Infinite Energy Issue 126

New Energy • New Science New Technology
Volume 21 • Issue 126 • 2016
$5.95 U.S. • $7.95 Canada
Scientific Inquiry in
Academic Research
Programs

New Energy-Themed Videos Available from the New Energy FoundationNew Energy-Themed Videos Available from the New Energy Foundation
The Secret of Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla: The Genius Who Lit the World
Cold Fusion: Fire from Water
$24 U.S./$28 Canada/$30 Mexico/$34 Other
DVD, 105 min., 1982
Dramatic film about the life of Tesla, as portrayed by
Peter Bozovic.
DVD, 60 min., 2003
Documentary about the life of Tesla.
DVD, 170 min., 2000
Lecture by Dr. Peter Lindemann.
DVD, 68 min., 1999
Documentary featuring cold fusion scientists from around
the world, narrated by James Doohan (from “Star Trek”).
DVD, 110 min., 1997
Documentary featuring devices, processes and theo-
ries of new energy.
DVD, 93 min., 1999
Dramatic film by Keith Johnson, set against the back-
drop of science and politics at a prominent northeast-
ern institute of technology.
New Energy Foundation
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700
Online: www.infinite-energy.com
Prices include shipping/handling.
Clash of the Geniuses: Inventing the Impossible
DVD, 60 min., 2004 (Re-release)
Atlantis Rising’s Doug Kenyon examines new energy
technologies that hold promise for the future, includ-
ing cold fusion, anti-gravity, wireless power, etc.
The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity
Breaking Symmetry
Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point
S. PAL ASIJA, CEO — OUR PAL, LLC
Creation, Protection & Cashing of Intellectual Property
Patent Attorney and Professional Engineer (B.Sc., GradIERE(Lond.) PGD, MBA, PE, CDP, JD, ATM)
7 Woonsocket Avenue, Shelton CT 06484-5536
Phone: 203-924-9538 N Fax: 203-924-9956
Email: PAL@OurPal.com N Website: http://www.OurPal.com
OUR PAL®
LLC
**** One Reality Monograph with CD @ Cost ****
— Free Sample Pages of Manuscript and PowerPoint Slides —
ONE RealityONE Reality K OUR PAL® K There Is But ONE RealityThere Is But ONE Reality K OUR PAL® K ONE RealityONE Reality
OUR PAL®
LLC K A Systems View of the Universe as One RealityA Systems View of the Universe as One Reality K OUR PAL®
LLC
Serving you with Vision, Wisdom, Integrity, Skill & Zeal for over four decades.
Our Pal LLC
www.OurPal.com
Info@1-R.Info
www.1-R.Info
One Reality Research Academy
A Symphony of Sciences & Spirituality
INFO@1-R.INFO WWW.1-R.INFO
PH: 203-924-2055
Harmonizing all knowledge domains from sciences to spirituality,
delineating why and how One Reality is stranger than fiction,
even more bizarre than Wave-Particle Duality, Entanglement Quantum
Physics, Epi-epigenetics, Spooky Action-at-a-Distance, Neuroscience
of Viruses & much more developed over five decades of research by

2 INFINITE ENERGY • ISSUE 126 • MARCH/APRIL 2016
Scientific Inquiry in Academic Research Programs
pp. 8 - 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE 126 — MARCH/APRIL 2016
ARTICLES
8 Indicators of Interest in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions David J. Nagel
10 Overview of the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) G.K. Hubler et al.
14 Introduction of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science at Tohoku University Yasuhiro Iwamura et al.
17 The Cosmological Implications of Mass Distribution and Motion Arnold G. Gulko
24 Armenian Theory of Special Relativity (Illustrated) Robert Nazaryan and Haik Nazaryan
DEPARTMENTS
4 Letters to the Editor
6 Breaking Through Editorial — Death Sentence George Egely
30 Science & Technology Used Book Marketplace
31 Professional Service Directory
32 Infinite Energy Order Form

MARCH/APRIL 2016 • ISSUE 126 • INFINITE ENERGY 3
Volume 21, Issue 126
March/April 2016
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
staff@infinite-energy.com
http://www.infinite-energy.com
Printed in the United States
Copyright © 2016
New Energy Foundation • All rights reserved.
TECHNICAL EDITORS
Dr. George Egely
William H. Zebuhr
MANAGING EDITOR
Christy L. Frazier
COVER DESIGNER
Barbara DelloRusso
ADVISORY BOARD
Rick Broussard (U.S.) • Dr. Dennis Cravens (U.S.)
James Dunn (U.S.) • Dr. Peter Glück (Romania)
James Kazan (U.S.) • Dr. Xing Zhong Li (China)
Dr. Theodore Loder (U.S.) • Scott Newquist (U.S.)
Dr. Thomas Phipps (U.S.) • Michael Ritsema (U.S.)
Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan (India) • William Zebuhr (U.S.)
Infinite Energy solicits your manuscripts dealing with: experi-
mental results in cold fusion (LENR) and new energy, theoreti-
cal ideas, contemporary and historical opinions on energy and
technology, historical articles, short articles on conventional
energy or alternative energy, and book reviews. Contact Christy
Frazier, Managing Editor (staff@infinite-energy.com).
A Bimonthly Magazine of the New Energy Foundation
INFINITE ENERGY
Invention Patents
Founding Editor: Eugene F. Mallove (1947-2004)
Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla’s Science of Energy
Edited by Thomas Valone
Essays by experts in Tesla technology, selected Tesla
patents, and more.
$20 U.S. / $30 Canada / $35 Mexico / $45 Other
(Prices include shipping/handling.)
2002, Paperback, 338 pp.
New Energy Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 — Website: www.infinite-energy.com
(MBA, PE, JD—USPTO Reg. #27113 since 1974.)
Price includes postage and handling. Actual size
3” wide. Standard 9V battery required. Produced
by Egely Research Co. Ltd.
Egely Research Notes:
“The Egely Wheel Vitality Meter
can help to objectively measure
your life energy level, develop
your ability to concentrate, con-
trol your relaxation, learn to
direct the energy flowing from
your body, form a healthier and
more successful lifestyle.
“Extensive control experiments
have proven that the rotation of
the wheel during measurements
is not driven by heat convection,
or electromagnetic energy. The
inventor and designer, George
Egely, Ph.D., is a scientist who
was employed for many years by
the Atomic Energy Research
Institute of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. He is an
expert in the field of energy
transport processes.”
Order from: New Energy Foundation
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
Website: www.infinite-energy.com
New Energy Foundation, Inc. finds the
EgelyWheelVitalityMeter
to be a fascinating demonstration, but of what, we are not yet sure.
Solve the mystery for yourself, if you can.
$150.00 U.S./Canada
$155.00 Mexico
$160.00 Other Foreign
Infinite Energy magazine (ISSN 1081-6372) is published six
times per year by the non-profit New Energy Foundation,
P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816. Subscription price:
$29.95 U.S., Canada, and Mexico, $49.95 other foreign.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Infinite Energy, P.O. Box
2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816.
Infinite Energy magazine presents science and technology,
generally in the field of new energy. It provides a forum for
debate and discussion of frontier science. Infinite Energy is
open to all rationally stated points of view. The material pre-
sented here reflects the views of the authors, not necessarily
those of Infinite Energy. Infinite Energy assumes no responsi-
bility for individuals who reproduce potentially hazardous
experiments contained in its pages.
Infinite Energy does not independently verify the content,
citation, validity, or paternity of anything published herein
by outside authors. Further, Infinite Energy makes no repre-
sentation as to any of the content of the articles published.
The content of the works published in Infinite Energy are
solely the responsibility of the author(s).

it be assumed that when an ethon collides with an electron
that is moving along the active conductor the ethon will
rebound with a spin from its electron collision. A large num-
ber of these spin carrying ethons will then drift over to the
adjacent conductor and collide with its outer electrons. The
spin energy of the ethon will impart a backward force on the
electron and attempt to drive it backwards. As long as the
current keeps rising in the active conductor, this condition
will continue. However, when the current starts falling, the
density of the spin activated ethons between the conductors
also starts falling. A condition will then develop where the
ethons on the exterior side of the passive conductor will
have retained more spin energy than the newly arriving
ethons from the active conductor. Now, when these exterior
ethons collide with the passive conductor’s electrons they
impart a force in the same direction as the active conductor’s
current. If the current in the active conductor reaches a
steady constant value the ethon spin density quickly reach-
es a constant value on both sides of the passive conductor
and no emf is induced.
These tasks assigned to the postulated ethon now allow us
to, at least partially, describe the required features of the
ethon. I like to call it my pragmatic ethon because I’ve
assigned new individual capabilities to it as needed.
Whether these assigned capabilities are mutually compatible
will be addressed later. First it is assumed that the ethon is
orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. As stated
above the ethon should be capable of absorbing spin energy
from oblique electron collisions and transporting this spin
energy over many mean free ethon path lengths. Since many
ethon to ethon collisions are assumed, there should be very
little spin energy transfer in these collisions. When a steady
state current is introduced in a conductor, the interaction
with the surrounding ethons should form a stable cloud of
spin energized ethons, where the change in spin energy is
negligible over an electron’s diameter.
The next task listed to investigate is the ethons possible
role in the cause of gravity. When an ethon collides with an
electron, where the electron is a part of a molecule of phys-
ical matter, let it be assumed that the collision is elastic. Even
though the electron is assumed to be much more massive
there will still be some energy transfer from the ethon to the
electron and the ethon will rebound with a slight loss of
velocity and energy. There will then form a cloud of lower
velocity, higher density ethons surrounding the physical
matter containing the involved electrons. If two physical
bodies are brought close together the regions of lower ener-
gy ethons surrounding each body will be even lower
between the bodies because the bodies shield this region
from the higher energy regions on the bodies’ external sides.
Therefore there will be an unbalanced ethon pressure push-
ing the two bodies toward each other. If this reasoning is cor-
rect, gravity is not an attractive force but a repulsive force
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Musings on Einstein’s Thought Experiments
No claim is made herein that these musings on Einstein’s
two famous relativity theories are original as individual
ideas. However, as a coordinated collection of ideas they are,
as far as I am aware, original.
Einstein’s two major theories are both based on so-called
“thought experiments.” The special theory is based on the
“photon riding model,” leading to the constant velocity of
light in a vacuum, for all inertial systems. The general theo-
ry is based on the “elevator experiments” leading to the
space-time continuum concept.
Let us first examine the constant velocity of light, under
all conditions, and see if there might be a simpler, more log-
ical model to examine. First, we are aware that light travels at
different velocities in different media. Second, we are aware
of only two possible models of light energy being propagat-
ed through so-called empty space. One is the energy packet
or photon model, wherein an excited electron launches a
pseudo-particle into space with a launch velocity dependent
on the launching electron. If the electron’s host atom has a
drift velocity relative to an external observer, the arriving
photon will have a velocity determined by the combination
of its launch velocity and its relative velocity at the receiver.
The other model of light propagation is the wave through
a media model or the ether model. Einstein abandoned this
model because the famous Michelson-Morley experiments
detected no so-called ether drift due to the earth's motions.
It was assumed that the ether, if it existed, was motionless in
space and was unaffected by the motion of physical matter
through it. However, this assumption is logically inconsis-
tent with the launching of energy waves from electrons into
the ether. Let’s call the inhabitants of the ether “ethons.” If
the electrons can interact with the ethons to launch travel-
ing energy waves through the ether then the ethons should
also be sensitive to gross molecule motion of physical mat-
ter and tend to move with it. Thus the ethon field sur-
rounding the earth would take on the gross motion of the
earth, including its rotation and its orbital motion. If true,
this would explain the negative results of the Michelson-
Morley experiments.
This moveable ethon field concept also has the potential
to explain other major puzzles of physics, including emf
induction, the cause of gravity and how it differs from iner-
tia. This will challenge Einstein’s elevator car experiment
and require that it be re-examined for basic validity. Let’s
look at these potential ideas, one at a time.
First, the emf induction idea. We know that if a variable
current is introduced into one of two parallel conductors, a
voltage or induced emf will be created in the adjacent con-
ductor. As the current rises the induced emf will be in the
reverse direction and as the current falls the induced emf
will be in the same direction as the current. The reasons for
this have never been fully understood and explained. Now,
let’s look at the ethons surrounding the two conductors. Let

experiment showed that the speed of light is an absolute
constant. The only thing that experiment showed is that the
space of the earth is at rest with respect to earth’s mass cen-
ter. Historians suspect that Einstein was inspired by the
experiment. He was not. He received his inspiration from a
statement made in 1895 by the Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz.
Lorentz had stated in an article that the speed of light is an
absolute constant. Einstein accepted that statement and
made it the cornerstone of his special relativity theory. The
statement in fact had no experimental basis. Einstein later
seized upon the experiment as providing experimental sup-
port for his theory, but, alas, it did not. In his later years,
Einstein had said he could not recall having known about
the experiment at the time he formulated his theory, but his-
torians have always suspected he knew. They have so far
established that he knew as early as 1898. From a practical
perspective, since the experiment did not say that the speed
of light is an absolute constant, it has no relevance to the
genesis of relativity theory.
Ron Bourgoin
Rocky Mount, North Carolina
moving two bodies toward each other.
The concept of a lower energy, higher density ethon cloud
surrounding a physical body can also give a physical model
to another of Einstein’s postulations. He stated that space is
“warped” in the vicinity of a physical body and this causes a
bending of any light rays toward the body if they are passing
in the vicinity. He described no mechanism for this warping.
The ethon cloud described above will have a natural gradi-
ent of velocity and density change as it forms around a body
with the lowest velocity nearest the body. Thus a light ener-
gy wave passing near the body will encounter these varying
velocity ethons and be skewed toward the body.
The last task listed is how inertial forces differ from gravi-
tational forces or are they different forms of the same thing,
as Einstein believed? I believe the differences are much
greater than the similarities. Under special circumstances the
two forces can be of the same magnitude and direction.
However, the creation of these two forces is entirely differ-
ent. The force created by a body resting on the earth against
gravity is a passive, reactive force involving no energy con-
sumption or transfer. The force created by an engine acceler-
ating a body is an active force, requiring a constant input of
new energy. This energy is stored in the accelerating body in
the form of kinetic energy.
Finally, let’s look at the question of an accelerating (or
decelerating) body and its effect on the ethon cloud sur-
rounding the body. Since a given mass has a constant accel-
eration for a constant applied force, there doesn’t seem to be
any perceptible effect of the ethon cloud until the body’s
velocity approaches the ethon wave velocity. Then, com-
pressibility of the ethon field occurs. If this is a correct obser-
vation then, using the mach wave analogy in gasses, the
wave velocity of light in the ether is not an absolute barrier
for space traveling vehicles.
Durwood Creed
Stuart, Florida
Misdirected Hunt
It seems historians still believe that the Michelson-Morley
Contributions to the New Energy Foundation
(Received January - February)
The New Energy Foundation (NEF), a 501(c)(3) charitable corpo-
ration, gratefully acknowledges the following generous contribu-
tions toward its work of (1) publishing a broad spectrum of new
energy science and technology via Infinite Energy, its website and
other media, and (2) awarding grants for meritorious new energy
research projects:
Since 2003, NEF has awarded over $1.3 million in grants to
more than 30 researchers or organizations.
NEF (IRS EIN#42-1551677) is in need of greater financial sup-
port for its two-front program. We thank you for your support.
Jim Casey • Rodney Conrad, Jr.

by John O’M. Bockris
Dr. Bockris attacks the current paradigm from all
angles, and reviews well-documented phenomena
which are difficult or impossible to explain with cur-
rent scientific thought. As the title suggests, Bockris
proposes a new paradigm which does not serve sci-
ence as we now know it, but rather encompasses the
known and “unknown” around us to give us a bet-
ter understanding of the true nature of reality.
$32 U.S. / $45 Canada
$48 Mexico / $50 Other Foreign
— NOW BACK IN PRINT —
The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between
Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena
Paperback, 504 pages
P.O. Box 2816 K Concord, NH 03302-2816
603-485-4700 K www.infinite-energy.com/store/
Providing Systems Engineering for Circuit Design and
Operation, Programming and Component Prototyping.
New Energy Power Systems, LLC
P.O. Box 3825
Fairfax, VA 22038-3825

less luck one turns into a vegetable. Perhaps with a seeming-
ly healthy body, but with a grotesque face, and no sign of
conscious life in the eyes. Cancer is the opposite in most
cases. With a clear mind one can observe the body being
taken over and eaten alive by cancer cells running amok
amidst horrible pain. In Hungary alone (population 10 mil-
lion), about 10,000 citizens over the age of 50 die each year
due to cardiovascular illnesses, but that limit is gradually get-
ting lower and lower. As for cancer, mortality is about 30,000
deaths each year, despite very expensive gamma ray therapy
and chemotherapy. In fact, both of them are useless. Survival
is prolonged by a couple of weeks amidst considerable pain.
So the stakes are visible, the cures are there, but they are offi-
cially forbidden. This is manslaughter on a grand scale. Yet
people ignore it, because they are not aware of it.
The same is for LENR research. The man on the street, the
average taxpayer never heard about it in the best case. In a
worse case he/she has read something about lunatic people
going against common sense. It is so easy to mislead the
mass of people with some media power.
The story of Prof. Horvath repeated the Pons-Fleischman
scenario some ten years ago. His patent application has been
rejected on the grounds that it contradicts the presently
accepted consensus in medical science. When Horvath asked
for the help of state officials, at least one of them was frank
and open. He replied: “We cannot help you, because if peo-
ple would live longer, the state pension system, and thus the
annual financial budget, would collapse.”
There is a sideline of this tragic story that sounds like a
Hollywood thriller.
Among the thousands of medical miracles, there was an
elderly gentleman who happened to be the father of a local
billionaire. Tamas Wells, who obtained his wealth from
shady business with West African dictators, saw a business
opportunity. He has equipped a lab for Horvath, so he alone
can produce hundreds of his vaccines a day. Then he got per-
mission to introduce the serum in Bissau, Guinea and neigh-
boring countries, and hoped to make these countries a sort
of medical paradise for wealthy Europeans. But others sensed
the coming trouble, and acted fast. Wells was asked to get
into a police car with high ranking officials, and was dead
within minutes.
Wells’ unexpected death made headlines in the local
media. The “official” version was suicide. No one has
believed this. Well-informed sources have tipped me off: he
There is a 90% chance that you are facing a death sen-
tence—even if you are not aware of it. But why only
90%? Because this is the probability that you will die due to
either a cardiovascular disease (stroke or heart attack) or due
to a sort of malignant tumor. Both of them are curable. The
methods of cure are illegal—because they are effective.
Science as a method has led to their invention. But sci-
ence as an institution has suppressed them with the help of
state machinery.
Sounds familiar to the LENR story? Yes. The scenario is the
same. I shall not die due to either cause, because I have taken
the preventive medicines—illegally, of course. Their inven-
tors are harassed, and facing criminal prosecution—in order
to silence them, to crush them as early as possible.
According to mainstream medical science, it is impossible
to remove plaque inside the veins once it is deployed there
due to sustained consumption of cholesterol rich food. This
evidence is in all medical textbooks. Therefore the merits of
low-cholesterol foods are preached everywhere, and a high-
income industrial empire has been founded to manufacture
cholesterol reducing medicine, like statins.
However, Prof. Stephen Horvath, a biochemist and
researcher of virology and venereal disease, has found a way
around it. The immune system is stimulated with his
method. The immune system “forgets” the removal of cho-
lesterol with aging. Therefore most people have plaque in
their veins preventing perfect circulation by their late-40s to
early-50s. This reduced circulation leads to dozens of dis-
eases—not only stroke, but also diabetes, cold feet, noise in
the ear, but in general loss of physical vigor, fitness and
wounds on the limbs in the worst cases.
Prof. Horvath had an insight on how to “re-train” the
immune system to regulate low-density and high-density
cholesterol production. He tried the method on animals
first—and after the successful trial, on himself, and it
worked. Then he recommended it to friends and relatives
with cardiovascular problems. A series of medical miracles
have happened. Limb removal surgeries could be aban-
doned, because clogged veins have been cleaned completely.
After about 200-300 successful cases, no harmful side effects
have been observed, and the method has always worked for
patients having an “operational” immune system. The best
results have been at curing strokes, diabetes and preventing
cancer.
As for stroke, usually the lucky ones die instantly. With
BREAKING THROUGH EDITORIAL
Death Sentence
George Egely

was killed with fast acting spider venom. The ostensible rea-
son: to avert the crash of pharmaceutical shares on the stock
market. Indeed, it is sound and logical—and tragic at the
same time.
In order to legalize a medicine, expensive and long inves-
tigation must be done. Only big pharmaceutical companies
can afford it. (This is a way to prevent competition.)
Now stage two, a smear campaign has been launched
against Horvath by the press, again as in the case of Pons
and Fleischmann. Apart from sheer envy, the financial stakes
are also high. Although the Hungarian constitution grants
our right to life and health, it has no effect in practice. The
constitution is just a piece of paper with no real conse-
quences.
Then came a lawsuit via an “unnamed denunciation.”
Consequently a police raid took place, all the lab equipment
was confiscated. Now the manufacturing and distribution of
the serum has gone underground. The series of miraculous
healings and the lack of any serious side effects have estab-
lished a reputation. The demand is still high despite the
smear campaign. Over 10,000 people have already been
cured with this method.
From time to time I go to the court of law in Marko Street,
Budapest (like Old Bailey in London) to watch this disgust-
ing criminal prosecution. Three physicians, who gave medi-
cine to sick, previously incurable patients, and Prof. Horvath
sit on the defendant’s bench. He defends himself—his
defense lawyer never uttered a sentence. Only the prosecu-
tion has the right to have witnesses and experts, not the
defense. But even that misfired. The people caught by the
police at an “illegal” occasion of administering the serum
have praised Horvath. They were grateful for their improved
health.
I usually sit right behind Horvath. The audience in the
courtroom consists of people who have been cured by his
serum.
All this disgusting process in science started here in
Hungary with the case of Ignaz Semmelweis some 150 years
ago. He was an obstetrician, who recognized that delivering
mothers died by hundreds when they were examined by
medical students with dirty hands. After killing about 2000
young mothers and infants himself, Semmelweis realized
that dirty, soiled hands can be disinfected with chlorine. He
started to campaign for its acceptance, and had spectacular
results. Consequently, the colleagues who did not believe
him lured him into a lunatic asylum in Vienna. They had
him bound and beaten to death. Later they smeared him by
saying that he had died of syphilis.
Science as a method is losing ground to science as an institu-
tion. The moral of science as profession is uniform. If this
may happen without any consequences in medical science,
it can happen everywhere. Mainstream science journals do
not publish important results, patent applications are reject-
ed, funds are cut, or research grants are turned down in the
same manner.
LENR, as an important possible breakthrough field of sci-
ence, is oppressed for the same reason, and in the same rude
manner as major medical inventions.
I know several anti-cancer immune stimulant methods
which have been treated exactly the same way as that of
Prof. Horvath.
This is not the only infamous lawsuit. There was an iden-
tical trial with the same judge and prosecutor against a sur-
geon (Stephan Seffer), who has found a way to regrow the
periosteum on the surface of worn joints, a common ailment
of elderly people. This process threatened a small industry of
surgical joint replacement. Again, there was a police raid,
confiscation, and a smear campaign.
There was an identical case against an engineer (Bela
Lucza), who followed the path beaten by Nikola Tesla and
Raymond Rife: to kill viruses and bacteria with a resonant
process with longitudinal EM waves. Again: police raid,
smear campaign and court of law. There was a similar case
against the inventor of a powerful immune stimulant, an
effective anti-cancer drug (Adam Kovacs).
A young biologist (Gabor Somlyai) has found out that
even a low-dose of heavy water gets dangerous for people
with a weak immune system. He has removed most of the
D2O from tap water. He has published a number of research
papers on the successful extension of life expectancy for can-
cer patients. The result: heavy, crippling fines from the local
FDA. He had to prove at an early period that deuterium-free
light water is not dangerous for human consumption. After
a 20-year-long fight, and hundreds of medical successes, his
method has still not been accepted officially.
Counter interests, and complete ignorance, are at work as
in the case of LENR research.
Today many more people die of preventable illnesses than
from war or traffic accidents. Yet you never hear about
them—nor about successful LENR tests. The rot spreads in
science from one field to another at ease. Physics is not
immune to envy or economic counter interests.
Climate change cannot be stopped without a break-
through in the methods of producing energy. Breakthroughs
cannot be achieved without a healthy, morally sound sci-
ence as an institution. That in turn will never happen if ordi-
nary people will not demand the results which they have
paid for via their taxes. That is, transparency ought to be the
name of the game.
K K K
The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation
— by Dr. Edmund Storms —
“The Explanation of Low Energy
Nuclear Reaction...is the first physical
science based description of a poten-
tial explanation for cold fusion.”
—Dr. Michael McKubre
$28 U.S.
$42 Canada
$48 Mexico
$50 Other Foreign
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Paperback, 2014
351 pages

H
undreds of scientists, engineers and others have
been working to advance the understanding, engi-
neering and commercialization of LENR generators
of heat and electricity since the Fleischmann and Pons
announcement in 1989. That global community has estab-
lished that it is possible to initiate nuclear reactions with
chemical energies, and that energy gains of over 100 are pos-
sible. Now, it is seeking two basic changes. The most funda-
mental is the recognition that LENR is a legitimate area of
scientific inquiry, which also has great practical promise.
The second is financial support by governments, which is
normally provided for study of such topics. In the U.S.,
many research subjects are heavily supported for their scien-
tific value, even though they have little or no practical
potential. One example is research by the National Science
Foundation and its collaborators to develop capabilities to
record gravity waves.1 That effort has been funded by more
than $1100M.2 The project has developed remarkably sensi-
tive measurement capabilities, has indeed detected a gravity
wave recently, and is significant scientifically. However, it
does not have the near-term practical promise of LENR.
It seems incongruous to the LENR community that gov-
ernment support of LENR has not happened, again for two
reasons. First, both the global population and the per capita
use of energy are increasing. And, there are strong arguments
for development of clean and distributed energy, which is
free of radiation problems during and after operation, and
also cost-effective. The reasons for this dichotomy between
the promise of LENR and its appropriate funding are clear.
The “scientific community” is viewed as the
gate keeper in deciding what should be fund-
ed by governments. But, the community of
recognized and relevant scientists has had,
and still has, a pair of problems with LENR.
Both are generally understandable. For one, a
small cadre of vocal scientific leaders has
declared that LENR is not worth funding. That
group does not participate in the study of
LENR. And, there is no evidence that it even
stays abreast of developments. Such behavior
might be due to some combination of unwill-
ingness to spend time on LENR, attempts to
maintain formerly good reputations, or per-
sonal financial interests. Further, the broader
community of less influential scientists does
not pay much attention to LENR, despite the
field having many challenging questions.3
Most scientists seem to be busy with their own interests, and
unwilling or unable to get into a new field. So, there is no
pressure on funding agencies from such researchers.
Beyond the recalcitrant and uninformed scientific com-
munity, the general public has a great deal of information
about LENR available to it on the internet. It is hard to quan-
tify such interest. The number of hits on websites with arti-
cles on LENR would be a nice indicator of general interest,
but such information is unavailable. Rothwell publishes the
number of downloads of papers from the lenr.org website, as
a function of month.4 That is a quantitative measure of
interest in detailed information about LENR. However, it is
likely that many, and maybe most, of the people who down-
load articles are researchers and students, and not only the
general public. Figure 1 gives Rothwell’s graphic for a dozen
years. It shows that the average download rate has exceeded
one per minute during a few months.
It is common to use the number of applications and
patents granted per year as a measure of increasing activity
in a developing field. Figure 2 presents such data from a
recent review of LENR.5 As in Figure 1, there is a great deal
of variation in the data. There is somewhat more activity in
the last ten years than in the first ten years of the field.
However, there is no clear trend indicating that LENR has
“broken out.”
One measure of growing interest in LENR is the organiza-
tion of academic programs for research and teaching of
LENR. There were, and remain, significant efforts at many
universities in at least seven countries involving a small
Indicators of Interest
in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
David J. Nagel
Figure 1. Plot of the number of downloads per month from the website lenr.org from the
beginning of 2003 until the present. The horizontal dotted line gives the download rate
of one per minute for a 30 day month. The average for the past six years is about 28K
downloads per month (more than thirty per hour).

number of researchers. And, large university programs now
exist. Three major university programs have been instituted
in the past four years. They are mentioned briefly here, and
detailed in two following summaries written by their leaders.
The Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance
(SKINR) at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri
was organized in 2012. It was founded by Professor Robert
Duncan, with Dr. Graham Hubler as the Scientific Director.
The Center for Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES) was also set
up by Professor Duncan, after he moved to Texas Tech
University in Lubbock, Texas. It began in January of 2015.
Like SKINR, CEES started as a research organization, with the
option of working later on product development. An inter-
nal report stated that Texas Tech University sought “to estab-
lish a center which will initially bridge physics and chem-
istry in the scientific exploration for the origin of the
Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE). Once the origin of the AHE is
established, this center’s effort will shift toward energy engi-
neering, with engagement with mechanical and electrical
engineering.”6 The initial scientific report from CEES is avail-
able on the web.7 It describes early experimental results on
characterization of electrolytic foils, and also lists planned
experimental capabilities. The Condensed Matter Nuclear
Reaction Division (CMNRD) was founded in April of 2015,
when the clean energy company Clean Planet Inc. joined
with Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan. It, too, is first a
research organization, but the CMNRD aims to develop new
technology for clean energy and innovative radioactive
waste processing, in addition to enhancing the basic data
and deepen the understanding of the CMNR mechanism.
Another measure of LENR activity is the increasing num-
ber of companies seeking to develop heat and electrical gen-
erators based on LENR. It is common practice for industries,
old or new, to have Industrial Associations to support the
common interests of their organizations and individuals.
There are thousands of such associations, of which dozens
are focused on energy production, transport, storage and uti-
lization. However, none of them will represent the interests
of the emerging LENR industry. Hence, in April of last year,
Steven Katinsky and this author founded LENRIA.8 It is a
not-for-profit company based in the U.S., but representing
the interests of LENR companies and individuals globally.
Initial activities and plans for LENRIA were described in a
recent article in this magazine.9
Funding by private investors in LENR is an indicator that
is difficult to assess. There is no thorough compilation, part-
ly because such funding is not always publically known. But,
there are some available statements that show substantial
recent interest. Brillouin Energy stated in November of last
year that they have over $9M of investment to date.10
Cherokee Investment Partners has reportedly funded Andrea
Rossi with over $10M.11 Woodford Investment Management
had made a “much larger investment” into Industrial Heat
than Cherokee Investment Partners’ own $10 million invest-
ment.12 It is not known how much has been invested in
companies in countries outside of the U.S. However, some
such companies have substantial investments, as indicated
by published photographs of their laboratories. One exam-
ple is Nichenergy in Italy.13
LENR has not yet broken out of the unusual situation
which has burdened and constrained it for over a quarter of
a century. Hopes for real theoretical understanding have not
materialized. Great efforts to design an experiment that is
fully reproducibly, and also yields strong results, have not
borne fruit. And, no LENR products are on the market yet. In
short, LENR remains a research field having two contradic-
tory characteristics: (a) significant global laboratory and
other activity and (b) no recognition by the larger scientific
community. The plots given in the two figures do not show
great and relatively sudden increases in overall activity lev-
els. They essentially provide baselines for what might be
major increases in interest and activities, when LENR does
shed its shackles to become legitimate science, as well as an
area of increasing commercial interest.
References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
2.http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-
wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/
3. Nagel, D.J. “Questions About Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions,”
Infinite Energy, (a) Mechanisms and Materials, Vol. 20, #118, 15-28,
November/December 2014, (b) Experiments, Theories and
Computations, Vol. 20, #119, 17-36, January/February 2015, and (c)
Engineering, Commercialization and Applications, Vol. 20, #120,
18-38, March/April 2015.
4. Rothwell, J. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CwBlnYM
7IFRjYCQcJ0OGjt-vRbbzqvm6T2Uk4YYsii0/edit#gid=0
5. Pickens, J.R. and Nagel, D.J. “The Status of Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions Technology,” unpublished.
6. http://www.texastech.edu/board-of-regents/december-2014-meeting/
agenda-book.pdf
7.http://www.iccf19.com/_system/download/poster/PS52_Scarborough.pdf
8. lenria.org
9. Katinsky, S.B. and Nagel, D.J. “LENRIA, the New Industrial Association
for Commercialization of LENR,” Infinite Energy, Vol. 21, #123, 17-19,
http://http://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/LENRIAInfiniteEnergy123.pdf
10. Godes, R. http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-energy-corp-hosts-
information-session-on-lenr-thermal-energy-technology-at-u-s-capitol/
11. http://ecat.org/tag/industrial-heat-llc/
12. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/01/woodford-equity-income-
fund-invested-in-industrial-heat-after-2-5-years-of-due-diligence/
13. http://www.nichenergy.com/
Figure 2. Plot of patent related actions, including applications and
granted patents, for the years 1989 through 2013.
Nagel is CEO of NUCAT Energy LLC, a Research Professor at
The George Washington University and co-founder of the
LENRIA Corporation.
*Contact Email: nagel@gwu.edu

Abstract: The Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) is the appear-
ance of excess energy in the form of heat when a Pd cathode
is electrolyzed in heavy water (D2O) and is much less evident
when light water (H2O) is used.1-4 This paper describes the
organization, motivation and plans of an institute formed to
perform fundamental research aimed at discovering the
mechanism of the AHE.
Introduction
The Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance
(SKINR) was established in April 2012 as an entity within the
Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
Missouri (UM) that reports directly to the Vice Chancellor
for Research. The Institute was formed through negotiations
between Dr. Robert Duncan and philanthropist Sidney
Kimmel. Mr. Kimmel provided initial 5-year funding totaling
$5.5 M. The nucleus of the SKINR staff originated with the
company Energetics LLC. Energetics had carried out research
since 2002 in the anomalous heat field.
The MISSION of SKINR is “to find the origin of the
Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) with a sound materials science
approach and with no preconceptions as to the origin of the
phenomenon. To publish findings in the open literature and
to openly collaborate worldwide with researchers in the field
and in cross disciplines.”
The SKINR staff is composed of:
Orchideh Azizi, Ph.D. (Electrochemist)
Arik El-Boher, Ph.D. (Group Leader, Mechanical Engineer)
Jinghao He, Ph.D. (Materials Scientist)
Graham K. Hubler, Ph.D. (Director, Physicist)
Martin De Stefano (Technician)
Dennis Pease, Ph.D. (Physicist)
Additional members include four undergraduate students at
SKINR, three graduate students, two Post-Docs and two
research staff in collaborating departments.
Dr. Duncan initiated SKINR projects with several UM pro-
fessors. Their activities are supported and guided by SKINR.
The experiments are fundamental investigations into aspects
related to the Anomalous Heat Effect. The collaborators, and
a short description of their experiments, are listed below:
Prof. John Gahl, Electrical Engineering: Pd(d,p); Ni(p,p),
high intensity ion bombardment using MURR cyclotron,
reaction cross-section and exploding PdH/PdD wires using
pulsed power
Prof. Shubhra Gangopadhyay, Electrical Engineering:
Carbon nanotubes (CNT) and graphene-oxide based
cathodes, nanoparticle deposition on cathodes, artifi-
cially structured cathodes and Pd/Pt/Au deposition on
membranes
Prof. Kattesh Kattie, Dept. of Radiology: In situ Pd
nanoparticle deposition on Pd cathodes
Prof. Mark Prelas, Nuclear Engineering: PdH/NiH
films deposited on Diamond particle detectors and
neutrons from thermally shocked TiDx
The facilities in-house at SKINR are shown in Table
1 and in the photographs. Our materials fabrication
capabilities are detailed in Table 2. Dr. Gangopadhyay
has a complete VLSI capability that SKINR makes use
of through our strong collaboration.
SKINR collaborates worldwide with several of the
foremost institutions involved in AHE research. These
are detailed in Figure 1. It shows the time-line of
involvement by the collaborators, the U.S. funding
sources (depleted as of 2013), and the path of
Energetics Inc. from a company formed in Israel, to
Overview of the
Sidney Kimmel Institute
for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR)
G.K. Hubler, A. El-Boher, O. Azizi, D. Pease, J.H. He, S. Gangopadhyay
Table 1. SKINR experimental systems.

moving to Missouri, to being incorporated into the UM sys-
tem as an institute in 2012.
Sorting out which experiments will bear fruit is the most
difficult task of SKINR. Due to limited resources, we cannot
pursue many of the experiments we believe would help elu-
cidate the mechanism of anomalous heat. Anomalous heat
is fundamentally a solid-state-physics problem requiring
new information about the local environment around Pd
and D atoms (and Ni and H atoms). New experiments that
we think are important, a few of which we are pursuing,
include:
Nuclear Mechanism
—Real time detection of low-energy emissions with a
thin membrane system
—Move materials to Ge cave detector ~ minutes after
MJ heat event
—Try to detect 4He in closed cell by mass spectroscopy
General Mechanism
—In situ neutron scattering during heat events (in dis-
cussion with several groups)
—Systematically study effects of polarizing (pulsed)
magnetic field
—Stimulate AHE using a femtosecond laser in the
structured palladium deuteride system
—Stimulate by tuning acoustic frequencies to resonate
with defect processes in cathodes
—Fabricate surface-structured cathodes
—Perform in situ perturbed angular correlation (PAC)
Hyperfine field measurements during heat production
at CERN (performed May-July 2015, to be published)
—Perform in situ Mossbauer (in discussion)
—Hydrogen permeation kinetics studies using two
cells separated by Pd membrane5
Solid State Theory
—Density functional theory for electronic band struc-
ture of D in Pd and its alloys
Cathode Development (many choices)
—Self assembled Pd nanoparticle cathodes
—Pd coated carbon nanotube/graphene oxide cathodes
—Artificially structured Pd cathodes
—New alloy compositions
—Understand the metallurgy of Pd in the process of
cold rolling and thermal annealing5
—Understand the role of electrolyte impurities on the
ability to obtain high D/Pd fractions
High Temperature Gas Loading of Ni-H System
—Use SKINR gas reactor to explore heat production in
Ni powder/LiAlH up to 1200°C
As an example of a new experimental method,
Figure 2 shows schematically the thin membrane
experiment being carried out at SKINR and ENEA.6
The thin membrane allows transmission of X-rays
down to 1 keV, alpha particles over ~20 keV and RF
out of the electrochemical system to be sensed by the
appropriate detectors in air. Most calorimeters have
power sensitivity in the range of 1 to 10 mW. Suppose
that the anomalous heat mechanism is active much of the
time but at the micro-, nano- or pico-Watt level. The
calorimeter is insensitive to such low power outputs. If, for
example, in the membrane experiment we detect a 1 keV X-
ray at a rate of 1 Hz, the corresponding power is 0.2 fem-
towatts, an excess power sensitivity improvement of 1012.
This experiment was run for over a year with null results.6
It is running now, improved by depositing a Pt resistor tem-
perature sensor over 100 nm Al2O3 directly on the air side of
a 50 µm thick Pd membrane. That arrangement provides a
very fast, sensitive thermal measurement.
Table 2. SKINR materials fabrication capabilities.
Figure 1. Time-line of SKINR formation and collaborators.
Figure 2. Schematic of membrane experiment.

While the AHE mechanism is not clear, certain facts have
become apparent regarding features of cathodes that will
produce excess heat. Here we list these facts that have been
collected for years.
Facts that support generation of excess heat
—[100] texture of polycrystalline grains2,4
—Laser triggering
—Magnetic polarization (from Mitchell Swartz, Dennis
Cravens, Dennis Letts)
—D loading ratio 0.88
—Specific cathode preparation2,4
Facts describing foil cathode surface
—Surface contaminants important (Pt, Ni, Fe, Si, Al, other?)
—Labyrinth morphology promotes excess heat2,4
—Peaks in power spectral density correlated with appearance
and amplitude of anomalous heat2,4
—Strong RF emission from heat producing cathodes
Summary
SKINR owes its existence to Sidney Kimmel, Energetics LLC,
CBS News and Dr. Rob Duncan. We are studying both elec-
trochemical and gas loading experiments in palladium deu-
terium/hydrogen systems, but with main emphasis on the
electrochemical method where we have had all of our posi-
tive results. Our near-term goals are increasing reproducibil-
ity in electrolysis experiments, and mechanistic studies that
may lead to improved understanding of the origin of anom-
alous heat. Results from more fundamental experiments are
needed to be able to formulate a working model for the FPE.
Extensive collaborations were developed inside UM and
with outside institutions, and we invite more collaborators.
We believe in open research objectives, plans and publica-
tion of results. We have much optimism at SKINR that the
rate of unraveling the mysteries of the AHE is accelerating.
References
1. Hubler, G.K. 2007. “Anomalous Effects in Hydrogen-
Charged Pd: A Review,” Surf. Coatings Tech., 201, 8568.
2. Violante, V., Castagna, E., Lecci, S., Sarto, F., Sansovini, M.,
Makris, T.D., Torre, A., Knies, D., Kidwell, D., Grabowski, K.,
Dominguez, D., Hubler, G.K., Duncan, R., El Boher, A., Azizi,
O., McKubre, M. and La Gatta, A. 2013. “Excess of Power
During Electrochemical Loading: Materials, Electrochemical
MU Engineering Building West Lab-139,
electrolytic open cell experiments.
ultrasonically excited electrolytic experiments.
MU Engineering Building West Lab-135, sample preparation room. MU Physics Building Lab-301.
hermetically sealed closed electrolytic experiments.

Conditions and Techniques,” Proc. 18th Inter. Conf. on Cold
Fusion.
3. Azizi, O., El-Boher, A., He, J.H., Hubler, G.K., Pease, D.,
Isaacson, W., Violante, V. and Gangopadhyay, S. 2015.
“Progress Towards Understanding Anomalous Heat Effect in
Metal Deuterides,” Cur. Sci., 108, 565.
4. Violante, V., Castagna, E., Lecci, S., Sarto, F., Sansovini, M.,
Torre, A., LaGatta, A., Duncan, R., Hubler, G.K., El-Boher, A.,
Azizi, O., Pease, D., Knies, D. and McKubre, M. 2015.
“Review of Materials Science for Studying the Fleischmann-
Pons Effect,” Cur. Sci., 108, 540.
5. Azizi, O., He, J., Paterson, D., El-Boher, A., Pease, D. and
Hubler, G. 2015. “Effect of Cathode Pretreatment and
Chemical Additives on H/D Absorption into Palladium via
Electrochemical Permeation,” Proc. ICCF19, April 2015,
Padua, Italy, to be published.
6. Pease, D., Azizi, O., He, J., El-Boher, A., Bok, S., Mathai, C.,
Gangopadhyay, S., Katti, K., Katti, Kav. and Hubler, G. 2015.
“Search for Low-energy X-ray and Particle Emissions from an
Electrochemical Cell,” Proc. ICCF19, April 2015, Padua, Italy,
to be published.
Hubler, El-Boher, Azizi, Pease and He are in the Department
of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri
(Columbia). Gangopadhyay is in the Department of
Electrical Engineering at the University of Missouri
(Columbia).
*Contact Email: hublerg@missouri.edu
Fusion in All Its Forms
Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations
by Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian
In 1989, when the announcement of the dis-
covery of cold fusion was made, Biberian
embarked on an extraordinary, promising
adventure. Would it be possible to produce
unlimited energy at low cost? Many laborato-
ries and scientists throughout the world tried
to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experi-
ment. But cold fusion did not happen in one
day. This is Biberian’s personal story working
in the cold fusion field, set in the context of
the greater human and scientific story of cold
fusion. With a preface by Stanley Pons.
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Paperback, 2015, 145 pages
$21 U.S. — $30 Canada — $30 Mexico — $36 Other Foreign
Prices include shipping.
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
The second edition of Excess Heat
offers a greatly expanded presenta-
tion of the evidence for low level
nuclear reactions as the source of
excess heat, and the discharge of
excess heat without the presence of
an input excitation energy.
$26 U.S. / $44 Canada
$49 Mexico / $52 Other
(Prices Include Postage)
Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed
by Charles G. Beaudette
2002, 440 pp.
Download Digital Copies of Infinite Energy
http://www.infinite-energy.com/store/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=10
Nuclear Transmutation:
The Reality of Cold Fusion
by Tadahiko Mizuno
$10.00 U.S.
$18.00 Canada
$25.00 Mexico
$28.00 Other Foreign
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Website: www.infinite-energy.com
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
THE ENERGY SOLUTION REVOLUTION
Dr. Brian O’Leary
Explore the reality, promise and ongoing
suppression of breakthrough clean and
free energy research, from the perspective
of a veteran futurist and energy scientist
who has witnessed and reported on
experiments firsthand.
$21 U.S. / $32 Canada
(Prices include shipping.)
New Energy Foundation • P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
www.infinite-energy.com

Abstract
A new division devoted to Condensed Matter Nuclear
Reactions (CMNR) was established at the Research Center for
Electron Photon Science of Tohoku University in April 2015.
This is the first official research division for condensed mat-
ter nuclear science and its application in Japan. This division
consist of researchers from Tohoku University, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries and Clean Planet Inc., who have been
actively engaged in the field of CMNR. In this division, fun-
damental research on condensed matter nuclear reaction,
and RD on energy generation and nuclear waste deconta-
mination, will be performed.
1. Purpose of the Division
With the aim of creating revolutionary innovation in the
energy industry, the Research Center for Electron Photon
Science at Tohoku University and Clean Planet Inc. have
established a Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division.
Through this new joint research collaboration, we will per-
form the following:
1) Fundamental research on Condensed Matter Nuclear
Reactions (CMNR)
2) Development of a new energy generation method
3) Development of a new nuclear waste decontamination
method
Experimental data that indicates the presence of CMNR
has been accumulated and experimental conditions for
inducing CMNR are gradually becoming clear, although sys-
tematic experimental studies are still insufficient. So we will
obtain more systematic data and improve the reliability of
measurements of CMNR. That should lead to better under-
standing of ultra-low-energy nuclear reactions in condensed
matter. We will also work on application development
research aimed at commercializing new clean energy devices
and new nuclear waste decontamination methods. We hope
to bring major changes to Japan’s energy industry, through
the conceptual change of conventional nuclear reactions.
2. Organization of the Division
The organization of the new division is illustrated in Figure
1. Jirohta Kasagi, Yasuhiro Iwamura, Hidetoshi Kikunaga,
Takehiko Itoh and Hideki Yoshino participate in the division.
Iwamura and Itoh were investigating nuclear transmuta-
tion reactions observed in the nano-sized Pd complexes
induced by D2 gas permeation. They left Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. at the end of March 2015 to join the divi-
sion. Now, Iwamura is a research professor of Tohoku
University and Itoh is a visiting associate professor. Itoh is
also a director of Clean Planet Inc. Kasagi is a professor emer-
itus, who has been investigating the electronic and ionic
screening effects on low-energy nuclear reactions in con-
densed matter. Kikunaga is an associate professor and has
been engaged in the field of radiochemistry. Yoshino is a vis-
iting researcher in this division and also a CEO of Clean
Planet Inc. In addition, doctoral and master course students
are helping our research, but actually, only Itoh, Kasagi and
Iwamura are the research forces for this division.
The nuclear waste decontamination research is supported
as a feasibility study by the ImPACT Program “Reduction
and Resource Recycle of High Level Radioactive Wastes with
Nuclear Transformation,” which is a Japanese national
research project. The Electron Photon Science of Tohoku
University and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries jointly partici-
pate in this project.
3. Research Plan
The outline of our research plan is shown in Figure 2. As for
excess heat generation, we will seek the most probable
Introduction of Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science at Tohoku University
Yasuhiro Iwamura, Jirohta Kasagi,
Hideki Yoshino, Masanao Hattori, Hidetoshi Kikunaga
Research Center for
Electron Photon Science
at Tohoku University.

method for energy generation for two years. We will try new
methods of excess heat generation based on Mizuno’s meth-
ods and the transmutation method induced by D2 gas per-
meation. It is very important to measure the released heat
precisely as well as to evaluate correct input power. We will
develop an elementary method for energy generation until
FY2016, and we will ascertain its feasibility as a new energy
source. The focus in this stage will be on controllability and
reliability of energy production reactions.
A research program aimed toward the confirmation of
anomalous excess heat using nano-metals, which is spon-
sored through the New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO), began on October 26,
2015. A joint research team of six institutions (two compa-
nies: Technova and Nissan; four universities: Tohoku,
Kyushu, Nagoya and Kobe) will carry out the first year pro-
gram until October 31, 2016. The experimental program will
involve four areas:
a) development of a new calorimetry system at Tohoku
University with the assistance of Technova;
b) joint experiments to analyze for excess heat using nano-
Figure 1. Organization of the Condensed
Matter Nuclear Reaction Division of the
Research Center for Electron Photon
Science at Tohoku University.
Figure 2. Outline of the Tohoku University research plan.

metal composite samples with gas-loading experiments at
Kobe University and other laboratories;
c) materials science research at Nagoya University and
Kyushu University; and
d) evaluation and survey studies by Technova and Nissan.
We hope to achieve the first year targets and to proceed for
the second year extended plan.
Dr. Sasaki, who is visiting professor in the planning sec-
tion of the school of engineering of Tohoku University, has
given much attention for our research activity. He explained
our research results to the professors in the school of engi-
neering. Then, Dr. Hashizume, who is a professor of
Department of Quantum Science and Energy Engineering,
decided to send a graduate student of the doctoral course
into our division. Our collaboration has just started this
month and we are now planning our joint research.
Nuclear transmutation research will performed with fund-
ing from the ImPACT program. Pr, which is transmuted from
Cs, will be re-confirmed by other methods such as RBS
(Rutherford Backscattering). We will confirm that Pr is trans-
muted from Cs by RBS. Stable Zr, Se and Pd transmutation
will be tried using the transmutation method in the nano-
sized Pd complexes induced by D2 gas permeation. If we
obtain the positive results, we will be able to go to the next
stage. We will make transmutation experiments using
radioactive isotopes for nuclear radioactive waste decontam-
ination after FY2016.
Fundamental Research on Condensed Matter Nuclear
Reactions (CMNR) will be performed through these two
research activities. We hope to clarify what is happening
during CMNR by obtaining systematic experimental data.
Iwamura and Kasagi are with the Condensed Matter
Nuclear Reaction Division, Research Center for Electron
Photon Science, Tohoku University, Japan. Yoshino,
Hattori and Kikunaga are with Clean Planet Inc., Japan.
*Contact Email: iwamura@lns.tohoku.ac.jp
As the global need for clean, renewable
energy grows, it is time to look to the
geniuses of our past (Tesla, Schauberger,
Rife, Brown) and the visionaries of the
future for answers. Includes essays from
Jeane Manning, Edmund Storms, Ted
Loder, Marc Seifer, Brian O’Leary, Steven
Greer, Tom Valone and others. (2013,
Paperback, 380 pages)
Infinite Energy Technologies:
Tesla, Cold Fusion, Antigravity and the Future of Sustainability
Finley Eversole, ed.
$20 U.S. / $32 Canada
$35 Mexico / $38 Other Foreign
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Nuclear Alternative: Redesigning Our
Model of the Structure of Matter
William L. Stubbs
Offers an alternative explanation for the structure of
matter. By redesigning the models of the proton, neu-
tron and electron, and developing a nuclear binding
mechanism similar to covalent bonds in atoms, the
book systematically develops models for more than
250 stable nuclei. It then uses the models to explain
alpha and beta decay and nuclear fission and fusion.
$22 U.S. / $28 Canada
(Prices include shipping.)
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Website: www.infinite-energy.com
Perpetual Motion:
The History of an Obsession
by Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume
$21 U.S. / $32 Canada
2005, Paperback, 247 pages
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
The Orgone Accumulator Handbook
by James DeMeo
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
$25 U.S. / $35 Canada
This book is a well-written, extremely useful
introduction to orgone energy research. It
describes in great detail the construction
techniques for making orgone accumulators.
The book combines history, philosophy,
many practical experiments and references
to original documents.
Paperback, 2010 Edition, 248 pp.

Introduction
The origins of the cosmos are revealed in the distribution
and motion of the masses present therein. The Big Bang the-
ory continues to dominate modern cosmology despite its
many failures.1 That theory concludes the visible universe
had its origin in a single primordial explosion which scat-
tered particles outwardly for enormous distances in all direc-
tions. These particles were drawn together by gravity to form
the bright objects we see. If this is correct the distribution of
mass in the cosmos and their motions should follow from
the existence of a single primordial explosion and the
actions of gravity.
I have consistently concluded that the basic physics (see
The Vortex Theory, revised in 2015 and available from IE in
pdf form) that what we see is not the result of a single pri-
mordial explosion,1 but is instead the result of the separate
explosions of black holes formed in prior universes.2 On an
immense scale these black holes are thought to be uniform-
ly distributed in an endless space. But on the limited scale of
the visible universe these holes are non-uniformly distrib-
uted, having been concentrated by gravity while in those
prior universes.
If this alternative scenario (termed the cycle of the uni-
verse because the visible galaxies will ultimately be con-
sumed by their central black holes to set the stage for anoth-
er universe) is correct, then the distribution of mass in the
cosmos and their motions therein should follow out of a plu-
rality of primordial explosions, one for each black hole of
galactic mass, to form separate galaxies.
The Creation of Time and Space
The Big Bang theory suggests a single primordial explosion
created space and time, but how this happened is never
explained. This is an illustration of the fantasies which per-
vade modern astrophysics. Two points are noted. First, rela-
tivity equations have been interpreted to reach this conclu-
sion because they provide an imaginary answer when one
assumes negative time. But negative time is an imaginary
parameter, so an imaginary answer is forced by an imaginary
parameter. Second, the gamma ray bursts that I conclude are
primordial explosions take place at a time and in a space
which existed when each explosion occurred—so those
bursts do not create space or time.
The Density of the Cosmos
The cosmos is characterized by a low density. While the
galaxies have great mass they are far apart, so the large-scale
density of luminous matter is low. How could a single pri-
mordial explosion produce enormous concentrations of
mass which are so far apart when gravity is so weak it could
not have sufficiently concentrated the particles or evacuated
the space between the galaxies in the less than 14 billion
years available in Big Bang thinking? The concentration of
mass is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory.
The Distribution of the Product
of a Primordial Explosion
We don’t know the nature of the Big Bang explosion. It was
thought to have released an enormous amount of energy
from a very small source (a singularity). The singularity basis
for a black hole, which was the prevailing wisdom for many
years, is now considered wrong—in agreement with
Einstein’s 1939 conclusion, so the basis for a primordial
explosion is wrong.1,2,3
When energy is released at a high energy level from a
small source in the laboratory most of the gamma ray pho-
tons produced interact with one another and nearby parti-
cles to form a concentration of particles close to the source
of energy release. So the formation of the cosmos in which
the visible objects are not concentrated close to the single
primordial explosion is inconsistent with our experience.
Ignoring experience is a characteristic of reliance upon fan-
tasies.
Gamma Ray Bursts
Gamma ray bursts are received from remote space.
Astrophysics and NASA were quite sure the source of these
bursts was mostly within our own and other nearby galax-
ies.2 Bursts emit an enormous number of high-energy pho-
tons and high-energy particles, some of which escape the
source of energy release. Our experience suggests that most
of the released energy will form particles which remain close
to the site of energy release forming an object which, like a
black hole, is not visible.
This black hole conclusion is one of the few NASA con-
clusions about gamma ray bursts with which I agree. Their
reasoning for this conclusion appears limited to the failure
to find any visible residue of the bursts. Judging from the
amount of gamma ray photons and cosmic ray particles
received and the distance to the source, the particulate mass
formed is both small and massive enough to form a galaxy,
so the burst is of primordial character.
Photons leaving the site of the explosion will strike parti-
cles which reduce their energy level. The greater the mass
the more particles in that mass and the interaction of the
The Cosmological Implications of Mass Distribution and Motion
Arnold G. Gulko*

photons with the particles will lower the average energy
level of the escaping photons. This is why the shorter the
gamma ray burst which produce fewer particles yield the
greater average energy level of the photons we receive. NASA
was surprised by this observation.
NASA attributed gamma ray bursts to the supernova of a
sun of immense mass,4 but supernovas create a persistent
small zone of immense radiation not formed by a gamma ray
burst. Supernovas also provide only a small amount of
gamma radiation. So NASA relied upon another fantasy.
Assuming an especially large supernova would be rich in
gamma radiation it would cause the longer bursts associated
with suns of greater mass to contain a higher proportion of
gamma radiation than the shorter bursts. So NASA had con-
fused gamma ray bursts with supernovas, and we see why
NASA could not explain the average energy level of the
bursts despite the simple answer noted above.
When NASA’s fantasy was published, no supernova of a
sun of immense mass had ever been encountered. But in
September 2006 a supernova of an incredibly massive sun
240 million light-years away was observed.5 That supernova
was nothing like NASA expected. So NASA had another of
their fantasies to hide. They suggested the missing gamma
rays were confined to jets not pointed at us. But supernovas
explode in all directions and don’t produce jets. Also, and
unlike a gamma ray burst, a strong and continuing visual
luminosity was seen for nine months following the super-
nova explosion. One must marvel at the lack of logic and the
inability to confront the facts which characterize many of
NASA’s conclusions. Gamma ray bursts are discussed in my
2005 paper.2
The Cosmological Principle
In the Big Bang theory the cosmos has a relatively uniform
distribution of particles and the objects formed from those
particles. The mass distribution was thus expected to be
homogeneous and isotropic, a conclusion known as the cos-
mological principle. That principle has been a mainstay of
modern astrophysics,1 but is it correct?
What are the observations relating to the uniform distri-
bution of mass? The June 1999 issue of Scientific American
contains an article entitled “Mapping the Universe” by
Stephen D. Landy which pictures the “Large Scale Structure in
the Universe.” That article demonstrates that the universe on
every scale up to a spherical volume 100 million light years in
diameter is mostly empty space. This conclusion is extended
by Landy to include space at much greater distances. Landy
states: “...on scales of up to 100 million light-years, galaxies
are distributed as a fractal.” He insists “the fractal findings
seemed to pull the rug out from under modern cosmology.”
Do we throw out the cosmological principle because it has
encountered this inconsistency with observation?
On a scale of hundreds of millions of light-years surveys
were interpreted to suggest the fractal nature of galaxy dis-
tribution broke down and became a “noise process.”
Hooray—the cosmological principle had been saved! But
those surveys were poorly done. As stated by Landy: “A
(later) high-resolution survey detected a ‘Great Wall’ 750
million light-years long, more than 250 million light-years
wide and 20 million light-years thick. A noise process could
not readily explain such a colossal and coherent structure.”
Landy refers to still larger mapping projects limited to
objects up to a distance of 2 billion light-years and to a few
thin slices of space. The result showed clustering on an enor-
mous scale. The problem is the clustering at greater distances
involved much larger structures than those at shorter dis-
tances.
From the perspective of its power spectrum, a model
based on the existence of dark matter failed. How nice, for I
have always refused to accept the existence of dark matter.
Landy concludes: “The association of these walls and voids
with the deviation in the power spectrum is a crucial finding
of the Las Campanas survey. It means that on this scale, the
galaxy distribution cannot be fully characterized using the
mathematics of random noise.”
Galaxy Clustering
The immense clustering at distances in excess of 600 million
light-years upsets the essence of how galactic structures form
in a Big Bang universe.2 Landy states: “If gravity were the
culprit, galaxy clustering should have begun on small scales
and then worked its way up to large scales. For the past two
decades, such a bottom-up scenario...has been the paradigm
for explaining structures on scales smaller than about 150
million light-years. Yet the deviations in our survey begin to
appear at much larger scales, but [this paradigm] cannot
explain the walls and voids on the larger scales.”
The bottom-up scenario for the formation of clusters of
mass is logical in the Big Bang theory because the process of
drawing particles together to first form suns, then galaxies
and then clusters and finally superclusters of galaxies is driv-
en by gravity and progresses with time. This forces clustering
to increase as the universe ages, so what we see should be
younger as the distance from us increases. Since the reverse
has been observed, the bottom-up scenario for the formation
of galaxies and galaxy clusters is dead.
In the universe cycle theory this universe is another in an
endless series of universes. Gravity is an attractive force, so
one can expect it would slowly draw the galaxies together.
While some concentration of the galaxies over a plurality of
universes seems to be unavoidable, only limited clustering
could occur during a single universe. So we must recognize
several facts. First, even within the clusters the galaxies are
still far apart. Second, the galaxies string out to concentrate
around the voids. Third, some remote voids and some
remote clusters are larger than those near us. This mass dis-
tribution is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. Is it fair to
ask how the universe cycle theory matches the observed
clustering of galaxies?
To consider this issue one must understand how gravity is
provided by mass and how it is responded to. The following
summarizes this issue, which is more fully discussed in earli-
er papers.2,3
Particles are formed when high-energy photons decay.
Since the decaying photons were moving at light speed, the
released concentrated energy must initially have been mov-
ing at light speed, and this motion must be continuous to
allow a particle formed from that energy to persist. Also, the
amount of energy, its path of motion and its velocity must
be balanced so every particle of given type will have the
same rest mass.
Logic suggests the velocity must slow even if the rate of

slowing is too tiny to measure. As the velocity slows addi-
tional energy must be absorbed from the surrounding space
to maintain the balance. Since absorption is cumulative it
will produce a low-energy pressure in and around any sig-
nificant mass.
This low pressure is continuously generated and propa-
gates away by contact response through the energy continu-
um filling space as a continuous wave to provide the gravi-
tational field. So the gravitational field is a pressure gradient
which extends from the low pressure in and around a gravi-
tating mass to the higher pressure in remote space. This pres-
sure difference exists across all the particles in an object
mass, and it accelerates everything toward the low pressure
source of the field.
Applying the above description of gravity to a black hole,5
the immense mass providing the hole produces an extreme-
ly low pressure in and around that mass. Since gravity is the
low pressure it cannot avoid passing through the hole’s
event horizon to provide the gravity associated with the
hole. But the energy density within the event horizon can be
insufficient to enable light propagation. This is why light
cannot propagate within the hole although particle jets do
not need to propagate, and so can exit the hole. The pre-
vailing wisdom is that neither photons nor particles can
escape the hole because they would have to exceed light-
speed to do so. This is wrong, for particles do leave the hole
as jets.
This low pressure in and around the hole also makes it dif-
ficult for an external gravity to penetrate into the hole. So
black holes generate gravity, but the matter providing the
hole will resist responding to an external gravity to an
unknown extent. Since gravity is a pressure gradient which
forms a continuous wave, an external gravity may have a
limited capacity to enter the hole. The more massive the
black hole, the poorer its response to a weak gravitational
field. In a growing galaxy the gravity of the galaxy is strong
and the hole is growing and does not have its full mass, but
when the galaxy has been absorbed the external gravity is
weaker and the hole is more massive.
The galaxies in our visible universe respond to gravity and
are being drawn together. But the central black holes gain
mass with time, so when space contains only black holes of
galactic mass they retain their inertial motion but respond
poorly to a weak external gravity and hence move apart.
Galaxy clustering and the formation of enormous voids
thus result from gravitational concentration extending over
many universes which have occupied this region of space,
one after another. This provides the time needed to form
galaxy superclusters and to organize these and to empty the
voids between them.
The stringing of galaxies
The stringing of galaxies is also a normal attribute of gravity
acting when many massive objects move together in the
same general direction in a weak gravitational field. This is
what forms the strings surrounding a void or in a wall of
galaxies.
Stringing is illustrated by the motion of the outer suns in
the Milky Way galaxy and in the outer suns of other rotating
galaxies near enough for observation. These outer suns move
together in a region where the central gravity is very weak,
so each sun is speeded and drags the nearby energy contin-
uum with it. The result, as Newton apparently thought
would happen if gravity propagated through space at a finite
speed, is the velocity of these orbiting suns is speeded
because the moving suns encounter gravity’s attractive force
at a slight angle.6 Where gravity is strong it captures the sur-
rounding energy continuum which maintains the pressure
gradient and thus acts instantaneously.
Inertia is motion with respect to the energy continuum.
The outer suns possess an absolute motion through space
which is too rapid to remain in the galaxy. But when the
outer suns are moving together, they capture the nearby
continuum and drag it with them, the dragged energy
moves slower than the moving suns. So the motion of the
surrounding continuum must be subtracted from the sun’s
absolute motion, and this reduces the inertial motion to
match the galaxy’s gravity.
Applying this known capacity of massive objects to par-
ticipate in a common motion, one must expect the suns
extending around the voids to be moving together in a weak
central gravity and, as a result, will drag the surrounding
energy to increase their absolute motion and align them-
selves into strings.
The actions of forming superclusters, emptying the voids
and forming the strings which extend between the super-
clusters cannot be provided by the weak force of gravity
within the limited time of a Big Bang universe. But when
these actions take place over a plurality of universes there is
sufficient time to form the large scale structures which have
been observed. In an exceptional case we have the formation
of elongated galactic walls of immense size and the produc-
tion of superclusters and voids in remote space which are
larger than those near us. The formation of more concen-
trated structures in remote space is aided by the fact that our
universe grew from a central location which has had more
time to expand, as discussed hereafter.
Ron Cowen in the May 31, 2003 issue of Science News con-
siders the clumping of galaxies which don’t behave logically
in the Big Bang theory. It was expected that a cluster of older
galaxies would be drawn together over a longer time to
clump more tightly, while a cluster of younger galaxies
would be drawn together over a shorter time to clump less
tightly. As stated by Cowen: “...standard theory...permits a
continuum, from very tight to very loose clustering. The sur-
vey however, denies the middle ground.”
So the extensive survey of two million galaxies reported
by Cowen reveals old tightly clustered galaxies and young
loosely clustered galaxies, but no clusters of intermediate age
and intermediate clustering. The Big Bang theory fails to
explain this curiosity.
So a logical projection based on the Big Bang theory leads
to error. A scientist must do two things. The prevailing wis-
dom must be conceded to be wrong—and this has been
done. A scientist must also determine what caused the error.
This second step is omitted, and this invites additional errors.
But there is only one source of error—the Big Bang theo-
ry which demands the clustering of galaxies started with the
start of the universe. But that theory is sacrosanct.
Astrophysicists cannot consider themselves scientists with-
out accepting the rules of science in which every theory
must be tested in every plausible way whenever the oppor-
tunity arises.
When one appreciates that structures evolve out of what

happened in prior universes, the actions become compre-
hensible. Clusters become denser as they age. But the
motion of matter in the form of black holes of galactic mass
is dominated by inertia, so these holes drift apart. A dense
cluster reduces the energy density in the surrounding space
more rapidly than a loose cluster. So the time available for a
dense cluster to exhaust the surrounding energy is reduced,
and the holes in that cluster explode more quickly, which
reduces the separation caused by inertial drift.
So the more densely clustered regions form dense clusters
in the next universe more quickly and the less densely clus-
tered regions form loose clusters of galaxies more slowly.
This causes the galaxies in the more densely clustered
regions to form more rapidly and thus be older than the
galaxies in the loosely clustered regions—and intermediate
situations are minimized.
Martin A. Bucher and David N. Spergel discuss the para-
doxes inherent in the Big Bang theory in the January 1999
issue of Scientific American. They state: “Two decades ago cos-
mologists resolved these troubling inconsistencies by incor-
porating ideas from particle physics—giving rise to the the-
ory of ‘inflation.’ But now this elaboration is facing a crises
brought on by recent observations that contradict its predic-
tion for the average density of matter in the cosmos.
Cosmologists are realizing the universe may not be as simple
as they had thought. Either they must posit the existence of
an exotic form of matter or energy, or they must add a layer
of complexity to the theory of inflation.”
So when a long-cherished theory encounters inconsisten-
cies, the only options available to a professional astrophysi-
cist do not include throwing out the theory which created
the problem.
The stellar redshift
One problem is the accepted concept that the stellar redshift
denotes recessional motion in the same way the Doppler
effect influences sound. Edwin Hubble in his 1939 text
refused to accept that conclusion which relies upon the red-
shift to determine the outward motion of cosmological
objects. Hubble suggested redshift resulted from the progres-
sive loss of energy from a photon traversing space—and was
scorned for that conclusion. I conclude that redshift mostly
arises out of the progressive loss of energy to sustain the
wave which carries a photon through the energy continuum
filling space. The error of the prevailing wisdom is it leads to
the conclusion that very remote objects are moving away at
enormous velocities, sometimes a velocity greater than light-
speed. This conclusion jars the mind. It is also inconsistent
with the slow velocity suggested by observing remote super-
novas.
Bucher and Spergel try to evade the excessive velocity sug-
gesting: “The objects themselves stood still relative to the
space around them. It was space itself that came to expand
faster than light.” If such expansion took place, light from
that space could not propagate fast enough to reach us, but
it does. Expansion is also inconsistent with the high object
density revealed by the Hubble mosaic of extremely remote
objects. It would be nice if astrophysicists considered the
facts.
So we must discard the recessional motion interpretation
of the stellar redshift which is the concept the Big Bang the-
ory was based upon. We must then replace that basis with
the concept of empty space controlling the motion of mas-
sive bodies. This replacement involves the presence of an
ether which astrophysics has always scorned. The facts estab-
lish that recessional motion is not determined by redshift,7
so the replacement concept is just another fantasy.
Bucher and Spergel discuss the ratio of gravitational ener-
gy to kinetic energy defined by Ω. They suggest this ratio
would have magnified itself over time from an initial perfect
balance of Ω = 1.0. If this were not so they suggest the cur-
rent ratio would be either zero or infinity. This forces the ini-
tial value to be exactly 1.0. They attribute this miracle to
“dumb luck.” Without a single primordial explosion, dumb
luck would not be needed.
There is a lack of balance between the outward velocity
suggested by redshift and the mass which might provide the
gravity needed to bring this universe back to its starting
point for the Big Bang start of another universe. This ratio of
outward velocity to the ability of gravity to stop that veloci-
ty is now only about 0.03. If we include dark matter (which
cannot exist), this ratio is increased to 0.30. To stretch this to
1.0 (as demanded by inflation) requires abandoning
Newtonian physics upon which modern physics is based.
Wouldn’t you know Newtonian physics is now being aban-
doned.8
The Expanding Universe
Let us assume the visible universe is expanding because the
duration and brightness of remote supernovas suggests it is
expanding.7 The observed expansion is slow rather than the
greater than light-speed expansion suggested by redshift.
In the universe cycle theory the visible universe was
formed by the gamma ray explosion of black holes left over
from prior universes. These explosions produced dense par-
ticulate masses that expanded into quasars which expanded
to form the galaxies.9 These bursts, quasars and galaxies all
release energy. This energy loss reduces the mass density of
the visible universe making its density lower than the space
outside the visible universe where the black holes have not
yet exploded.
Matter provides gravity in proportion to its mass, so the
matter in the visible universe must be accelerating outward-
ly toward the region of greater mass density. This expansion
further reduces the mass density of the visible universe
which speeds the expansion process. So the observed expan-
sion provoked by the normal action of gravity does not
require a single big bang.
The actual expansion is peculiar. The Big Bang theory
demands the expansion in extremely remote space must
slow because of the universe’s gravity behind it. But the evi-
dence establishes this expansion is accelerating, and this
undermines the Big Bang theory. So the motion in remote
space provides an important cosmological thrust which was
a surprise to existing astrophysics.8
We see the same number of objects of every type in every
direction. So the disposition of objects in space establishes
our central positioning, thus providing a significant cosmo-
logical fact. Since we are so far from the outer portions of the
visible universe the expansion here is now minimal. The
spacing of the galaxies near us is the result of a long-term
expansion which took place over billions of years when the
universe was young and which can be expected to have

greatly reduced the object density near us. But near the outer
periphery of the universe the expansion has just started and
should be minimal.10
So in the Big Bang theory the outer portions of space
should have the lowest object density while, in fact, it has
the highest object density (90 times greater than here).
Accordingly, the object densities in space have established
the universe is not expanding in the manner demanded by
the Big Bang theory. But the observed expansion is what is
needed to match the requirements of the Gulko universe
cycle theory.
The Age of the Universe
The distribution of the mass we observe tells us something
about the age of the universe. In Big Bang thinking this age
is now calculated from non-uniformities in the background
radiation to be about 13.7 billion years.11
Assuming motion at light-speed, it would take at least 13
billion years for particles formed by the primordial explo-
sion to reach a position about 13 billion light-years from our
position near the center of the visible universe. We observe
many very remote newly formed small galaxies of closely
positioned suns at about the stated distance. We also observe
(by infrared astronomy) some old galaxies at about this same
distance. One problem is the presence of the old galaxies
which could not be there in Big Bang thinking. It would take
13 billion years for the light from those remote old galaxies
to reach us from that great distance. This yields an age
(ignoring any slowing of the particles as they moved to their
remote position) of 26 billion years in a Big Bang universe
less than 14 billion years old—a ludicrous conclusion.
The particles which initially moved away from the site of
the explosion had to slow as they moved away against the
universe’s gravity. This slowing would cause the entities
moving away from the site of the primordial explosion to
take more than 13 billion years to reach where we see them
now. At least this would give us slowly moving particles
which could join together to form suns and galaxies of vari-
ous age. But now we would need more than 26 billion years
to see these distant galaxies where they are now situated.
Assuming inflation instantly produced a universe about
13 billion light-years in radius and we now see light from
very remote objects formed about one-half billion years
later, we are left with the problem of how the particles could
slow down so quickly or be drawn together so tightly as
established by the Hubble 1995 mosaic of distant objects.10
The Divergent Ages of Galaxies
In a Big Bang universe we expect galaxies to have different
ages in any portion of space. This is because there is nothing
to force them all to be formed at the same time. We know of
no galaxies older than 14 billion years near us, but what
about those in other regions of space?
The Abell 851 cluster of galaxies is about 4 billion light-
years away, so in a Big Bang universe the galaxies in that clus-
ter should be about 4 billion years younger than observed to
accommodate the time for its light to reach us.2 When that
cluster was first observed the prevailing wisdom was spiral
galaxies were young, so the large proportion of spiral galax-
ies in the Abell cluster was relied on to prove they were actu-
ally younger than our galaxy to accommodate their distance
from us. I do not agree. In this theory the galaxies started
with a gamma ray burst which expanded to produce a spher-
ical object. It is rotation as the galaxy contracted which pro-
duces a spiral galaxy, so the spiral form indicates the older
galaxies.6 Today it is recognized that spiral galaxies are the
older ones, so the prior conclusion was wrong.
The great density of the Abell cluster also suggests greater
age. So to assess the age of the Abell 851 cluster one must
take the age of our galaxy (about 11 billion years), add about
3 billion years for the greater proportion of spiral galaxies
and the greater density of the Abell cluster, and then add 4
billion years for the time it took for the light of that cluster
to reach us. This yields a total of about 17 billion years in a
Big Bang universe, which is less than 14 billion years old!
This is silly.
In the March 1, 2003 issue of Science News Ron Cowen
writes about the 2002-2003 findings of mature galaxies in
extremely remote space. He states: “Using one of these large-
format infrared cameras on a high-precision tele-
scope...astronomers recently examined the Hubble Deep
Field South, a patch of sky that previously had been viewed
by the Hubble Space Telescope...Franx and Labbe of Leiden
Observatory also found that some galaxies from this long-
ago epoch were already unexpectedly large. Some even show
spiral structures similar to those seen in other galaxies,
including our own, today.”
So we have learned something. First, some of the extreme-
ly remote galaxies are large, emit infrared light and exhibit
structure which is properly associated with mature galaxies.2,3
This is nonsense in Big Bang thinking where the remote
galaxies must be less than 2 billion years old. Second, we have
a densely populated region in extremely remote space which
contains a large proportion of mature galaxies. This is also
nonsense in Big Bang thinking. There is also a third finding
(ignored by Cowen) which is even more disturbing.
Cowen points out: “...Hubble Deep Field South is an
extremely tiny patch of sky...There’s no consensus on
whether the galaxies there are representative of the universe
at large.” So let us consider the need for a “consensus.” The
issue is whether the observations fit within the prevailing
Big Bang theory. That question is resolved by the existence
of a very remote region of space filled with galaxies many of
which are older and larger than is possible in Big Bang think-
ing. Whether this finding is typical or not is not involved in
the resolution of that primary question.
If one wishes a consensus of clusters of galaxies which are
too old to be consistent with the Big Bang theory—then we
have the Abell 851 cluster. That cluster of galaxies is sur-
rounded by other galaxies which are at least 7 billion years
younger, so the consensus is present although Cowen and
his associates could not see it. Astrophysics needs a theory in
which groups of galaxies can exist without limitation of
maximum age. The Gulko universe cycle provides such a
theory.
Dark Energy
In the February 2007 issue of Scientific American, C.J.
Conselice suggests dark energy may be the key link among
several aspects of galaxy formation that used to appear unre-
lated, but the dissertation does not accurately present the

facts.8 To illustrate this, it advocates the bottom-up scenario
discredited by Landy, and it ignores the enormous wall struc-
ture which has been found.
What is dark energy? The 2007 article states: “Dark ener-
gy is best known as the putative agent of cosmic accelera-
tion. This unidentified substance is to exert an antigravity
force on the universe as a whole.”
This description suggests we abandon Newtonian physics
based on the asserted existence of “an unidentified sub-
stance” which is to act in an unknown manner and which
functions differently than the action of any force known to
man. This is an obvious fantasy.
Which way is this mysterious energy to act? It is supposed
to push the galaxies apart. Gravity is directional, everything
being accelerated toward greater mass. So gravity always acts
in the same direction. Since galaxies in remote space are
accelerating outwardly, Newtonian physics demands a
greater concentration of mass outside the visible universe (as
required by the universe cycle theory). However, the pres-
ence of greater mass outside the visible universe destroys the
Big Bang theory, which suggests there is little beyond the vis-
ible universe and that the remote galaxies should be slowing
because of the universe’s gravity provided by the mass
behind those galaxies. Newtonian physics is sacrificed to
maintain preconceived notions.
Conselice asserts dark energy assists the formation of
galactic clusters, so it must push the galaxies in the cluster
toward the center of the cluster’s mass. But if dark energy
were to push the universe to expand, it would have to push
the galaxies outwardly away from the universe’s center of
mass. So we have a speculated force which matches the
direction of cosmological actions in two opposite directions
only because that is glibly asserted.
The Large Scale Structure of the Universe
In the Gulko universe cycle theory the explosion of black
holes of galactic mass first forms particulate masses which
are so dense they prevent the escape of light. These expand
because of the momentum imparted by the original explo-
sion and also because of the formation of gamma rays by the
annihilation of particles and antiparticles. When the mass of
particles has expanded enough to allow light to escape we
have a bright gamma-emitting quasar which continues to
expand to form the galaxies we see. The longer explosions
produce more particles, and the more particles present the
larger and more massive the galaxy which results.
As pointed out in an earlier paper,2 when one graphs the
number of gamma ray bursts against their duration, we
obtain a tri-modal curve. The relationship which provides
three peaks on a simple linear graph screams for a precise
cause.
In the largest group the bursts are the faintest and short-
est, and this correlates with the large number of small
objects found in extremely remote space. These must mature
into the large number of globular clusters captured by our
own and other nearby full-sized galaxies. In the second
largest group the bursts are of intermediate duration, and in
the third and smallest group the bursts are those having the
greatest duration. This suggests the bursts of intermediate
duration mature into the large number of dwarf galaxies,
two of which (the clouds of Magellan) are close to our
galaxy. The smallest group of bursts having the greatest
duration would mature into the relatively small number of
full-sized galaxies, such as our own Milky Way galaxy. This
distribution matches the fact.
The tri-modal distribution of gamma ray bursts also deter-
mines the location and character of the quasars.2,9 The visi-
ble quasars were initially concluded by the Big Bang theo-
rists to be concentrated in very remote space. Instead, the
visible quasars are concentrated in two separate zones in
intermediately remote space. The larger of these two con-
centrations of quasars is about 2-3 billion light-years away.
The smaller of these two concentrations of quasars is about
5-6 billion light years away. If all quasars intrinsically pos-
sessed about the same brightness, then the more remote
quasars should be about four times dimmer than the group
of quasars which are roughly twice as close to us. Instead,
the quasars in these two separate concentrations have about
the same average luminosity. The quasars in the two groups
cannot be the same.
So the energy in the two longest of the three groups of
bursts exists in two different amounts and possesses two dif-
ferent durations. This explains why the longest bursts that
form quasars which are more massive and brighter and
mature into the full-sized galaxies concentrated at a greater
distance from us while the second and more numerous
group of shorter bursts produces the larger number of small-
er and less luminous quasars which mature into the greater
number of dwarf galaxies. These facts force the two groups
of quasars at vastly different distances from us to possess
about the same average luminosity.
Since the two concentrations of quasars are all within
about 6 billion light-years distance and these formed the
dwarf and larger galaxies, almost all of the galaxies beyond 6
billion light-years should be of small mass because the
process which formed most of the larger galaxies has not yet
expanded to reach those greater distances. This conclusion
that our universe has grown from a central location match-
es the fact.
Summary
This writing has now considered the distribution of mass in
the cosmos and the motions thereof where applicable. It is
submitted that a great deal has become apparent about the
character of the visible universe in which we find ourselves.
Nothing has been found that supports the Big Bang theory
and many points have been noted which are inconsistent
with that theory. The prevailing wisdom has not done very
well and has frequently been found to be wrong or impor-
tantly unsupported. In contrast, the Gulko universe cycle
theory appears to fit the available observations.
References
1. Gulko, A.G. 2002. “The Big Bang Theory: A
Retrospective,” Infinite Energy, 8, 46, 16-20.
2. Gulko, A.G. 2005. “Two Competing Cosmological
Theories,” Infinite Energy, 11, 62, 31-39.
3. Gulko, A.G. 2013. “Cosmology in a Nature Consisting of
Energy,” Infinite Energy, 19, 110, 25-30.
4. Gulko, A.G. 2008. “The Largest Supernovas as the Source
of Gamma Ray Bursts,” Infinite Energy, 13, 77, 15-16.

Infinite Energy Issue 126

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Infinite Energy Issue 126

Similar to Infinite Energy Issue 126 (20)

More from Robert Nazaryan

More from Robert Nazaryan (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Infinite Energy Issue 126