Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe

Honorary Faculty, Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas(I-SERVE)
Hyderabad-35, India
Now as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were the first that leads galaxy growth. The implication is that the black holes started growing first. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes format their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms. This is a fundamental confirmation of N. Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of “different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size”.
This clearly suggests that: galaxy constitutes a central black hole; the central black hole grows first; Star and galaxy growth goes parallel or later to the central black holes growth. The fundamental questions are: If “black hole” is the result of a collapsing star, how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its center? Where does the central black hole comes from? How the galaxy center will grow like a black hole? How its event horizon exists with growing? If these are the observed and believed facts — not only for the author — this is a big problem for the whole science community to be understood.
Any how, the important point to be noted here is that “due to some unknown reason galactic central black holes are growing”! This is the key point for the beginning of the proposed expanding or growing cosmic black hole! See this latest published reference for the “black hole universe”. In our daily life generally it is observed that any animal or fruit or human beings (from birth to death) grows with closed boundaries (irregular shapes also can have a closed boundary). An apple grows like an apple. An elephant grows like an elephant. A plant grows like a plant. A human grows like a human. Through out their lifetime they won’t change their respective identities. These are observed facts. From these observed facts it can be suggested that “growth” or “expansion” can be possible with a closed boundary. By any reason if the closed boundary is opened it leads to “destruction” rather than “growth or expansion”. Thinking that nature loves symmetry, in a heuristic approach in this paper author assumes that“ through out its lifetime universe is a black hole”. Even though it is growing, at any time it is having an event horizon with a closed boundary and thus it retains her identity as a black hole forever. Note that universe is an independent body. It may have its own set of laws. At any time if universe maintains a closed boundary to have its size minimum at that time it must follow “strong gravity” at that time.
If universe is having no black hole structure any massive body(which is bound to the universe) may not show a black hole structure. That is black hole structure may be a subset of cosmic structure. This idea may be given a chance.
Rotation is a universal phenomenon. We know that black holes are having rotation and are not stationary. Recent observations indicates that black holes are spinning close to speed of light.
In this paper author made an attempt to give an outline of “expanding and light speed rotating black hole universe” that follows strong gravity from its birth to end of expansion.
Stephen Hawking in his famous book A Brief History of Time, in Chapter 3 which is entitled The Expanding Universe, says: “Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in which ever direction we look, and that this would also be true if we were observing the universe from anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found… We have no scientific evidence for, or against, the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe”.
From this statement it is very clear and can be suggested that, the possibility for a “closed universe” and a “flat universe” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of a “closed universe”.
Clearly speaking, from Hubble’s observations and interpretations in 1929, the possibility of “galaxy receding” and “galaxy revolution” is 50–50 per cent and one cannot completely avoid the concept of “rotating universe”.

439 comments to Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    The puzzle of the proton radius

    Helen Margolis, an optics physicist at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, remarked in a column for Science magazine last year: “If the results of [further] experiments turn out to reinforce the proton size puzzle, then it could become necessary to question the foundations of the world’s most precise and best-tested fundamental physical theory, QED itself.”

    Another possible implication—yet to be investigated—is that the proton radius could differ depending on whether it is orbited by an electron or a muon. If this were the case, it would violate a fundamental precept of what is known as the Standard model, which is also derived from QED. The Standard model has been highly successful in explaining and predicting the existence of sub-atomic particles.

    As Pohl and Bernauer write: “The most exciting possibility is that these measurements might be a sign of new physics that go beyond the so-called Standard model of particle physics.

    The shrinkage of the proton radius is explained in Quantum Ring Theory

    In my book THE MISSED U-TURN (to be published yet), it is written in the item entitled The puzzle of the proton radius:

    Concerning the puzzle of the proton radius, there is a hope to eliminate it making measurements via proton-electron scattering. Physicists are launching a new set of experiments across multiple laboratories. Another goal is to repeat the scattering experiments, but instead of shooting electrons at protons they’ll shoot muons at protons. This project, the Muon Scattering Experiment, or MUSE, is set to take place at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. The facilities there will allow researchers to simultaneously measure electron- and muon-scattering in one experiment. The plan is to start collecting data in that experiment in 2015 or 2016.

    According to Quantum Ring Theory, the proton-muon scattering experiments in 2015/2016 have to measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm.

    The reason why the radius of the proton suffers shrinkage is easy to be understood, according to QRT. It is because the body of the proton has the shape of a ring, which is crossed by a flux n(o) of gravitons g(+). Such flux n(o) captures repulsive gravitons G(-), which form a gravity field about the proton.

    The mass of the proton is caused by the interaction between this field of repulsive gravitons G(-) and the aether. When the radius of the proton diminishes, the flux n(o) is reduced, and so it is reduced the field of gravitons G(-), in order that the mass of the proton has a reduction.

    The reduction of the mass of the particles (due to their binding energy with other particles) is known in Nuclear Physics as “mass defect”, and it follows Einstein’s equation E=mc². However it is not known in the Standard Nuclear Physics the mechanism that causes the mass defect. The phenomenon is explained merely as transformation of mass in energy by following the Einstein’s equation, but the theorists do not know how the phenomenon happens.

    If the experiments in 2015/2016 will measure the proton radius very shorter than 0,8fm and a little larger than 0,27fm, it will be a confirmation for the mechanism of mass defect according to Quantum Ring Theory.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I think you are too generous when it comes to hot fusion research. The truth is that many billions of dollars have been spent over decades with nothing practical being produced. In fact, even in the best case scenario hot fusion researchers hope for, the technology is nearly worthless. For example, it is predicted that in thirty years we may have a couple large, expensive hot fusion plants. But they will have required a huge investment, will produce nuclear waste due to neutron radiation impacting the material of the reactor, require a large staff, and will not be capable of being used in homes or vehicles. On the other hand, the E-Cat will be mas marketed in only a few years, will produce zero nuclear waste, be small enough to power homes and vehicles, and will quickly end the energy crisis.

    I agree that hot fusion scientists are highly qualified, and it is good for them to have jobs. However, hot fusion is a dead end. Just imagine if hot fusion researchers had embraced cold fusion and LENR when it was first discovered instead of working to suppress it. They could have had work studying LENR and the energy crisis could have ended 15 years ago. Those scientists could have jobs building nickel hydrogen reactors for spaceships.

    Also, I realize other discoveries have been made sure to hot fusion research. But if all the hot fusion researchers had been studying cold fusion, I think even more discoveries would have been made. This is because every single researcher could have had their own cold fusion reactor. Now, I doubt there is one hot fusion reactor for every thousand hot fusion scientists. Who knows, if LENR had not been suppressed we might have antigravity by now.

  • Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    During the current long duration tests, at full power, what average operating temperature and/or temperature ranges are being maintained? (Either inside the reactor or the output temperature.) While this depends on coolant flow, there may be preferred or standard operating parameters.

    I can wait to find out, but hope my curiosity is not bad for the cat!

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Thank you for your educated comment. The so called Rossi Effect works on the base of totally different principles.
    In due time we will publish our theory. Your proposal, anyway, can be useful for other researchers in the field of LENR.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone ( Walter Gentili):
    I do not agree with your superficial comment for the following reasons:
    1- the scientists who have dedicated their life to the hot fusion endevour are extremely good, for sure among the best nuclear physicists around
    2- the ITER and the NIF have generated the development of technological applications in other fields, thanks to the research: paradigmatic example is the development in the field of the superconductors
    3- the money invested has not been wasted, because it is gone in work made by workers, which means wages
    4- the hot fusion is more difficult to obtain than the LENR.
    5- I know a very high level scientist who has worked hardly for the ITER, and still is strongly interested to the LENR and has worked in experiments with the E-Cat. I have learnt much from him. We have much to learn from the hot fusion and I have a great respect for all the great scientists working for it
    6- the hot fusion plants are also battlefields in which new generations of nuclear physics maintain their readiness for other applications; for example, NIF physicists are working on the decommissioning of nuclear weapons.
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The following proposed experiment could determine the possible source of the energy generated using the eCat reaction. I submit it with a suggestion that it be conducted and the results publically posted.

    Proposed Experiment

    Purpose – to detect the nuclear ash from extended eCat operation

    An eCat reactor operating continuously for 6 months will produce 10kW * 4,382.91 hours or 43.8291 MW-hrs or 2.247E+22 Mev of energy.

    Premise: A nuclear reaction occurs within the eCat reactor but the output ash is an isotope of helium which readily escapes the eCat reactor. Andrea Rossi has publically stated that no helium or tritium were observed in an eCat reactor after extended operations.

    Possible reactions:

    Case A: H + D -> 3He + 5.19Mev

    Case B: H + 3He -> 4He + 18.8Mev

    Case C: D + D -> 4He + 24Mev

    Case D: D + D -> T + p+ (3.02 Mev) (50%)
    -> 3He (0.82 Mev) + n (2.45 Mev) (eliminated because no tritium found in eCat reactor)

    Note: Case A followed immediately by Case B is identical to Case C in terms of energy and by-products.

    So, under the above cases, the nuclear ash should be either by 3He or 4He. Can an experiment be designed to detect this possible nuclear ash?
    4He is present in our atmosphere at about 5ppm.

    Assumption: The eCat reactor is sealed tight for hydrogen gas but it is “leaky” for helium. Therefore, after extended periods of operation, any nuclear ash helium has leaked away.

    Proposed Experiment: Take a standard eCat reactor, enclose it in a helium-tight box, run it for 6 months and see if 3He or 4He is trapped within the enclosure. To do this, enclose the eCat in a thermally conductive jacket that will transfer the eCat generated heat to a water pipe running through the enclosure. The enclosure will be evacuated so that the only transfer of thermal energy will be to the water pipe using conduction. The air inside the enclosure will be gone so no convection. The water jacket will cover the eCat, except its ends, so radiation transfer is minimized. Any helium generated by the eCat will be contained within the enclosure.

    Amount of Helium Generated:

    The amount of energy generated = 2.247E+22 Mev
    The amount of energy generated per helium atom created = 5.19 Mev to 24 Mev.

    Therefore, the range of the number of helium atom created is between 9.4E+20 and 4.3E+21. We convert to number of moles by dividing each by the Avogado constant (6.022E+23). The number of moles is between 1.56E-03 for 4He and 7.14E-03 for 3He. The amount of helium created in terms of mass is about 4 milligrams for 4He and 21 milligrams for 3He.

    Enclosure Size and Volume

    The eCat is approximately 33cm in length and 9cm in diameter. So the rough size of the enclosure should be around 50cm in width, 60cm in height and 30cm in depth. Assume a water pipe with a diameter of 2cm going through the width dimension. The interior volume would be approximately the 90,000 cc minus the volume of the eCat (about 3,000cc) and the enclosed water pipe (about 200cc) or about 86,800cc = 0.0868 cubic meters.

    Pressure Estimate

    The molar gas volumes can be calculated with an accuracy that is usually sufficient by using the universal gas low for ideal gases. The usual expression is:

    …which can be rearranged thus:

    where (in SI metric units):
    P = the absolute pressure of the gas, in Pa (Pascal)
    n = the amount of gas, in moles
    V = the volume of the gas, in m3
    T = the absolute temperature of the gas, in Kelvin
    R = the universal gas law constant of 8.3145 m3•Pa/(mol•K)

    Assuming the after experiment temperature is 20C (293K)
    P = nRT / V or
    For 3He: P = 7.14E-03 moles * 8.3145 m3 * Pa / (mol * K) * 293K / 0.0868m3) = 200 Pa = 0.002 atmospheres
    For 4He: P = 1.56E-03 * 8.3145 * 293 / 0.0868 Pa = 43.8 Pa = 0.000438 atmospheres

    Water Flow Rate to Cool the eCat

    To cool the eCat will require the following water flow rates, assuming no phase change, an input water temperature of 20C and a 50C temperature rise.

    Power = 10kW = 10,000 J / sec
    Water (25C) – Volumetric Heat Capacity = 4.1796 J / (cm3 * K)
    T = 50C = 50K
    Volume / sec = 10000 J / sec / (50K * 4.1796 J / (cm3 K)) = 47.851 cm3 / sec = 0.047851 liters / sec = 0.01264 gal / sec = 0.7584 gpm.

    Implementation: 10 eCta units would be needed. Five eCat reactors with the “standard” fuel + hydrogen charge and five eCat reactors with the hydrogen replaced with an inert element such as argon. Control units for each eCat would also be required.

    All eCat reactors would be uniquely marked and then each one enclosed in its own helium tight enclosure. Each of the units would be identically run for six months. At the end of the six months, they would be allowed to cool to room temperature and then sample of the gases would be taken, along with the pressure within each enclosure measured. The samples would then be brought to a local mass spectrometer (quickly before contamination could occur) and the presence of elements detected and quantified.

    Analysis: Hopefully, the results of the five active eCats will be consistent and the five control eCats will be consistent. Those units that showed loss of sealing will be ignored. The premise of helium production will be tested with careful note to the ratio of 3He to 4He.

  • Andrea Rossi

    I do not agree with you for the reason I already said, but I respect your opinion.
    Warm Regards,

  • Curiosone

    Dr Rossi:
    Let’s talk of hot fusion: the two plants in “operation”, after 50 years, are the ITER ( Europe) and the NIF ( USA). They reached the impressive result of a COP 1/ 100 000 : this means that they use 100 000 kWh to produce 1 kWh. They costed, so far, more than 100 billion dollars ( billions, with the “b” as in Bob). You made the E-Cat, with a COP higher than 3, using your own money. Why don’t you send them an E-Cat, so they put it inside their monsters and get a COP 3, with a stunning money saving for the taxpayers?

  • Lande

    Dr Rossi,

    At least I agree that the press conference of Fleischmann & Pons in 1989 where premature. They should of course have investigated further and involved phycisists “quietly” to resolve the theory of the heat bursts in their eleoctrolytic cells.

    It seems the University of Utah has been instrumental in putting pressure on them for a press conference.

    But does a scientific discovery really require a reliable replication, before the remaining scientific community wake up ?

    In my opinon science should be open to misteries. Why did Fleishmann & Pons see heat bursts in their cells? Phycists showed no interest in that question. Conclusion was it was most likely measurement errors….

    By 1990 F&P had some replication success… Say for 31 cells they had may be 26 cells that produced excess heat. That should be enough for Science to embrace a new mistery to be resolved…..

    Since Fleischmann and Pons did not really know the cause they could neither control the parameters which caused the heat bursts to occur.

    In their press release they stated “unkown nuclear reactions”. Mainstream physics could only see one possibility: Deuterium-Deuterium fusion, wich should release a lot of radiation products ( which actually should have killed the scientists at the energy levels they where indicating measured from the cells)

    And after the press conference the physics community thought it would be an easy task to replicate this themselves, after all it was just an easy electrolytic cell, right? Wrong. Fleischmann had worked on this since 1983, so it only looked easy, but in reality was rather complicated.

    Anyhow, read the online book. A lot of interesting stories are told….


  • Andrea Rossi

    My opinion is different. The scientific community underlined the fact that the experiment has not been repeated reliably. This is a fact. Victimism is the syndrome of impotence. If you make indipendent measurements and they give good results, you can fight successfully. Otherwise, you have to go back to work and make corrections. In this case, while working to get reliable results from indipendent measurements, the less you talk, the better.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    I do not know: the measurements, their interpretation and the report do not depend on me.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    1- new generation
    2- no. The data will be published in the report
    3- this does not depend on me
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,

  • Lande

    Dear readers of JoNP;

    I found an online book which you may find interesting.

    It was written back in 2002, but it tells the cold fusion story as it happened in 1989 and onwards.

    Very interesting, and in my opinion a rather shameful story for the Physics community.

    Fleischmann has been ridiculed for his discovery, since physics community would not hear of any possible unknown nuclear reactions. Fleischmann & Pons where Chemists and for them –the outsiders – to claim a discovery within nuclear physics of a nuclear energy source- was a pure blasphemy for the Nuclear Physics community.

    Everything in nature was well known, and with no proof of radiation in Pons & Fleischmann cell it was purely junk science. Physics community where not intersted in heat measurements, only in “nuclear ash proof ” if this where to be a nuclear effect.

    We can only hope the Nuclear Physics community rethinks their behaviour towards “outsiders” when the LENR finally becomes mainstream science – which may happen soon with the help from commercial LENR based products……

    Beaudette, C.G., Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. 2002, Concord, NH: Oak
    Grove Press.

  • Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    I’m not sure if this has been answered before or not but:

    1) Is the hotcat under extended test the same device used in the previous third party test or is it a newer generation?

    2) Can you give any indication of the intended improvements of the current device under test compared to the previous hotcat such as:
    c)amount of electricity required for the reaction

    3) Will Industrial Heat keep the name e-cat or do you think it will change?

    Thanks for your time, I am getting very excited that we are hopefully only months away from undeniable proof!


  • Lande

    Dear Dr. Rossi

    When You state “the results could be positive, but also negative” – do you mean excess heat could be found to be too small for commercial purposes? or what is your worries for the third party test ?


  • Andrea Rossi

    The Board of Advisers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics has decided to improve the peer reviewing of the articles presented for publication.
    From now on the publication of an article will take up to 1 year of peer reviewing, depending on the nature of the article. The peer reviewing will be always done by a Professor of the main Physics institutes of the world. Therefore, the Authors of all the papers waiting for publication will have probably to expect a substantial delay for the publication, whose timing will not depend on the JoNP, but exclusively on the decision of the peer reviewers.
    The Board of Advisers of the Journal of Nucllear Physics

  • Andrea Rossi

    John L.:
    As you can imagine, we received thousands of requests of this kind, all coming from honourable persons. To avoid torts, the third indipendent party has decided to forbid visitors. The whole experiment has been recorded and all the data will be published, so that all the persons interested to the issue will be able to go through them and through the results, positive or negative as they might be.
    Warm Regards,

  • John L

    Apart from the professors, are there any other honourable guests witnessing the Hotcat test?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Prof. Seshavatharam:
    Please send the links to the papers in a comment to this blog, so all our Readers can see them.
    Warm Regards,

  • Koen Vandewalle,Jacopo,eric ashworth

    Dear sirs,

    I would like to bring to your kind notice that, unless we couple the ‘tiny atom’ and the ‘gigantic universe’, developing a unified model seems to be hard. Hubble volume and ‘Hubble mass’ can be considered as key tools in this connection. Fortunately both are related to Black hole physics. In this regard I am attaching two published papers for your kind consideration. I request you to kindly go through. I request Dr. Andrea Rossi sir to forward the same to you.

    thanking you sir,
    yours obediently,

  • Andrea Rossi

    James Bowery:
    Let’s hope that a peaceful solution will be found in Ukraine. As for the E-Cat, we are completing our R&D work, while the third indipendent party is making the long run test, whose results could be positive, but also negative. Before the end of this cycle of tasks we cannot give any specific answer. The domestic E-Cat has still to obtain the safety certification.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dr. Rossi,

    An associate who has worked in for the US military in its negotiations with the USSR during the cold war over eastern European troop deployments has indicated to me that while he believes Putin will stop with Crimea, there will be repercussions in Kiev starting with natural gas shortages next fall and a potential heating crisis during the winter.

    It would be most interesting if a commercial E-Cat were to show up on the market before next fall.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear prof. U.V.S.Seshavatharam
    Thank you for your impressive and comprehensive response . I will need very much time to absorbe all this and think about it . With a number of concepts I am not familiar , but by searching , reading and thinking we all get further.

    May I assume from your Point-B ( I mean the first Point C ) that there is probably in every electron – and by extension in other elementary particles – a miniature black hole that acts as the drive for rotary motion (spin) ?

    That would mean that the matter-particles that we observe, are in fact all kinds of rapidly rotating ( speed of light ) vacuum baloons in the “dust ” that resists to disappear in that black hole.
    Then our part of the universe would really only consist of “dust” and “holes”.

    Because you call the electron similar to the galaxy a nearly-flat system, I thought in addition of a 3D structure , with 4 “vacuum baloons” who take a tetrahaedron position with in the center of it a black hole. The sense of rotation of the baloons could also vary, making each other to attract or non-attract the baloons of different particles. (E.g: 2 “left” and 2″right” compared to 4 “right”. It could be understood that twisting balloons, that turn in the same direction can attract each other so that the particles could therefore be clustered together. The result of all this clustering, could then affect the electrons of galaxy-like systems to be attracted because they have the same direction of twisting as the non-linked “baloons” in the cluster.

    This could be an indication that many more “dust” is sucked into the systems or particles with the 3D structure than the black holes that spin as an electron.
    What we know as “mass” would actually be a measure of the flow of “dust” in the corresponding black hole.
    This helps me a little bit to understand why mass is also energy.

    Can you tell me how crazy this idea is ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Extremely interesting.
    Warm Regards,

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You might be interested to know that a presentation was recently given at NASA about the possibility of LENR use in aviation. The Levi study was cited in this presentation, as well as a picture of your hot cat.

    The presentation can be viewed here:

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Marco Serra:
    A shut down date has not been scheduled in this case and the scheduling of the third indipendent party does not depend on me.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    I understood perfectly your feeling. What I said is just that I can answer to the stimulations of the Readers, while I cannot add anything specific regarding our activity before the report of the third indipendent party is published. Again, let me repeat that until the test is not finished I must say that the results could be positive, but also negative.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gian Luca

    Carissimo Andrea,
    la mia precedente non era un rimprovero ma uno stimolo, per una volta, affinché lo spunto di riflessione e conversazione arrivi da Te. Con un commento a cosa sta succedendo, dentro e fuori, alla Vs azienda e nel settore LENR. O forse meglio, qualche news sul vostro lavoro e impegno, senza che noi si debba insistere con domande che, alcune volte, sono ripetitive e banali.
    (Google Translation)
    Dear A.,
    my previous was not a reproach but maybe, for once, the starting point of
    reflection could come from Thee. How to comment on what is happening inside and outside the company and Vs in LENR. Or perhaps better, some news on ECAT and periphery, without the need to insist with questions that, sometimes, are repetitive and trivial

  • Marco Serra

    It’s March, finally. Soon the long term test will be terminated, right ?
    When a scientific approach is applied to an industrial test like this, the starting and the ending date should be decided and fixed “a priori”.
    If this is the case, when will the running test be shutdown ?

    Sorry for my impatience. Warm regards.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    Dear friend: I am here and I answer to the questions I receive.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gian Luca

    DEAR A.
    I’m noticing that the interventions on JONP, in recent weeks, are decreasing. Or better. They are becoming very technical.
    I wonder if the “belivers” do not need your encouragement with some point of reflection not caused by strange or innappropriate questions.
    Thank you if you want to answer

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    If I may be allowed a bit of speculation, I would like to comment on the length of time that the investigators of your latest devices are spending on the testing and verification of its operation. It seems to me that a negative finding would have terminated their work by now and allowed them to move on to more important efforts. What I am saying is that the longer it takes to report their findings the more sure there are positive results since they would be much more important than negative, requiring a more definite proof.
    Whatever, You are to be commended for at least creating an atmosphere of scientific curiosity which in my case has created a wealth of enjoyable moments in exploring possibilities to explain your effect.
    Looking forward to your disclosure of the mechanisms as you see them.

  • eric ashworth

    Hank Mills, Feb 24th comment. I agree with everything you say and I know a lot of other readers must also. All I can say is, if you had a technology that could challenge and eventually wipe out current industries what problems do you think you would come up against. There are two types of technolgy that I am aware of, constructive that maintains the current status quo and destructive, those capable of creating a paradigm shift. All the best, Regards Eric Ashworth

  • Andrea Rossi

    Your comment has been erroneously spammed: can you resend it?
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Yes, I am sure.
    Warm Regards,

  • jackie

    Dear Mr. Rossi, you have always been concerned that your E-cats will serve the World and help the poor.
    Do you feel sure that your new company will respect that promise in the future.
    Many thanks

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We are working very hard and very well. The mood is the one of people that believe in the work they do.
    Warm regards,

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I understand you are not able to provide details of your R&D work, but how would you describe the mood and morale of the Industrial Heat team that you work with these days?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    As you well know, I never comment the work of our respected competitors.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Some time ago, as you may have heard, Japanese researcher Iwamura claimed (and Mitsubishi’s team afterwards reported replication) that in Pd-D system they observed transmutations where multiple deuterons entered the nucleus, for example they observed that caesium goes to praseodymium but jumped over the interleaving elements barium, lanthanum and cerium. It looks to me that it either must be a measurement error or a powerful hint about how LENR works.
    Another point about transmutation: If and when LENR emits ionising radiation (X-rays), it creates free radicals from the medium which are chemically reactive and might then be misinterpreted as “transmutation” because they get enriched at the LENR-active microscopic site of the metal. I am now mainly talking about experiments where LENR occurs sporadically and reportedly creates micron-sized craters on the metal surface.
    best regards, pekka

  • Jacopo

    Thank you for this article Prof. Seshavatharam!

    When I was a little kid my father brought me to see the Famous Riace Statues (Bronzi di Riace).
    While looking at this statues I thought about space and time, our linear timeline broke apart in my young brain, and something strange appeared in my mind, something similar to a black hole. At least this is what I thought later when I jumped into black holes and relativity. When I was a teenager I got the convinction that there had to be a black hole at the center of each galaxy, and that the universe was a huge anti-black hole.
    If I think at emptiness as if it is fullness and vice versa, black holes as empty bubbles inside a blobby elastic stuff (what we call emptiness), everything gets more logically comprehensible to me.

    Thank you again and keep working!

  • eric ashworth

    Dear Proff Seshavatharam, I would like to take this opportunity to put forward a few thoughts of my own and appreciate your comments if you are able. I say if able because I am not an academic with regards this subject. Just a person who is intrigued with the subject and investigated certain phenomena.

    Black hole first to lead to galaxy growth. I believe this to be correct.
    Black hole started growing first. I believe this to be correct.
    My thought. Black hole started from exterior compressions.
    Galactic black hole evolved with galactic plasma bulge dynamics and the galactic arms. I believe this to be correct.
    My thoughts, the galactic plasma bulge dynamics I see as plumes of plasma that represent the initial reaction that results in the formation of structures in spiral format of four arms. Structure being a condensate.
    N Harameis theory I believe to be correct but I believe the geometric position of the black hole can be either or with regards its position depending upon the specific structure involved.
    If black hole is the result of a collapsing star how and why a stable galaxy contains a black hole at its centre?. I do not believe that a black hole is the result of a collapsing star. A black hole, I believe, is the result of exterior compressions.
    How does the galaxy centre grow like a black hole?. The centre of a galaxy/black hole I believe, is created by the compression of six outer structures. When these six create a critical mass by expansion, the mass of fused energy between the structures explodes creating a fission field with plumes of plasma.
    How does its event horizon exist with growing?. The term event horizon is new to me but I guess you are referring to an outer boundary layer. If so, I believe, that the interactions of the mobile curvature spiral plumes and subsequent interactions of the mobile curvature spiral arms of structure create the outer static barrier layer which is probably what is termed the event horizon.
    My observations. When oscillating curvature forces interact they form linear forces that are surrounded by a barrier layer that is static. This science I refer to as ‘the static and mobile mechanics of energy interaction’. However, I have found this science to be deemed unacceptable as a subject worthy of study when presented.

  • Hank Mills

    Several issues have been bugging me lately. One issue is how some scientists continue to see significance in hot fusion research. When compared to the E-Cat, hot fusion is truly a worthless technology.

    – An E-Cat can be built that can fit on a table top. An ordinary hot fusion reactor would not fit in a Walmart Super Center.

    – An E-Cat can probably be built for the cost of a thousand dollars or less. A hot fusion reactor can cost billions.

    – An E-Cat can produce a high COP for months. The few hot fusion reactors that have produced a COP of over 1 did so for seconds.

    – An E-Cat research project can be performed with a small staff. Hot fusion projects need hundreds of people.

    – An E-Cat can produce power that can be used for practical purposes right now. For example, hot can cylinders can glow white hot and be used to make high temp steam. On the other hand, there is no way to harvest the miniscule amount of power produced in hot fusion reactors.

    In terms of size, cost, power, COP, and safety the E-Cat wins. I hope the leaders of Industrial Heat and Cherokee recognize this. They don’t just have a breakthrough energy technology: the E-Cat is THE technology that puts solar, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, and geothermal to shame. It wins in every way when compared to any other technology that exists today.

    The E-Cat technokogy works. There is zero doubt about that. The only question is if the latest version of the hot cat can function for many months at a time without a mechanical malfunction such as a leak or corrosion. In my opinion, this is almost an irrelevant issue. Even if the reactor cores of a large hot cat plant had to be refurbished once a month, the technology would still be far superior to any other on the planet. Also, it does not take 6 months to determine if a vast source of nuclear energy is being utilized. Any form of conventional power or fuel source can be ruled out in several hours. This means that even a test of one week would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the technology is producing power with nuclear interactions.

    I recognize why such long term tests are being done. They are important for getting the technology certified. However, I am glad that Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla did not perform such extended testing of direct current and alternating current before wiring up cities with it. They didnt feel the need and were not required to power a thousand light bulbs with DC or AC for six months before utilizing it for the benefit of mankind. If they were restricted by certification agencies and governmental bodies like we are today, it could have been 20 more years before the world started using electricity.

    Since Industrial Heat already knows the technology works, I hope they will not only seek certification (which can be a long grueling process) in the USA but will also seek out areas of the world where:

    1) There is a great need for power.

    2) Regulations are relaxed.

    3) Governments want the technology.

    4) They can start selling the reactors, plants, or the power immediately.

    This technology is more significant than what hot fusion scientists claim to be able to acheive 50 years from now. In addition, it is safer, cheaper, smaller, and better in every way. It needs to be commercialized wherever it can be as soon as possible. I realize there are many practical considerations such as protecting intellectual property. But I believe there must be a way to get the technology out there.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear sir,

    I thank you very much for your valuable comments. I humbly request you to please go through below mentioned 3 key points and 28 major shortcomings of standard cosmology.

    Point-A.In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach’s principle is the name given by Einstein to an interesting hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that the local motion of a rotating reference frame is determined by the large scale distribution of matter. With reference to the Mach’s principle and the Hubble volume, at any cosmic time, if ‘Hubble mass’ is the product of cosmic ‘critical density’ and the ‘Hubble volume’, then it can be suggested that, i) Each and every point in the free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, ii) Hubble volume and Hubble mass play a vital role in understanding the properties of electromagnetic and nuclear interactions and iii) Hubble volume and Hubble mass play a key role in understanding the geometry of the universe.

    Point-C:Starting from an electron to any gigantic galaxy, rotation is a common phenomenon in atomic experiments and astronomical observations. From Newton’s laws of motion and based on the Mach’s principle, sitting inside a closed universe, one cannot comment whether the universe is rotating or not. We have to search for alternative means for confirming the cosmic rotation. Recent findings from the University of Michigan suggest that the shape of the Big Bang might be more complicated than previously thought, and that the early universe spun on an axis. A left-handed and right-handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular momentum. An anonymous referee who reviewed the paper for Physics Letters said, “In the paper the author claims that there is a preferred handedness of spiral galaxies indicating a preferred direction in the universe. Such a claim, if proven true, would have a profound impact on cosmology and would very likely result in a “Nobel prize”. The consequences of a spinning universe seem to be profound and natural. Not only that, with ‘constant rotation speed’ ‘cosmic collapse’ can be prevented and can be considered as an alternative to the famous ‘repulsive gravity’ concept. If so, at any time to have maximum possible stability from collapsing ‘constant light speed rotation’ can be considered as a constructive and workable concept.

    Point-C.Recent observations confirm black hole’s light speed rotation. In 2013 February, using NASA’s newly launched NuStar telescope and the European Space Agency’s workhorse XMM-Newton, an international team observed high-energy X-rays released by a super massive black hole in the middle of a nearby galaxy. They calculated its spin at close to the speed of light: 670 million mph.Please note that, for any black hole even though its mass is too high and density is too low, light speed rotation certainly helps in maintaining its stability from collapsing with maximum possible outward radial force of magnitude. At the beginning of comic evolution if rotation speed was zero and there was no big bang – definitely it will cast a doubt on the stability, existence and angular velocity of the assumed initial primordial cosmic baby black hole. Hence at the beginning also, to guess or define the angular velocity and to have maximum possible stability it is better to assume light speed rotation for the cosmic baby black hole. At present if rate of cosmic expansion is very slow, then rate of decrease in angular velocity will be very small and practically can be considered as zero. Along with (practically) constant angular velocity, at present if constant light speed rotation is assumed to be maintained then cosmic stability will be maximum and rate of change in cosmic size will be practically zero and hence this idea helps us to believe in present Hubble length along with the observed ordered galactic structures and uniform thermal energy density.

    Major shortcomings of Modern big bang cosmology

    1)It may be noted that, increased redshifts and increased distances forced Edwin Hubble to propose the Hubble’s law. In fact there is no chance or scope or place for ‘galaxy receding’. It is only our belief in its ‘given’ (Doppler shift based) interpretation. Even then, merely by estimating galaxy distance and without measuring galaxy receding speed, one cannot verify its acceleration. Clearly speaking: two mistakes are possible here. i) Assumed galaxy receding speed is not being measured and not being confirmed. ii) Without measuring and confirming the galaxy receding speed, how can one say and confirm that it (galaxy) is accelerating. It is really speculative.
    2)If light is coming from the atoms of the gigantic galaxy, then redshift can also be interpreted as an index of the galactic cosmological atomic ‘light emission mechanism’. In no way it seems to be connected with ‘galaxy receding’.
    3)According to the modern cosmological approach, bound systems like ‘atoms’ which are found to be the major constituents of galactic matter – will not change with cosmic expansion/acceleration. As per the present observational data this may be true. But it might be the result of ending stage of cosmic expansion. As the issue is directly related with unification it requires lot of research in basic physics to confirm. In this regard, without considering and without analysing the past data, one can not come to a conclusion. If one is willing to think in this direction observed galactic redshift data can be considered for this type of new analysis.
    4)Without a proper confirmation procedure for the absolute cosmic expansion and guessing that current universe is expanding – cosmologists proposed and confirmed the existence of dark energy indirectly. It may not be reasonable. Quantitatively or at least qualitatively standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the generation and (normal) physical properties of ‘dark energy’.
    5)The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.
    6)Really if there was a ‘big bang’ in the past, with reference to formation of the big bang as predicted by GTR and with reference to the cosmic expansion that takes place simultaneously in all directions at a uniform rate at that time about the point of big bang – ‘point’ of big bang can be considered as the centre or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions. In this case, saying that there is no preferred direction in the expanding universe – may not be correct.
    7)Either in the big bang or in the inflation, quantification of the initial assumed conditions seem to be poor, unclear and not linked with fundamental constants. The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation and inflation requires ‘fine tuning’.
    8)Standard cosmology does not give information on the origin of ‘inflation’. Inflation is often called a period of accelerated expansion. With respect to ‘no hair theorem’ some similarities are there for cosmic inflation and black holes. Conceptually ‘inflation’ can be accommodated in any model of cosmology like open model or closed model.
    9)A key requirement is that inflation must continue ‘long enough’ to produce the present observable universe from a single, small inflationary Hubble volume. Assuming a rapid rate of cosmic expansion and steady rate of time may not be reasonable. If space-time are interrelated then ‘space’ and ‘time’ both should simultaneously follow the momentary rapid exponential expansion. For example if space expands by a factor 1026 in size within a very ‘short span’, cosmic time should also increase in the same proportion. ‘Time’ seems to be a silent observer in the presently believed ‘cosmic inflation’. It may not be reasonable.
    10)There is no scientific evidence for the Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on the grounds of modesty.
    11)Dimensionally it is perfectly possible to show that, the dimensions of Hubble’s constant and angular velocity are same. If so considering Hubble’s constant merely as an expansion parameter may not be correct. Please see the section-5.
    12)Even though it was having strong footing, Mach’s principle was not implemented successfully in standard cosmology. Clearly speaking the term “distance cosmic back ground” is not being defined and not being quantified in a physical approach .
    13) At any given cosmic time, the product of ‘critical density’ and ‘Hubble volume’ gives a characteristic cosmic mass and it can be called as the ‘Hubble mass’. Interesting thing is that, Schwarzschild radius of the ‘Hubble mass’ again matches with the ‘Hubble length’. Most of the cosmologists believe that this is merely a coincidence. Here the authors emphasize the fact that this coincidence is having deep connection with cosmic geometry and the cosmological physical phenomena.
    14)Somehow and by any reason, magnitude of the current Hubble mass being the same, if volume density approaches the current matter density, then Hubble length increases by a factor ~5. Similarly if volume density approaches the current thermal energy density, then Hubble length increases by a factor ~27. These two numbers can be compared with the presently believed first two of the three cosmological numbers 4.9%, 26.8% and 68.3%. Based on this coincidence and as the currently believed third number ~68% is obtained from the relation (100-(4.9+26.8))%, its proposed existence seems to be ad-hoc.
    15)If ‘Planck mass’ is the characteristic beginning ‘mass scale’ of the universe, then by substituting the geometric mean mass of the present Hubble mass and the Planck mass in the famous Hawking’s black hole temperature formula automatically the observed 2.725 degree Kelvin can be fitted very accurately [1,2]. Standard cosmology is not throwing any light on this surprising coincidence.
    16)If cosmic expansion is continuous and accelerating and redshift is a measure of cosmic expansion, then ‘rate of increase in redshift’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. Then there is no possibility to observe a ‘constant’ red shift. More over the current definition of red shift seems to be ad-hoc and not absolute. Please see section 6. Hence one may not be able to understand or confirm the actual cosmic rate of expansion.
    17)Even though the whole physics strictly follows the ‘constancy of speed of light’, cosmic acceleration seems to violate it. This is really doubtful.
    18)Drop in ‘cosmic temperature’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic expansion and ‘rate of decrease in cosmic temperature’ can be considered as a measure of cosmic ‘rate of expansion’. But if rate of decrease in temperature is very small and is beyond the scope of current experimental verification, then the two possible states are: a) cosmic temperature is decreasing at a very slow rate and universe is expanding at a very slow rate and b) there is no ‘observable’ thermal expansion and there is no ‘observable’ cosmic expansion.
    19)If observed CMBR temperature is 2.725 degree Kelvin and is very low in magnitude and is very close to absolute zero, then thinking about and confirming the ‘cosmic acceleration’ may not be reasonable.
    20)In the standard model of cosmology, there is no clear cut information about the ‘uniqueness’ of the assumed ‘dark energy’. If its identification is not unique in nature, then different cosmology models can be developed with different forms of ‘dark energy’. If so understanding the absolute cosmic expansion rate with dark energy seems to be doubtful.
    21)So far no ground based experiment confirmed the existence of dark energy. There is no single clue or evidence to any of the natural physical properties of (the assumed) dark energy.
    22)If ‘Dark energy’ is the major outcome of the ‘accelerating universe’, it is very important to note that – in understanding the basic concepts of unification or other fundamental areas of physics, role of dark energy is very insignificant.
    23)If existence of dark energy is true and dark energy is supposed to have a key role in the past and current cosmic expansion, then it must have also played a key role in the beginning of cosmic evolution. In this regard no information is available in standard cosmology.
    24)Standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the generation and existence of atomic physical constants like Planck’s constant, reduced Planck’s constant, inverse of fine structure ratio and nuclear charge radius etc. Clearly speaking synthesis of elementary physical constants seem to be more important than the cosmological nucleosynthesis.
    25)General theory of relativity does not throw any light on the ‘mass generation’ of charged particles. It only suggests that space-time is curved near the massive celestial objects. More over it couples the cosmic (dust) matter with geometry. But how matter/dust is created? Why and how elementary particle possesses both charge and mass? Such types of questions are not being discussed in the frame work of general relativity.
    26)Standard model of cosmology does not throw light on the charge-mass unification scheme of atomic particles. The main object of unification is to understand the origin of elementary particles rest mass, magnetic moments and their forces. Right now and till today ‘string theory’ with 4 + 6 extra dimensions is not in a position to explain the unification of gravitational and non-gravitational forces. More clearly speaking it is not in a position to merge the Planck scale and cosmic scale with the characteristic nuclear scale.
    27)Either general theory of relativity or standard cosmology does not give any information on the applications of the classical force limit $c^4/G$ and the classical power limit $c^5/G$Compared to the hypothetical ‘dark energy’, with a coefficient of unity, $c^4/G$ can be considered as the cosmic vacuum force and $c^5/G$ can be considered as the cosmic vacuum power.
    28)In Big bang model, confirmation of all the observations directly depend on the large scale galactic distances that are beyond human reach and raises ambiguity in all respects. The subject of modern black hole physics is absolutely theoretical. Advantage of Black hole cosmology lies in confirming its validity through the ground based atomic and nuclear experimental results.

    thanking U sir,

  • eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    There is no doubt you do not use radioactive elements in your charge or if there is any residual radioactive ash after a time of shut down of your device. Any activity would have been detected by all the investigators taking part in your demonstrations and the 3P professors. However, can you tell us if there are radioactive elements created by the Rossi Effect during the activated process? They would be in my thinking the source of the free energy you are creating. Also, if there are radioactive elements during the operating period, how long would they exist after shutdown of your activating process? Has anyone measured the presence 0f Beta electrons or positrons or Auger electrons(x ray emissions)?
    I understand you cannot comment on many of these questions, but I would appreciate any information no matter how little you can give.
    Best wishes for sucess.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Prof. Seshavatharam:
    We’ll be delighted to read your answer to Koen Vandewalle.
    Warm Regards,

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Professor U.V.S.Seshavatharam,
    Do you consider a relationship between the rotation speed of the stuff around a black hole, and the shapes that are caused by this (e.g. 3D-vortices-like structures) at the boundaries of black holes and the strong force ? Rotating around a hole at a circumference speed near the speed of light seems a good way to avoid falling into the hole. Is there a link with the fact that the total mass of the universe is not consistent with the observations according to the current laws of physics, and the fact that nuclear active (unstable) material (e.g., star) have a greater mass, or at least do appear to have more gravity than non-nuclear active material (e.g., planets)? Someday someone will have to solve this puzzle. A good tap into the energy source could then exist of making matter “unstable” without keeping it unstable.
    Kind Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers of the JoNP: today has been published ” Physics of rotating and expanding black hole universe” by Proff Seshavatharam ( India).

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Excess of energy is measured indipendently from theory.
    As you know I cannot give information regarding reactions inside the reactor.
    Warm regards

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I am concerned about the lack of a eCat reaction “ash”. I believe your critics (there are so many) will point to this as proof that eCat results are problemmatic. I know you have worked with certain independent scientists with their own funding sources.

    I suggest that the “ash” includes Helium (Helium-3 or Helium-4). You need not respond to me on how the eCat reactor works as I know this is proprietary.

    Suppose you build a helium-tight enclosure(not a trivial task I undertstand) around a full charged and operational eCat reactor. You include the necessary plumbing to handle cooling and later access to a mass spectrometer. You evacuate the helium-tight chamber containing the eCat reactor. The independent scientists run the eCat for 6 months.

    Any helium “ash” leaks into and is contained by the helium-tight enclosure. A mass spectrometer is used to determine the presense and type of Helium. I assume a pressure gauge would show the amount of gas within the enclosure.

    If your theory of operation includes a H + H -> D or H + D -> 3He or D + D -> 4He reaction(s), then this might provide the experimental results to
    validate your theory. A negative result might occur if the helium-tight seals failed but this could be tested by the independent scientists after the test period was completed.

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>