Advanced concepts in black hole cosmology

Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
QA-Spun division, LANCO Industries Ltd, Srikalahasti-517641, AP, India
Based on the big bang concepts- in the expanding universe, ‘rate of decrease in CMBR temperature’ is a measure of  the cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. Modern standard cosmology is based on two contradictory statements. They are – present CMBR temperature is isotropic and the present universe is accelerating. In particle physics also, till today laboratory evidence for the existence of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ is very poor. Recent observations and thoughts supports the existence of the ‘cosmic axis of evil’. In this connection an attempt is made to study the universe with a closed and growing model of cosmology. If the primordial universe is a natural setting for the creation of black holes and other non-perturbative gravitational entities, it is also possible to assume that throughout its journey, the whole universe is a primordial (growing and rotating) cosmic black hole. Instead of the Planck scale, initial conditions can be represented with the Coulomb or Stoney scale. Obtained value of the present Hubble constant is close to 71 Km/sec/Mpc.

339 comments to Advanced concepts in black hole cosmology

  • Andrea Rossi

    Rod Walton:
    Thank you for the update,
    Warm Regards,

  • Rod Walton

    On Power Engineering issue June 9 2020:
    “Open source software, collaboration could be strong paths to protecting US bulk power system”
    Rod Walton

  • Andrea Rossi

    Willy Meinders:
    Warm Regards,

  • Willy Meinders

    Dr Rossi,
    Are you going to sell manufacturing and selling licences in all the world ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your kind attention to the work of our Team,
    Warm Regards,

  • Prof

    Dear Andrea:
    The more I observe the plasma on
    and confront it with the content of
    the more I am convinced that your Ecat SK is an apparatus of extreme importance not just for what it is and for what it is used by you, but also for the study of Physics. In its semplicity it is an Occam razor that could become a gold mine of new discoveries and information.
    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Kay Thoene:
    I sympathise with your impatience, but we have to wait the end of the R&D on course before giving consolidated data.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Warm Regards,

  • Kay Thöne

    I can no longer fortuitous F9 …
    if the preparations already starts for mass production, then one can assume that everything goes according to plan.
    I see it like this:
    6 months without any significant problems.
    6 months to prepare everything!

      Greetings Kay

  • Andrea Rossi

    Your comment in rersponse to Dr Peter Forsberg, Joe and me has not been published and I want to explain to you why, because the reason is valid also for similar comments we receive from other Readers.
    Your comment is a politically strongly oriented form of propaganda, without the necessary cultural bases ( of the text, not of you, obviously: I do not know you and the email address you publish with the comment is fake, since I tried to answer personally, but my email returned refused for unknown address). This is the blog of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, and we want not that it becomes an arena for political discussions. You write few words discrediting the important work of Popper without a serious analisys, I want not to enter in this battlefield because here I make another job.
    I respect your ideas, whatever they are, as well as I respect any ideal and any opinion, but, simply, I want not to open in this Journal a political discussion. It is true that your comment was ideological, not political, but your kind of ideology is intrinsecally politic.
    Your comments are welcome so far you present your ideas in relation to the matter we treat and without insults toward whom is not in agreement with you, because should I accept such an attitude, I would be forced to host the answers of counterparts and this Journal could become a completely different thing.
    With due respect, because I feel the sincerity of your passion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    As usually, your information is interesting.
    Warm Regards,

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    Not satisfied with all the varieties of Carbon so far (for example: diamond, graphite, fullerenes (C-60), nanotubes and graphene), Scientists at Boston College and Nagoya University (Japan) have developed a Non-planar version of graphene called Warped Nano-Graphene.

    Since Nano-Graphene is mostly graphene, but has a quasi-3 dimensional structure, its physical, chemical and electronic properties are expected to be similar, but not identical.

    To the extent their properties are not identical, this development may be worth following.

    Graphenomenal Regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Callisto Genco:
    Please complete your comment
    Warm Regards

  • Callisto Genco


  • Joseph Fine

    Herb Gillis,

    I don’t know if there is a missing Mercury problem in Coal fired power plants.

    But coal will have other uses in the future. Uses other than burning it.

    For example, you can make diamonds out of Coal or, at least, you can make graphene.

    Joseph Fine

  • Joseph Fine

    Daniel De Caluwé,

    Thank you for your answer.

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

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

    Mercurial (Hydrargyric) regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Herb Gillis

    Dr. Fine:
    Is there a similar imbalance between the amounts of mercury in the coal which is fed into coal fired power plants and the amounts of mercury expelled in the flue gas?
    Kind regards; HRG.

  • Dear Dr. Joseph Fine,

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

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

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

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

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

    Kind and quick-silvery Regards,


  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you, interesting,
    Warm Regards,

  • Joseph Fine

    Dr Andrea Rossi,

    Below are excerpts from a recent Facebook discussion on Chlor-Alkalai (Chlorine, NaOH) production using Mercury Cell technology and the disappearance of a significant fraction of this Mercury. Some Mercury was confirmed as a source of pollution in the air and water. But a lot of Mercury simply could never be found. Whether any of this Mercury was transmuted (or underwent fission) is only speculation. I deleted the last names of the participants, so I don’t get into a disputes with Facebook. Some of the participants may want to have their last names included. (I admit to being Joseph.)

    And yes, some Mercury isotopes do undergo fission – although this was not discovered until 2010.

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

    Mark W.
    Since we are talking about odd ball LENR topics, I’ll throw a good one out for consideration. Way back in the old days I worked for Diamond Shamrock, a large chlor-alkali company. We ran lots of mercury cells making chlorine and caustic. As I recall about 10% of the mercury in the cells disappeared without a trace. The mercury was the cathode which emitted huge quantities of hydrogen gas. Many of my friends work on the “mercury accountability” project for years. They never found where all the mercury was going. It was assumed to be going into the environment somewhere. They looked everywhere, except at the possibility of it be transmutated into something. That was of course impossible. But I am beginning to wonder, what if, and if it did, what did it go to? Anybody got any thoughts?

    Mark W: Before anyone calls me on it, the mercury cell description is a gross oversimplification, but the main themes hold; vanishing mercury, lots of hydrogen and no reasonable explanation.

    Joseph: Maybe an alpha joined with the Mercury turning it to lead. Did anyone look for lead? That seems more likely than Mercury turning to Gold. Rumplestiltskin in reverse.

    Richard P: Interesting, there is a PPG plant (right on the Ohio River) that uses the very old process with Mercury electrode/cathode…Sadly, we do know where a goodly portion of the mercury goes.


    Richard P: It seems unimaginable that in today’s world, having read Alice in Wonderland, and understanding that the “Mad Hatter” was a mercury reference from the “bad old days” we continue to tolerate industrial processes that routinely add massive quantities to our environment.

    Bob S: Transmutation is a likely answer. If transmutations occurred in metals when gas atoms are confined & fused then we should see perfect examples in nature. Unfortunately, there are none in conventional textbooks. However, there is a model that has been discarded by the scientific establishment and claims the Earth has expanded twice its original size. It is called ‘Expanding Earth’. This is a perfect example if you are not afraid to look beyond conventional theories since it deals with the slow unexplained accumulation of mass (possible deposition of transmuted elements?) over billions of years, within the core. Same surface characteristics have been observed on other planets making it pretty consistent.

    Bob S: The Expanding Earth model is also a good answer as to how prehistoric animals were able to cope with their enormous size and weight. A lower Earth mass means lower gravity in prehistoric times. If this is the case that means weight wasn’t much of an issue for them. In addition, walking or running was impractical when compared to hopping in lower gravity conditions. I believe large hind legs are a telltale sign of this type of environment.

    Rick M: IMO it is doubtful that the volume loss is due to transmutation unless there was an enormous unexplained energy output.

    Bob S: Unless someone was measuring for excess heat specifically (calorimeter) it should have dissipated unnoticed.

    Rick M: Don’t think a measurement would be necessary, it would be obvious. Depending on the volume of the loss we could be talking about enough energy to light up the entire east cost.

    Mark W: To the best of my knowledge, which was far from complete, Diamond Shamrock made a good faith attempt at monitoring all the outflows to complete a mass balance around the Hg plants to locate where the mercury was going. As the report provided by JF states, they couldn’t find the Hg anywhere. Everyone, including Diamond Shamrock assumed it was leaking into the environment. As I stated earlier, I have my doubts. The really good news is there may not be as much Hg floating around as has been assumed. I am sure it was assumed during the studies that transmutation was impossible. A little broader approach might have uncovered the possibility of transmutation and thus LENR like phenomena a long time ago.

    Richard P: This looks like a good adult “science project”. What I mean is that this question could be addressed under laboratory conditions, perhaps even by the industry itself. As you said, they would in good faith like to show that they didn’t just lose the mercury to the environment in some unknown “leak scenario”.

    Mark W: I think such a project would be very worthwhile for a variety of reasons. If the Hg is transmutating, understanding the mechanism could shed considerable light on the nuclear processes. I have been out of the business for 30+ years but I still remember a lot of engineers taking a lot of grief from senior management because they could not find the mercury. It got to be a not very funny joke among the poor individuals who were assigned to the Hg accountability studies. The first step to such a study is to get over that dogma that transmutation of elements is impossible. Hopefully the chlor-alkali industry is listening and will take up the effort.

    Joseph: Maybe I’m wrong and the Mercury turns to Gold instead of Tl or Pb. That seems unlikely. On the other hand, maybe that’s how you make Gold!

    Mark W: That much gold would have been hard to miss. If they had been getting gold, we probably would unfortunately have seen a lot more Hg-Chlorine plants. I think that issue is one of the really interesting puzzles. What did the Hg go to. and where did what ever it was get out of the cell?

    Joseph: OK. According to JLAB, Alpha decay of Mercury isotopes would get you to Platinum. Not Gold, but not shabby.

    Rick M: Evaporation?

    Mark W: I would start with a trace metal study of the caustic. I don’t know what the metal solubility is in 125 gram/liter caustic? With that much hydrogen floating around, you might have a whole sequence of transmutations until you get something soluble. Very interesting.

    Joseph: Chemistry has suddenly gotten more interesting.

    Mark W: Lots of very interesting chemistry. The cells have lots of heat. An unbelievable amount of electric current and between chlorine gas and concentrated hot NaOH, they will dissolve almost everything. There are also huge flow rates. As I recall, a Hg cell plant produced about 300 to 500 tons/day of NaOH and Chlorine. You have to add all the hydrogen to the mix which until recently was not regarded as that reactive, but we now know is very nuclear reactive.

    Rick M: If measurable quantities of mercury was transmuting an almost unemaginable amount of energy would be released. Where would this energy go. Rossi runs his reactors for months and can’t even measure accurately the pico grams of weight loss. Hard to emagine any container not melting down if even grams of mercury was being lost.

    Mark W: Transmutation does not necessarily produce a loss in mass. It could also consume energy if the components have more mass than what they started with. You could also have had a considerable amount of energy given off and never seen it in a huge chlor-alkali plant. The plant I worked in had a main bus that was +/- 600 volts at 96,000 amps. Lots of heat everywhere. By the same token, you could have consumed a considerable amount of energy and had trouble finding it. That is why we need a good nuclear model to explain what goes to what.

    Rick M: If you are talking volume changes of any size, nuclear energies needed or released would be off the charts. I doubt if we have a power grid available that could supply the needed energy for say even an ounce of nuclear weight gain.

    Joseph: Aha. Endothermic and exothermic transmutations.

    Joseph: Meta-Chemistry! The net energy is all you get to see. Still, what does Mercury become?

    M, James J: Mercury has an amazing surface tension yet, a curiously low vapor pressure. This makes evaporation of the missing mercury suspect.

    Joseph F: Aha. 17 Chlorine + 11 Sodium —-> 28 Nickel ????? Too crazy… Why didn’t I think of that? Oh. I did!

    Mark W: As I said, we need a good new theory. It’s worth a Nobel!

    Joseph: Ruthenium and Krypton? Superman knew about this, I suppose.

    Joseph: Mark, you made a ton of Krypton and didn’t even know it!!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    To talk about the event of the disappearance of mercury I should know all the particulars of the plant and the operation, plus all the reactants, integrals of time, pressure and temperature, constituents of the plant, integrals of the single phases, etc etc. I prefer not to talk of events of which I do not know professionally the operational data.
    Thank you anyway for the curious information.
    Warm Regards,

  • Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Wladimir, JR, Daniel, Joe, Steven,

    On a related Facebook LENR Blog,, the subject of the mysterious disappearance of Mercury in an Industrial Chlor-Alkali (Chlorine, NaOH) plant was discussed. Apparently, large quantities of Mercury disappeared, and the quantity of Hg that went missing exceeded the operators’ ability to explain where it went.

    After some transmutation discussions, I suggested that some of the Mercury fissioned into Krypton and Ruthenium, as this reaction (for some isotopes of Mercury) was recently observed (in 2010).

    Of course, all the Hg could have gone up the smokestack or into the water, though this was not confirmed.

    What does nuclear theory say about how Mercury can fission into Krypton/Ruthenium or other combinations? And, how could this reaction start up or be sustained? I do not suggest that Mercury is a source of useful energy, but does Mercury fission conform with any known theory?

    Here is an article describing Mercury Pollution. Unfortunately, most of it probably did/does leak out into the environment.

    Just curious,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Sean Torrebadell:
    If you need instructions regarding how this blog works, we’ll be delighted to give you all the necessary information.
    Warm Regards,

  • Sean Torrebadell

    The interesting thing about Be8 is the symmetry of fission into two He4 nuclei, which occurs 100 percent of the time. Why does this occur when in other fissions asymmetry occurs. The fact that Be8 never decays into unequal fragments suggests that a mechanism is involved and that the structure of the nucleus has within it clusters or suitable alignments that are predisposed to allow for two alpha particles to form.

    The question is not ‘why are the nucleons in Be 8 unbound”, which is ridiculous to suggest- but what is the nature of the force which causes it to divide?

    Aside, I’m new to this blog and its structure, and uncertain why Be8 is discussed under an abstract on cosmology. Ill figure it out eventually.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Thanks for the clarity.

  • Joe


    The discussion was about the reason for the unstable nature of 4Be8.
    Wladimir claims that science can not presently explain it without the use of his Quantum Ring Theory which includes a specific balance of forces between nucleons.
    JR talked in terms of standard physics which includes the concepts of wavefunction (probability) and mass defect (nucleus is less massive than the sum of its parts).
    Wladimir responded that probability is not mechanism, and that mass defect is an inversion of cause and effect (first comes the binding, then the defect).
    JR responded that he had only given a partial answer, never meant to be complete, but that it was still a valid answer.
    I chimed in by stressing that the concept of cause and effect, while useful in everyday life, is ultimately meaningless in science since timeless equations dictate everything that transpires in the Universe at every moment.

    I hope that helps.

    All the best,

  • JR

    Dear Steven,

    Most light nuclei with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (N=Z) are bound, and 8Be is the exception to this pattern. So that makes it unusual.

    It’s also unbound by a relatively small amount. That is to say, if there were just a little bit more binding, then it would be bound. Therefore, a calculation that is trying to determine if 8Be is bound or not has to be very precise, and so in the past, it was a fairly challenging problem.

    At this point, I believe that there are multiple calculations that show that 8Be is unbound, and which have enough precision that they are considered reliable. Wladimir claims that it is impossible for 8Be to be unbound in conventional nuclear models, but I don’t know why he says this. He implies that it has to do the fact that the other light N=Z nuclear are all bound, but claims that it’s an obvious statement and therefore refuses to explain it. [N=number of neutrons, Z=number of protons]

    I should note that the strong force does provide binding in the sense that it does yield an attraction between the protons and neutrons in 8Be. It is bound compared to breakup into 4 protons and 4 neutron or into 4 deuterons, but it is not as bound as a pair of 4He nuclei. So if you form an 8Be system it would immediately fall apart into two 4He nuclei.

    In fact, I would say that it isn’t really 8Be that’s unusual, it’s 4He. The 4He nucleus has an anomalously large binding for such a small nuclei, and so 8Be requires more binding than one might expect for a nucleus as light as it is. If 4He were less bound (or were unbound), then 8Be would be stable.

    I hope that’s clear and doesn’t have too much or too little detail/jargon.

  • Steven N. Karels

    To JR, Wlad or Joe,

    Can someone explain in easy to understand terms the significance of 8Be in the discussion, I mean at a level for engineers and non-nuclear physics theorists?

  • Joe


    There will always exist a multitude of mathematical models to describe physical phenomena because human beings will never have complete knowledge. To Wladimir, approximation implies failure. To me, it implies success.

    All the best,

  • Joe


    1. Although the rule of cause-and-effect is an important one to follow in superficial matters, it is ultimately an illusion since all phenomena are the result of a system of equations in the process of being solved. This implies that the mass defect is SIMULTANEOUS with the force of attraction. There really is no cause-and-effect here. How could it be otherwise? If the mass defect is waiting for the force of attraction to act before the mass defect responds, this means that there exists a period of time when the force of attraction is acting and no response from the mass defect is forthcoming. But this contradicts your view that the force of attraction is responsible for the mass defect.

    2. The only tool that scientists have to describe and predict physical phenomena is mathematics. When you claim that a mathematical object is not a force, you are divorcing the concept of force from its rightful matrix: mathematics. Then, all that you have left is your intuitive understanding of the concept of force. But one person’s understanding of any issue does not create a common understanding unless it is described in a common language. In the case of force, that language is mathematics.

    All the best,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Daniel De Caluwé

    you really got the point.

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

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

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


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in July 24th, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    How do you distinguish cause from effect? (Could you not accept that 2 phenomena might be associated with each other without either one being the cause or effect of the other?)

    The cause occurs before the effect.

    If the phenomenon A occurs before the phenomenon B (and by is caused by A), A is the cause, and B is the effect.

    If two phenomena A and B occur at the same time, as you suppose, A cannot be the cause of B, and B cannot be the effect of A.

    In the case of binding energy of the deuteron, we have:

    1- The proton and the neutron have attraction, and they bound.

    2- Due to their interaction, a portion of the sum of their total mass is converted in energy, causing the mass defect, according to Einstein’s equation E= m.c^2.

    Therefore the attraction proton-neutron is the cause of the defect mass.

    In the case of 8Be, as there is no attraction between the nucleons, there is no mass defect. That’s why 8Be is no stable, because the nucleons do not bound.

    What current nuclear models are not able to explain is why there is no attraction between the nucleons in 8Be (why they do not bound).

    The mass defect cannot be used as explanation, as Mr. JR did, because the mass defect is only the effect, and not the cause.

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

    Some equations that describe a phenomenon in Physics are reverse in time.
    In order to eliminate the reversibility of the equations, there is need to consider how that phenomenon changes the entropy of the universe, and to introduce it in the equations.

    But you may realize that is a very hard task.


  • JR

    Dear Daniel,

    I think that the question of inconsistent models is not as severe as you think. For the most part, the same underlying physics is used but different methods are used to do the calculations for different nuclei. As a rule, the more difficult the calculation, the more approximations that are required (as discussed briefly in my post on July 18). It’s certainly not an ideal situation, and it makes it difficult to tell calculations which “should” work (i.e. make appropriate approximations) from those which take a technique and apply it to a case it can’t properly handle unless you’re very familiar with the techniques.

    It certainly used to be the case that the simple shell models that people were using didn’t do a good enough job, and people tried to find explanations for this using different ideas. The Nillson shell model included deformation, allowing for nuclei to be prolate or oblate. In this case, these were just parameters adjusted to reproduce the nuclei, so they didn’t give real predictions or explanations. But the idea of deformations (both these simple ones and more complex ones) have been formalized and are now things that can be calculated, at least for nuclei where techniques are available.

    Finally, there certainly are cases where people came up with purely mathematical descriptions of properties, e.g. to parametrize the behavior of some quantity that’s hard to calculated in order to be able to make simple predictions. These often don’t connect to an underlying physics explanation (although they can), but they’re typically used for convenience, and not considered a model of what’s going on. A purely mathematical description, with no physics underlying it, isn’t considered a good explanation by people in the field either.

    So it’s far from a totally solved field, and there are lots of questions to be addressed. But while there are lots of competing techniques, I think that the basic physics that goes into them are generally all the same (two-nucleon and three-nucleon potentials and quantum mechanics). Those may be just about the only key ingredients, although there are still discussions even about things like the best way to determine the N-N potential, although I think that modern approaches to this have all converged on nearly identical potentials.

  • @ Joe,

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

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

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

    Kind Regards,

  • Joe


    1. How do you distinguish cause from effect? (Could you not accept that 2 phenomena might be associated with each other without either one being the cause or effect of the other?)

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

    All the best,

  • JR

    Dear Wladimir,

    Yes, my answer to your question was to basically provide the definition what is required to be bound. For the case of 8Be it’s not that it’s unbound compared to 8 free protons and neutrons, but that it’s unbound with respect to two 4He nuclei. It’s not always obvious to people that you can measure the binding energy with respect to different states, and it certainly wasn’t clear that you realized this. You seem to argue that all even-even nuclei must be bound because there is binding between the nucleons, missing that point that if the deuteron or 4He are more tightly bound than heavier N=Z nuclei, then the heavier nuclei would simply fall apart into these lighter (but more tightly bound) nuclei.

    That a relevant physics point, and it’s not the same as answering the question “why isn’t it bound?” with “because it’s not bound”. If you understood the issue, then you should know that it’s not a trivial circular argument. If you didn’t understand the issue, then it was the most relevant question. In either case, I followed up with the more detailed answer as soon as I realized that’s what you were after. It’s childish and rather pointless to ignore the physics points I made and instead simply repeat accusations of lying and non-causal arguments over and over based on nothing more than a broad response to a very broadly phrased question.

  • Andrea Rossi

    We’ll see.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    We’ll do our best.
    I am following also your scientific boxing on this blog with great interest.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    It’s very cold the winter here in Brazil now !!!

    I use to practice swimming every day, but the water of the swimming pools are very cold !!!! … brrrrrrrrr…

    I would like to have one eCat so that to heat the water !!!… please…

    best wishes for 2014
    brrrrrrrrrrr… wlad

  • Dear Andrea,
    The COP of the ECAT: do you think that when will be released for production will be always 6/7 or some thing different ? Thanks for recent R&D successes.
    Regards, Giuseppe

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>