Tuesday, September 6, 2016



Image result for imaginary problems quotes


a) A stake in the heart of Dracula- demolishing and annihilating  Exhibit 5 of IH 

The tactic is actually simple, but the execution difficult and clumsy: 
- Take what you know or believe you know about the situation and create imaginary problems; claim that the problems are insoluble and repeat this in many forms wherever and whenever you can;
- eliminate both logical and quantitative thinking and convert normal measurement errors or minor in fatal flaws, disasters-practise dualistic thinking the alternative to any value being zero- it works or it not works at all
- Combine demonstrations of impossibility with direct accusations of fraud, do not care for facts. Boldly and freely use numbers you actually don’t have for issues you don’t know or don’t understand, mimick omniscience and total information even when you don't have the slightest idea about what happens - as in the JM area where energy was consumed and used. Combine and confuse, mix incompatible things- this is the recipe of poison and destruction.
Lie with statistics but also without it.

Exhibit  5 authored by Joseph Murray is an example- it has 5 items.

The Items will be now analyzed shortly; a thorough analysis will be possible only when the ERV report will be publiahed. The strange thing is that according to some experts any sane person looking at that Report has almost instantaneously the revelation of zero excess heat and Industrial Heat has not made it public. Mistery!
 The items:

The flowmeter used.

The most discussed item. First idea, flow values too small for the optimum range of the flowmeter- FALSE; flowmeter was  calibrated for that range.
Second perverse rheology idea- pipe and flowmeter working only half full- totally fool idea; technically impossible see please
Diagram of the plant, flowmeter between pump and generators at the bottom level, placed normally to measure flow of water direct to the E-Cats and actually Murray just imagined the rust stains on static vains of the flowmeter. Simple finding, imagination, nothing more,  he has seen the plant .
The plant has not worked with half full pipes- this accusation has to be dismissed as absurd. It would be polite from Murray and IH to retract this item because it makes them suspect of technological illiteracy.

The consistency of the reported flow rate statistics.

Accusation pointless without the complete ERV Report plus explanations, modes of performing the test and the other values measured. Just thrown in, and  has nothing to do with the reality or un-reality of the multiplicative excess heat. 

The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time

A normal fact- there were some reactor management problems during this long test, still not all reactors are born equal and this is a brand new, but WORKING technology in development.
As soon as IH and Murray seem or want or try to think that all and each reactors generate zero excess- that is nothing, why to discuss about this? Rossi and his team were not sleeping at the workplace they had to solve problems and to make improvements- this is the repeated history of all technologies.
To discuss this without the data of the ERV Report is impossible
But  what does Murray think, why Rossi has changed inactive with inactive  reactors? Or were they actually working?

.System alterations on the night of February 16 or the morning of February 17

System alterations when the system was stopped, what is wrong with them? Are they ,retro acting on the results as IH tries to retro-write the history of the test?

The flow of steam through the pipe to J.M. Products

Murray had and probably has no idea what happened at JM, ignores that there steam will trsnsfer heat and will be condensed, thus sub-pression created- pressure difference exists and works. More serious trouble this item shows Murray was NOT the good man for this dirty but not easy job. He, knowing that water was fed to the generators by a DN pipe supposes that the steam pipe is also DN 40-he does not know that due to the relative densities and flowing speeds of water and steam, the pipes for the later have greater diameters. In this case- see please:
Calculator pipe sizing by velocity of steam

you will see that the insulated steam pipe is actually DN 200 i.e. a section surface 25 times greater than the water pipe DN 40 for the same quantity, roughly.
No wonder Joe Murray you are able to see half full pipes in such a plant and no wonder you try to intoxicate the LENR world with irrelevant things, in part imaginary, in part misinterpreted. 

I do not remember to have ever seen a more kitschy report than this Exhibit 5.


1) The complete ICCF20 Program!


2) Now readable, accessible, Google translatable:
M.V. Mironov About the LENR experiments of A.Rossi and A.G.. Parkhomov
М.В.Миронов О LENR-эксперименитах А .Росси и А.Г.Пархомова
 http://technical-mouse.com/ Москва 2016 г. 

3) Catalyseur d'énergie de Rossi et Focardi

4) LENR Wikipedia audio


(It is about: Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy Kindle Edition
by Brett Holverstott 

This book you listed from a few days ago is a game changing work. 
It is incredibly well written and I believe will become a Science best seller.

Am just arrived in Iceland for 11 days and have it on my kindle. 
This book about Mills is to me  Among the top 3 books about the new 
energy story that I have read.

My prediction is it will (is certainly capable of) shake the foundations of
Science and consign a current generation of ignorant physicists and 
Academics to the Rubbish heap of history.

Mills theories truly do end the quantum era with its mangled maths and 
accepted  uncertainty.  The "shut up and calculate" idea of don't question
Quantum, as stated in some physics institutions Will be shown up for the 
stupidity it conveys.

This book is a must read for anyone wanting a strong glimpse of the future.



New on LLRX – Peter Drucker and the Forward Focused Mindset


  1. Peter - if 1MW was indeed generated, then where did it go to? You still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation for the IR survey only seeing around 20kW emitted from the locked room. Your assertion that Rossi will come up with a non-magical explanation for where the heat went is not a strong argument.

    There have been pictures published showing the recirculating water being pretty dirty. If the water was indeed changed to steam and recondensed then wouldn't it be nice clean distilled water? All the impurities would have been retained at the point of the water boiling, and the only dirt in the water would then be what is removed from the heat exchanger in the locked room. With a closed circulation system, there would be no Oxygen in that heat-exchanger and thus no corrosion either, and the returned water would be a clear distillate. Over time (and in fact only the time it takes for the water to circulate a few times) the water would become cleaner with all the dirt retained in the boiler, and since they presumably started with clean water from the mains supply we wouldn't see any dirt in the water. The only systems I've seen where the water gets dirty over time are where the water is only heated and not boiled.

    It remains that if 1MW was in fact generated, we don't see the results we would expect from that much heat energy in an enclosed space. There's no massive use of cooling-water, there's no giant fan and the noise associated with that, there's no massive heat-plume from the roof-vent, there's no heated ground over the drainage, there's no raw material being moved in or products being moved out, there aren't any workers coming in to run a process....

    In spite of the obvious lack of corroborative evidence, you instead hold on to the single-point evidence of what was written down of the flowmeter data as being the only valid evidence.

    Let's put the situation into another format: You attach a flowmeter to a tap and fill a bucket. Your flowmeter tells you you have 100l/minute of flow, but your 10l bucket takes a whole minute to fill up. What would you say the real flow is? Would you say "the flowmeter is calibrated so I must be filling that bucket in 6 seconds" or would you look for what's wrong with the flowmeter? If said flowmeter was on the input to your property and you were billed on the water it said you were using, would you not complain to the water-company about it whether or not they said it was calibrated and thus was correct? (Of course, you'd then also look for a leak in your pipes, too.)

    We should be looking for sanity-checks on measurements, since there are far more ways to get a measurement wrong than to get it right. Real heat has real consequences, and those consequences are not evident here.

    It doesn't matter to me exactly how they got the measurements wrong. If 1MW had been produced then it would have been obvious from outside the locked room. You just can't hide that much heat energy over such a long period.

    I have put up quantitative calculations of the consequences of 1MW of heat. Please put up a quantitative rebuttal that explains where that 1MW went, that can be supported by real physics rather than simply asserting that Rossi Is Right.

    1. Dear Simon,

      This is problem that MUST be resolved in the frame of the trial. Till then I suppose the heat was drained.
      I promise to tel you as soon as I know more.


    2. Peter - that much heat being "drained" for such a long time would have had obvious evidence. That I can't see any way in which such evidence could be hidden doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be done, but since it appears IH looked for that evidence and didn't see it, the method of dissipating that amount of heat would itself be a valuable invention. Consider for example no longer needing cooling-towers for power stations or for the air conditioning of buildings.

      We're therefore down to around 3 choices of explanation:
      1: There was no excess heat and so only 20kW or so needed to be dissipated. This is consistent with the observations of the heat-plume and the lack of process materials or staff.
      2: The 1MW was emitted and the IR survey was in error. There's still a lack of processed material being shipped, and therefore no reason for JM (Chemical) Products to spend $30k/month on the heat, but you can speculate on proprietary processes that produce very high-value materials. There's no evidence of such materials being sold by JM Products, and we'd expect that having spent in the region of $350k they'd be billing a customer for somewhat more than this. Loose ends....
      3: Rossi has an invention that destroys heat energy instead of moving it from one place to another. I don't have to tell you how unlikely this is.
      4: Insert your preferred explanation here. You can speculate that IH are lying about everything if you want, but this is inconsistent with their backing of other LENR projects. The percentage of the profit that would need to be paid to Rossi if it worked was small enough to be unimportant, and legal delays in getting to market would have cost more. It would thus be cheaper to pay Rossi whatever he wanted and to settle quickly.

      For me, explanation 1 is the only reasonable one that is consistent with the observations and with known physics. The other explanations require too many miracles.

      If the test had actually produced 1MW, IH stood to make so much profit that the reasonable course for them would have been to ignore the technical errors in the contract (date of starting, type of reactor used, etc.) and make the system work. They had all the manufacturing data as far as I can tell and made the systems that Rossi used. It would seem pretty inconceivable that they wouldn't have made others and tested them. They do state that their own tests showed no excess heat, which you can if you want interpret as that only Rossi could make it work. In that case, of course, it can be stated that Rossi didn't transfer all the IP as required in the contract.

  2. More to the point; why did he restrict observation of the fluid flow?

    How could Rossi justify preventing such analysis?

    Why did he quash the supoena for his secret customer?
    Only blindly loyal accolites of Rossi could believe any answer to these issues.

    Peter Gluck may require therapy after the Rossi debacle is settled.

    1. Brian - Most of the oddities and restrictions can be individually hand-waved away if you are prepared to suspend incredulity enough. I've seen enough comments that do just that, which sound plausible if you concentrate on just that and don't consider the ramifications. I'm concentrating purely on where the heat went because that can't be hand-waved away. Any explanation of where it went would produce consequences that should have been very visible and would have been noticed even by a human devoid of measuring kit. It really is the elephant in the room. 1MW has a very large footprint....

    2. Rossi/Leonardo argued for quashing two subpoenas to banks and one to an accountant, and we don't know what those were about. It may have nothing to do with the "secret customer." The Customer (JM Products) requested suppression of a subpoena to a telecom company, and the Magistrate suspended it, to allow JM Products time to provide the phone number and other information for James A. Bass, supposedly the Director of Engineering for JMP. That will go through within a few days, either directly or through the telecom company. The goal there is to find Bass, who is also a counterclaim defendant, as allegedly party to a fraud. The "fraud" is not necessarily "no heat." Heat is actually far less relevant than that Rossi set up a faux "Guaranteed Performance Test" by lying to IH. And Johnson of JMP was part of that and so was Bass. I think. It's all coming out. It is likely, my opinion, that the Rossi suit gets dismissed this month. It's already in process: Rossi was late responding to the IH Answer, so the allegations in the Answer stand uncontroverted and a Judgment is now possible on the "Six Cylinder Unit" issue. And Rossi just admitted on his blog what they are claiming. Peter, Rossi is insane.

  3. The point of Exhibit 5 is completely missed. Exhibit 5 is not an attempt to prove anything. It is a memorialization in writing of questions asked Penon by Murray in February. What is demonstrated by Exhibit 5 is Penon's lack of communication and cooperation. It raises questions that perhaps Penon could answer, but he did not. Given that, IH's suspicion of fraud is amplified, and that is what this would mean to a jury.

    Exhibit 5 reveals a little of the preliminary reports. It also states some of what Murray personally observed.

    You say "Murray had and probably has no idea what happened at JM." Why would that be, Peter? Murray attempted to visit in July 2015. Denied by Rossi -- for no reason other than he decided to deny all visitors other than those already on a list. He broke the Terms Sheet agreement with that, IH was supposed to be able to visit the Plant at any time. Murray was coming with Vaughn. So no access for the Engineer until the test was over! Rossi removed (replaced?) the fuel the last day and apparently "cleaned" the plant. So Murry has questions and Penon doesn't answer them. At all. What does this indicate? Penon is probably a fugitive at this point, avoiding service of notice of the suit. It is all collapsing. Peter, "never give up" does not mean "shut your eyes and say I Believe over and over." It means never despair, but open your eyes and see what is possible.