Wednesday, July 4, 2012


Today Prof. Christos Stremmenos has published a message
re my Interview with Defkalion Green Technologies (Global) see He sends a “errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum” warning to Defkalion and implicitly to me- given my responsibility for the questions. I am persona non-grata on the JONP blog due to my insistence in asking Andrea Rossi to perform a “perfect experiment” therefore I  have to answer here. What I say is entirely my opinion, my DGTG friends have never answered to Rossi’s insults or to Stremmenos’ accusations.
Prof Stremmenos says that he usually does not answer to unreliable statements, however in the case of my interview he makes an exception;

- to defend the dignity of cold fusion- against opportunists; this label being applied to DGTG, which has not demonstrated anything. The problem is simple- DGTG will demonstrate the Hyperions commercially- the reputation of CF will be saved, in the contrary case Rossi will be the unique known potential savior of CF. As regarding Rossi he has done a lot both to improve and to destroy the reputation of the field.

- my first question, probably subversive: “WHEN WAS YOUR COMPANY ESTABLISHED AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE?”. Actually he is right, I had to ask; “HOW AND WHEN HAS YOUR COMPANY DEFINED ITS MISSION, VISION, STRATEGY, VALUES? This has happened obviously after an emergency situation caused by the divorce from Rossi, when very tough decisions were made for the company in order to survive.
In 9 cases from 10  (managers) after the divorce Defkalion would have been disappeared for ever, but Xanthoulis is a problem solver and the team is very good. And fast.
After this, Prof Stremmenos tells a long and  complex story based on politics and history. The omission from this saga of the work of Francesco Piantelli who has discovered, developed and explained Ni-H LENR and in whose lab the majority of successful tests were done is an error, euphemistically speaking.
The importance of Rossi’s discovery cannot be denied- he really has added new dimensions to LENR. But what had to follow- the conversion of excess heat in a reliable energy source is a task of high class engineering. The technological immaturity of Rossi’s many kinds of E-cats has caused many problems and has very probable contributed to the divorce. The explanation based on purely (dirtily) financial causes lacks credibility- why should the Greeks commit managerial suicide and lose the business of the Century? The audiatur et altera pars does not work here because
DGT seems to have a great respect for Rossi’s invention and
Stremmenos’s personality- they don’t speak.
Monopolies are always destructive and dangerous. I dare to consider that it is a blessing for LENR and for humanity that Rossi has competition.
Goddess of Cold Fusion- let the better and faster win! The market
is infinite.


  1. PDGT claims that the agreement with AR required that his reactor operated in a stable mode for a period of time. Evidence indicates that the reactor did not meet these criteria. If the agreement did indeed include these requirements; then, PDGT would be well within their rights to declare the agreement null and void, IMO.

    1. Yes Terry it was something about 48 hours.

    2. And do you really think that this legitimate DGT to copy the ecat? I think NO. IMO

    3. copy what ?

      ideas can be copied.

      the principle of Ni+H, nanopowder, heat, high pressure... usual H2-HH catalyst... public technology.

      the secret catalyst?... if an old H2-HH catalyst, not new, and not innovative in LENR context (H2 dissociation is evident for any professional).

      Electric current, no already public .

      RF ? maybe is not already described in a paper.

      Defkalion simply take from Rossi the belief, the INVALUABLE KNOWLEDGE THAT LENR IS REAL. cannot be patented.

      in innovation the first invaluable knowledge is the knowledge of the problem. That is what dreamer or innovative users produce.

      the second invaluable knowledge is that there is a solution. That is what fundamental research produce.

      the last knowledge, how to make it work, you can let it to engineers. that is applied research. only that can be patented.

    4. I was writing the answer when I read the Anonymous post, exaclty what I think:

      "... so do you really think that someone with few or nothing knowledge in Ni-H systems is able to build a 10kW working reactor with COP > 30 in, let's say, 4-5 months?
      I remember you that prof. Piantelli started working on Ni-H systems in 1989 (23 years ago). So far he is claiming a COP < 4 but with power output less than 90W. He says that it still takes years before approach the market.
      Rossi, that probably took advantage from Piantelli's work, is working on his E-Cat since 2007.
      You know that Rossi's "secret" is easy (you'd remember the discussion with Celani in the January 2011 demonstration), as confirmed by DGT interview the "secret" is simple and easily reproducible, but first _you_have_to_know_it_, and DGT knows it, and I don't think Rossi told them anything..."

      So in my opinion:
      IF dgt has something that works as claimed
      THEN dgt copied

    5. Dear S. Costa,

      Your questions seem to be very justified.
      However it is a very important question to be answered first:
      "What is/are the relationship, the similarities and differences between the classic Ni-H LENR (say a la Piantelli) and the new, seemingly 100 times more intense new LENR processes a la Rossi and DGTG?"
      it has to be an essential difference because at 650+C as DGTG said some four months ago or at 600+C as Rossi says now, the nanoclusters are destroyed. So there must be a different topology, dynamics for the new LENR processes
      and not much coming from classic LENR can be used in the new LENR+ processes..

      An adequate metaphor is - you can much easily open a door without breaking it if you have a key. Who understands the functionality of the Rossi additive(s) can solve the problem of creating a practical source of energy. But this needs a lot of engineering, good engineering. And DGTG has this so I believe they were able to solve the problem and have an alternative solution to Rossi's. Not copied, improved.

  2. Very well written.
    / David

    1. Thank you! I have avoided to tell about some unpleasant facts.

  3. Peter,
    I have come to value greatly your style and thinking. Have read most of what you have had to say about LENR.

    At 1st I was a Rossi believer who became convinced that DGT were little more than a Greek Mafia (based on Stremmenos's post resignation outburst at DGT). After doing much research and learning about Piantelli and watching the Rossi saga unfold (As Rossi walked from validation with: UniBo, Uni of Uppsala, NASA etc: etc: ) it just became very clear to me that Piantelli was the scientist & Rossi a clever opportunist who has ridden to his idea of glory on the back of Piantelli's efforts.

    The more I looked into the foundation of DGT the more convinced I became that they were a good and legitimate businessmen who were encouraged to become pioneers in a new energy field. And any smart business will have a plan B. I believe that after Rossi failed to deliver a stable core reactor for the original Hyperion, DGT decided they need to activate a plan B. I am guessing (my speculation) that plan B required establishing an alternate supplier (as most good businesses would) & not to really try & do it all from scratch on their own.

    By tracking what I know of LENR patents & the statements made recently by DGT, I think I know who the designer of DGT's new hyperion is and am also of the opinion it may not use Ni as the reactor metal and it is thus likely to be protectable in a patent & that protection is what Rossi lacks.

    I have more faith in DGT today than I did 6 months ago. And your interview cemented in my mind what my own due diligence uncovered. I have come to dislike Mr Rossi because I now regard him as doing enormous harm to LENR research - he accuses others of being clowns when he behaves like a clown ringmeister & canny expert but I do recognize & respect your point that Rossi has done 'some' good in attracting a focus (& indirectly starting DGT) which may achieve the effect of accelerating LENR to reality & market.

    Doug Marker

    1. "I have more faith in DGT today than I did 6 months ago."
      Based on what may I ask? I have seen nothing from DGT. (except broken promise after broken promise).

      Is there some part of the story I am missing?

    2. Chris

      Possibly, DGT didn't do the public testing they said they would in March. Am not sure that translates into
      "(except broken promise after broken promise).".

      So yes they pulled the shutters down.


    3. Dear Doug,
      Thank you, I am enchanted to 'see' your rational and pragmatic thinking.

      Dear Chris,
      I know that patience and curiosity does not mix, however
      please wait till August- ICCF-17. Based on my experience I can tell you that development is very difficult, Murphy never sleeps

  4. Can we say that Defkalion declared the agreement null because at that time they had already stolen the basic of Rossi's technology, so they known they could run by themselves?
    Can we say that Dafkalion never answered to Rossi's insults because they known they acted in bad faith?
    I think 90% of the persons that follow the saga have the same opinion.
    Does someone think that DGT developed a working reactor with COP > 30 (!!??) in a few months starting from zero? This indeed is an insult to everyone's intelligence and, first of all, to Piantelli's work.

    1. What evidence do you have that DGT stole anything ?. To me you are slandering DGT behind anonymity. You have not offered anything to substantiate such slander.

      How do you know they didn't contract for a 2nd source supplier ?.

      Again being anonymous allows you a lot of leeway you might not take if you were brave enough to identify yourself.



    2. Because they admitted to it. If you have been following this story anywhere near close enough you will know that DGT secretly had Rossi's device examined and its contents revealed. Rossi says they are lying DGT said they stole it.

      Who do you believe?

      Me I say none of them are believable. They have all lied or broken promises at multiple points in this story.

    3. Chris,

      I have followed this story *very* closely & months ago went looking for any admission by DGT about copying the eCat.

      So I am asking, are you basing your statement on any stated facts or just on stated speculation ? - I can find lots of speculation about it.

      Above is a link to what I believe is the source of your speculation - have a look for any statement from DGT that they copied an eCat. I could not find one. There is some comments from Ny Technik that look like bravado in DGT claiming they know what is in an eCat but we probably all know that. A spectral analysis will not tell anyone the structure of the nano particles in the eCat. There is mention of Uni of *Padua University* analysing the ash from an eCat.

      Also the so called secret ingredient was a catalyst to generated atomic hydrogen under pressure rather than piping it in from outside the reactor. That process is well understood by science & AFAICT not patentable.

      So to say "Because they admitted to it" is not exactly true is it ?.

      Cheers mate :) !


    4. @ dsjm1

      so do you really think that someone with few or nothing knowledge in Ni-H systems is able to build a 10kW working reactor with COP > 30 in, let's say, 4-5 months?
      I remember you that prof. Piantelli started working on Ni-H systems in 1989 (23 years ago). So far he is claiming a COP < 4 but with power output less than 90W. He says that it still takes years before approach the market.
      Rossi, that probably took advantage from Piantelli's work, is working on his E-Cat since 2007.
      You know that Rossi's "secret" is easy (you'd remember the discussion with Celani in the January 2011 demonstration), as confirmed by DGT interview the "secret" is simple and easily reproducible, but first _you_have_to_know_it_, and DGT knows it, and I don't think Rossi told them anything.
      Yes, I don't have any proof, but do you have proofs on the contrary?
      Yes, Rossi didn't act legally against DGT, maybe because so far they only talked without showing a little fact? So far they "say" having a working reactor, they "say" they will sell the Hyperion. I think Rossi's behavior will be different when, and if, DGT will approach the market.

      All that above, obviously, is _in_my_opinion_

      About anonymous status, is a "dsjm1" with a Blogger account less anonymous? If I create an account with a mail on or a mail account or this makes me less anonymous?
      If I say something wrong or punishable by law, my IP is tracked, and the same is for the thousands persons all around the web that have the same opinion.

  5. Peter Gluck,
    Why is the name of the person from DGT hidden?
    Please post the name of the person you interviewed.

    1. Not hidden at all just the answers are collective, from the CEO, the Commercial Director and two of their helpers, nice young people very knowledgeable in business and management,HBR level. Speaking much better English than myself.

  6. "The explanation based on purely (dirtily) financial causes lacks credibility- why should the Greeks commit managerial suicide and lose the business of the Century?"

    Don't you understand? Defkalion already had Rossi's "secret Italian sauce" recipe. They refused to make the scheduled payment to Rossi because he couldn't surmount the problem of stability in the LENR reaction. In other words, Defkalion was a stickler with Rossi, and not unexpectedly Rossi, independent as he is, bolted.

    Defkalion had to know they risked losing Rossi if they didn't handle him with kid gloves, but I suppose they felt they always had the fallback postion of running with the Rossi technology that had fallen into their laps.

    1. May I call you Doby?
      i think the story is complex and not only in black and white.
      Re Rossi- geniuses are unpredictable, but not all people who are unpredictable are geniuses. And geniuses are not geniuses all the time (I will abstain from quoting Cipolla's second law)
      there are two clues I think:
      a) Rossi's formula is quite easy to re-discover and there are more sub-solutions
      b) the recipe is just a start- DGTG says this very clearly.


    2. Peter-- I agree completely. In my field of science, once I let people know something CAN be done people can find a way around it intellectually or technically. Sometimes one needs only a kernal of an idea to come up with a COMPLETELY different approach to accomplish the same objective. And it would not be considered theft.

      Same with patents. Incredible amounts of work can be done on a "protecting" patent-- only to discover a minor work-around can render the patent unprotectable.

    3. By the way-- mimicking to outcome of Rossi's idea by orthogonal means or creating a work-around that does not violate intellectual property-- does not mean it was done ethically or even legally.

      What DGT did might not be fair-- it might not even be ethical. But if it was legal or can be proven as such, all the yelling in the world is not going to stop business progress.

    4. don't forget that the real job was done by pioneer like F&P, Miley, Focardi, Piantelli, Celani, Iwamura&al, Spawar team, Arata takahashi ... helped by evangelist like Mallove, Rothwell, Krivit...

      Rossi is a good evangelist, yet as an inventor I feel that DGT is more serious.
      The law that allow people to turn around patent legally, in a way that some say not ethic, prevent smart companies, people exploiting other research, or lucky smart people, to abuse of their monopoly on an idea.
      Idea cannot be patented, only process to build a device.
      Sure Rossi dis not invent the Ni+H reactor, with nanopowder, H2-H+ catalyst, heat...
      maybe he can patent one new technique to trigger the reaction, but not classic H2 dissociation with arcing, or H2 dissociation catalyst at High temp, or hydride storage of hydrogen...
      same for DGT.
      maybe they can patent a special treatment of powder, uncommon control method, process to change fuel smartly, safety device, intrinsic stabilizing component...

      and all of that can be used or not by a builder, so that the price of the patent will be reasonable, related to the advantage it provide. not a monopoly.

      and same for Brillouin, BLP, Piantelli, who could give small improvement and patent them.

  7. Many thanks for creating some action with your articles! I have a general comment to Stremmenos outburst and the responses to this.

    When addressing the relationship between Rossi and DGT, it is is essential to understand that the agreement from November 2010 was fundamentally flawed from a business perspective. DGT was expected to make a billion dollar investment in technology that they did not own or controlled in any way. A sensible company understands this immediately but DGT did not until after they signed agreement. It could mentioned in this context that to this date, there is no information that suggest that Rossi has been prepared to share the technology with anyone.

    The fact that DGT did not pay Rossi has nothing to do with instability of the reactor and if, for arguments sake, it had, DGT of course could not walk away with the technology that they were not entitled to under the agreement because Rossi cancelled the agreement.

    It is clear risk that Rossi's technology, if it actually works, ends up in a deadlock that will delay commercialization. Rossi is not prepared to share the technology so that investments necessary for commercialization can be made. DGT's technology is on the other hand stolen so anyone who would consider investing must face the risk that Rossi gets his act together and a court hand down a restraining order on the business and orders that any profit already made is handed over to Rossi.

    So in some sense, Stremmenos has a point.

    1. thanks for that new analysis.
      Maybe is yours better that my impression that Rossi was simply not able to industrialize...
      In common to our interpretations, there is the clear fact that, at that time, Rossi was unable to work in team, in real team.
      As you say it seems that he was not willing to share anything.
      And in my opinion, not accepting to work in team, and thus to share, make him unable to work efficiently.

      Both effect is that any rational investor, will try to build the technology himself, so he can industrialize it quickly, professionally...
      The question they should have asked their lawyers is how to justify the fact...
      Arguing that the time of working was not long enough, beside it was pinpointing a key problem of stability, linked to bad engineering, seems to be compatible with the contract... Hope so for their accountant and lawyer.

      People moaning on ethic problem with Rossi, should remind that refusing to give data to a partner, to work in team, is not really respecting your partner.

      Anyway , the lesson seems to have been given and Rossi seems to have a good partner now, that make him look like he is normally engineering all.

      Finally I think that hopefully none of the companies will be able to keep the monopoly on the LENR principles, an they will both earn their money by successive innovation, short time-to-market and hard work on the production lines.

      That is ethic.
      Good luck to all.
      Congratulation in advance.

  8. Dear Anapopei,

    Thank you for your expert analysis. However I think when it is
    about an invention as Rossi's, it is not easy to understand the real
    problems and to evaluate the efforts necessary for making it a sellable product on a large scale.
    Even the best legal experts need data to judge such a situation.
    Have to confess that I am unable to understand why Rossi has no valid patent and why he has not activated the contracts with
    the friendly universities - these could help him to understand what happens in the cores of working E-cats.

    1. Thanks. I do not think that your are entitled to assume that LENR defies business logic just because it - sort of - defies physics. But lets not go into that. Time will tell anyhow.

      As far as the absence of patent, I think I can answer that question. The answer is that Rossi simply has not put in any effort to get one. On the other hand, why should he? The pending application does disclose best mode. If it did he would share his invention with the rest of the world while he in fact is not willing to share it with contracted partners. This is not uncommon among a certain type of inventors.

  9. My hunch is that there is plenty of blame -- and hopefully glory -- to assign all around in this story. It is highly plausible to me that reactor stability was a serious problem, and Peter's point that Stremmenos (generally I believe a man of great integrity) argument lacks a certain plausibility. Nevertheless, if Rossi's recent statements are to be credited (and I think they are), early stability issues have now been solved by his team. If independent solutions have been achieved by Defkalion, that can only be a good thing for the world. It remains to be seen whether or not Defkalion has infringed Rossi's intellectual property to achieve this result -- but all other things being equal, I personally see no reason to take sides in this dispute. It is ALL good if it leads to Fire 2.0- and every passing day brings further evidence that that is indeed what is happening. In answer to Peter's good question about why Rossi has not activated contracts with Universities, the answer would seem to be that he has ongoing relationships with one or more military organizations and/or industrial giants like Seimans or NI who have supplied him with the same consultative expertise that he would have gained with U of B. or other academic institutions. Such entities have significant advantages over academic institutions if the goal is swift commercialization of competitive technology. Given the apparently rapid development of LENR and the widespread competition, this would seem to be a highly rational approach.

  10. Thank you, dear Doc! It is fine to receive realistic answers
    Hopefully very soon we will know how LENR+ does work

  11. Special thanks to Philip James and AlainCo for their
    very good ideas. I have to learn from you, friends.
    Philip, please let me know which is your field.

  12. Dear Readers,

    Prof. Stremmenos has answered me on JONP and I am grateful to him:

    Christos Stremmenos
    July 5th, 2012 at 6:38 AM
    Dear Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your answer, but I insist: … errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum….…
    that was the main cause of the current situation in Greece.
    Ch Stremmenos

  13. I think the story of Rossi and DGT shows us one important thing. Once the basic "secret" is known anybody can come up with a version of the "ecat"

    If this is the case then DGT's business model today is not the one they will have tomorrow.

    DGT is selling licenses but those will only work as long as people have no clear cheaper alternative. Thing is look how fast DGT replicated Rossi. So they have likely about 1 year maybe longer before the chinese or somebody comes up with a cheaper better version that does not have the licensing overhead.

    That coupled with limited patent protection if it's doable with other transition metals for example means a short lived business model.

    The thing I do like about their current model is their willingness to do R&D with partners. THAT can secure their future.

    But i don't see how the license purchasers win out in the long run. They get about 1 year to rack in as much money over the license fee as they can and then they have to fend for themselves.


  14. I agree that knowing the secret, anybody can start the action
    to create a new source of energy source, however only the experts in engineering will succeed- the task is far from being easy - see what says DGTG about their secret.
    I hope DGTG will consider your ideas regarding the evolution of their business plans.

  15. Thanks, but it is perhaps too short,can you give some details?

  16. Peter

    What is very clear from your replies is how intensely emotionally charged the eCat debate is.

    Some believe Rossi invented it all on his own (which is how Mr Rossi likes it to be portrayed). Others believe Rossi got the core design from Prof Piantelli's lapsed 1995 patent. Few appear to have read or absorbed Prof Piantelli's Feb 2010 letter sent to Stephen Krivit about these issues and what he thinks.

    It is my humble opinion that few people have really looked closely at where Andrea Rossi got his eCat design from and when. How he solved some of his early problems via Prof Focardi & why he had such difficulty controlling his version of the reactor for so many years.

    I do hope that someone *such as DGTG or even Rossi), soon proves they have a reliable and working LENR reactor, but even with such proof, am in no doubt as to how long it will take (IMHO years) to turn a basic working LENR reactor into commercial products approved by regional regulating bodies and supported by appropriate skills to install & manage.

    I jokingly tell my friends that I know that 'home LENR heaters' will be real when they go on sale in shops in Shenzhen China. That is where I suspect they will appear first (said as tongue-in-cheek good humor).

    Doug Marker

    1. Dear Doug,
      please write me to Have to discuss
      some problems with you. Thanks!