Monday, July 4, 2016


Image result for celebration quotationsImage result for celebration quotations

This  (the first one) is a quotation intended for Celebrations, however in LENR, for LENR, it is certainly 200% true! Actually the ascension has not started yet, or, if and where it has started it is vehemently negated by many. Let's add:

LENR still has to conquer its own territory and to create its Independence Day.


I wanted to make this a peaceful day but Jed Rothwell has sent me a grando- and mytho-maniac answer to the Flowmeter  question of yesterday:

Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote:
Rossi has no problems with the Flowmeter it was a pretty standard one.
If he told you that, he lied.

Peter Gluck wrote:
For Jed the flowmeter is a central piece the most unsuitable instrument, the most corruptible tool of measurement and,
No, I said it was one of the problems with the test. There were several others.

Peter Gluck wrote:
THE ESSENCE- if Jed is unable to tell something relevant about
why is the flowmeter (which type) so a great catastrophe,
You should ask Rossi for the make and model. As soon as he tells you, you will see the problem.

I have agreed not to reveal any information not already made public by Rossi or I.H. I will stick to my agreement.

Why do you let Rossi say anything, never challenging him, when you will not believe a single thing I say, even when Rossi confirms it? Such as his covering up of the fake customer site by not allowing people in. He was practically bragging that he defrauded I.H., and you don't even question it! You are grotesquely biased in favor of Rossi, because of wishful thinking.

If you do not know the make and model, you do not know why there is a problem, and you have no business commenting about this problem, or taking sides, or criticizing me. Your only comments should be: I do not know. I cannot judge without the essential technical information.

My answer- I am in a very peaceful mood today:

Jed, you have told the flowmeter has and is a great problem and you are obviously unable to tell anything about it.
This is a proof you are acting exactly as a mythomaniac.
With a minimum of intelligence you could give a technical explanation- it is flawed because this or that 
Have you ever worked with a flowmeter? 
Sorry but all your "inventions"are at this low level of credibility
It is disappointing to see what you are doing

Why you have business of making calumnies-filled destructive mendacious comments and other people should just shut up?


1) Additional results on mixtures of powders contained in airtight capsules foractivation of LENR anomalies.
Presentation by Ubaldo Mastromatteo:
From the Blog of Claudio Pace

NOTE Ubaldo Mastromatteo about  the situation in the LENR field

Now, little word about the lenr situation: as you may know I started to work on this field since 1994, inspired by the work of Piantelli and Focardi. I remember in 1995 the presentation of Focardi in Perugia when he presented the neutron emission from a nickel (iron?)/hydrogen reactor in Siena, validated with the experience of the Prof. Daddi (neutron activation expert from Naval Academy of Livorno). From that time on I was convinced of the reality of this phenomenon.
Then I had many interesting results about transmutations in Pd thin films by which I confirmed my conviction.
Now the situation using powder mixtures seems very interesting to investigate, but with some confusion and scarce reproducibility, even by me. Moreover the high temperature is not so attracting to me: 500 degrees may be a good compromise for materials and heat conversion. In spite of I personally made more than 70 patents released, and few unreleased on LENR, I think that patenting on this matter is going to slow down the progress for technological applications. I remember that in pioneering phase of semiconductor adventure, nobody cared too much in patenting, but copying each other (sharing the knowledge) was a strong leverage for the rapid technological progress.

Last, as I showed in the iccf19 conference, is my conviction that some kind of coherent stimulations may be necessary to improve the yield of the lenr reactions.

Dear Ubaldo,  a great thank you! EVVIVA LENR!

2) Andrea Rossi answers to:

Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi:

There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group regarding the 1 MW plant test.

a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW

Can you respond to any of these points?

Thank you,

Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM

Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things, please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of the test.
The ERV is a nuclear engineer, with experience of nuclear power plants and certification+validation of plants
b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections
c) False
d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say, you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
Warm Regards,

This has lead to a new thread on LENR-Forum:


Joe Lowry: The Top Five Lithium Market Myths.


A classic- I think it is excellent for July 4th
Rohn: 5 Undeniable Reasons to Leave a Legacy

From Tanmay Vora:
How Our Brain Learns


  1. The ERV was required to measure the flow of the heated fluid (steam) out of the device. What was the "standard flow meter" that was used to measure the steam out - not the water into??????? Notice if the steam flow was not measured then the ERV report is not valid according to the 2nd agreement.

  2. The second amendment to the License Agreement does not mention the "flow" of steam. It mentions the temperature of the steam being 100 C or higher, and COP being 6.0 or greater (2.6 or greater for reduced payment). There is no actual power output specification. The method of determining COP is not specified.

    However, the Agreement itself mentions the "flow of the heated fluid." That is unclear in meaning. It appears that it was considered to mean the water, i.e., "the fluid that is heated," but the "heated fluid" would seem to mean "hot". But then is steam a "fluid."? Whoever wrote the test specifications was quite unclear on the concept. 100 C could easily be liquid, in which case it would all be fluid water, but if the ERV assumed that all water was vaporized, the value for heat generated could be far off. The method described in the test is essentially what Rossi did in early demonstrations, so widely critiqued.

    1. (signed [hl])

      Engineer48 in the forum of WCW added a photo of the _full 1MW system_. (I think that explanations were aded). Sory I dont have a link to these materials. You can Wsk Engineer48 if you wish.

      Upon this photo - the steam created inside the container is _condensed to water_ outside the container before being sent to tester in the second part of the building. I don't see any problem to put flowmeter on the pipes which carry the condensed water (if somebody insist that measuring _steam flow_ is not reliable as measuring _water flow_.


    2. * correction typo "WCW forum"
      I meant ECW (E-CATworld).

      signed [hl]

  3. No, you have not presented proof that Jed is a "mythomaniac" but that he is is an honest commentator who respects confidentiality agreements. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly and yet you ignore it. Readers will draw their own conclusions.

    1. For some reason you and others don't seem to understand what Jed is doing. It's just like if someone were to jump into a forum and say "You are a child molester. I can't tell you why I know this, because I promised the person that told me I wouldn't divulge the evidence that I've seen and I've seen the photos, but believe me if you saw it you would have no doubt." Do you think that would be fair to you? That is exactly what Jed is doing. If you think that you can state damaging information without providing proof, I wouldn't consider you an "honest commentator". Far from it.

  4. There seems to be a certain amount of misdirection going on here, since Jed constantly refers to Rossi's numbers or Rossi's measurements, or additional irrelevant details such as whether or not there was a customer (yes, if the measurements are done properly this IS completely irrelevant to whether or not the test demonstrated excess heat) and even regulatory issues related to "boilers" and/or the use of an unknown technology (yes, we know that the theory behind the technology - assuming it is real - is not completely understood).

    However, the dispute is about the one-year test, and according to the agreement between Rossi and IH the determination of whether or not the test was successful was to be made by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) who is an expert in power-plant certification using the ERV's own instruments. What Rossi's flowmeter showed or didn't show is completely irrelevant.

    Unfortunately, due to the ongoing lawsuit the ERV report has not been released. However, according to Mats Lewan, according to those who have seen the ERV report, nothing in the report seems to give an opportunity for large mistakes. A report from someone who has seen the ERV report and who has analyzed the results and instrumentation, might provide an intelligent assessment of the situation.

  5. signed [hl]

    See below a photo of the thew document which confirms that the "industry tester sent by JM chemical products" is independent on Andrea Rossi. I assume that this document will be present to court, which wil be exposed in court as fraud if the the tester is fake (as Jed Rothwell claims).
    Does not look to me like a fake tester. (I don't know the origin of this photo).


    1. This is completely nuts. The photo is of the document that was probably attached in error to the Agreement between IH and Rossi. It does not assert what [hl] claims. It only asserts that Rossi has no ownership interest in JM Products, and it says JM Chemical Products, so it was old, created when that was still the name. It mentions no "industry tester sent by JM Chemical Products." It is purely an ownership disclosure accidentally included in the file. And it lists Rossi's attorney as the President of JMC, which means that JMC is not actually "indpendent" of Rossi, but it is only ownership which is independent.

      Planet Rossi knows how to completely confuse issues. Or is this trolling from the other side, saying totally stupid stuff to make Planet Rossi look bad? It's the Internet. Anything is possible.

  6. About Flowmeter issue

  7. Looks like you believe in your own world of imagination, as if it is the real world of truth. I doubt it is.

    The document mentioned above will be presented probably in court and examined there by the lawyers of both sides and by the judge (if they will think that the tester is fake). On the other hand - your world of imagination will never be examined by any one any where, therefore your world of imagination probably worth nothing.

    The fact that a lawyer of Rossi is a president of JM Chemical products (USA) which performed the annual test - has no importance. As far As I understand (so I was told) - this lawyer of Rossi was also a lawyer in USA of the main Industry in UK which sent the tester. Therefore - the main Industry (in UK) choose this lawyer as a President of an entity which was created ad hoc _only to perform the test_.

    1. signed [hl]

      this is a response to
      Abd ulRahman Lomax's