Wednesday, July 13, 2016


Image result for quotations imaginary problemsImage result for quotations imaginary problems


The Message of Abd-ul Rahman Lomax reveals important things

Disciplined, hard-working, fast, owning a system Abd answers to my Blog Notes and reveals a lot of important things about his mode of thinking and about what, in an unhealthy spirit of reciprocity I have to call the IH Planet (about the planets see later)
His newest answer is at

1- It starts with a shock- I am looking to Ed Storms' idea to test Pd LENR extrapolating it up to a temperature of 1400 C positively and with expectations, Abd dismisses it ab ovo  "There is little or nothing new here, but Peter seems to think this is some amazing new direction. It isn't. I'm not going over it." I think about some possibilities, he says it is an impossibility. I want to learn, but he knows. Is tri-dimensional omniscience a necessary professional skill on his Planet? Tri-dimensional refers to past, present and future- all known with certainty- just not flowing always in this order there. This dismissal was useless, dear Abd and has nothing to do with the Dispute. I never feel obliged to be or seem smarter than I am.

2- Abd speaking about an nonexistent thing IH insider information- everything it was visible is in the legal documents;

3- Specific for the IH Planet: behaviorism- reduction to all problems - including those scientific, technological and recently legal, to Rossi's bad behavior this explains everything;

4- The metaphor of the Rossi Planet; it seems impressive a small modest planet with rather stupid mesmerized,, fanatical unhappy people unable to accept the most obvious truths generously offered by those omniscient, well and directly informed experts as Jed, Abd and Stephenrenzzie. plus  a few.  Try to compare the success rate and popularity of Planet Rossi and Planet IH on the Planet e-Terra, now after so many hectoliters of electronic ink were consumed to demonstrate the demonic charactr of Rossi and the crippling flaws of all his technologies, the tragic situation of his kingdom where no ray of excess heat was seen ever. Who is more believable, which Planet has more inhabitants, symbolically and statistically speaking?
As regarding myself, I am (or I am also, I was first)  from the E-Cat Planet, I call it LENR+ Planet and I have imagined some of its basic characteristics- catalysis  and the technology first a approach well before I knew that Andrea Rossi exists. However seeing how  snd when invention and inventor are attacked (suddenly after the trial has started)- yes Andrea Rossi has my full support and his inventions even more I am on the Planet Rossi.

5- The real masterpiece is what Abd writes about the ERV- it is perfectly relevant.
The method is simple:
a) describe some possible imaginary wicked (necessarily!) problems;

b) continue to discuss and consider the problems are real, even chronic;

c) demonstrate the problems cannot be solved , ergo the situation is an impossible disaster , 
The method is based on imagining the possible and using it to demonstrate that something is impossible it is IMPOSSIBILIZATION. The word exists in the English language for example it appears in James Joyce masterpiece Ullyses.  

Please read what Abd says about Fabio Penon- it is a perfect example for this method.

I cannot tell more now I had a small surgery this afternoon (excision of a solar keratosis of my scalp) and I lost time. However debunking the impossibilization procedure, cleverly based on he truth that
"imaginary problems, obstacles, difficulties (Mottos) are creating much more trouble than the real counterparts of these"
was the main aim of this essay-answer.

There are two offenses in Abd's opus:
a) he says I am incoherent because I use ten times amplifier for Jed's imaginary flowmeter
b) he says I am lacking imagination, if it si about imagination used for impossibilzation see above, then he is right I try to use my residual imagination and other mental skills for other constructive aims.

Abd uses distractions, divagations too he speaks a lot about the late Nate Hoffman in relation to Jed's...manners and about Cal Tech undergraduates, he knows why.

(it will be continued tomorrow)


The Apocalypse of Saint Howard

Link suggested by Abdul Rahman Lomax- thanks! ; 


The hot tamale in quantum mechanics is entanglement. Usually, this state is achieved when all the quantum objects reduce to the same base energy state. This is thermalization. In low temperature physics experiments, this is famously done at a temperature close to absolute zero, when all energy is removed from a system and all its elements reduce to their base energy state. 

But their is another route to entanglement that happens in LENR. This state can happen at any temperature. This special process is synchronization, usually of dipole vibrations. 

Disorder, synchronization and phase locking in non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates

LENR is full of quantum mechanics, and the key is the production of a Bose-Einstein condinsate at any temperature no matter how high. If all the elements in a system oscillate at the same rate in sync, then a bose-condinsate will form that cover those elements. Elements that have a strong connection to each other will share energy very well and they will eventually march to the same drummer.

Here below is an example of synchronization of oscillating elements.

In this metronom example, the shared energy path is through the vibrations in the foam platform that the metronomes are standing on. In LENR the communications between quantum elements are done through EMF.

Bose condensation of force carriers is what gives a single element immense power just through the force of numbers. A drop of water will become fearsome and powerful when it joins with countless numbers of it kind to form an ocean. A collection of very small things though insignificant when standing alone, but when grouped together their power becomes irresistible and unstoppable just by the sheer force of numbers. The immense power that LENR needs to function is produced in this way 


How technology disrupted the truth



  1. The arguments about water flow support the most egregious statements I can imagine.

    They should have measured the water inflow rather than the steam outflow, because the density can vary by a factor of 1,000.

    Rossi did not measure the water flow in because it would have foiled one of his favorite parlor tricks.

    The steam flow measurement is absolutely indefensible. I welcome criticism on this point.

    1. Hi Brian,

      Engineer48 on ECW here.

      As far as I know this is the 1st time I have read someone claiming there was not a flow meter on the condensate inflow to the reactor.

      Neither Weaver or Jed has ever stated that.

      Where did you read it? Would like to study your link to that data.

      So far the data that has been stated is:

      1) outlet steam pressure 0.0 barg by Weaver.
      2) outlet sream temperature 100.1C by Weaver.
      3) averaged electrical energy usage 22kWh/hr by utility account by Mats.
      4) fluid flow 1,500kg/hr by Mats/Rossi.
      5) COP > 50 by Rossi in court statement.

      From those data, the steam was superheated / dry.

      For COP=1 & assuming steam was superheated & input energy was as per utility account, the flow must be 30kg/hr, which means if the flow meter reported the claimed 1,500kg/hr, the flow meter had to record a flow 50x greater.

      In closing, no one is saying steam volume was measured but instead input condensate flow to the reactor's diaphram/solenoid pumps, with multiple 1 way flow valves, was monitored.

    2. Brian appears confused about what has been reported. This is what happens when we become convinced about a conclusion, in this case Rossi = fraud. We then interpret and remember information according to our conclusion, not according to our actual experience, in this case what we have read.

      This phenomenon in cognition and thought happens with everyone, not just on Planet Rossi!

      Rossi has always measured water inflow, never outflow. What is missing is study of outflow water and steam. Only outflow temperature is measured, and sometimes pressure. Reading the Agreement, it is considered enough if the outflow temperature is 100 C., which is obviously too low in a pressurized system. In addition, even if there is dry steam, there can be liquid water below it. So the classic Rossi assumption is that all inflow water is evaporated, and estimates of power output are based on that assumption. We see this in the comment by Engineer48. Some possibly imprecise data attributed to Dewey Weaver (an IH insider) is then used to imply that the steam is "superheated," i.e., by 0.1 C. Even if this were true (what is the measurement error?) outflow may have superheated steam above water at 100 C, or even lower temperature.

      The reported pressure of 0.0 bar is quite unlikely. This is a pressurized system, recirculating, there will be pump pressure and steam pressure. Peak pressure would be in the reactor area, not in the customer area, there would be a pressure drop through the heat exchanger or whatever is there. No pressure drop, no flow, by the way. This is basic physics.

      If the temperature is actually 100.1 C, this is almost certainly below the boiling point at the pipe pressure at that point.

      There are additional issues with the water inflow measurement, but that is all in controversy.

    3. Hi Abd,

      Engineer48 here.

      In private corro with Rossi in regard to a potential clients interesting in purchasing 10 x 1MWt reactors to build a test system, Rossi suggested the potential client's engineers to design the test load based on the delivery of 105C superheated steam at 0.2 barG.

      The published plant data shows 120C as the max stemp temp:

      which would imply a 0.95 barG max pressure to keep the steam superheated.

      I believe there were pressure leak issues with the 1 year test and that is why Rossi, to be conservative, suggested the 0.2 barG pressure.

    4. I discussed this further at

      I have now responded to the above at

      I appreciate Engineer48's answer above, but something is drastically off here. At 0.2 barG, 105 C steam is not superheated.

  2. Brian
    Have you been following the discussion
    between Jed Rothwell and Engineer 48
    and others on EcatWorld.

  3. commentary on this blog post