Sunday, July 31, 2016



"Three lifetimes will not suffice for me to understand completely the subtle differences between true/truth and real/realist. (Peter Gluck)


Scientific truth vs legal truth in LENR, especially in the Rossi IH conflict.

An anonymous comment of yesterday:

Brillouin Energy may be asked by the court to testify
"under oath" direct questions regarding eCat technology. 

and an idea of Doug Marker:

"At best, one of IH's defense tactics could be to argue that the eCat is LENR and LENR is scientifically unproven irrespective of the ERV report. I can't really see any other way out for them."

I found these ideas inspiring... first my fast reactions, not related to science to them;I know Robert Godes for years, he is in my opinion a good and original LENR researcher going on his own LENR way, his technology,his theory, As such my bet is that he much smarter than testifying  some scientific truths about Rossi's technology
This is too difficult, too risky, too fuzzy in the practice this cannot lead to something useful, even for the cause of IH if Robert wishes to support them. I hope he will offer us a short statement. Or not at all- that could be a clear non-answer.

Second about Doug Marker's idea I think this has to be taken as exactly what it is- a possibility. My friend Doug is a thinker, critical, systemic and a problem solver. In his essay he has presented a problem: what could IH do in the situation in which it is? And showing that the Test was based on LENR and LENR is not possible according to Science, ergo it was no test with positive results.. could be tried by IH, if anything else fails in the Court. (If anything else fails this will fail too- let's wait 
for IH's killer- or suicidal counterclaims added to the already "classic" 4 claims from the Dismiss document:

1- departing from the purported testing plan;  (departing where, why, alone?)
2- ignoring inoperable reactors; (is bad they focused on the working reactors?) 
3- relying on flawed measurements; (why they were not stopped from this, fast?)
4- using unsuitable measuring devices. (as above- 4 leads directly to 3 )

However we have arrived to the great problem: Scientific Truth vs Legal Truth 
and the differences are essential. The legal truths must be defined very clearly reported to a clear rigid frame- the Law. The letter(s) and the spirit.

We know much more about scientific truth in LENR, but actually we have only one (certain): it exists! The basic details- what it is, how it can be made useful, why it works when it works, why it does not work well, how many sorts of LENR are possible- these scientific truths are the fuel/object/cause of our "eternal" disagreements.

When in the dawn of Cold Fusion LENR  discovery hit by a tsunami of the corrosive waters of interested ill-will has hit the field, unjustly- no appeal was made  to Law.
There was no Fleischmann Pons vs Huizenga Morrison Trial.
The Law cannot do much for solving the problems of science but can make great problems to it when misapplied. Take the bizarre case of the Italian seismologists first convicted then cleared for manslaughter- for not predicting a deadly earthquake.
The acse is easy to find on the Web, it was discussed recently by Jed Rothwell in his LENR Forum comments too. I signed a letter of protest for the case .

Anyway, I will stop here It is Sunday and I don't want to open the box with cobras that is the relationship between Truth and Reality, between Science and Philosophy
physics and meta-physics.
Andrea Rossi who is an expert philosopher has called my attention (and warned me) 
that the dialectic of these relationships cannot be made really objective- the problem has no solution.

True , and if something is NOT missing in LENR it is problems.Now we have legal problems too... primarily they are about money, however will send an important message to LENR Science and a "survive or not" message to the first LENR Technology.

Look to what he/she says NOT who says it!

There is clearly more than one way to skin this 'LENR' fish (not unlike how for instance, cancer is not just one single biological pathology -- but in fact many 'variations-on-a-theme'). (reader Che on Vortex)

This Che - my comment after 3 consecutive stages of censoring-  is actually a psychopath troll playing the role of a convinced communist. He repeatedly has attacked me because I am "whining" about my miserable Stalinist experience-
forgetting how many human existences were ruined and even interrupted by the communist ideas in action. I have sent him in North Korea for re-education and because I am peaceful, polite  and conciliating my trend/desire is to kick Che in the ass so he will die of hunger while flying in the air. The world is full with such oligophrenic political denialists of  the most darkest episodes of the History.
HOWEWER what he says above about LENR is wise true even if the parallel with cancer is unwelcome.


1) JM Chemical Products, Inc. is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case



  1. Dear Peter,

    the good thing is that in the case of LENR we do not have to struggle with the truth, or believe in something, like for example concerning the question, if their is a life after death, or is there a kind of god. There is no need for philosophy, or theology, or speculation, because there is at least one device, that was tested with a claimed positive result.

    So what we actually have is a simple 'true or false' scenario, nothing more and nothing in between.

    The next good thing is, that we are, unlike the situation in 2011, at a point, where we very soon will get the valid and ultimate information, if it is true or false!

    I already know the answer, because the big picture shows that the probability for 'false' is equal zero and science is the oath of allegiance to the probability.

    All the best to you
    Uwe Doms

    1. Very soon now.. That is what the believers have been telling for a long, long time.

      What comes to Rossi, we have the answer already.

      But my prediction is, that you will keep waiting for that "soon now" for a very, very long time.

      Thr real enigma is why do you refuse to see the obvious?

  2. Saying something does not make it so. But it is interesting that something should be "legally true".

    I call bullshit on this one.

    1. timo, what's new in what you ay, again very shortly? You do not believe Rossi's DE-Cat is making useful excess heat, OK, your POV.
      What i could not not get clearly what do you thinjk about Cold fusion/LENR?

      You are not alone with skepticism, OK be happy but if you write an opinion please justify it in ome way.
      Contribute with something, cultural, Finnish your opuses


    2. The posturing around the AR LENR case is showing signs of fraud on a daily basis.

      Secret customer with a secret process... are you kidding?

      I repeat my prediction that Penon will not be deposed under penalty of perjury.

  3. quote* "my trend/desire is to kick Che in the ass so he will die of hunger while flying in the air." *unquote

    LOL that is quite a visual!