Friday, January 25, 2013


Today Professor Stremmenos has complained to the Blog of Andrea Rossi
that he has sent repeatedly this answer to my blog, but it was not published.
I have not received any text from him; there are two possibilities:
a) he has sent it to EGO AUT not EGO OUT as he writes;
b) he has not sent any text to me;
I hope a) is true, I hate cheap tricks

Here I am publishing the Italian text of Prof. S.:

Christos Stremmenos
January 24th, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Eg. Peter Gluck
Sono stato molto titubante a rispondere ai suoi commenti nei miei confronti, per i seguenti motivi:
1. Non ho tempo da perdere con gente che pontifica da un blog senza mai aver avuto relazione (sperimentale) scientifica di competenza, con gli argomenti che commenta.
2. Si, sono un alleato di A. Rossi e collaboro con lui a livello scientifico, perché riconosco la validità della sua tecnologia e l’onestà intellettuale ed umana della persona … ringraziando sempre il collega S. Focardi che a suo tempo mi ha fatto conoscere.
3. Non scendo al suo livello di commentare il termine “henchman” attribuito mi…. Si vede che la sua maestra elementare, malgrado i soldi che ha preso da suo padre, non le ha insegnato L’EDUCAZIONE CIVILE.
Le rispondo dal JoNP perche’ il blog su cui Lei mi ha attaccato non ha pubblicato questa mia risposta.

and here the English translation.
Mr Peter Gluck:
1- I have not time to lose with a person that does not have the scientific bases to talk of the matter he wants to master about, not having ever experimented anything
2- Yes, I work scientifically with Andrea Rossi, because he is intellectually integer and because I know his technology : the same with Sergio Focardi, Prof. Emeritus of the same University of Bologna where I teached Physic Chemistry .
3- I do not comment the fact that you define me a “henchman”: my career as a Professor and as the Ambassador of Greece for 7 years speaks for me; your father, evidently, has wasted his money sending you to your level of studies ( I suppose, from your behaviour, elementary schools) since it appears you didn’t even understand Civic Education from your teacher.
Ch. Stremmenos
p.s. I am answering to you from the JoNP because the blog where you attacked me did not publish this answer of mine

I have no reasons to refuse publishing his letter. I have attacked him because he has told bad and untrue things about the patent of Professor Piantelli and accused Piantelli of using the work of others- this is civil education?
He tries to demonstrate us that he is the real Father of Ni-H and falsifies history
of Science.
I am grateful to him because he has studied my CV and has discovered that I
am uneducated both professionally and as manners. Plus he knows I have never
ever made scientific experimentations. Probably I have a very bad memory, I remember these things differently. What I don't get exactly is if my Father has wasted his money
with my education or did not paid for it. Prof. S has certain information in these things, OK, fiat...
I am favored by having young grandchildren so i am familiar with such kindergarten level approaches to the problems, combined with tricks (not expensive again) of logic.

However, I am writing this with sincere regret- I well know Professor Stremmenos was a hero of the liberation of Greece from the dictatorship of the colonels- and what he does in the case of this Patent -is, in a certain sense a human tragedy.


  1. Well since you've gotten professor Stremmenos's attention I'd like to ask him a simple question.
    Of course you have no way of knowing this but I work closely with the US DOD National labs. From that association I have working knowledge of the state of DGT reactors and Piantelli's reactors. Those two parties, whom you have attacked on several occasions, have more credibility with me than Rossi can even begin to approach. So my question is this, how can you expect to have any credibility when you associate yourself with somebody who acts the way Rossi does.
    As it stands, outside of you, profs Levi and Focardi nobody can vouch for the authenticity of Rossi's claims. And none of you have assessed the veracity of his claims as of late. If DGT is any indication of Rossi's progress them Rossi is not where he claims to be and you have allowed him with your silence to misrepresent the state of his progress.

    What do you have to say about that?

    1. Dear A.,

      I doubt that Professor Stremmenos is a regular reader of the
      Ego Out blog, but I have done my best/worst to convince him to do this. On my turn, I am negatively enthusiastic for his style and his mode of thinking and his emotional dedication to useless and chanceless causes. Let's hope he will get your message.
      What is really disturbing is the long silence of Focardi (who has declared that he does NOT KNOW what Rossi's catalyst is?) and Levi who made a good presentation two years ago.


  2. @ Anonymous January 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM

    Well since you've gotten professor Stremmenos's attention I'd like to ask him a simple question.
    Of course you have no way of knowing this but I work closely with the US DOD National labs. From that association I have working knowledge of the state of DGT reactors and Piantelli's reactors. Those two parties, whom you have attacked on several occasions, have more credibility with me than Rossi can even begin to approach.

    Obviously Prof. STREMMENOS will answer by himself, but it's very strange to read what you wrote because, as far as I know, Rossi is the only one that made an independent test on his reactor with results that should be published in February that is the next month, and hence it will be verifiable very soon. February is a very near date compared with the never ending story of Piantelli and the never existing story of DGT.

    An independent verify on the Piantelli reactor has been done at CERN and you can find the report here:
    the result was totally negative:
    "In conclusion, we have observed all the effects discovered by Focardi et al., but our results imply that there is no production of power associated with the absorption of hydrogen by nickel"
    Since then (twenty years now) no paper has been published by Piantelli.

    Here you can find a declaration by an Italian engineer (a well known and considerable engineer) that made a flow air calorimeter in order to test the excess heat of the Piantelli's reactor:
    to sum up:
    the calorimeter was mounted on a cell that Piantelli declared it was producing 18W of excess heat since months, but the measure with the calorimeter was 0 (zero) Watts of excess heat, or a maximum of 2W due to the calorimeter's error

    Even Focardi can confirm that because he requested the calorimeter for a flow calorimetric measure instead of the thermometric measure that Piantelli used and uses even now. Obviously these data have never been published by Piantelli, and these are all _facts_.

    About DGT I can't even see how someone could speak about them. There isn't any paper, any scientific result, any proof of their claims, the most astonish claims ever made in history: COP = 32!! on a commercial device.

    They said they have done independent tests, but only with words. They don't publish, don't show nothing that could verify their claims or their actions, don't say nothing about dates. "We will inform when we will feel ready" that is how to say maybe the next year, maybe in ten years, maybe never (who knows?).

    They said "we will show soon..." (June 2012), "next weeks we'll reveal..." (September 2012), "a commercial device will be ready by the first months of 2012" and so on ... If you don't trust in Rossi, why should you trust in DGT?

    You wrote "outside of you, profs Levi and Focardi nobody can vouch for the authenticity of Rossi's claims", and about Piantelli and DGT claims, who can vouch? You anonymous from DOD (or maybe from NASA, or DARPA, what about DOE, or, why not, directly from the White House)?


    1. just one point.
      there is a test report made by Nelson.
      Nelson is known to have been very critic with the behavior of Rossi during the test, trying to constrain the tester too much...

      on the opposite, Defkalion have allowed Nelson to do what he wanted, and he reported that.
      Gibbs, a moderate skeptics have asked Nelson who confirms.

      the test result are not fantastic, but they at least prove two things : that DGT trus his reactor enough to let Nelson play with it at will; and that it start and stop on demand .
      the weak point are the performance which are enough to make tea, but not fantastic. the explanation of weak performance are coherent with the previous claims of Defkalion, linked to low temperature of the reactor when water is liquid compared to the one required for LENr reaction (above 300C)...

      this is much more credible that the stage demo of Rossi.

      The only and sufficient evidence to defend Rossi, is Aldo Proia claims and behavior.
      Rossi's demo look so bad that some claims that it is on purpose, to keep underground.

    2. just forget the link whre the story is told

    3. Nelson's report means absolutely nothing compared to any (poor) report published by Rossi (Levi's, Lewan's etc.) because there isn't _any_ scientific data (procedures, instrumentation used, duration, absolute power, calculation on any kind, error estimation etc.).
      For example we all have doubts about the last test with the E-Cat (the low temperature one) because all saw that thermocouples weren't well positioned in the set-up. Well, do you know where Nelson placed the thermocouples in the test?
      How did they measure input energy? There is a spark plug in their Hyperion, so an high voltage discharge inside the chamber. It produces high electric noise and even problems in the other instruments, did they use all the cautions that this kind of measure requires? I want to remember to you that electric noise has been the cause of the wrong measurement of the excess heat in the Mitzuno and Cirillo's cells (Yes, other kind of cells but the experimental set-up is important).
      How did they calculate the output energy? As far as I know they used a mix water-glycol, can I see how they measured the mix and the coefficient used in calculations for the thermal energy?
      Someone from Sweden says that Rossi measured the power input with a wrong instrument, well, what instrument has been used by Nelson?

      The only data we have from DGT are Hyperion's specification (released in November 2011). In that 21 pages document there were any kind of absurdities like threads type, GSM/GPS systems, self-destructing methods and so on. The justification about a such details level was that the independent testers had to know all the elements in order to prepare an appropriate experimental set-up.
      That was clearly a nonsense at that date, they deliberately lied in order to give the impressione they alreay had a working prototype ready for the home market.

      What is amazing is that DGT's spokepersons talk about LENR+ acceptance by governments and institutions when they haven't showed yet to the world that LENR(+) exists and they are able to reproduce and to control the phenomenon. They can't even open a public discussion about this topic because, SO FAR, THE TOPIC DOESN'T EXIST.
      It's also impressive the arrogance they used when they talk about this argument. They accuse Jed Rothwell of scientific integralism because he wants to be sure about the safety from the point of view of radiations, when they (DGT) haven't even showed yet that the phenomenon exists, and, foremost, they measured gamma radiation in their (working?) Hyperions. Did they do it? There is any paper? Any reliable witness? Who knows? It's a complete mystery.

      At least Piantelli works in complete silence that is by far more appreciate than DGT's claims and arrogance.

      Rossi's credibility is very low, I know, but you have to admit that he showed something. For example there are several report by Bianchini that attest absence of radiation for the E-cat (and many videos showed that Bianchini indeed did those kind of measure). Can you say the same for the Hyperion?

      Yes, now there is an "anonymous" coming form DOD National Lab that tell us about state of Piantelli and DGT's reactors. If this "anonymous" is credible, then even Rossi is credible, so it has to be considered true that the Hot-Cat has a COP=12 like he revealed in Pordenone meeting.


    4. You make the mistake to thaink that wioth the data you could have information.
      sorry but you like me cannot understand the complexito of the data, and at worst we will make false analysis.

      However we are all much more competent in human behavior.

      I agree tha the report say nothing that you can oppose.
      What are the evidence:

      Nelson, known for having busted Rossi , flet that Defkalion let him play with. It is proved by Gibbs who asked nelson (not by the paper!).

      I don't know if the ractor is working, but I know :
      - that defkalion feel that it work
      - the nelson feel that it work

      moreover the way it worked, and the problem encountered are compatible with the calims at IFFC17...

      the way pathoskeptical and other dishonest believers/deniers is to focus on the evident that match their bias, and concensciously avoid the others.
      One classic point it ignore is the behavioral evidences, because they are much more rich that the papers.

      Papers can be analyzed and you can misunderstand some point and claim it is erroneous, or find imprecise points, or reach your own incompetence to believe the opposite of what it says... You can also say that they are faked, that the measure were bad... papers are mostly non-stransferable evidence, except if you trust the tester... which a pathoskeptic/patho-believer don't.

      the human evidences are muchmore solid because they are transferable evidences of the conviction of an actor.

      I am convinced by Rossi because Aldo Proia is convinced, and his corporate profile , and Rossi clowny profile, make me sure that all have been checked 10 times before Aldo proia communicate in newspaper.

      I am convinced by Defkalion, because Defkalion is convinced by their reactor, and transmitted that conviction to Nelson through their liberal behavior.

      all the rest is not accessible to us.

      anyway all that incredulity about Rossi, Defkalion and so one is based on a cognitive dissonnance, an implicit belief, yet consciously rejected because facts don't match, that LENr is doubtful because it break physics law.
      first it does not break any physics law, and a physicist that say that is simply incompetent and over convident. only mass/energy, charges, impulsion, have to be conserved, and for the rest only reason not to think it is possible is lack of immagination and abuse of simplification.
      second some repeat the stupidities of 89, that LENr is voodoo science... it was not even believed by hundreds of labs and corps that worked on it, replicated the heat, but find no way to make it useful... cognitive dissonance.
      Tritium,He4, transmutation, heat, neutrons, gamma, and some mild-fusion (like hikegami and sternglass) show many many times, many different way, with many different team, that physics allow things that the stupid physicists of 89 have said impossible... the castle of cards is in ruin. no reason to ask for extraordinary evidence of LENR by anyone, scientist or industrial, because those extraordinary evidences already exist and put the incompetent physicist back to school of modesty (and modeling course).

      don't ask extraordinary evidences to Rossi or defkalion, they are not infriging the law of physics...
      they are just developing a technology based on recent discovery of science.

      the good point is that the domain is so criticized that businessmen whan they invest in LENR do it with more care than when investing in green energy, or real-estate.

      Don't imagine that xanthoulis, an economist, and his board of director of tycoon, bourgeois and industrialists, have invested in e-cat, then in their own research without checking 10 times.

  3. Dear Mr Glouk,

    With regret the attack you and Prof Piantelli received from Mr. Christos Stremmenos. It is a practice of this group.

    Such attacks are usually done by those who nothing. As Sun Tzu in the "Art of War" is mentioning

    "... attacking is a desperate act..."

    So we ask you kindly to forgive them, as we did in the past.

    Best regards

    Alex Xanthoulis
    Defkalion Green Technologies CEO

    1. Dear Alex,

      Thank you for this official letter of support.
      I will convey it to prof. Piantell too who is a
      genuine scientist, high above such useless and
      unjust low level attacks.His WO 2010/058288
      now EP, is a high quality patent with an admirable
      logical consistency
      I regret that Prof. Stremmenos has made such decisions
      his glorious past cannot change this-good deeds and
      very erroneous deeds do NOT add up.I forgive him.


    2. Hi,
      I'm hijacking that discussion to ask for news about Defkalion, in that context where business tension seems to grow.
      Maybe Peter can you simply reformulate and relay them.

      Recent communication in ToVima and here already gave some data about the strategy of DGT.

      Big question as everybody can expect is about 3rd party test and the peer-reviewed paper.

      Are there results to expect soon?
      Are there problems of change in strategy that may explain the delays?

      Getting back to patent, it was told that DGT filed patents (6?). If I understand well the procedure, even not yet granted they would be public after 18month... this mean that we won't see DGT patent application until summer or next winter ?
      If I'm wrong, are there already public data in patent office that may inform us.

      Finally, since Defkalion site is in rebuild, what will be the strategy of "public relation", "community management", of Defkalion Green Technology?

      Is it possible to give hint on the strategy of Defkalion europe, about "public relation", "community management". Are there coordination with Defkalion global ? Is there interesting action or communication to expect soon?

      Are there partnership set or discussed with LENR organization like Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, LENR cities...

      Best regards.

      AlainCo, tech-watcher on

    3. Dear Alain,
      the delay-as it happens was greater than planned
      inter alia due to some malheurs as one key man
      being robbed by his passport, loss of established
      lines of supplies and other Murphy-sms, bureaucracy.
      However today the things start to go well in development
      according to their document they have shown together with the Nelson document. Their quintessential analytical
      study- mass spectrometry etc. has been also restarted so we will learn what are the mechanisms of HHENI variant of
      LENR/Cold Fusion- for the first time in history on
      basis of reliable and reproducible results.
      Strategy will be presented in/at their new website plus
      some publications of their CEO.

  4. To Alain,

    The matter of how long it takes to publish a patent does vary greatly. Prof Piantelli's latest published patent was submitted in early 2012 & published less than 9 months later in Nov 2012. I have seen other patents (LENR ones) take 18+ months before they were published.

    In regard to Prof Piantelli's latest patent, I am thinking that the speed of publishing is because it was a 'clean' patent. I.E. that the patent office did not have to keep coming back to Prof Piantelli for clarifications etc:

    I am guessing that this same issue will impact how quickly such a patent gets accepted too.

    Doug Marker

    1. Dear Doug,

      Please rething the time issue, the data for
      this patent are:

      Pub. No.: WO/2010/058288 International Application No.: PCT/IB2009/007549
      Publication Date: 27.05.2010 International Filing Date: 24.11.2009
      Chapter 2 Demand Filed: 24.09.2010

      Not an example of fast publication. Perhaps our patent
      specialists Bob Bass and David French could tell us
      relevant things about shortcuts in the realm of patents.
      For example thta they do not exist.