Tuesday, August 9, 2016



Image result for paul feyerabend quotesImage result for machiavelli quotations aims means


What should I comment today? I am happy that after such a long total absence I can offer you some LENR science papers for your analysis.  We were waiting for Wayte! Richard Wayte has something to tell, the Sapogin et al paper is high level LENR theory for the real experts. Its connection with religious aspects is an emphasis of its fundamentality.

Nothing really new on the Rossi-IH front, the parallelism of the monologues is steadily increasing as well as the verbal temperature and aggressivity. Andrea Rossi seems not impressed or scared, focuses on the Court issues and obviously enjoys some suicidal traits he discovers in the Counterclaims.
The IH porta-voces are very active, noisy and do not admit any contradiction. Jed Rothwell especially is omniscient- now he has seen the ERV report for all days is impenetrable to logic and does not deliver the any proof of his pontifications.

Still promoting his idea about the unsuitable flowmeter; I wonder how would he
discuss with the experts of the APATOR Company of Poznan about flowmeter issues
after all those despicable calumnies re this instrument.
Without or even with the continuously eroding Exhibit 5 Jed had good, high fall from his monstrously unjust and blasphemous statement for which he fully deserves moral lynching by engineers.

Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large. It hardly matters which of these methods Rossi used. As I said, read the manual and you too will learn how to get the wrong answer.

Do you think APATOR will like this? Or any other flowmeter manufacturer.
Anyway this is deflated for now, starts to speak about errors- but has found a last hour salvation of his "evil flowmeter" theory:
- the plant was working with the pipes only half- or one-third full - including the ascending portions and the flowmeter works 1/2 or 1/3 full too but shows 1/1 
flow!!! Good for a technological illiteracy contest or for showing missing pragmatical common sense. 
But, as one Motto says it, the end- no excess heat, the 1MW Test was a total scam-
justifies the means.
The means yes, Machiavelli has indeed said this- but NOT the style! NOT the low IQ of the statements!


1) A Technique for Making Nuclear Fusion in Solids 


R. Wayte 29 Audley Way, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8EE, England, UK.

Email: rwayte@googlemail.com Tel: (44)1344883352 
A technique is described for making nuclear fusion at room temperature by compressing a powder mixture comprising a deuteride and catalytic material. The result is explosive beyond known chemical reaction for the materials. 


International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 4, October – December 2015 
Leo G. Sapogin, V. A. Dzhanibekov, Yu. A. Ryabov 

The present article discuses the problems of new Unitary Quantum Theory in its applications to the different aspects of the reality. There are spectacular examples of such applications. The Modern science cannot explain origin of life's.  

3) Methods of studying the composition of the low-energy ion beams and the surface of deuterated-metal targets 

S I Kuznetsov, G N Dudkin, B A Nechaev and I D Bystritsky Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30 Lenin Ave., Tomsk, 634050, Russia 
E-mail: smit@tpu.ru 
To study the reactions between the light nuclei (dd, pd, d3He, d4He) with ultralow collision energies, there is a need to obtain the high-precision experimental results on the purity of the target surface saturated with the hydrogen isotopes (protium, deuterium) and on the number and composition of the accelerated particles falling on the target. To solve this problem, a method has been developed and tested for operational testing the quality of the vacuum system and the cleaning of the metal target surface saturated with deuterium. The paper also presents the measurement results for the true flow of the accelerated ions and neutrals of hydrogen (deuterium), using a multigrid electrostatic energy analyzer. The values of the ion and neutral components of the accelerated particle flow were received for the Hall ion source. The values of the secondary electron emission coefficients were determined for a number of the metal targets (Cu, Ti, Ta, Zr) in the range of the accelerated ion energies of 3–12 keV

4) Cold Fusion- is perhaps the most elusive phenomenon with which Science was ever confronted

Fusione fredda / LENR: forse il fenomeno più sfuggente con cui la scienza si è mai confrontata

5) Andrea Rossi ready to answer to the Countercomplaints:

August 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM

Dr Andrea Rossi,
After reading the countercomplaints of IH, it’s clear they have not a single proof against you, but only assumptions. By the way, about the customer: what’s the point ? The agreement signed between you and IH says that the test had to measure the energy produced by the E-Cat and its COP, didn’t even talk of any customer. To measure the energy and the COP the measurement is made on the E-Cat, independently from what the customer does and whom the customer is.
If all IH got is that, you already won.

Andrea Rossi
August 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM

You are right.
Warm Regards,

Robert Dorr
August 8, 2016 at 11:01 PM

There is no better feeling than knowing what you have done and are currently doing is %100 backed up by unequivocal facts. You can quietly observe your enemies try to conjure up ways to show how they are correct while all the time you know that all they have conjured is a world of fantasy. Then when the moment is right you will get to deconstruct their fantasy world, piece by piece. I can’t wait to see your enemies get their just desserts.

Keep strong,

Robert Dorr

Andrea Rossi
August 9, 2016 at 6:50 AM

Robert Dorr:
I agree.
Warm Regards,

August 9, 2016 at 4:52 AM

Dear Andrea,
the reading of the 66 pages of the Counter-Plaintiffs offers many moments of real fun. IH launches insults and completely groundless accusations, like these:
“Leonardo and Rossi manipulated the testing process”; “…manipulating, along with Fabiani, the operation of the Plant and the reports of the Plant’s purported operations, to make it appear that the Plant was producing a COP far greater than 10.0”; “…enlisting Penon to produce a false report”; “JMP started sending falsified invoices to Industrial Heat”; “Leonardo, Rossi, JMP, and Johnson also restricted access to the JMP area at the Doral location, claiming that there was a secretive manufacturing process being conducted there, when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it back to the Plant as water”
But where is the evidence? How can you accuse someone without showing evidence of his guilt?
IH tries to seem naive and says “we have been cheated for years without realizing it”. Certainly they are trying to make themselves look like idiots, because stupidity is not a crime. But in their long period of candid innocence they have raised millions of dollars convincing other investors about the quality of their business.
For example, from the beginning IH felt that the test did not conform with the contract: “…that testing began well over one year after the Guaranteed Performance period commenced under the License Agreement – making it impossible for the Plant to achieve Guaranteed Performance during the time period required by the License Agreement”. If the test did not conform with the contract, IH already knew from the very first days that they would not have to pay for it. But they allowed that the test was carried out regularly, in order to have something to show to investors. Attitude very unfair.
And only after beginning to collect money from investors they have also started to bother checking if their investment was solid: “Eventually Counter-Plaintiffs discovered that the test that Leonardo and Rossi were conducting, in conjunction with the supposed “customer” in Miami, was not a real test at all”.
And they say:
“In mid-2015, Industrial Heat hired Joseph Murray (“Murray”) to serve as Vice President of Engineering, and empowered him to assemble a team of engineers and scientists to elevate the level of Industrial Heat’s testing and evaluation of LENR technology. Among other things, one of the projects undertaken by that team was rigorous testing of the E-Cat IP.”
The team of engineers and scientists should have been assembled from the very first days! Why they waited until July 2015 to introduce Mr Murray to you and try to make him visit the plant if the test began at the first months of 2015? In the meantime they kept on collect money even if they suspected that you was a cheater?
Moreover IH has been very unfair on several occasions. For example, it has proposed a major change of their agreements during the setting up of the Validation Test day, when you was supposedly committed to operate its reactor: “On that same date – April 29, 2013 – , Industrial Heat and IPH executed an Assignment and Assumption of License Agreement (the “Assignment and Assumption”), wherein Industrial Heat assigned its rights under the License Agreement to IPH”.

I think that you will win against them because they really have nothing.

Andrea Rossi
August 9, 2016 at 6:49 AM

Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
August 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM

Dear Andrea,

IH in their counterclaim has gone full conspiracy theory mode on you, implicating at least Penon, Fabiani, Henry W. Johnson in addition to yourself.

Does this give you a lot of amusement?

Best Regards,

Andrea Rossi
August 9, 2016 at 6:47 AM

Yes, because they did not produce any evidence of what they said and make terrible slanders of which they now have to answer in Court. The amusement comes specifically from several points of their countercomplaints that, believe me, are really funny. Obviously I cannot anticipate here what we are going to bring in Court.
Warm Regards,

The opinion of Daniel Rocha regarding the flowmeter dispute- as seen in Exhibit 5
of the Counterclaims

I noticed that there is a version of high accuracy MWP and other of less, MP Probably the lawyers built a case on the wrong one, because the skipped a letter.

Exhibit 3, which is a version of the 1MW e-cat,  has a photo, which seems to indicate a model (if that is a flowmeter) with a capacity to measure smaller flows MP130-NC (which is less "chubby" and more zig zag, but the diameter of the tube seems the same in both. So, a rusty line is expected. 
I can think of this situation:

Rossi could be enquired that he and IH got MWN-130 from the APATOR the same model, and they saw that it was not suited to measure 36Km^3 per day, Rossi could easily say:

"Yes, that's what we used and they used too, in a prototype, when we were investigating the method for measuring the flow"

If IH says that the same wrong instruments were sent to test, Rossi will say,

"Oh, but that's what we noticed too, and then we ended up using the correct one, as you also did, as you can see in the picture you provided in exhibit, which has a zigzag shape and has a minimum flow capacity of 7.2m^3 per day"

 If Rossi asked about the specialist measurement plate read by the flowmeter , Rossi will say "I am not aware of how he got that information, we just used the correct one as you did. It's probably that you sent the wrong model by mistake while you were using the correct one".

 If Rossi is asked why ERV did not answer he was, he will say "He cannot answer something that makes no sense, specially coming from a judicial letter. He has the right to remain silent. All models have plates, after all, and we used the correct one!”

If Rossi is asked about the rust line, he will say “Take notice that both the more precise model , MP, and less precise, MWN, have an entry tube of 80mm. So, given the range of measurement, at least some parts won’t be able to produce a quality measurement if they are completely filled. This is required because if is filled, bubbles will be forced into the flowmeter. This is similar to the device  we see bellow hospital serums, like this: http://www.canstockphoto.com/serum-1776202.html
Rossi can be asked 36,000 is a round number. He will answer "Yes, it's a round number. We did it for market purposes, though, because the precision of the overall measurement was around 10%, so the last significant figure was around six. So, the correct way to say was 3.6*10^4m^3/day. This is why we say 1MW, the last significant number is 0, the correct way to write it would be 1.0^10^6W."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures 
Rossi can be asked the entire set up was disassembled and reassembled again, yet it showed 1MW and 36,000m^3. Rossi will say "1MW is a measure of power, not energy. It was still 3.6*10^4m^3/day since that is a measurement of flux, not of volume!" 


Thanks to Sanjai Sinha!

Superconductivity in palladium hydride and deuteride at 52–61 kelvin H. 
M. Syed, T. J. Gould, C. J. Webb and E. MacA. Gray* Queensland Micro- and Nanotechnology Centre, Griffith University, Nathan 4111, Brisbane, Australia
*e-mail: e.gray@griffith.edu.au 
We report the observation of conventional superconductivity at the highest temperature yet attained without mechanical compression, around 54 kelvin in palladium-hydride and 60 kelvin in palladium-deuteride. The remarkable increase in Tc compared to the previously known value was achieved by rapidly cooling the hydride and deuteride after loading with hydrogen or deuterium at elevated temperature. Our results encourage hope that conventional superconductivity under ambient conditions will be discovered in materials with very high hydrogen density, as predicted more than a decade ago.


Insight into why the universe is dominated by matter and why we exist


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. You asked: "Do you think APATOR will like this? Or any other flowmeter manufacturer."

    Apator's manual specifically warns the user that the entire pipe volume must be full of water. The flow meter will not function properly otherwise. See: Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions, section 6.6 in document I-EN-2-003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500.

    Rossi deliberately ran his flow meter in a pipe that was half-full, or less than half full. So it registered the flow rate far too high.

    Apator's manual specifically warned him not to do this. Any guide to flowmeters warns against this. Unless the flowmeter is specifically designed to work with a mixture of liquid and gas, this never works.

    If you ignore the manual and use an instrument incorrectly, it is not the manufacturer's fault. No one would blame the manufacturer. So it makes no sense to ask whether they would "like" this. If you buy a Ford car, drain the oil, and drive it until the engine is destroyed, no one would blame Ford for that. They would say you are a destructive idiot for ignoring common sense instructions in the manual. That is what Rossi did with this flowmeter. I am sure it was deliberate, just as the backflow error induced by Defkalion was deliberate. Both techniques were use to defraud people by producing fake, high flow rate readings.

    Rossi used similar techniques with his other instruments to produce fake excess heat. Careful checks by I.H. experts revealed that he had no excess heat at all.

    1. You are smarter than Rossi and Penon combined- to cite you.

      Explain us technically how on the Earthh is it possible to run the plant with the pipes half full with water, horizontal vertical pipes- HOW?
      show a simple scheme?
      You can do it indeed with a compressor injecting air in the system,.
      But otherwise?
      What is too much is too much!

    2. What is a "horizontal vertical" pipe?

      It is easy make a horizontal pipe full, empty, or half full. Any plumber can explain how to do this. You can put a valve to regulate pressure, for example. See "partially full pipe flow calculator and equations:"


      You can add a dike to the end, or tilt it slightly so that it drains while one end stays half full. Or you can use gravity flow with the Manning formula to regulate fluid height:


    3. More to the point, if it was impossible to have a half-full pipe, why would this flow meter manual warn against half-full pipes?

      For that matter, how do you know Rossi does not have an compressor injecting air into the system? The water goes out the room into his pretend customer site and comes back in another pipe. There could be a compressor in the other room. The only thing we know for sure about that other room is that no significant heat is produced in it. I.H. and others checked carefully with IR sensors and by other means. There is not 1 MW; or 100 kW. There is no more than ~15 kW. So obviously Rossi is lying about the 70-foot machine in there that consumes 1 MW. If he were injecting air, he would lie about that too.

    4. "Rossi deliberately ran his flow meter in a pipe that was half-full, or less than half full. So it registered the flow rate far too high."

      worst than that, he erased the evidences after he received the report by IH.

      this is not a mistake.

    5. dear Alain,

      in your opinion what is the evidence for the half-full pipes? Stains on the statica vanes- what are these?


    6. you can discuss on the meaning of evidences.
      but when they are erased, you can discuss more.

  3. Peter
    One thing about the atomic bomb the
    testing and knowing if it worked was easy.
    by Alex Wellerstein, published May 23rd, 2014
    What was going through J. Robert Oppenheimer’s head when he saw the great fireball of the Trinity test looming above him? According to his brother, Frank, he only said, “it worked.”

  4. Peter &Jed
    Lots of discussion going on at Ecat
    ld about flow meter.

  5. Hi, Peter, Thanks for told us about, To study the reactions between the light nuclei (dd, pd, d3He, d4He) with ultra low collision energies, there is a need to obtain the high-precision experimental results on the purity of the target surface saturated with the hydrogen isotopes (protium, deuterium) and on the number and composition of the accelerated particles falling on the target. It is really informative and attractive post. I will recommend it to others .Keep up the good work,