
Please indicate to Micth that I have uploaded our confirmation of Don Borghi';s experiment t in VOLUME IV of HMMC available in free download from
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm

PLEASE consider releasing a statement summarizing your view below that I can add in an ANONYMOUS FORM in Chapter IV. You have my word of honor that I will keep the origination a secret, but PLEASE let us fight for scientific knowledge against a true organized scientific crime.

PLEASE HELP the only way, by rendering the info public.
SPASIBO
Ruggewro Santilli









Re: Don Borghi experiment‏
From:   ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent:   Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:52:26 PM
To:    Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Prof. Guglinski,
 
I confirm that I may obtain small research funds for a contribution to
HMMCV I proposed in my preceding letter. Subsequently, we can provide a
regular research contract for the continuation of the research whether
theoretical or experimental; PROVIDED IT DEALS WITH HADRONIC MECHANICS
(everything quantum will just be trashed for the neutron structure,
synthesis and decay).
 
You will be please to know that another university has repeated
successfully the test and it will; be this time published but I cannot
disclose the name at this writing for security. Yet, i will definitely
mail you a copy of the paper when ready.
 
PLEASE SEND ME MITHC EMAIL
 
Thanks and regards
 
RUggero Santilli









Re: RE: VERY IMPORTANT AND URGENT‏
From:   ibr@gte.net
   Sent:   Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:00:57 PM
To:    Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dear Wladimir,
 
You have my deepest and most sincere admiration for being a real Scientist with capital S.
 
IOs there anything I can do to help you? Are you a member of www.santilli-galilei.com bevcasue that's a group that can supprot you and Mitch world wikde.
 
Regards
 
Ruggero









Wladimir Guglinski wrote:
 
> Dr. Santilli
>
> Mitch's email is hidden:
> http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2
>
> I send him personal messages by clicking in:
> http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=2
> But Only registered members are allowed to access this section
>
> You can send him messages directly if you become a member of the
> Chemistry Blog
>
> Regards
> WLAD









Re: Don Borghi experiment‏
From:   ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent:   Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:23:33 PM
To:    Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dear Wladimir,
 
As you know from HMMC, I ahve dedicated my research life to the
structure, synthesis and decay of the neutron.
 
Hence, I would immensely appreciate the indication, if you can, of all
supporters of the don Borghi experiment t as well as all major retractors.
 
I will keep the info confidential, if you so desire. The emails would be
immensely appreciated if available.
 
In regard to Mitch, I do not have the time to become a member of that
blog. next time you access it, please indicate Mitch to send me a
message if he can do so.
 
THANKS
 
Ruggero
 
PS. Are you a member of the following association?
www.santilli-galilei.com
 
 







Sure that Mitch is afraid of retaliations from the scientific community

So, of course there is a conspiracy of the scientific community against the scientific method.

Is there any doubt ?

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Re: Book Reading - Quantum Ring Theory‏
From: Johnathan Chan (coldfusion111@gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:09:57 PM
To:  wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Wladimir:
Thank you Sir for the nice note. Yes, I've started to read it along with a few other book recommendations I've received, but at the moment I'm unfortunately dealing with a family crisis situation with my wife and her stolen identity/credit situation. Lots of leg work to resolve this matter and its a black hole on my free time at the moment as I help her sort through all issues to help her clear this all up.   My blogging has also been unfortunately been put by the side for the moment. 

I do enjoy contact with blog readers, and I thank you for your interaction with my readers and myself on my blog. I hope to get back to it soon and finish your fine book too ! You have some interesting work. My feelings on Widom and Larsen is that they have a good piece of the puzzle, but this puzzle is much bigger than one or two theorists can solve. Theories such as yours can certainly help in new ways.

my best to you.
- JChan





About Johnathan Chan:

A nuclear engineer who dedicates his spare time to helping educate in bringing safe cold fusion power for transportation and networked homes of the future and reducing our fossil fuel dependence.

Co-wrote the introductory chapters to the new cold fusion book 'Rebirth of Cold Fusion' by S. Krivit & N. Winocur (forward by Arthur C Clarke) a historical overview of the field of cold fusion.

Founding board member of NEI.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Re: Nomination of Dr GUGLINSKI to fellow of the Santilli Galilei / Einstein Academies‏
From:   Fucilla (fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com)
Sent:   Monday, February 04, 2008 11:48:47 PM
To:    Fucilla (fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com); wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Dear Wladimir
SG is looking to perform a similar experiments to the one offered by Don Borghi.
The experiment has funding from a group of Companies looking for new sources of energies.
SG would be looking to place you at the leading position for such projects.
The setting for the projects are in the UK.
please let me know if you would be considering such
a project.
Regards
Francesco













 From: Wladimir Guglinski <mailto:wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com>
 To: Fucilla <mailto:fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com>
 Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:24 AM
 Subject: RE: Nomination of Dr GUGLINSKI to fellow of the Santilli
 Galilei / Einstein Academies
 
 Dear Fucilla 
 The stronger reason why Don Borghi’s Experiment is not accepted is because the academic theorists think that the model n=p+e violates the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
 
 However in my Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed a model n=p+e that does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics, because in QRT the electron moves with helical trajectory, and moving with relativistic speed about the proton the electron becomes a boson, because the radius of its helical trajectory becomes zero.
 
 In my opinion, the reason why the academics do not accept Hadronic Mechanics is because the theory is unable to explain why the neutron n=p+e does not violate the Fermi-Dirac statistics.
 
  I think that, with small improvements, Hadronic Mechanics could be accepted by the scientific community, by incorporating some new fundamental principles proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, as for instance the helical trajectory of the electron.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI












Re: Fw: GUGLINSKI‏
From:   ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent:   Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:45:07 PM
To:    Fucilla (anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com); wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Dear prof. Guglinski,
 
Thanks for your constructive comments in the neutrons. I invite you again to prepare an appendix presenting your view under the title "Guglinsli studies on the neutron synthesis." for addition to Volume IV of HMMC.
 
In regard to the acceptance, allow me to be very pessimistic. The only thing the establishment will accept is 100% compliance with old theories.The synthesis of the neutron is irreconcilably beyond quantum mechanics for countless reasons you should perhaps inspect in Section 6.2 of Volume IV.
 
One of them is the loss of consistency of Schroedinger equation due to
the need of a "positive binding energy" of at least 0.78 MeV (the energy
needed over the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron
to reach the neutron). The old fix of assuming the proton and the
electron having 0.78 meV relative energy prove nts the synthesis because
the p-e cross section at that value becomes virtually null, and other
reasons you have to study and cannot be technically presented in an email.
 
hence, I do not believe there can be any "scientific" compromise between
the structure of the n eutron, quantum mechanics SRT, Fermi-Dirac
statistics and all that. These theories were developed for point
particles in vacuum. The neutron requires immensely more than that.
 
Any compromise would be purely political, but I will keep a kilometric
distance from them because I am solely committed to science and not to
equivocal academic politics.
 
This also illustrates trhat the structure of thye neujtrobn cannot be
discuissed without the joint addressing of ethics.
Sincerely
Ruggero santilli












Dear Dr. Santilli
Let me comment your words:
“One of them is the loss of consistency of Schroedinger equation due to the need of a "positive binding energy" of at least 0.78 MeV (the energy needed over the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron to reach the neutron)”

Indeed, such a viewpoint has just been used by Mitch in his Chemistry Forum, where he debunked the theory of Widom and Larsen (used by Steve Krivit trying to convince Mitch on the theoretical viability of cold fusion).

In that forum I debunked the Mitch’s argument, as follows:

======REPLY by Guglinski TO MITCH’S ARGUMENT ==========

Guglinski’s reply is shown
in the begginning of this topic
( see reply 8 )

===========END of Guglinski’s REPLY TO MITCH=========

After this explanation, Mitch did not reply, prefering to shut up.

And the explanation above is the reason why the nuclear engineer Johnathan Chan wrote me the following words two weeks ago:
“Yes, I've started to read Quantum Ring Theory along with a few other book recommendations I've received. You have some interesting work. My feelings on Widom and Larsen is that they have a good piece of the puzzle, but this puzzle is much bigger than one or two theorists can solve.
Theories such as yours can certainly help in new ways.
my best to you.”
- Jchan

Johnathan Chan co-wrote the introductory chapters to the new cold fusion book 'Rebirth of Cold Fusion' by S. Krivit & N. Winocur (forward by Arthur C Clarke) a historical overview of the field of cold fusion.

The helical trajectory is also the solution for many other questions not answered by Quantum Mechanics.  For instance, in my book it’s shown that Schrodinger’s equation is the solution for a hydrogen atom in which the electron moves through the helical trajectory, where the aether of the proton’s electrosphere has dilation due to repulsive gravity.

Therefore, the Schrodinger’s equation is conciliated with a neutron model n=p+e by considering the electron’s helical trajectory and the aether’s dilation due to the repulsive gravity .
In Quantum Ring Theory is speculated that the magnitude of Planck’s constant is changed in distances shorter than 2fm, due to the repulsive gravity, the reason why we can explain electron’s permanence within the nuclei by considering the Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation Dx.Dp ~ h.  I suppose experiments can verify such hypothesis of changing of  Planck’s constant within the neutron.

When I started to develolp my theory in 1993, one among my reasons was the following:  although Quantum Mechanics cannot be 100% correct, however we cannot neglect the successes of the theory, which means that QM cannot be 100% wrong.  So, one of my aims was to discover the reasons why QM is so successful, although it is not 100% correct.  I think I discovered why, as I show in my book.


Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Look what say the researchers in the CERN:


There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions, but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator, as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe. For decades, the Standard Model of particle physics has served physicists well as a means of understanding the fundamental laws of Nature, but it does not tell the whole story. Only experimental data using the higher energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm.

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html



It seems the researchers of CERN are building the LHC with the stronger aim of debunking the Standard Model, instead of to confirm it.



Hummmm...

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From:   ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent:   Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:58:18 PM
To:    Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Dear Dr. Guglinski,
 
Prof. Santilli is out lecturing on his studies on the neutron structure
and asked me to answer you. Thanks for the courtesy of the information.,
PLEASE LET US KNOW THE URL OF THE CHAT ROOM. Thanks.
 
I understood fully your line of thinking as well as that of "Mitch", but
I am afraid that it was my own thinking some two decades ago before I
went deeper into the problem and STUDIED in detail Prof. Santilli's
work. Allow me to express my view.
 
The biggest problem in the neutron structure is POLITICAL, rather than
technical, because scientists do the impossible in trying to reconcile
it with QUANTUM mechanics. However, in so doing they end up with
political epistemology and not quantitative science, the serious one
with FORMULAE. In the technical reality, quantum mechanics is
irreconcilably inapplicable to the neutron structure.
 
From your comments it shows that it is unfortunate you did not study in
depth Prof. Santilli Section 6.2, Volume IV of Hadronic Mathematics.,
Mechanics and Chemistry
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm
So I have to repeat here the main point you did not address.
 
Top begin, a structure model of the neutron is serious if and only if it
represents ALL characteristics of the neutron and not only one or two.
The ONLY scientist who achieved this is Santilli, and he did it first
nonrelativistically and then rel;ativistically, but at the cost of
ABANDONING QUANTUM mechanics (read, unitary time evolution) in favor of
the covering Hadronic mechanics (read, nonunitary time evolution).
 
The quantum solution to the missing energy you indicate is politically
motivated for the intent makin g appear of salvaging quantum mechanics,
but definitely NOT in the technical reality, because:
 
1) When the electron has 0.78 MeV kinetic energy, the "quantum" cross
section between the proton and the electron is 10^{-20} barns, under
which conditions any idea that the proton could capture the electron is
pure politics without any real science.
 
2) Assuming that with some incredible political manipulations in the
dream of salvaging quantum mechanics the proton captures the electron,
then easy calculations yield for the neutron meanlife 10^{25} seconds,
namely an error of 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0000.000 fold !
 
3) Assuming that, by misusing academic credibility here and there you
"solve" problems 1 and 2 you are still at the beginning of the serious
representation of ALL charac teristics of the neutron,. but then you
have to study for that Prof. Santilli non relativistic and relativistic
NUMERICALLY EXACT AND INVARIANT representation of ALL, characteristics.
 
Your argument on the spin is also oriented. in reality, for political
lines toward quantum mechanics. On technical grounds, your own words
that the "electron loses its spin" imply the collapse of the Poincare'
symmetry, hence the collapse of special relativity as well as the
collapse of the Fermi-Dirac statistics since you have the transition
from a Fermion to a Boston for a massive particle with full stability
such as the electron.
 
Your sole view on the spin is a 100% verification of Prof. Santilli
lifetime of work in the field: abandonment of quantum mechanics in favor
of a covering theory, and then the representation of the structure of
the neutron without quantum politics, just to do serious science.
 
Prof. Santilli told me that "Miktch" never contacted him. That's because
he is a politician supporting quantum mechanic s via misinformation on
the neutrons such as those I read in your email? I PRAY TO BE WRONG, but
this can be solely cleared by 'Mitch" showing up rather than remaining
in hiding. From what? We are serious people here and when asked for
confidentiality we keep it on our honor!
 
REMEMBER: PROF. SANTILLI PROVIDES A REPRESENTATION OF ALL DATA SOME 15
YEARS AGO. WHY SUCH A SOLUTION IS NOT QUOTED WITH OTHERS? NOW,. ANY
CLAIM OF A SOLUTION COMPARES TO THAT ONE. SILENCE IS POLITICAL AND ONLY
SELFDAMAGE
 
Hoping you STUDY prof. Santilli lifetime of QUANTITATIVE study on the
neutron and suggesting you do the same, namely, avoid solutions via
wording alone and using instead equations for your own name and
reputation, I remain at your disposal for any comment
 
george F. Weiss
Editorial Manager
Institute for Basic Research
 
PS1: Please send this m,essage to the misteriolus "Mitch". thanks
 
PS2. Another huge pol;itics is to co,mbine Don Borghi with Cold fusion
experiments such as those by Conte, etc. you quote. The synthesis of the
neutron requires energy while c o;ld fusion tries to produce it. Also,
the don Borghi and Santilli expoerim,en ts are based on the sole use of
hydrogen. Period. Conte & Co use nuc;leai and claim to have produced
neujtronms fro,m NUJC.LEI. To top offf the misinfolrmation, Conte
original papers does not evcen quote don Borghi. How can this hap;pen?
And everytbody keep quloting CFonmte with don Borghi" M<y Godf how low
is physics!
 

[W.GUGLINSKI]

RE: ua‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:53:40 PM
To:  ibr (ibr@gte.net)


Dear Dr. George F. Weiss

The URL of the chat room is:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0


Now let me comment the points:

1) When the electron has 0.78 MeV kinetic energy, the "quantum" cross section between the proton and the electron is 10^{-20} barns, under which conditions any idea that the proton could capture the electron is pure politics without any real science.

2) Assuming that with some incredible political manipulations in the
dream of salvaging quantum mechanics the proton captures the electron, then easy calculations yield for the neutron meanlife 10^{25} seconds, namely an error of 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0000.000 fold !



Those restrictions can be taken in consideration when we do not consider the repulsive gravity of the aether.
In Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed a structure for the aether in which there are two sort of gravitons:  the gravitons “g” that produce attraction, and the gravitions “G” that produce repulsion.

So, according to the hydrogen atom proposed in QRT, the electron and the proton are submitted to Coulombic attraction within the electrosphere of the hydrogen atom, but they are also submitted to repulsion. 
In special conditions, as happens in Don Borghi’s Experiment, the repulsion is eliminated, and the electron is captured by the proton,  and they form the neutron.


In the page 131 of the Journal of New Energy Vol. 4 No. 4 the physicist Dr. S. X. Jin makes an analysis on some proposals of Hadronic Mechanics, entitled A COMMENT TO THE “ISOCHEMICAL MODEL OF MOLECULAR BONDS”, and in the page 138 he writes his conclusion on some proposals of HM:

In summary, it is questionable that the author’s “new strong, attractive forces among the two valence electrons...” and the “isoelectronium” could exist.  Because:

1- it exists, the “new strong, attractive force” must be thousands times stronger than the nuclear force.  This concept is not supported either experimentally or theoretocally. 

2- Furthermore, if the “isoelectrium” exists, its magnetic dipole moment would be exactly same as for the electron’s magnetic dipole moment.  And, for the non-ferromagnetic materials, such as hydrogen, the effect of external magnetic field on the magnetic dipole moment of the valence electron is very small.  Therefore, to create the “isoelectrium” using external magnetic field, and to attribute the “strong magnetic bond” and even “new chemical species” to the “isoelectrium” is theoretically difficult.



The first Jin’s restriction can be eliminated by considering that the magnitude of Planck’s constant is changed in distances shorter than 2F, due to the repulsive gravity.

The second Jin’s restriction can be eliminated by considering that the magnitude of electron’s magnetic field is due to the electron’s helical trajectory.
The radius of the helical trajectory is changed by the dilation of the aether due to repulsive gravity within the hydrogen atom.


So, in my opinion some fundamental principles proposed in Quantum Ring Theory could help to eliminate many difficulties in Hadronic Mechanics.
But I dont think Dr. Santilli would be interested to consider any help to his theory.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

<Major divergencoies, unfortunatelyt‏
From: ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:26:10 PM
To:  Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dear Dr. Guglienski,

 Thanks for the detailed message that I studied with care, but I am afraid we have divergencies. Your solutions are purely conceptual. The synthesis of the neutron require a structural equation similar to that for the H-atom. The only stricture equations representing exactly all characteristics of the neutron is Ruggero's equation. Your solution is mainly conceptual and based on various unverifiable assumption, in which case I can treat anything you asked for.

Please note that both Ruggero and I believe in space as a universal medium of very high energy density. Ruggero has developed a new mathematoics (his isohilbert spaces etc.) to treat possible transition of energy from space to the neutron (his contiunuous creation). To reach credibility you have to do something similar, that is, treat everything with equations and., in thje top. show that your quantitative treatment of space is better than Ruggero's rigorous math.

Your quotation of Jin's "objections" shows your lack of knowledge of hadronic mechanics. We were invited to express countercomments but declined the invitation because Jin's comments are very immoral. In fact, he used purely quantum mechanical arguments di dismiss a new bound state verifying by central assumption the covering hadronic mechanics. That is purely immoral. he was told so but could not care less.

Also, Santilli-Shillady isoelectronium was published at a Journal printed at Oxford following one year of review. Additionally, the isoelectronium has been the basis for the entire hadronic chemistry published by Kluwer, all reviewers dismissing Jin's commen ts because nonsense.

TYpo understand how bad Jin and Fox behaved, following detailed disproof of their political claims, I could use hadronic mechanics to "prove" that the Scroedinger's equation of the H-atom is wrong. I am sure you see that this would be crazy. But then to use quantum mechanics for disproving a structural equation based on hadronic mechanics is equally crazy.

I told you that the biggest problem facing new energy is dirty politics particularly by physicists outside academia. The Jin-Fox case is one. They are illiterate in Santilli's new mathematics he developed at the DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, yet they throw judgment. If this is not unethical, what else could that be?

Yours, Truly
Dr. George F. Weiss
Editorial ManagerInstitute for Basic Research







Re: <Major divergencoies, unfortunatelyt‏
From: ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:53:08 PM
To:  Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dr. Guglinski,
Not to disturb you again, for which I apologize, please note that it is necessary to represent ALL characteristics of the neutron with equations. Doing that for only one or two would not be kosher. the only representation of all that is the one by Ruggero. Did you have the time to study it from Section 56.2 of Volume IV??

George.

PS. I believe that you and Ruggero should collaborate on the ether because in that topic i see a number of nice connections.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

RE: <Major divergencoies, unfortunatelyt‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:28:53 AM
To:  ibr (ibr@gte.net)

 Dear Dr. Weiss

 I would like to comment your words:

“...but I am afraid we have divergencies. Your solutions are purely conceptual”
 

You are right, there are divergencies, because Hadronic Mechanics and Quantum Ring Theory have been developed from different phylosophical viewpoints.

Let me explain why.

 
The Quantum Mechanics is a technological theory.  As said Heisenberg, “what we observe is not Nature itself, but Nature exposed to our mode of questioning”.

Along the 20th Century QM was successful in its aim, which is to develop technology.

But recent experiments (as made by Don Borghi and those in the field of cold fusion) show that in spite QM is successful to develop technology, however in a deepest degree the theory fails.  Which implies that something is missing in QM, and so the theory is not the real image of the Nature.  In other words, the Nature works by some principles different of those proposed in QM.

It is my belief that the real image of the Nature can be found only if we discover the physical mechanisms that she uses.  And that’s why along several years I tried to discover the mechanisms used by the Nature.  They are proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.  For instance, in the book it’s proposed a new nuclear model that explains all the nuclear properties, and it supplies calculation for binding energies that current Nuclear Physics cannot supply, as for example for light nuclei as 1H2, 2He3, 2He4, 3Li, 4Be, 5B, 6C, 7N.

So, according to my belief, the discovery of a successful equation does not mean that a theory is correct.  After all, the equations of QM are successful in many fields, however the theory is wrong, or at least incomplete.

Take for instance Schrodinger equation.  He discovered the equation, and it is successful in solving many problems.  However, what are the mechanisms underlying Schrodinger equation?  What are the physical principles that rule the behavior of the electron within a hydrogen atom?  Quantum Mechanics has not the answer.  There are only axioms and theorems in QM, and not fundamental physical principles.
 

So, I think that, if we want to find a successful theory that represents the real image of the Nature, first of all we have to discover the physical models used by the Nature, and the principles from which these models work.  And after such a discovery, we have to apply the mathematical formalism to these models.

Let me mention a fundamental problem concerning the neutron, and I would like to know how it is solved in Hadronic Mechanics.

As you know, there is not Coulombic repulsion between two neutrons. 

So, if two neutrons are aproached in a distance of 2fm, they interact through the strong force, and they have to agglutinate.  Therefore, after the moment when two neutrons agglutinate, they would never separate anymore.

However we know that there is not 0n2 in Nature.

Heisenberg solved the problem by proposing the concept of isospin.

But the isospin is a pure mathematical concept.  Two neutrons agglutinated by the strong force cannot be apparted by a mathematical concept.  They are attracted by a FORCE OF ATTRACTION, and so only a FORCE OF REPULSION can win the force of attraction, and to separate the two neutrons.  A pure mathematical concept, as the isospin, cannot yield a force of repulsion, capable to win the force of attraction.

Today we know that such a solution used by Heisenberg is disastrous (because he tried to solve everything by the mathematics, by neglecting physical devices capable to produce the phenomena), and today we know that QM is wrong and unable to explain several phenomena, as for instance Don Borghi Experiment.


So, I would like to know how Hadronic Mechanics explains why 0n2 does not exist in Nature.

Regards
W Guglinski

[W.GUGLINSKI]

the successes of Bohr's atom‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:28:46 PM
To:  ibr (ibr@gte.net)

Dr. Weiss

There are hard evidences suggesting that my Quantum Ring Theory is correct.

Among the evidences,  I quote the fact that QRT explains the successes of the Bohr’s hydrogen atom.


From the viewpoint of mathematical probability, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Bohr’s successes can be accidental.

Therefore, a theory to be correct must be able to explain the Bohr’s successes.

 

Any theory unable to explain Bohr’s successes cannot be correct. 

That’s why Quantum Mechanics cannot be a correct theory, since from the principles of QM the Bohr’s successes must be considered accidental.

 

The process of science’s development is very slow.  A new theory faces strong resistance from the scientific community, because it defies prevailing dogmas.  But my QRT is getting new partisans everyday, and I expect the theory will be tested by experiments in the next years.

 

Regards

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Re: the successes of Bohr's atom‏
From: ibr (ibr@gte.net)
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:16:31 AM
To:  Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Dear Wladimir,

We continue to have divergences, mostly due to our different aims and training.

Bohr's atom was successful because THE SCHROEDINGER EQUATION REPRESENTED ALL SPECTRAL LINES WITH AN INCREDIBLY ACCURATE WAY. Period. For me there is nothing to add for the quantitative treatment.

After clarifying that, I do believe in the ether as a universal medium. Consequently, I SUPPORT your research and even invited you to send us a paper for the Hadronic Journal.

However, no serious physicist will support you in the event you believe that your theory, that is essentially CONCEPTUAL, provides a SCIENTIFIC, that is, quantitative proof of the validity of Bohr's atom better than Scroedinger's equation on a Hilbert space.

After all, an essentially unlimited accuracy was reached. How can you improve that? Conceptually? But that's no quantitative science. It is epistemology.

Please understand the difference.

Thanks
george

[sbkrivit]

About Johnathan Chan:

A nuclear engineer who dedicates his spare time to helping educate in bringing safe cold fusion power for transportation and networked homes of the future and reducing our fossil fuel dependence.

Co-wrote the introductory chapters to the new cold fusion book 'Rebirth of Cold Fusion' by S. Krivit & N. Winocur (forward by Arthur C Clarke) a historical overview of the field of cold fusion.

Founding board member of NEI.

The following information is provided for the record because our institute values transparency. As well, the records for our 501c3 are public. Jonathan Chan is a pseudonym for Vince Golubic, who made excellent contributions to the introductory chapters to our book and served most graciously on the first board of directors for New Energy Institute.

Steven Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
Executive Director, New Energy Institute

[W.GUGLINSKI]

RE: the successes of Bohr's atom‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:27:48 AM
To:  ibr (ibr@gte.net)

Dear Dr. Weiss


The calculation made by Bohr considers an electron with circular orbit moving with velocity V about the proton.


According to Bohr’s model, in the instant when a photon is emitted by the atom, the electron is in equilibrium due to two forces: its attraction with the proton and a centripetal force due to its velocity V.


So, in Bohr model the electron is submitted to a centripetal force.

 
The concept of centripetal force requires a trajectory. However the concept of trajectory is incompatible with the concepts of Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, according to Quantum Mechanics, the Bohr model must be 100% wrong, otherwise QM cannot be correct.

 
That’s why nowadays the quantum theorists claim that the successes of Bohr model are accidental, because if they don’t state it, they would be forced to say that QM is wrong.


However from the viewpoint of the mathematical probability is impossible to consider that Bohr’s successes are accidental.

That’s why Schrodinger said on the successes of Bohr model:

"It is difficult to believe that this result is merely an accidental mathematical consequence of the quantum conditions, and has no deeper physical meaning"

So, as Bohr model cannot be 100% wrong, it means that Quantum Mechanics cannot be 100% correct.


An acceptable theory on the hydrogen atom requires a model capable to show that Bohr’s successes are not accidental, but capable to conciliate Bohr’s model with the Schrodinger equation.

In another words, it is required a hydrogen atom in which the electron is submitted to a centipetral force in the instant when the photon is emitted by the atom. There is no other way.


In the hydrogen atom of Quantum Ring Theory the electron is submitted to a centripetal force (the force that the aether applies on the electron due to its helical trajectory). However such a centripetal force is not connected to the photon emission by the atom (as Bohr believed). Actually the emission of the photon has not any connection with the centripetal force (however the centripetal force exists).


Therefore:


1- Bohr’s model is wrong because in his model the centripetal force is connected with the mechanism of photon’s emission


2- But Bohr’s model is partially correct, because the centripetal force indeed exists (produced by the aether, as shown in Quantum Ring Theory).


 

Quantum Ring Theory is conceptual. It deals with the deepest degree of Physics Foundations. It is supported by the LOGIC.

Quantum Ring Theory shows that, if the theorists continue to neglect fundamental questions as for instance the need of a theory on hydrogen atom capable to explain Bohr’s successes, they never will succeed to eliminate the crisis in Physics.

 

In the hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the electron moves through the helical trajectory within a aether that has dilation due to the repulsive graviton G. Due to this repulsion, the total force on the electron is null (the Coulombic attraction force of the proton is cancelled by the repulsive force of the aether), in order that the electron moves into the electrosphere with constant velocity.


 

The hydrogen model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory is compatible with the Bohr model and with the Schrodinger equation too. My hydrogen atom conciliates the Bohr model with the Schrodinger equation. So, from the hydrogen model proposed in QRT we can use the Bohr’s calculations, and also the calculations used by Schrodinger equation.
 
Without considering the fundamental concepts proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the Theoretical Physics will never get out from its crisis.

If you wish, I could ask to the editor Peter Jones to send you a copy of my book Quantum Ring Theory.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI


 

[hasan558]

Hello  Dr guglinski

I am very interested to your theory but unfortunately i can't buy your book as online or in  my country's bookstores .lf you send me a e-book version of your book to my email address I'll would be very grateful.

hasan558nmo@yahoo.co.uk

by the way please study below articles about heim theory. this theory may have help you to find out about ether and repulsive graviton. heim theory in addition to predict subatomic particles is very successful in precise measurement of particles mass(unlike standard model).

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/ExtendedHeimTheory.pdf

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

http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html


IN below forum you can obtain very information about heim theory and
heim's Mass-Formula

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=57fdef0eeabe61eb674ab6d8a53cc74e&showtopic=4385&st=1950



             

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Hassan

there is not e-book form of Quantum Ring Theory

I will read Heim-theory

regards
WLAD

[W.GUGLINSKI]

the importance of a conceptual theory‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:07:45 AM
To:  ibr (ibr@gte.net)

Dear Dr. Weiss
 

As you know, Faraday discovered the laws of the electromagnetism, and later Maxwell has developed a mathematical formalism for the Faraday’s laws. 

Faraday theory was conceptual.

But suppose that Faraday would not have discovered the laws of the electromagnetism, that is, suppose that he would not have developed a conceptual theory of the electromagnetism.

Please answer to me:  would Maxwell be able to develop a mathematical formalism of a electrodynamic theory ?

 
In another words:  without the conceptual foundations discovered by Faraday would be possible to develop an electrodynamic theory, as made by Maxwell ?

 
In Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed the structure for the aether, in which a current of gravitons induce a current of electric particles of the aether. 

As you know, Maxwell applied a Lagrangean to the motion of electrons, and obtained the equation of Faraday’s law of induction.

 
In the same way, from the conceptual foundation of QuantumRing Theory, it is possible to apply a Lagrangean to the motion of gravitons and electric particles of the aether, in order to obtain the equations concerning the structure of the aether.

Of course that it’s a task very harder than that undertaken by Maxwell (because we cannot make experiments with the aether, in order to get parameters, like Faraday made in the case of the electromagnetism).

 
As you know, Faraday obtained his conceptual theory of the electromagnetism by perfoming several experiments.

 
So, you could reply:  but you, Guglinski, you could not make experiments with the aether, in order to discover its structure, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.  Therefore, how could you discover the conceptual foundation of structure of the aether?

Response:  Yes, indeed I did not make experiments with the aether, like Faraday made with the electromagnetism.  So, I had to use the LOGIC.

I discovered the structure of the aether from the analysis of my new nuclear model.  In that a model the fermions are crossed by a flux of gravitons, and such flux induces a flux of electric particles of the aether (those electric particles produce the Coulombic electric fields of protons and electrons).
 

In a former email, you invited me to send a paper to Hadronic Journal, Dr. Weiss.

Unfortunatelly, it makes no sense for a reader to read only one paper of Quantum Ring Theory, because there is an interconnection between the papers.  For instance, in order to understand the structure of the aether, the reader needs to read the papers concerning the new nuclear model and also the paper regarding to the new hydrogen atom.

 
There are several mathematical tools in Modern Physics, but several of them have not a physical meaning.  For instance, nobody knows what is the physical meaning of the Hilbert space.  The mathematical formalism of Hilbert space has been proposed because he did not know some properties of the aether, as for instance the dilation of the space due to the repulsive gravity. 

In Quantum Ring Theory the aether is formed by fluxes of gravitons produced by the nuclei.  These fluxes are like strings (strings formed by gravitons in motion)

An Euclidian space is the region of the space where the distance between the strings is constant.

When the repulsive gravity changes the distance between the strings, the Euclidian space suffers a distortion, as happens within the electrosphere of the hydrogen atom, as shown in Quantum Ring Theory.

 

There is not in Modern Physics a conceptual theory on the aether, capable for instance to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei (as it is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory).

Well, if Faraday would not have discovered his conceptual theory on the electromagnetism, nobody could develop a mathematical theory on the electrodynamics.

In the same way, as today Modern Physics has not a conceptual theory on the aether, it’s impossible to develop a satisfactory mathematical theory capable to explain phenomena as existing in Don Borghi’s experiment.

 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Dear Hasan

Let me comment a fundamental point regarding the Heim theory, as it’s described in
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/ExtendedHeimTheory.pdf

In the beggining it’s writting the following:
Furthermore, the assumption of locality for all physical interactions is of greatest importance and determines the general structure of a unified theory as well the number of fundamental physical interactions.
[...]
In contrast to Einstein, EHT is based on the following four simple and general principles, termed the GOD Q principle of Nature:

III.  Dualization (duality, symmetry) principle (Nature dualizes or is asymmetric, bits),





So, we realize why the scienfific community does not take the Heim theory seriously in consideration.
Indeed, the duality as it’s interpreted by de Broglie (the interpretation considered in Quatum Mechanics) is incompatible with the assumption of locality.

As you know, according to de Broglie’s interpretation, the duality is a property of the matter.


A local theory (as Einstein’s theory and the Heim theory) cannot be conciliated with the principles of Quantum Mechanics.

A local theory can be compatible with Quantum Mechanics only if we change the de Broglie’s interpretation on the duality, in order to make QM to be compatible with the locality assumption.




In Quantum Ring Theory it is shown three fundamental points:

1)  From the assumption of the de Broglie interpretation on the duality, it’s impossible to explain a new version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which I called Michelson-Morley Experiment for Protons, in which the light is replaced by a flux of protons, and Michelson’s interferometer is replaced by a crystal. 
So, in the same way as the old Michelson-Morley experiment made in the 19th Century required a New Physics (proposed by Einstein), nowadays the Michelson-Morley for protons also requires a New Physics, based on the zitterbewegung of the elementary particles, because only by considering the helical trajectory it’s possible to explain this new version of Michelson-Morley experiment, made with protons


2)  The dualtiy of the particles is not a property of the matter.  The duality is a property of the helical trajectory of the particles (zitterbewegung).


3) The zitterbewegung also explains the successes of Bohr, not possible to explain from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.  And as it is impossible to consider the Bohr’s successes as accidental, [/blue]we realize that it’s indispensable to consider a theory besed on the helical trajectory of the particles, BECAUSE ONLY A THEORY BASED ON THE ZITTERBEWEGUNG IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SUCCESSES OF BOHR



There are nowadays several new theories, because the Theoretical Physics faces its worst crisis in the History of Physics.



Unfortunatelly, the theorists enjoy to bamboozle themselves, believing that it’s possible to find a successful theory by neglecting some fundamental requirements.

For instance, they neblect the following fundamental premises for a successful theory:

1- A successful theory must be able to explain the Bohr’s successes

2- A local theory requires a new interpretation on the duality, by considering the duality as a property of the helical trajecotory

3- As a unified theory requires the conciliation between the locality (of the Relativity) and the non-locality (of Quantum Mechanics), so a unified theory requires a new interpretation on the duality, by considering it a property of the helical trajectory, as proposed in the foundations of Quantum Ring Theory.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com>
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
CC: luca54321@verizon.net, "NEC Tech Screen egroup" <NEC-techscreen@yahoogroups.com>, "Steve Krivit" <stevek@dlsi.net>, "Scott Chubb" <chubbscott@aol.com>, travkin@iname.com
Subject: new cold fusion foundations
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:49:29 -0700
 
Hi Wladimir,
 
I've noticed your work at PESWiki and plan to feature it soon in our news


Featured:
Cold Fusion > Examining New Foundations for Cold Fusion - W. Gulinski argues for the need for new foundational premises for cold fusion because otherwise there is no way to surpass some theoretical troubles such as are shown in Don Borghi's experiment. One such remedy is supposedly found in the Quantum Ring Theory. (PESWiki; Nov. 23, 2007)
 

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com>  Add Mobile Alert 
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
CC: luca54321@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Advances in Don Borghi's experiment
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:18:56 -0700


Hi Wladimir,

J. Kadeisvili gave me permission to forward this email to you.

Sterling



----- Original Message -----
From: <luca54321@verizon.net>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Advances in Don Borghi's experiment


>I suggest some clarification of the current presentation, as well as
 an
>outline ofd recent momentuous advances in the field
>
>Energy_body:
>
>I have been unableto log in or locate instructions on how to log in.
 the
>advances I refer are those in
>
>HADRONIC MATHEMATICS, MECHANICS AND CHEMIUSTRY
>Ruggero Maria Santilli
>http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm
>Volume IV in particular
>see particularly Volume IV Santilli's structure model of the neutron
 "a la
>Rutherford" and his successful repetion of Don Borghi's test. large
>industrial investment have been mnade to use the field for seeking new
 
>clean
>energies you should perhaps have a report.
>Please instruct me on how I can submit my comments for your review.
>THANKS
>
>memo:
>*******************************
>
>
Dear Allen,

Thanks for the quick cooperation.

[...]

I am contacting you for constructive suggestions pertaining to Don
Borghi's experiment that is now the forefront of physics with large new
investments for expected new energies. I provide my tentative
suggestions below.

As indicated, I am at your disposal to draft a tentative revised
 version
of your page, of course, for your finalization as you wish. Just give
 me
the go-ahead, of course, without any pretense on my part of commitment
on your part prior to inspection.

My qualifications is that I am an applied mathematician (originally
 from
the former USSR) who worked for years at the new mathematics needed for
a quantitative representation of the synthesis of the neutron as
occurring in stars, from protons and electrons.

In Prof. Santilli's five summary volumes
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm
 you can see in Vol. III, Section 3.2 subsections dedicated to my
contributions, while in the bibliography of Vol. III you can see the
post Ph. D.  monographs I have written in the subject. Volume IV is
dedicated, specifically to the neutron structure, synthesis and
stimulated decay.

I have been very and sincerely impressed by your PowerPedia because you
are perhaps the only newsmedia dedicated top new clean energies, a
 topic
to which I have dedicated my  researchlife as an applied mathematician
and it is now paying off b big (but not via cold fusion).

If there is anything I can do to help, please do not hesitate to let me
know.

YT

Jerdsay Kadeisvili

**************************************

INFORMAL AND PRIVATE COMMENTS TO POWERPEDIA PAGE ON
DON BORGHI'S EXPERIMENT
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Don_Borghi's_experiment

I would like to praise PowerPedia for outlining Don Borghi's experiment
on the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons, as well as
for presenting opposing views. This is quite a service for our society.
Thanks! However, to be effective, the presentation needs some
clarifications (or corrections) as well as some upgrading with recent
major advances in the field.

As you correctly quote from ref. 6 in the above page, the neutron is
 one
of the largest reservoirs of potentially clean energies that, as such,
is attracting increasing investments from the industry, thus suggesting
these comments.


DON BORGHI EXPERIMENT AND THE COLD FUSION
Your current presentation projects the impression that Don Borghi's
experiment is part of the ongoing attempts at the cold fusion.
Unfortunately, this view causes damages to both fields as well as to
 the
scientists you quote.

Don Borghi's and his team achieved the first known synthesis of the
neutron from protons and electrons as occurring in stars, namely, a
synthesis that "requires" energy (at least 0.78 MeV over the rest
energies of the proton and the electron). By contrast, the cold fusion
seeks nuclear fusions for the scope of "producing" energy. As such, Don
Borghi experiments and those on cold fusion are dramatically different
in conception, physical laws and technical realization.

In your presentation you do clarify that the synthesis of the neutron
requires a minimum 0.78 MeV energy, but by placing it next to the cold
fusion you have allowed "skeptics" on cold fusion to use the neutron
synthesis as an argument against the energy production via the cold
fusion, that is a nonscientific nonsense.

Rather damaging has been, in particular, your listing of the experiment
by Conte and Pieralice (your Ref. 2) as a repetition of Don Borghi';s
experiment since that is not the case. In fact, your ref. (2) does not
even quote Don Borghi and it was squarely intended as a cold fusion
 test
for which the expected neutrons were supposed to be an indication of
 the
synthesis of nuclei and definitely not of protons and electrons. In
fact, ref. 2 was commissioned by Mallove as editor of infinite Energy
who was notoriously dedicated to the production of energy via the cold
fusion and definitely not to the loss of energy for the neutron
synthesis. Additionally, you should know that a large lawsuit was filed
at the U. S. federal Court against Conte, Pieralice and Mallove, not
only for their attempt "to stead the paternity to a dead priest", but
also for incredible plagiarism of its content.

Further damage was created by reinforcing this hill fated link between
Don Borghi and the cold fusion with Taleyarkhan, your ref. 3 whose
objective were not even remotely connected to the neutron synthesis
 from
protons and electrons "alone" as necessary to speak seriously about the
neutron "synthesis" vs neutron "production:" from nuclear events.

POSSIBLE MISREPRESENTATION OF GELL-MANN VIEW.
Our group has been occasionally in contact with Prof. Gell-Mann and/or
his associates. They confirmed Gell-Mann's view you quote on the lack
 of
existence at this writing of a good theory for the cold fusion, but
 they
object against its implicit use in your page, namely that Gell-Mann is
against the synthesis of the neutron.

This is a serious point because no physicist in full sanity of his/her
mind, and Gell-Mann is one of them, can deny the synthesis of the
neutron as occurring in stars, from protons and electrons. Hence,
Gell-Mann cannot deny the incontrovertible experimental evidence on the
synthesis of the neutron in stars just because he does not have a
 theory
at the moment. he can scientifically do that for the cold fusion but
 not
for the neutron synthesis.

This type of conflict illustrates, again, the drastic difference
 between
the energy requiring neutron synthesis and the expected energy
 releasing
cold fusion of nuclei.

SUGGESTION
I believe that the entire page should be rewritten and I am at your
disposal to help you for that. The scientist who has dedicated his
research life to the mathematical, theoretical and experimental studies
on the  structure of the neutron is Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli
(formerly from Harvard, nominated by the Estonia Academy of Sciences
among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of al;l times, CV
http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm see also
http://www.santilli-galilei.com). Some 20,000 pages of research by
hundreds of scholars have been summarized in the five volumes

Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm

see in particular, Volume IV, Section 6.2 on the "inapplicability" of
quantum mechanics for the neutron structure, the full applicability of
the covering hadronic mechanics, and the successful repetition of Don
Borghi's experiment "from protons and electrons only." no nuclei and no
cold fusion!
The proposed revised version should review Don Borghi's and Santilli
experiments, stress the structural differences with the cold fusion,
indicate the lack of applicability of quantum mechanics, outline the
full applicability of the covering hadronic mechanics and then pass to
the important issues: use of all this to stimulate the decay of the
neutron as a new source of energy/. That is the aspect attracting
investments from the industry.

Needless to say, in the event you are interested, I can prepare for you
a draft that you can then finalize as you wish.

in faith

j. V. Kadeisvili
luca54321@verizon.net

[W.GUGLINSKI]

RE: new cold fusion foundations‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:34:48 AM
To:  Sterling D. Allan (sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com)


Dear Sterling
 
I have read the email by Dr Kadeisvili, and I would like to say my opinion.
 
 
Kadeisvili reinforces the same politics used by Rugero Santilli, which in my viewpoint is not suitable for a scientific discussion.
 
Santilli wants to impose his Hadronic Mechanics worldwide, and sometimes he uses methods that I dont agree must be used.
For instance, he suited in law the editor Eugene Mallove, but the editor had no guilty on the fault commited by Elio Conte (if Conte indeed commited it, but I dont agree either).
 
 
There are some strange points in what Kadeisvili says, as for instance:

This is a serious point because no physicist in full sanity of his/her mind, and Gell-Mann is one of them, can deny the synthesis of theneutron as occurring in stars,  
 
Well, Don Borghi experiment was not made within a star.  The experiment was made within a vessel, with low energy.
 
 
I have read the paper written by Don Borghi at all, and I wrote my article to PESwiki from the scientific viewpoint (and not with the aim to support Santilli or any other theory).
 
Don Borghi experiment, as Conte-Pieralice, and Taleyarkahan, are the same version of the same experiment, since all they deal with the formation of the neutron from protons and electrons at low energy.
 
The persons that work toghether with Santilli want to deny the similarity between the experiments because they have personal reasons to do it, and their reasons does not suit to the scientific method.
 
 
So, I suggest that Dr Kadeisvili write a new article on Don Borghi experiment, where he can analyse the experiment from the viewpoint of Santilli Hadronic Mechanics.
He can give it a title as for instance "Don Borghi's Experiment interpreted from Hadronic Mechanics".
 
This is my viewpoint.  But of course you can decide what is the best for the pages of PESwiki and New Energy Systems
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From: VT
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: new cold fusion foundations


Hello Sterling and NEC,
 
If this piece would be good to post to the NEC-techscreen ?
 
Please, everyone be enduring  reading this piece below.
 
 W.Guglinski      Regarding        writings:
 
         As soon as  long ago I started working over the need to make a best observation-study of both Randell Mills' and by P.Kanarev's  new suggested Quantum Mechanics substitutions and new Atomic physics, featuring many changes to atomic and general physics paradigms. Then recently came the whole intervention with the work and uploading by W.Guglinski - on 02/11-2008 we had message from Sterling on that.

     Studying the Quantum Ring Theory (QRT) by W.Guglinski  I found that could be useful to consider few tiers in this deal:

      1 Tier)  Science -  where  some features of QRT observed with a scientific method:
Cold Fusion > Examining New Foundations for Cold Fusion - W. Guglinski . 

     Guglinski writes the GOOD Questions regarding the Atomic physics, Nuclear Physics:

     For the proposal of a new theory, as a point of departure I had considered the seven fundamental points as follows:
    *1- Yukawa's model of neutron seemed to be impossible to work, since it violates two fundamental laws of Physics: the Newton's action-reaction law, and the energy-matter conservation law. So I felt that would be necessary to prove that from the model n=p+e one could explain all the the properties of the neutron inferred from the experiments.

    *2- Another question that worried me was the missing of the aether in the current theories of Modern Physics. Something was wrong with Einstein interpretation. A new theory replacing the empty space by a space fulfilled with the aether would be required.

    *3- The hydrogen atom model of Quantum Mechanics could not be entirely correct, by several reasons:

    **3.1- The hydrogen atom model of Bohr is not correct, since it is unable to explain the fine structures. However his model has so many spectacular successes, as for instance we calculate the Rydgerg's constant from the Bohr's model, with an accuracy that cannot be accidental, because it's impossible to consider it accidental from the laws of probability. Nevertheless nowadays the quantum theorists claim that Bohr's successes are accidental. Such hypothesis is unacceptable, and we have to consider that there is something true (at least partially) in his model, while from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics one needs to consider Bohr's model as totally wrong. But as from the mathematical probability we have to consider that Bohr's model is at least partially correct, this implies that the QM's model cannot be entirely correct.

    **3.2- It is hard to believe that there is no trajectory of elementary particles as proposed in QM, since we see that electron's trajectory exists within the chamber fog.

    **3.3- The hydrogen atom of QM is undulatory. But there are phenomena that require a corpuscular model to be explained. And it's hard to believe in the absurd principle of complementarity proposed by Bohr, according to which incompatible models must be used for explaining the phenomena. Indeed, it's hard to believe that the Nature sometimes uses a corpuscular model, and sometimes she uses a undulatory model.

    *4- There is not a unique nuclear model in current Nuclear Physics. There are several models, and they are incompatible. Besides, the current nuclear theory is unable to explain some nuclear properties and many behavior of the nuclei. It's hard to believe that Nature works by using several incompatible models for the production of the nuclear phenomena. Thereby it was indispensable to look for a unique nuclear model capable to explain all the nuclear phenomena.

    *5- Nowadays the theorist consider that the light is a duality wave-particle, and there is not any model of photon for explaining the light behavior.

    (VT  -  This is not true - at least two theories exist taking the photon seriously - by Randell Mills and by P.Kanarev).    


 The light in Modern Physics is described by pure abstract mathematical equations, and it's hard to believe that mathematical equations can produce physical phenomena as those produced by the light. So, I felt the need of looking for a physical model of photon, capable to generate the Maxwell equations and to reproduce theoretically all the phenomena of the light, as its duality wave-particle, the polarization, etc.

    *6- It's hard to believe that the duality wave-particle is a property of the matter. There is an alternative solution for explaining the duality wave-particle: by considering the zitterbewegung of the elementary particles. The zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac's equation of the electron, and therefore the duality can be considered as a property of the helical trajectory of the elementary particles. Such new interpretation for the duality is used in the new hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    VT: My reservation and explanation is different, by the way.  


    *7- But Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity are two successful theories. And it's hard to believe that they are completely wrong. So I felt the need of discovering why they are so successful, in spite of they cannot be entirely correct. In another words: where does live the cause of the success of these two theories ?
 

         Well, going to the cold fusion we can see - why "M. Gell-Mann said in a lecture in the Portland State University in 1998: "It's a bunch of baloney. Cold Fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists"(7)" ?

    He said this, because  Gell-Mann  got the Nobel prize for the strong interactions related work? So, the whole body of his advancements in nuclear physics are under the very abolishment? Who knows for sure now?

    How many mistakes the Nobel Prize committee has under the hood? At least few, as we know for sure.

    I remember vividly when asked on his opinion regarding the Taleyarkhan's experiment  in 2002 (or 2003) S.Putterman was really furious in his denial of any good cause also of any fusion presence. You know why?
 
Because Putterman himself got one or two times (at least one I was at the conference again at the DoE Argonne Lab) grants from the DoE for studying the same sonoluminecense and found nothing of this high quality innovation. He is a brilliant physicist but here was the matter of a personal height.

    Later on in 2005 he got himself at last to the stage claiming the Hot Fusion table-top demonstration rig. RESWiki has a feature page on that.

         Further on Cold Fusion - regarding the issues in RESWiki:

However no theory is successful, and therefore 5 questions arise, as consequence of the LOGIC:
1- From the proposed theories, is there anyone with chance to explain cold fusion?
2- If yes, how?
3- If no, why?
4- Is there a fundamental requirement to be satisfied by any cold fusion theory?
5- Is there a criterion to be applied to a candidate theory, in order to discover if it is able to be successful, or not?

            2 Tier)  Comparisons  -   
There is very limited number of references in writings by W.Guglinski to the other theoretical work on the same topic - Zitterbewegung (). 

    Nevertheless, those works are just a lot!   

         From     http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9803/9803037v1.pdf  -  "About Zitterbewegung and electron structure"  Authors: W.A.Rodrigues Jr., Jayme Vaz, Erasmo Recami, G.Salesi
    (Submitted on 14 Mar 1998)
    "The above results appear to support the conjecture that the Zitterbewegung motion (a helical motion, at the classical limit) is responsible for the electron spin." 

              then

    [2] A.O. Barut and N. Zanghi: Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 2009.
     +
     The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of
    Quantum Mechanics
    David Hestenes, In: Found. Physics., Vol. 20, No. 10, (1990) 1213--1232.
    Abstract. The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron
    presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A
    reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not
    be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as
    originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation
    for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally.
    Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac
    theory, and it implies a zitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger
    theory as well.

     Also: 

    In: Found. Physics., Vol. 23, No. 3, (1993) 365--387.
    Zitterbewegung Modeling
    David Hestenes

    Abstract. Guidelines for constructing point particle models of the electron
    with zitterbewegung and other features of the Dirac theory are discussed.
    Such models may at least be useful approximations to the Dirac
    theory, but the more exciting possibility is that this approach may lead to
    a more fundamental reality.
  "Thus, despite the appearance of electron mass in the Dirac equation,
the electron may indeed be moving with the speed of light. Contrary to long-standing
"classical" arguments, such motion can produce a gyromagnetic ratio of 2. Moreover, the
complex phase factor can be interpreted as a direct representation of the circular ZBW.   ":
     "The compatibility of this ZBW interpretation with the details of the Dirac theory is
    demonstrated in Ref. 2. Its very success, however, suggests the possibility of a deeper theory
    of electrons. It suggest that the Dirac theory actually describes a statistical ensemble of
    possible electron motions. If that is correct, it should be possible to find equations of motion
    for a single electron history and then derive the Dirac theory by statistical arguments. That
    possibility is explored in this paper, where definite equations of motion for a single point
    particle with ZBW are written down and discussed. With the ZBW interpretation as a
    guide, the equations are designed to capture the essential features of the Dirac equation.  "

               See the references therein - it's interesting.

              Also -  There is a need for the comparisons to be thorough provided with the Randell Mills and Philip.Kanarev Atomic, sub-Atomic scales physics and follow-ups. 

     Conferences - I have found so far no one conference where W.Guglinsky delivered his theory? Which is usually pretty strange?  It's not publications -where people can not get published because of not- a "peer" review.

       3 Tier)  Background check, Psychology  -           

What is interesting I found in texts by Wladimir Guglinski  and which is coincides with my observations - that workers in the field, researchers, scientists are collapsing in answering to the challenging the New Paradigm questions? 

         The Wikipedia is the very outdated and conservative approach company - THEY ARE really the "mainstream" "academic" science supporters! The Nobel Committee followers. 

         Recently - last year, W.GUGLINSKI had been banned from editing of his articles on Wikipedia. Articles had been deleted. He also had been blocked  like for indefinitely?! -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W.GUGLINSKI 

         I have sent him to the two different email addresses emails.  One he responded to firstly and we would hopefully starting a discussion - whether it would last long will be seen.


   4 Tier)  Summary, Conclusion  -   

I need myself for the HS physics-VAT to look into the comparison of theories: Kanarev-Mills-Guglinski.

    For the Top-Down scaling connection of physics from meso- or nanoscale to the atomic and sub-atomic scales. And vise - versa communication  from Bottom - Up.

    The first is  Philip M. Kanarev - because he is the longest standing in against the conventional QM and Atomic physics guy, like say ~25-30 years already, not because he is from Russia and I have Russian background.
 
 Also, Kanarev developed as like 600 questionnaire document, answering to 600 questions, supporting his Atomic physics - anti-QM physics, that means a lot. Have many questions to him still.   Not from these 600 of his own generated. 

    Then comes the Randell Mills' physics - he is getting to has constructed the solid foundation in his new Classical QM. The theory seems has the long lasting period - near 15-17 years in development   I also have many questions to him.

    Then this very interesting theory by Guglinski on the new Nuclear physics essentially ?

    No matter what these authors will have to answer me - I have been researching their sciences-claims and sooner or later come to my mind and publish on this matter in my website and in PESWiki.   

    As to this date - these theories at least boldly and with many proves contest the "Stubborn" in many issues wrong adjustments made in QM and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) - and those are the Biggest obstacles in the Contemporary Science, Technology - and well as for - Energy New Solutions, Advanced Energy findings.

           From time to time I will be posting info on communications with all three of them and my deliberation with regard of this matter. 
 
*************
That's it so far.
    Sincerely yours,

   Vladi S. Travkin







From:   Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent:   Monday, March 10, 2008 4:33:59 AM
To:    travkin@iname.com
Cc:    sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com
 Subject: there is not any model of photon


Dear Travkin
concerning my comment:
 
*5- Nowadays the theorist consider that the light is a duality wave-particle, and there is not any model of photon for explaining the light behavior.
 
and your reply:

    (VT  -  This is not true - at least two theories exist taking the photon seriously - by Randell Mills and by P.Kanarev).
 
 
actually I would mean to write:
 
Nowadays the theorist consider that the light is a duality wave-particle, and there is not any model of photon IN MODERN PHYSICS   for explaining the light behavior
 
 
By Modern Physics I mean to say the prevailing theories supported by the academics
 
regards
WLAD

[W.GUGLINSKI]

GALILEAN DIALOGUES WITH ITALLIAN MAFIA

HOW THE DISCUSSION HAS STARTED:

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com>  Add Mobile Alert 
To: tgill@howard.edu, jphillips@lanl.gov, septor2004@adelphia.net, steinej@SVT.NTNU.NO, erik.trell@gmail.com, fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com, J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk
CC: luca54321@verizon.net, ibr@gte.net, "NE Congress Tech Review egroup" <NEC-TechRev@yahoogroups.com>,  "Daniel Bowers" <itopea2012@yahoo.com>, "Kiril Chukanov" <kiril@iesica.com>, "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:02:41 -0600

Dear esteemed colleagues of Rugero Santilli,
 
Dr. Santilli has requested that you review and offer comments on the following paper written by Jersday V. Kadeisvili.
 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:The_Rutherford_Santilli_Neutron_and_Its_New_Hadronic_Energy
 
You can either submit those to Jersday at luca54321@verizon.ne , or you can submit them to me, or you can submit them on the discussion page at
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Article:The_Rutherford_Santilli_Neutron_and_Its_New_Hadronic_Energy
(request PESWiki user/pass, if you don't have one, through webmaster@pureenergysystems.com )
 
Sincerely,
 
| Sterling D. Allan
|
| New Energy Congress
| http://NewEnergyCongress.org
|
| PES Network, Inc, CEO








THE DISCUSSION BEGINS:

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper

Dear Sterling
 
in the Santilli's article at PESwiki, in the item INDCOMPATIBILITYOF THE NEUTRON SYNTHESIS WITH COLD FUSION, it's written the following:
 
In fact, the neutron synthesis requires energy, while the cold fusion aims at producing energy. Consequently, the mathematical and physical laws that are effective for the former event have to be changed for the different features of the latter event.
Additionally, the synthesis of the neutrons occurs in stars from the sole use of protons and electrons. By comparison, the neutrons detected in certain cold fusions originate from nuclear synthesis, that is, the neutrons released in nuclear fusions occur from nuclear processes such as excess neutrons in the synthesized nucleus, and definitely not from protons and electrons.
 
 
COMMENT:
Such Santilli's assumption is disagree to Don Borghi's Experiment. 
Indeed, in his experiment there are only protons and electrons within the vessel where occurs the synthesis of the neutron.  There are NOT inside the vessel any elements from which neutrons could be released. 
 
The only way to explain the synthesis of neutron in Don Borghi's Experiment is by considering the zitterbewegung energy of the electron, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
 
In a former email, as asked to Dr. George Weiss how Hadronic Mechanics explains why two neutrons are not agglutinated by the strong force, forming the 0n2.  After all, there is not repulsion between two neutrons, and so, after beeing agglutinated by the strong force, two neutrons would not separate anymore.
 
Dr. Weiss did not answer to my question
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI








Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:22:13 -0500
From: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

Dear Dr. Guglinski,

Thanks for your comments. The synthesis of the neutron is quite complex
 
and any comment in good faith is welcome.

Yet, it appears you continue not to follow my suggestion that you
 should
first study in detail Ruggero's work in the field, such as HMMC, Volume
 
IV, Section 6.2 available at
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm
or at least read carefully Jerdsay
s review article
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:The_Rutherford_Santilli_Neutron_and_Its_New_Hadronic_Energy
Consequently, it is difficult to have technical exchanges because I
cannot write formulae on an email and without formulae we have
interesting epistemology but NOT scientific, that is, quantitative
treatments.

Please note that in the above studies there is no claim to synthesize
the neutron inside the klystron for various technical reasons I cannot
repeat in an email.

On the other extreme, the view that nothing except proton and electrons
 
comes out of the klystron has zero credibility evidently because you
could throw protons and electrons to a substance without an arc and you
 
should have the same neutron counts as with Ruggero's klystron, which
 is
nonsense.

Hence, the most plausible idea at the moment is that of synthesizing
inside the klystron "something neutral" that is not yet a neutron
(called neutroid).

This "something neutral" is then  absorbed by outside nuclei resulting
in the measurements detected by Don Borghi and Santilli as well others.

The idea of using the zitterbevegung of the electron for the synthesis
of the neutron should certainly be explored, because that is an
intrinsic feature of the electron that as such, cannot be ignored.

However, you are facing serious difficulties because that motion is
known NOT to be conducive to bound states. So, the issue you raise is
 to
reach a synthesis DESPITE the zitterbevegung. Also, you have to work it
 
out INSIDE NUCLEI, and that's quite a task because if you try outside
positively you have no synthesis of the neutron.

Finally, Ruggero's work is quantitative, that is, ALL IDEAS ARE TREATED
 
WITH FORMULAE PRODUCING NUMBERS THAT ARE CONFRONTED WITH EXPERIMENTS.
 To
reach a scientific appraisal of your ideas it is essential that you
 send
us FORMULAE AND NUMBERS.

Your last point on the bonding of two neutrons is, again, a
 confirmation
that you have not studied Ruggero's works. The name "hadronic
 mechanics"
was suggested to treat "strong interactions" that are notoriously
"charge independent". Hence, in the event hadronic mechanics would fail
 
to represent the strong force between two neutrons it would be worth
 the
name.

The problem for you (as well as for conventional hadron physics at
large) is that such a bond has a component of contact nonpotential type
 
that should be represented with anything EXCEPT THE HAMILTONIAN
(otherwise you grant a potential energy to resistive forces), and the
representation has to be invariant over time.

Hadronic mechanics represent such a force with the lifting of the basic
 
unit as the ONLY known way to reach an INVARIANT representation WITHOUT
 
the Hamiltonian producing beautiful quantitative models today
experimentally verified in particle physics, nuclear physics,
superconductivity, astrophysics, chemistry and cosmology (see HMMC Vol.
 
IV, Section 6.1 and Vol. V).

Please do address me to a QUANTITATIVE alternative formulation you have
 
that you believe it is better and with bigger experimental
 verifications
and I will study it with sincere interest.

Yours, Truly

Dr. George F. Weiss
Editorial manager
Institute for Basic Research

PS FOR THE OTEHR COLLEAGUES: Please let us know your comments, with particualr reference to criticisms on the technical quantitative
tyreatments. The problem is to important for all of physics! You can be
assured of Ruggero's and mine sincere THANKS.











Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper
To: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>

Dear Dr. Weiss
 
1-  Concerning your words:
"Hence, the most plausible idea at the moment is that of synthesizing
inside the klystron "something neutral" that is not yet a neutron
(called neutroid).
This "something neutral" is then absorbed by outside nuclei resulting
in the measurements detected by Don Borghi and Santilli as well others"
 
COMMENT:
Such assumption is very strange.
Indeed, Santilli actually is postulating a new particle. 
So, then it is necessary to detect it experimentally (by measuring its mass, spin, etc)
 
But the assumption is also strange because such a "strange neutroid" has the same properties of the neutron, since it is absorbed by outside nuclei, exactly as happens to the neutron.
So, the evidence of Don Borghi's experiment is suggesting that it's really the neutron. 
It seems that Santilli is postulating a new particle, because the Don Borghi' experiment does not fit to his theory.
 
 
2- Concering:
"Please note that in the above studies there is no claim to synthesize
the neutron inside the klystron for various technical reasons "
 
COMMENT:
Perhaps the technical reasons have appeared because some conceptual foundations are missing in Hadronic Mechanics. 
As for instance the dilation of the aether inside the proton's electrosphere, as shown in Quantum Ring Theory.
The electron moving with zitterbewegung inside an aether with dilation has properties yet unknown by the theorists, as shown in the new hydrogen atom proposed in QRT.
 
 
3- Concerning your words:
"Finally, Ruggero's work is quantitative, that is, ALL IDEAS ARE TREATED
WITH FORMULAE PRODUCING NUMBERS THAT ARE CONFRONTED WITH EXPERIMENTS"
 
COMMENT:
We have to note that Quantum Mechanics is also treated with formulae producing numbers that are confronted with experiments
However we know, and Santilli knows it too, that in spite of the mathematical treatment of QM, the theory is wrong.
Therefore, to claim that a theory is correct because its ideas are treated with formulae producing numbers is a guaranty of nothing, because one can get anything he wishes from manipulation of mathematics, as the successes of Quantum Mechanics have proved it to us.
 
By using the idea of zitterbewegung I have shown that we get the mass of the neutron from its synthesis of proton+electron, as shown in the paper ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/NEUTRONmodel.html
Also, we calculate the deuteron's electric quadrupole moment and the magnetic moment of neutron, and they are agree to experimental results.
 
Besides, the zitterbewegung is the only way available to explain the successes of Bohr model.
In general the theorists neglect the fact that Bohr's successes cannot be accidental.
But no theory can be acceptable if it is unable to explain why Bohr theory is so successful.
 
 
4- Concerning the legend of the first figure of the item "Approximate validity of quantum mechanics in nuclear physics", it's written the following:
 
Prof. Santilli states: "It is impossible for quantum mechanics to be exactly valid for the nuclear structure because nuclei do not have nuclei"[21]. In fact, the cental pillars of quantum mechanics, the Galilei and Poincare' symmetries, are exactly valid only for planetary or atomic structures, namely, for systems of particle admitting a Keplerian center. But nuclei do not have a Keplerian center".
 
COMMENT:
This Santilli's point is interesting:  "But nuclei do not have a Keplerian center".
 
It's interesting because nobody knows the structure of the nucleus. 
Is there a model of nucleus proposed in Hadronic Mechanics ?
If the answer is "NO", then how can Dr. Santilli to know that "nuclei do not have a Keplerian center"
 
Quantum Ring Theory proposes a new nuclear model in which there is a central 2He4.
From such a model we calculate the binding energies of nuclei as 1H2, 2He3, 2He4, 3Li, 4Be, 5B, 6C, 7N ( from current Nuclear Theory it's impossible to calculate them ).
From the new nuclear model we also get magnetic moments and nuclear spins.
 
In particular, QRT predicts the existence of three different structures for the isotope 8O18, calculated in the paper ELECTRIC QUADRUPOLE MOMENT, and the values are confirmed by the nuclear data by P. Raghavan.
A discussion about the existence of these three structures can be seen in the link below, where some nuclear chemists tried to refute the existence of the three different structures:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=20895.0
 
Along that discussion one realizes that the three structures of 8O18 indeed exist, as predicted in Quantum Ring Theory.
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI









Subject:  RE: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:10:19 -0400
From: "Gill, Tepper L." <tgill@Howard.edu

Dear Professor Gulinski

I have read with inerest your comments.  I have not finished reading the paper but would like to point out that a recent paper by myself and Professor Zachary we show that, we can construct an analytical separation (diagonalization) of the full
(minimal coupling) Dirac equation into particle and antiparticle components. The diagonalization is analytic in that it is achieved without transforming the wavefunctions, as is done by the Foldy–Wouthuysen method, and reveals the nonlocal time behaviour of the particle–antiparticle relationship.  Our analysis leads us to believe that a more physically reasonable interpretation
of the zitterbewegung and the result that a velocity measurement (of a Dirac particle) at any instant in time is ±c are reflections of the fact that the Dirac equation makes a spatially extended particle appear as a point in the present by forcing it to oscillate between the past and future at speed c.

Thus, I suggest that your interpretation of the zitterbewegung as a real physical effect may not be completely justified.  I have attached a copy of the paper in case it may have escaped your attention.

Best regards
Tepper Gill









Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper To: "Gill, Tepper L." <tgill@Howard.edu>

Hi, Tepper
 
Unfortunatelly it's hard to me to believe that a particle can go back to the past, and go ahead in the future.
 
I find very intriguing the mind of the physicists.
They claim that they cannot accept a plausible idea like the interpretation of zitterbewegung as a helical trajectory.
However they believe that particles can go ahead in the future, and go back to the past.
 
regards
WLAD









Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:10:27 -0500
From: luca54321@verizon.net  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper
To: "Gill, Tepper L." <tgill@Howard.edu>

Dear Professor Gill,

Thank you for your excellent analysis. The separation you indicate
between particles and antiparticle in the Dirac equation is also
requested by various other reasons identified by Prof. Santilli's
isodual theory of antimatter.

In fact, there exist no irreducible dimensional representation of
SU(2)-spin, as a result of which, either Dirac's gamma matrices provide
 
a reducible representation in which case the electron is composite (a
nonsense) or or Dirac's gamma matrices are a tensorial product of a
dimensional irreducible representation of spin 1/2 representing the
electron multiplied by Santilli's isodual also irreducible
representation for the positron (see Volume II of Prof. Santilli's
hadronic mechanics
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm

In particular, I am in full agreement with your view on the
zitterbevegung that follow from the above necessary decoupling. Note
that all effects believed to be due to the zitterbevegung hypothesis
have numerous much more credible alternative interpretations.

In regard to Dr. Guglinski idea to use the zitterbevegung for the
neutron synthesis I have studied it and regret to indicate that it has
no scientific foundation for the following reason (already indicated by
 
Dr. Weiss but apparently not perceived by Dr. Guglinski).

Let us assume that the zitterbevegung exists. But then it can only be
conjectured for the ELECTRON MOVING IN VACUUM. The neutron synthesis
requires the study of the ELECTRON WHEN TOTALLY IMMERSE INSIDE THE
HYPERDENSE MEDIUM IN THE INTERIOR OF NUCLEI (as correctly indicated by
Dr. Weiss). I can assure you that, under the latter conditions, the
conventional notion of zitterbevegung has in vacuum has no conceptual,
mathematical or physical foundation.

YT

J. V. Kadeisvili

Copy to Prof. Santilli










Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>   
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper

Dear luca5421
 
I have strong reasons to believe in the interpretation of the zitterbewegung as a helical trajectory.
You may find some of them in the new Peswiki article:
 
PowerPedia:Cold fusion, Don Borghi's Experiment, and hydrogen atom
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion%2C_Don_Borghi%27s_Experiment%2C_and_hydrogen_atom#.27.27.27How_the_electron_must_be_captured_in_Don_Borghi.E2.80.99s_Experiment.27.27.27

regards
WLAD









Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:47:40 -0500
From: luca54321@verizon.net  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

Mister Guglinski,

THis is pure nonscientific epistemology without any treatment of any
type. STOP SENDING US THIS TYPE OF NONSCIENCE. Nobody has any interest
except you and your friends.

JVK











Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:51:17 -0500
From: luca54321@verizon.net  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

MISTER GUGLIENSKI,

THIS IS ANOTEHR NONSCIENTKIFICV MESSAGE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WE HAVE
 NO
INTEREST IN RECEIVING. STOP SENDING THIS TYPE OF CHATTING TO US.

JV

Wladimir Guglinski wrote:
> Hi, Tepper
> 
> Unfortunatelly it's hard to me to believe that a particle can go back
 to
> the past, and go ahead in the future.
> 
> I find very intriguing the mind of the physicists.
> They claim that they cannot accept a plausible idea like the
> interpretation of zitterbewegung as a helical trajectory.
> However they believe that particles can go ahead in the future, and
 go
> back to the past.
> regards
> WLAD











Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Review request: Hadronic Quantum reactors paper To: luca54321@verizon.net

Mr luca54321
 
There is a large distance between our points of view
 
You prefer to believe in absurd theories where a particle comes back to past from the future
 
In my opinion we can trust rather in a good episthemology then in absurd theories supported by durty mathematics
 
regards
WLAD










Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Santilli's political strategy

Hi, Sterling
 
In 2001 I sent a message to Dr. Santilli, telling him that I was suiting in law two Brazilian universities, trying to obligem them to repeat the Conte-Pieralice experiment.
 
The Brazillian Constitution prescribes that the universities must support and colaborate for the development of science.  So, I used it to support my judicial request.
 
In 2001 Dr. Santilli sent me THE PHYSICS OF NEW CLEAN ENERGIES AND FUELS ACCORDING TO HADRONIC MECHANICS, published by the Journal of New Energy, V. 4 No. 1, 1999
 
 
In the page 123 it’s writting the following:
 
“It is rewarding to me to report that the first experimental verification of the synthesis of the neutrons from protons and electrons was reached by C. Borghi, C. Giori and A. Dall’Olio in the 1980’s via a test conducted at the CEN Laboratories in Recife, and published only after in 1993 [24a] (in the prestigious Russian Journal of Nuclear Physics).
 
 
Now Dr. Santilli claims that Don Borghi’s experiment is not a synthesis of the neutron.
 
I am trying to understand such intriguing and paradoxical Santilli’s behavior, and I reached to the conclusion that Santilli is using a political strategy, as follows:
 
1- As we know, the academicians do not accept the Don Borghi’s experiment because a synthesis of the neutron from proton and electron is impossible according to Quantum Mechanics.  Therefore all the universitis worlwide refuse to repeat the experiment.
2-  Then Santilli invented that strange particle neutroid, and he claims to the academicians that Don Borghi’s experiment is not a synthesis of the neutron.  By this way he can decive his opposers.
 
3- Later, when the experiment be repeated in several universities, Santilli will tell the true to the academicians.
 
 
If this is indeed the Santilli’s strategy, I agree.  The most important now is to succeed in repeating the Don Borghi’s experiment in the universities.
 
If my suspiction is wrong, I dont understand what a hell is happening.
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI










Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:35:54 -0500
From: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Santilli's political strategy
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

Mister Guglinski,

This is a dirty way to attack Professor Santilli that uncovers the real
 
mister Guglinski. You have been commissioned to attack Professor
Santilli who was so nice to you without knowing the real you. He writes
 
technical papers. You throw political slush without science. I have
passed your slush to the appropriate people for appropriate response.
You and your gang need some fixing

JV











Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:33:58 -0500
From: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Automatic trashing of Guglienski's emails To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

THIS COMPUTER HAS BEEN EQUIPPED TO TRASH AUTOMATICALLY ALL MESSAGES
RECEIVED FROM THE EMAIL
Wladimir Guglinski <wladski@yahoo.com>
REMOVE OUR EMAIL FROM YOUR FILE TO PREVENT YOUR MAIL SYSTEM BEING
PARALYZED BY AUTOMATIC MULTIPLE REJECTIONS
THIS INSTITUTE FOR BASIC RESEARCH

Itallian mafia in science

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:43:22 -0500
From: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Santilli's political strategy
To: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>

Mister Guglienski,

Your nonscientific, thus unethical attacks to Prof.  Santilli have been
 
brought to my attention. We have invested very successfully millions of
 
dollars of Prof. Santilli's hadronic mechanics and chemistry. Since we
have to protect out investment from unethical attacks such as yours, I
have hired an investigative agency in Brazil to get intelligence on
 you,
your private life and your brothers. We shall then fix you the
appropriate way at the appropriate time, ironically, without you
 knowing
were your blows are coming from. We American always respond to
unprovoked misconduct.

Michael Bennett'
investor on
Prof. Santilli research








Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Santilli's political strategy To: "ibr" <ibr@gte.net>

Sorry, Mr Michael Bennett
 
You invested millions dollars in a wrong theory.
 
All the money of the world cannot make right a theory that was born wrong
 
A correct theory do not need to invest millions dollars for getting credibility on it.
 
My Quantum Ring Theory will show it. 
 
The time will tell who is right.  Your billions dollars, or my theory
 
Regards
WLAD









Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:16:51 -0500
From: "lisa veronica" <xyz88887@gmail.com>  Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by gmail.com. Learn more
To: wladski@yahoo.com, sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com, tgill@howard.edu, jphillips@lanl.gov, septor2004@adelphia.net, steinej@SVT.NTNU.NO, erik.trell@gmail.com, fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com, J.Dunning-Davies@hull.ac.uk
Subject: The outcast crackpot behavior of Wladimir Guglienski

I have been told that the Brazilian Wladimir Gugliensli has attacked without provocation and without arguments published in refereed journals the Italian-American Nobel Candidate Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli. Guglienski has made similar attacks to varisous other physicists who asked for my opinion of this guy. Since I see an immoral behavioral pattern here, I disclose below what I told the other colleagues. Please pass my message to anybody who is attacked by this arrogant, uneducated and immoral Brazilian.

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI is an outcast crackpot because he is an outcast even among crackpots. He has no technical education on the advanced mathematics and physics needed for today research. He has acquired an international reputation for having receive an  Nazi-type education that led him to believes himself as being the Sole Recipient of God's Truth. His Nazi-type education as Superior Being is shown by the fact that he has no respect whatsoever for any views other than his, let alone respect  for views by real scientists immensely superior to him.

Guglienski has produced no scientific publication that can be considered scientific by any serious standard. His highest non-paid publications are those at Infinite Energy that is not considered as being a scientific journal by any standard due to lack of peer review.

The publication of book at "Bäuu Institute Press" was paid for and the book has no scientific content by any serious standards because the book is just a collection of wild ideas without any mathematical treatment while carefully avoiding any mention of experimental confirmations because he cannot address them.


QUANTUM RING THEORY
Since Guglienski has no mathematical education, he does not understand that the very words "quantum ring theory"
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Quantum_Ring_Theory
make no scientific sense. Rings do not exist in the particle world. Rings solely exist in mathematics. They are sets equipped with a binary operation. To have "quantum sets" males no sense of any type. Just pure nonscientific nonsense.

Nobody has ever read or will even read Guglienski "quantum ring theory" because the reading of science fiction is much better than that, since well written science fiction usually has a good structure while Guglienski stuff is a disconnected bunch of wild hypothesis often dramatically disconnected and/or incompatible with each other without Guglienski understanding that because of his lack of serious technical education.

The guy got excited on Don Borghi's experiment and threw out all sort of nonsense under a truly incredible ignorance of physical evidence, such as the fact that the admission of neutrons in Don Borhi's klystron is admission of continuous creation of matter because he does not know the masses of protons, electron and neutron and does not know their cross section at high energy (this is Guglienski craziness. Don Borghi was a scientist and cautiously name d"neutroids" the particles coming out of his klystron).

What;s the point in additional comments


CONCLUSION
Wladimir Guglienski is a nuisance for any serious scientist who has the misfortune of being touched by this man because his Nazi mind lend him to believe he can convince serious scientists on his crackpot ideas.

The solution recommended is just to trash all his message. Nazi behavior has no place in science..

Pietro Avellana. Ph. D.
Professor of Physics
The University of







Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wladimir Guglinski" <wladski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The outcast crackpot behavior of Wladimir Guglienski To: "lisa veronica" <xyz88887@gmail.com>

Dear Dr Pietro Avellana. Ph. D.
 
When somebody has not scientific arguments, he starts to offend his opposer with personal injuries.
 
I have not billion dolars like Santilli.  The Editor Peter Jones of Bauu Institute submitted my book to the appreciation of three physicists, and they decided to publish my book. 
I did not pay one cent for its publication
 
I have no guilty if in 1999 Dr. Santilli reported (in his paper published by the Journal of New Energy) Don Borghi's experiment is the first experimental verification of the synthesis of the neutrons from protons and electrons
 
I suggest you to ask to Dr. Santilli why he changed his opinion on the Don Borghi's experiment
 
As a scientist, I work with FACTS.
 
And the fact is that Dr. Santilli is today stating the contrary of what he stated in 1999, regarding the results obtained by Don Borghi
 
You can throw me personal injuries.  But you cannot change the facts.
 
regards
WLAD

[W.GUGLINSKI]

New review on Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes & Noble:


A new and complete revolution...
Enio Burgos, Brasilian editor of Bodigaya Press, 04/22/2008

This book represents a radical and extremely coerent new vision of Quantum Mechanics, including a new atomic model which works very better in relation to the atual experiments results. There are many implications for the world future if Guglinski´s Quantum Mechanics Theory prove to be quite right. Good Luck to this great book and work!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory/Wladimir-Guglinski/e/9780972134941

[W.GUGLINSKI]

New reviiew in Barnes & Noble on Quantum Ring Theory:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory/Wladimir-Guglinski/e/9780972134941




The successor of Quantum Mechanics
A reviewer (cnassif@cbpf.br) , 08/04/2008

Claudio Nassif, PhD theoretical physicist 'claudionassif@yahoo.com.br'.
I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: 'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski's theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski's QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.

Also recommended: A new description for an ether 'the dark energy or 'cosmological constant'' is given in Pramana Vol71, n1, p.1-13 '2008'

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Re: Santilli Galilei Academy Awardsw 2008 Part 1 of 12‏ From: Franco Fucilla (anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com)
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:54:23 AM
To:   Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Cc:  'claudionassif@yahoo.com.br'

Dear Wlad and Claudio
The Telesio Galilei Academy its interested to fund such experiments.
Regards
Francesco


----- Original Message -----
From: Wladimir Guglinski
To: Franco Fucilla
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:54 AM
Subject: RE: Santilli Galilei Academy Awardsw 2008 Part 1 of 12


NEW REVIEW ON QUANTUM RING THEORY IN BARNES & NOBLE:http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory/Wladimir-Guglinski/e/9780972134941
 
 
 
The successor of Quantum MechanicsA reviewer (cnassif@cbpf.br) , 08/04/2008
 
Claudio Nassif, PhD theoretical physicist 'claudionassif@yahoo.com.br'.
I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: 'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'.
We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski's theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski's QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.
 

Also recommended: A new description for an ether 'the dark energy or 'cosmological constant'' is given in Pramana Vol71, n1, p.1-13 '2008'

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com
To: anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com; ballari_chakrabarti@yahoo.co.in; avanderm@du.edu; c.kellum@verizon.net; wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com; Martin.Tajmar@arcs.ac.at; uc_de@yahoo.com; harmanci@hacettepe.edu.tr; dsourlas@physics.upatras.gr; udriste@vectron.mathem.pub.ro; Zubrin@aol.com; tgill@Howard.edu; beghella@gmail.com
CC: jsaucedo@cajeme.cifus.uson.mx; JSmulsky@tmnsc.ru
Subject: Re: Santilli Galilei Academy Awardsw 2008 Part 1 of 12
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:37:18 +0100




http://www.youtube.com/user/ff1851    part 2 of 12
----- Original Message -----
From: Franco Fucilla
To: Ballari Chakrabarti ; ALWYN VANDERMERWE ; Charles Kellum ; Wladimir Guglinski ; Tajmar Martin ; u.c. de ; Abdullah HARMANCI ; Dimitris Sourlas ; Constantin Udriste ; Zubrin@aol.com ; Gill, Tepper L. ; Giorgio Beghella Bartoli
Cc: Julio Cesar Saucedo Morales ; Joseph J. Smulsky
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:24 PM
Subject: RE: Santilli Galilei Academy Awardsw 2008 Part 1 of 12


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qMUpAxJwlw

[W.GUGLINSKI]

zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics - a research program
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent:Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:21:11 AM
To: hestenes@asu.edu


Dr. David Hestenes
Arizona State University
Department of Physics and Astronomy
 
Dear Dr. Hestenes
 
Dr. Waldyr Rodrigues Jr. (from UNICAMP university- Brazil) sent me your paper Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics – a research program
 
 
I am Wladimir Guglinski, author of the Quantum Ring Theory ( QRT )
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory/Wladimir-Guglinski/e/9780972134941
 
 
In QRT is proposed a new hydrogen atom in which the electron moves with helical trajectory in the electrosphere of a proton.
 
 
One of the mechanisms of the electron's zitterbewegung in my hydrogen atom is named zoom-effect , according to which the radius of the helical trajectory is variable.
 
In your paper the zoon-effect is described by the equation 124:
 

λ = ω−1 = dτ/dQ             (124)

 

In my model of hydrogen atom the space is not Euclidian.  There is an expansion of the space:  its density decreases with the growth of the distance to the proton.

 

So, in QRT the zoom-effect is due to two things:

1- The electron's speed (the radius of zitterbewegung decreases when the velocity increases, and the radius tends to zero in relativistics speeds)

2- The density of the space:  if the electron moves with constant velocity in radial motion going toward the proton's direction, the radius of the zitterbewegung decreases, because the density of the space increases with de decreasing of the distance to the proton.

 

In order to have an idea of how such new hydrogen atom works, please see:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion%2C_Don_Borghi%27s_Experiment%2C_and_hydrogen_atom

 
 
[size=12t]I am sure that Schrodinger had discovered, by accident, his equation. 

 
I am personally convinced that Schrodinger equation is actually the solution of the conditions existents in my new hydrogen atom.
 

However, it's hard to prove it mathematically.
 

I will try to apply the Spacetime Algebra (STA) in my hydrogen atom, in order to prove that Schrodinger equation is really the solution of my new hydrogen atom


However, such an enterprise is very hard.

 
I would like to know if you may be interested to help me in such attempt [/size]
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI


















Re: zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics - a research program
From: David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu)
Sent:Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:12:45 PM
To: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)

Thanks for your note, Wladimir.
It looks to me like my zbw model of the electron is incompatible withyour model in most respects, though I sympathize with some of yourideas.

Sincerely........David Hestenes


















RE: zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics - a research program
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent:Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:47:23 AM
To: David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu)

Bcc: anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com; bodigaya@bodigaya.com.br; walrod@mpc.com.br; dankal.naveen@gmail.com; cnassif@cbpf.br; pnj@bauuinstitute.com


Dr. David Hestenes
Arizona State University
Department of Physics and Astronomy
 
As you sympapthise with some of my ideas, dont you think that the research program on zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics needs to incorporate good ideas to the program ?
 
 
You have to consider two possibilities:
 
1- My ideas are wrong.  In this case you and other theorists can continue the research program on zbw, and probably you will succeed in the attempt
 
2- My ideas are correct.  In this case you and the other theorists will never succeed in your attempt, because some fundamental principles are missing in the mathematical formalism developed by the research program.
 
 
 
I am sure that fundamental mechanisms (proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory) are missing in the theoretical structure of Quantum Mechanics.  And it is impossible to eliminate the inconsistences of QM by neglecting the fundamental mechanisms.
 
 
The zitterbewegung in QRT is also applied to a new model of neutron n=p+e:  an electron with velocity 92% of the light speed turns about a proton, and due to the zbw the electron loses its spin, and it becomes a boson (and so the model n=p+e does not violates the Fermi-Dirac statistics).  My paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron has many calculations showing that strong evidences support the model n=p+e.

In the page 44 of your paper you write the following (concerning the equation between eq. 234 and eq. 235):
"However, the physical significance of this term remains obscure.  The apparent absence of a Stern-Gerlach force in the Dirac version (234) is noteworthy, but we cannot be sure that it is not buried in terms that we do not understand"

The terms that you dont understand can be buried just by mechanisms not known yet by the theorists, and it is possible they are those mechanisms proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
 
 
In the upcoming months the Telesio Galilei Academy will publish my book The Missed U-turn, the duel Heisenberg x Schrödinger, in which are explained the main ideas of QRT.   If you wish, I may ask to Dr. Francesco Fucilla to send you a copy of the book.
 
Meanwhile, I may also ask to Peter Jones (editor) to send you a copy of the book Quantum Ring Theory, if you wish to read it.
 
 
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

[W.GUGLINSKI]

From: Franco Fucilla
To: Wladimir Guglinski
Cc: osvaldo Comite
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: Fw: script: NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON


Dear Wlad
We are starting the trailer of the Film "  Wladimir Guglinski Neutron "

Please Send me a good picture of you in colour

MEDIAREV shall start all the 3D animations of your atomic theory
with immidiate effect, and within 10 days will produce a trailer of the film
please supply asmuch material as you can to Osvaldo Comite
a fellow member of the TG Academy.

I Embrace you
Francesco

[W.GUGLINSKI]

March 1989 – March 2009
HAPPY 20^th BIRTHDAY, COLD FUSION

a dispute between chemists and physicists

After 20 years of cold fusion announced in 1989 by Fleischman & Pons, it is back again, receiving new impetus at the American Chemical Society's national meeting in the US last week.
“Our finding is very significant,” says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif.
Pamela reinforces the importance of the experiments, saying: “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:NV8jOPcCWVIJ:www.scienceblog.com/cms/us-navy-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough-19762.html+cold+fusion+US+NAVY&cd=4&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br



Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.
The nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.

However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007.

So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists. 

Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin.  The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles  of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment.  Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory...

2- ... but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy...

3- ... then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)...

4- ... instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.

See the article in Peswiki:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

[W.GUGLINSKI]

An email was sent to Pamela Mosier-Boss in 11 April 2009, suggesting to use an oscillator in her experiment.

The email is ahead.



From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:46:25 PM
To: pam.boss@navy.mil
Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)

Dear Pamela

My theory can be tested by your experiment.

My idea is to use an oscillator capable to increase the oscillatory motion of the molecules D-D within the Pd lattice, by stimulating the resonance D-D.

If you succeed to stimulate the resonance D-D , we have to expect a growth in the rate of fusion D-D and also in the rate of neutrons emission by unity of time.



The oscillator I suggest is the following:

1- A glass buble is fulfilled by heavy hydrogen (D-D molecules).

The buble must be placed close to the Pd lattice deposited in the cathode.

2- Two electrodes are connected inside the buble.

3- A high voltage is applied to the electrodes, producing an electric discharge that crosses the gas of molecules D-D.

4- The molecules D-D into the buble are excited, and they emit photons in a frequency which is a sub-multiple of the frequency oscillation of the molecules D-D that fulfill the Pd lattice.

5- The molecules D-D within the Pd lattice get resonance with the frequency of emission by the D-D molecules into the buble, and the oscillation of D-D within Pd is stimulated to increase its amplitude.

6- I suppose such stimulation of resonance may increase the velocity of D-D fusion within the Pd lattice.




A SECOND ALTERNATIVE:
You can use a laser that hits the molecules D-D within the glass buble, instead of using an electrical discharge.




A THIRD ALTERNATIVE:
The best would be to build a laser which emission is produced by D-D molecules. In such case there is no need to have a glass buble, because the laser would be applied directly to the region of Pd lattice.




Perhaps you have to try the three alternatives.

It’s my opinion you should have to try it.

After all, we are in front to a new Physics, and we have to try any new idea if it makes sense.

Good luck in your attempt, if you decide to do it.

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Researchers from the Helmholtz Centre Berlin , in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, have for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material. They published their results in the journal Science within the Science Express web site on Sept. 3, 2009.

The existence of magnetic monopoles is also predicted in the paper “Ether” published in the book Quantum Ring Theory by W. Guglinski, who also provided the following review.

See the article in the website of Peswiki:

Article:Magnetic monopole - new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Magnetic_monopole_-_new_experiment_corroborates_Quantum_Ring_Theory

[Borek]

Researchers from the Helmholtz Centre Berlin , in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, have for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material.

To quote abstract of their paper:

While sources of magnetic fields—magnetic monopoles—have so far proven elusive as elementary particles, several scenarios have been proposed recently in condensed matter physics of emergent quasiparticles resembling monopoles.

You have just called "emergent quasiparticle resembling monopole" "the monople". That's bending facts. When it is done in tabloids it is not surprising, but it is not acceptable in science. For me that shifts all your posts into crackpottery category.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

You have just called "emergent quasiparticle resembling monopole" "the monople". That's bending facts. When it is done in tabloids it is not surprising, but it is not acceptable in science. For me that shifts all your posts into crackpottery category.

So, according to you, that shifts Dirac's theory into crackpottery category too, because his theory and my QRT predict the existence of magnetic monopoles in the end of the spin-spaghetti (Dirac strings), which Diract just called monopole:
"However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected."
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/magnetic_monopoles_detected_a_real_magnet_time_139133.html

[Borek]

You are bending words again. I have not wrote a word about whether monopoles do exist or not. Paper you refer to doesn't state they observed monopoles, but "quasiparticles resembling monopoles". That's not the same and you obviously either don't understand it, or pretend to not understand. In both cases you land in the crackpottery category.

[W.GUGLINSKI]

You are bending words again. I have not wrote a word about whether monopoles do exist or not. Paper you refer to doesn't state they observed monopoles, but "quasiparticles resembling monopoles". That's not the same and you obviously either don't understand it, or pretend to not understand. In both cases you land in the crackpottery category.

In my book Quantum Ring Theory it's predicted the existence of micro magnetic fields in strings composed by massles spin-electric-particles of the ether.
But in my book they ARE NOT CALLED monopoles.

The predicton of QRT is similar to the prediction made by Dirac's theory.

The name monopole was coinned by Dirac, not by me (there is not the word "monopole" in any page of my book published in 2006).

I simply quoted (in my Peswiki's article written now in 2009) the name monopole used by Dirac.

If you think the word "monopole" is not suitable to be applied to the phenomenon predicted by Dirac (and also by my QRT), a prediction now confirmed by an experiment,  then you have to be angry with Dirac.

So, say that Dirac belongs to a crackpottery category, since you consider that he did not apply the correct word for the phenomenon predicted by his theory.

[Borek]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[W.GUGLINSKI]

Borek,
posting in here a link about crackpots dont change this fact: 
you are wrong, since the word "monopole" has been used by Dirac.

Besides, the link posted by you is best applied to yourself.
Because when a crackpot has not an acceptable argument for supporting his viewpoint, he uses to quote things without any connection with the discussion, like you did.


There are two alternatives:

1- Dirac belongs to a crackpottery category, as you are suggesting

2- You yourself belong to the crackpottery category


I dont know about other people. 
Between Dirac and you,  I prefer to think that the crackpot is you.

[Borek]

you are wrong, since the word "monopole" has been used by Dirac.

What does it change?

Please answer - in terms of yes or no - is observing "emergent quasiparticle resembling monopole" equivalent to observing "the monople" or not?

[W.GUGLINSKI]

you are wrong, since the word "monopole" has been used by Dirac.

What does it change?

Please answer - in terms of yes or no - is observing "emergent quasiparticle resembling monopole" equivalent to observing "the monople" or not?

Borek
you have to ask it to Dirac, not to me.

As I said, in my book QRT I did not mention the word "monopole" in any page of the book

[Mitch]

Dirac would say the paper did not see a true elementary monopole.

[Borek]

Please answer - in terms of yes or no - is observing "emergent quasiparticle resembling monopole" equivalent to observing "the monople" or not?

Borek
you have to ask it to Dirac, not to me.

You dodge the question. Authors of the paper did whatever they colud to NOT name observed phenomoena "monopoles" because they know they have not observed them. They have observed something else - in a way smiliar and interesting, but these were not monopoles. You think it will be better for you if these were real monopoles, so you dodge the question, as answering "no" will deny everything you wrote earlier.

Besides, you contradict yourself:

The existence of magnetic monopoles is also predicted in the paper “Ether” published in the book Quantum Ring Theory by W. Guglinski, who also provided the following review.

As I said, in my book QRT I did not mention the word "monopole" in any page of the book

So, your book predicts existence of monopoles, but it doesn't mention them.

Enough. Topic locked.