Thursday, August 11, 2016



Success is not built on success. It’s built on failure. It’s built on frustration. Sometimes it’s built on catastrophe. (Sumner Redstone)

There is no education like adversity. (Benjamin Disraeli)

Both valid in LENR!


Some people consider irresponsibility and unaccountability as privileges and use it for anarchic and absurd speech- propaganda for causes that could not win being in contradiction with justice and truth. A tragic case - because it iis about a kind of fallen hero sui generis,  is that of Jed Rothwell, once one of the Cold Fusion main supporters  but now a killer of LENR technology and...hope.. Hatred and envy driven he mixes his techno-demagogy with a populist- "I protect LENR and you against the all-evil enemy Andrea Rossi - the destroyer of LENR's reputation, funding system and future." 

No problem with this actually IH needs people able to tell anything and to create a pro-IH anti-Rossi atmosphere in the blogosphere and the Web, Google and beyond.
The problem is first the nasty FUD created and and promoted by Jed and even more in the absurdities he promotes without decency. See this one , I wrote here yesterday:

"It is elementary engineering. it was repeatedly published in many places blogs and it is well known: 
the flowmeter has been placed at a level lower than the source and the destination of the water flow, therefore it was at the bottom of a 'U': in such position, due to gravity, the flowmeter is always full."

And I bet with myself that Jed will not accept this, his surface layer is similar to that of the rhinos:

Indeed, he answered: 

Rossi did say that, but he lied. Rossi often lies.

But this has nothing to do with Rossi, it  is simple engineering and IH could not admit a different scheme, it is a simple rule.

Then I asked- this is not a difficult question:
"And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?"

And this answer came from this champion of absurdities, a perfectly tautological non-answer: 

It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than the destination (the reservoir).

Can you tell or is it under NDA?

I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him, unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You will reject it and demand more, and more, and more.

I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait until then. But, since you do not believe what they already published, there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi is always right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is. 

Again mixing in here Rossi when it is about his (Jed's) unbelievable statements.

AND a dialog between
Adrian Ashfield (A.A) and Jed Rothwell(J.R/)

A.A.- Your answer is too pathetic for words: 
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an engineer can judge it.

J.R.-Observers say it was half full 

A.A.- Nobody saw the pipe was half full unless they had X-Ray eyes.  All you have is Murray says about stains. Show a diagram of the piping.
t looks like all the voluminous secret data you had boils down to just the above - and you apparently don't even have a piping diagram that you can show us.

J.R. You are wrong about that, but I cannot describe the details. Sorry.


1) Facts are facts, or why Darden will lose the ECAT Case

2) From Rossi's blog
Lindsay Meadows
August 10, 2016 at 10:53 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
There is around a puppet of IH saying that the flowmeter of the E-CAT 1 year test worked only half full of water so that the measure was wrong. You explained already many times here that the flowmeter has been installed by the ERV and not by you and also that the ERV, an expert of the matter, has obviously installed the flowmeter in a position lower than the water arrival point and lower than the delivery point, so that the flowmeter was at the bottom of a “U”, which granted the flowmeter itself to be always full of water.
Can you comment ?

Andrea Rossi
August 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM

Lindsay Meadows:
Thank you for your comment. I cannot talk of issues that have to be given evidence of in Court.
Warm Regards,


4) Igor Iurievich Danilov explains why at LENR there are not released gammas and other hard radiations.

Данилов Игорь Юрьевич (Философский штурм) догадался почему при НЭЯР нет гамма и др. жесткого излучения


JedRothwell: Defkalion set up the meters. But the fraud was not in the meters. It was in the configuration of the flow, and the induced backflow. The meters had nothing to do with it, although they did reveal the problem to McKubre and other sharp observers.
Under heavy cross examination, JedRothwell admitted that the Defkalion meter was not manipulated to perpetrate fraud. But JedRothwell and his minions set up a false equivalence syllogism between the "fraud" Defkalion case and the Rossi flow meter situation. The Rothwell logic is clearly flawed in his FUD construction. Stating it simply, Defkalion's flow meter being good cannot prove that Rossi's flow meter is bad.
What was a fraud was the flow pattern inside the Defkalion reactor. However, Gambarelli's case is based on a fraudulent flow meter setup. 
The analysis of McKubre and other sharp observers disproves the accusations made in the Gambarelli meme about an fraudulent Defkalion flow meter setup. 

Gambarelli claim that Defkalion refused to allow him to destroy months of setup work by NI engineers was certain proof that Defkalion was protecting a fraud based demo setup. What other reason would Defkalion have to forbid Gambarelli to screw with their meticulously setup demo engineered by National Instruments if it was not the intent by Defkalion to defraud. 
This all goes to show how FUD campaigns can be exposed through the patient though stubborn application of logic.
Now Jed is going to reformulate his FUD logic to compensate for the logical inconsistencies that his arguments reveal. We await this show to begin forthwith.
How ironic it is that the group who cry out "fraud" the loudest have subversion and fraud at the heart of their motivation.


This will happen one day for LENR too...
Simulating complex catalysts key to making cheap, powerful fuel cells


Entrepreneurs: Words of Encouragement  by KG Charles-Harris
borrowed from Miki Saxon for the Mottos of today
How do you explain consciousness


  1. Peter - the essential question here is not the flowmeter but whether the 1MW of heat was actually produced.

    Can you think of _any_ industrial process that uses heat where 98% or so of the input heat goes into the product with only around 2% wasted to the atmosphere, and where sufficient material to do this can be stored in that Florida warehouse to absorb 1MW or so for a whole year with no need to replace such material (there were no movements in or out of that warehouse seen)? Jed has mentioned that an IR survey of the warehouse was performed by IH (though currently this has not been confirmed by IH) and that the total heat plume emitted by the warehouse was consistent with around 20kW. Bear in mind that the 98% efficiency of the process is also not thermodynamically possible at around 100°C peak temperature.

    If that IR survey is confirmed, then to an accuracy of maybe 10% we'll be certain about the amount of heat dissipated in the warehouse. Given the absurdity of the hypothetical manufacturing process being 98% efficient with no movement of materials, and that the only other way of getting rid of that heat energy would be to heat a flow of water and put it down the drain (where the IR survey would have also shown hot water being discarded after a few hours of this starting), the only logical reason for the lack of visible heat would be that it wasn't being produced.

    Arguing over the method by which the figures were fudged is futile. If it's not obvious to you that 1MW of heat at around 100°C would need a flow of materials to process into and processed materials out of that locked room, and that even so there would be a very obvious heat-plume from waste heat from that process, then your competence as an engineer is in question.

    Simply put, the 1MW (or 750KW) wasn't there. Exactly how the meters were set up to produce the wrong measurements may be an interesting discussion-point, but it's not important scientifically except in knowing how not to measure.

    Repeatedly asking Jed to publish data he has received in confidence, where he has already stated that he's said all that he can, is also futile. Given his past performance, and the effort (and money) he's put into publishing all available information on LENR, I trust his word. He wants LENR to succeed (this is obvious) and does not lightly say that data is wrong.

    This particular Emperor has no clothes. I'm looking to other experimenters to achieve a commercially-viable LENR. It is very likely that Rossi has seen excess heat in his experiments (or at least thought he has); it is not shown that he can produce excess heat reliably and to the COP he claims. In particular, the 1MW generator seems to have a COP of around 1.0 and not 50.

    Shooting the messenger won't affect the reality of the news. It may be some time before Jed's words are shown to have been true, but I have no doubt that his data is correct.

  2. As a practical matter, it is not possible to flush 1 MW of continuous heat down the drain in a Florida warehouse. The Florida regulations prohibit this. You would destroy the sewer.

    The reason is a little complicated. The regulations do not allow you to dump water down the drain which is hotter than 60 deg C, because this will destroy some sewer pipes, made of PVC. See:

    Because you can only raise the temperature this much, you would need a large flow of water. Much larger than normal water service to a facility of this size. You would use as much water as a very large apartment building.

    If you were to dump water at a high temperature or as steam, this would quickly destroy the sewer, and the city engineers would find out and stop you.

    Also, there is no reason why a legitimate customer would want to hide the heat by flushing it down the drain. What motivation would he have? It is at least plausible this customer did not want to show people equipment, but why would he also wish to hide waste heat? What could be secret about that?

    1. Thanks, Jed. The only remaining way that material (in this case water) could have moved through that warehouse without being noted was via the water-pipes, and this has been comprehensively shown to be bunk. As I noted, though, the IR survey would have seen the hot drains anyway.

      I see no reason why the customer should have wanted to hide the process heat or to simply throw it away like this, but it is not impossible. Why pay that much for the energy and do nothing with it? It's illogical, implausible but (just) possible.

      The question that Rossi-supporters refuse to answer is where that 1MW of heat went. So far only around 2% has been accounted for in the heat-plumes from the locked room. The hand-waving of saying that it was measured and so was there is pretty useless - it would have visible consequences too and they aren't there.

      I hope the results of the IR survey you mentioned are made public. This is the job central-heating engineers do every day, and it won't be far off in accuracy. That may convince the people who are still arguing about how the measurements were fudged.

      Exactly how the metering was fooled or the log was falsified is not critical. The heat wasn't there, and can be shown to not be there, and therefore the ERV report is false.

    2. This is not the case under discussion, which is on open air with mixing fluids (hot and colder air from outside). The flux is enclosed and as they say "care must be taken with turbulent flow". Otherwise, you are assuming that Rossi let people in the other room

      And it is possible to confuse 1000kW with even nothing: that is when the device is not working.

  3. Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say.
    Paddle Wheel Flow Meter

    1. Dear Doba,

      Thank dispute with Jed Rothwell re FLOWMETERS is an ugly story, but prthaps interesting.
      Will be enchantedc to publish your expert opinion even if late a abit.

  4. Great blog! I really love how it is easy on my eyes and the information are well written. I am wondering how I might be notified whenever a new post has been made.
    Paddle Wheel Flow Meter