Saturday, June 4, 2016



The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization. (Sigmund Freud)

Unfortunately this quote is often misinterpreted as "my degree of civilization is directly proportional with the number and intensity of the insults I am throwing on people who think differently"


a) Andrea Rossi about the four fatal flaws of the MW 1year test

The Dismiss document of Industrial Heat answers to Rossi's accusations however as counter-argument names 4 fatal flaws of the test. I have asked Andrea Rossi what does he think about these- here are his short answers:

1 -departing from the purported test plan,

The test plan has respected precisely the protocol; signed in the agreement which has been also the same protocol of the first test made on April 30- May 2, 2013 in Ferrara

2 - ignoring inoperable reactors, (N.B. - very unsmartly formulated condition!) 

The plant has produced  the energy that it had to produce by the signed agreement. Obviously my focus was not on how to operate not-good reactors but on using the good ones. 

3 - relying on flawed measurements, 

The instruments were of the ERV, and it is not necessary to repeat who was the ERV,his professionality, his experience.
They (IH) have used the first, second and third reports of the ERV, made by the same instrumentation, with the same results of the last report to collect 150 millions , talking of stellar results with their investors, who repeatedly visited, lead by Darden the plant in operation during the Test, to convince (with success) the investors to give to IH 150 millions.

4- using unsuitable measuring devices (N.B. - other pearl, that means erroneous results not favoring some scam as IH's fighters try to suggest)

All the measuring devices of the ERV  obviously were certified.

My Note: Necessarily they MUST deny now the validity of the ERV reports (i-IV)
A.R:  Obvious otherwise they could not have an excuse  not to pay.

b) In LENR too, analytical thinking has some limits. And patience, too.

Success, echo, impact, feedback  are  important even for the most modest bloggers- like me. However I have no reasons to complain (there is no complaining in LENR- the following statement, even if not a perfect compliment or mini laudatio, coming from an authority in the field - can make me contented and proud , I am not blogging in vain:
You know nothing about these tests, yet you have written blog entry after entry full of unfounded nonsense, false accusations and absurd mistakes.

Small blog, great performance(s), I only feel some oxymoronic shade in  "absurd" mistakes.
This came in the frame of a friendly discussion re the Rossi Saga -more precisely the Dismiss document on the public Vortex Forum- starting with this message::

One of the two leading condottier-i of IH,Jed Rothwell brags all the time that he knows precisely from IH how the calorimetry used at the 1MW plant was flawed
and how/why it was NO trace of excess heat produced.  I have asked Jed to tell me the technical part - I will sign an NDA and will keep this to me, just I want to know.
Using secret data as proofs is perhaps not the best method. A case of duologue- impossible. And so it will remain with Jed- till Rossi or even better IH will publish the ERV report - demonstrating it is good for nothing. You see how Jed has reacted.

Anyway the morality of my Blog was put in doubt- it is unfair from my part to 
NOT LISTEN TO WHAT IH SAYS I was repeatedly accused of this - however it is not true. I am listening to what IH says and what's more (see a definition of "friend), I am listening even more to what they do not say. Sometimes asking why they do so.

I can discuss peacefully for example with my old discussion partner, Ab-ul Rahman Lomax who is civilized  NOT in the spirit of the Motto. He feels no pleasure insulting anybody. I am more vindictive- and many times I do the counter-productive stupidity to answer insults with the same coin-.
OK,  Abd has written to my blog issue 

You don't understand the Motion to Dismiss. It is entirely based on what is claimed in the Complaint from Rossi. This is a claim that if every fact asserted in the Complaint is true, there is, as a matter of law, no basis for any award to Rossi, and therefore the complaint should be dismissed with no further process.

This means, in  sense that the 4 fatal flaws of the test discussed at a) are only auxiliary? 
However the conflict is simple in essence: Rossi says "I made a good test, according to the agreement you have to pay!" IH can answer only that the test was not good, therefore we do not pay." This goes beyond and through all the legal subtleties

However Abd's opinion and prediction is as follows:
"The Motion to Dismiss is an extremely well-written, professionally prepared Motion. I would say that it is devastating to the Rossi Complaint. However, this is what is likely to happen: the judge will give Rossi time to amend the complaint, which I knew from the beginning was very badly drawn, one of the worst I've ever seen. Rossi will, I'd predict, need to take a meat-axe to it. If he does, probably reducing the complaint to a collection action for a debt due, then the case might go forward. Rossi has with total impropriety gone after officers of corporations, claiming fraud (which could allow the corporate veil to be pierced), but the Complaint is very, very poorly drafted, and makes many, many errors at law, which, of course. IH's lawyers are going to point out."

OK, Abd has to tell why he considers the Complaint badly formulated and the Dismiss document a masterpiece. Both are professional documents written in legalese and the second answers to the first. We have to consider systemtically each complain and each answer but I do not tink bureaucratic issues could change the essence. Good test- pay! Not good test, do not pay! (similar to an Italian proverb which I will not translate:"Si paga, si canta, non si paga, non si canta!"

I would not say anything about the lawyers I hope in this case Law will be (Just)ice too.
Let's take the details, but let's also agree that we will not solve anything using exclusively analytical thinking.- 

Question to Abd: "You were speaking here about Quality negative for the Complain positive for the Dismiss-  a concept sacred for me as technologist- what is your personal definition of Quality? Thanks!


1) Good prospects for Rossi and Leonardo Corp. lawsuit

2) New Fulvio Fabiani E-Cat Photo

3) Why Do Scientists Dismiss Cold Fusion?
Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it?

4) Industrial Heat Files Motion in Rossi Suit
To follow it here too

5) IH operative – and Alt. Energy Tax Dollar Financed – (angry) Fred Zoepfl has been Activated Again on ECN!


Chemical Elements Abundance in the Universe and the Origin of Life Vlado Valkovic Ruder Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia 
Abstract Element synthesis which started with p-p chain has resulted in several specific characteristics including lack of any stable isotope having atomic masses 5 or 8. The C/O ratio is fixed early by the chain of coincidences. These, remarkably fine-tuned, conditions are responsible for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the Universe. Chemical evolution of galaxies reflects in the changes of chemical composition of stars, interstellar gas and dust. The evolution of chemical element abundances in a galaxy provides a clock for galactic aging. On the other hand, the living matter on the planet Earth needs only some elements for its existence. Compared with element requirements of living matter a hypothesis is put forward, by accepting the Anthropic Principle, which says: life as we know, (H-CN-O) based, relying on the number of bulk and trace elements originated when two element abundance curves, living matter and galactic, coincided. This coincidence occurring at particular redshift could indicates the phase of the Universe when the life originated. It is proposed to look into redshift region z = 0.5–2.5 (approximately t = -5.2x109 to -11.3x109 years) where many galaxies have been observed and to use these data to study the evolution of metallicity with respect to the other properties of galaxies in order to determine the time when universal element abundance curve coincided with the element abundance curve of LUCA. The characteristic properties of the latter have been transmitted by the genetic code while the universe element abundance curve changed as the galaxies aged.


Galileo’s reputation is more hyperbole than truth

I cannot comment!


  1. You wrote: "One of the two leading condottier-i of IH,Jed Rothwell brags all the time that he knows precisely from IH how the calorimetry used at the 1MW plant was flawed and how/why it was NO trace of excess heat produced."

    I did not say that. Again and again you misquote me and distort what I say. I said I know why I.H. thinks the calorimetry is not good, and I agree with their analysis. I did not say I know anything precisely. I did not say there is no trace of heat. On the contrary, I said the error margins are large and it is possible there is some excess heat. It cannot be 1 MW but there might be something.

    The people at I.H. seem to have better data than I do. They say there is no heat. My data comes from Rossi. It is the same data he quoted to Lewan, only with a little more detail. It is inconclusive, for the reasons spelled out by I.H.: the reactor was inoperable, the instruments flawed, and the measuring devices unsuitable. Those were my conclusions after looking at the data for five minutes.

    "I have asked Jed to tell me the technical part - I will sign an NDA and will keep this to me, just I want to know."

    And I said you must ask Rossi or I.H. for this information. Obviously I am not authorized to tell you anything. It is outrageous that you would ask me for something that you know I cannot give you, and then you attack me publicly for telling you to go to the authorized sources. Why don't you attack Rossi for not giving you this information?

    If you are such a good friend of Rossi, ask him for Penon's ERV report.

    1. Some of your quotes from today on the LENR-forum:

      "No one will manufacture E-cats. They don't work. The one-year test proved they produce no excess heat. Why would anyone want to manufacture gadgets that do not work?

      (about Rossi)"He has had many years to prove his point. He did a test for a whole year that showed no excess heat."

    2. (about Rossi) Some statements are nonsense to the logical mind.

      The best witness to Rossi overunity is IH who awarded him 11.5 million for a test of the reactor that meet or exceeded a COP of 6.

    3. Yes, obviously I have concluded it does not work. Rossi's data and methods are an abomination, and you cannot draw a firm conclusion from them. However, I believe I.H. has better, more conclusive information showing it does not work. I have not seen that information, but that is what they say, and I believe them.

      I have no information about any test showing a COP of 6, or that I.H. "awarded" money on the basis of such a test. I know nothing about this, but if you heard it from Rossi, it probably isn't true.

    4. There is a humongous and profound logical inconsistency here. It is almost as if IH's view of the truth is context dependent. Either IH is criminally incompetent for giving away 11.5 Million of their investors money or they are lying up the gazoo about the COP of Rossi's reactor. I see no middle ground here. It is a binary condition, and both contexts are very bad for IH. Thus is reminiscent of the "BIG LIE"

      A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." Hitler asserted the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame Germany's loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff.

    5. Not criminally incompetent, just incompetent. And Rossi knew that from the start and that's why they were chosen to be his partners rather than a much larger company with better development resources and technical expertise to advance the technology. But this same technical expertise would have meant they would have found out what IH took three years to find out so very much sooner.
      Darden claimed most of the initial paymetn was of his own money. Who knows if that's true, but until proven otherwise it removes any act of criminality. You can spend your own money on the dogs if you like, with probably a better chance of success. It's not a crime.

  2. In this case we have no grey, we have black, or white.

    If you reduce it to the max, not only to the ECAT, but to LENR in general, it is all about the question:

    "Does the LENR works as claimed, or not?"

    All this narcissistic and pompous drivel, the endless discussion and speculation in all forums and blogs around the world are totally meaningless.

    The worst of all surrounding this topic LENR is this developing kind of war happening that causes the lost of all reasoning and civilized behavior in the brains even of the smartest personalities.

    Why not just sit back, stop this senseless speculations, terminate the whole disgusting personal attacks and just wait.

    There are so many important things to discuss around the LENR revolution, but everyone is sitting in this dirty smelly hole while throwing mud on each other.

  3. Rothwell has been a primadonna troll since the day he started following cold fusion. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth he's never had a real life and lives only to pontificate on the works of others. He is if ever there was a most perfect personification of the computer programmer troll who sits at a darkened nerd desk and glorifies his own miserable life by being a parasite and attacking others. He has never contributed one single shred of original intelligent work to the field of LENR. His harangues on Vortex-l clearly prove him to be now a dottering foolish old troll, you should ignore him. Vortex-l should banish him for his incessant trolling.

    1. And yet in the previous years of lenr, his name was used in support of the reality of Rossi's ecat because of his support and supposed knowledge of the subject. Now that his opinion has changed on one particular device, is all this previous expertise no longer valid?

    2. The overall picture clearly shows the attempted Theft of Andrea Rossi’s ECAT IP and unauthorized

      Plagiarism of scientific texts and "unapproved" patent applications in Rossi’s name,

      among further findings in Mats Lewans Blog and by Siffercoll confirm the suspicion.

  4. I trust acts more tha talk.

    Rossi have a chance to act by proving his technology many time and did not deliver.
    Rossi have advices and did not get them.

    IH could make money with E-cat if it was working as said, and they could save the planet too if that is their since desire else. It seems they did not manage to exploit that technology but fall into a fight which make the e-cat inventor breaking the contact...

    I don't need toi know the calorimetry. in fact this is not important.
    all is said already.
    I'm sad peter, furious too. not only because the revolution will be delayed a few years, but also because many people I like have been fooled and are fooled. again.

    Anyway Dennis Letts, Brillouin, Miley, Piantelli &al,Luca and Yogi, Iwamura, takahashi and the young generation following, Bahzutov and other cyrillic inventors from moscow to Kiev, Songsheng &al, ... they will do the job. slowly but really.

  5. I have always feared the FUD attack on LENR that was sure to come from the interests that LENR undercuts...oil, gas, green energy, hot fusion, military and so on. Is this brouhaha that we are going into now the first strike in the FUD war? Or is this a home grown attack generated from inside the LENR community itself with more devastating externally produced attacks coming just ahead?

    For sure, those attacks from vested interests are sure to come sooner or later. Its time to become paranoid, to look into underlying motives, to understand the schemes within schemes. To refuse to be the puppets of the manipulators of emotions. It is time for us to sing along with the better angels of our nature.

    1. Have you considered the possibility that these are not FUD attacks; that I.H. is telling the truth, and Rossi's test really was a failure? Has it even crossed your mind that might be the situation?

      Perhaps you should suspend judgement, wait to see what I.H. has to say, and wait to see the Penon report before taking sides. You know nothing about this, so you should not assume Rossi is a hero and I.H. and I are agents from the Dark Side.

      You have no reason to believe Rossi or to disbelieve I.H., or me. Surely you must realize that Rossi has often lied, such as when he claimed he was preparing for mass production. I cannot understand why you consider him so credible, and why you dismiss I.H. (and me, for that matter).

    2. I.H says very little, and when they do, there is not much substance or definite conclusions one can draw from it.

    3. I.H. may not say much, but there is a lot of substance to what they say, and the meaning is clear. They accused Rossi of ". . . departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices."

      Do you have difficulty understanding that? It means the gadget did not work.

      I have no idea what the original test plan was, but based on my analysis of the data, I agree the measurements were flawed and the instruments unsuitable. The test was an appalling mess, just like Rossi's previous tests. I was hoping it would be better, but it was awful.

    4. And more to the point, all that IH now say is quite believable because it is completely consistent with all earlier tests and demonstrations. And that is ALL tests and demonstrations.
      These earlier errors in procedure and results have previously been justified and then dismissed on the grounds that Rossi was protecting his IP, or not wanting to tip off the competition regarding exactly what he has, and numerous other lame excuses, even though this flies in the face of Rossi trying to establish a technology which operates contrary to generally accepted science. That by itself is not something which would torpedo an error free and successful demonstration but there simply has not been one. After five years still no conclusive proof of anything other than a circus trick.
      Most people who have been following this circus called him out years ago, but the faithful few have followed on regardless of the so very clear signs that the path of development made no sense at all and the most probable reason for this is that the Ecat does not work as claimed.
      Now for most of us, that makes no difference financially so we have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines and passing opinions. However, for IH there is the small matter of a payment of 89 million dollars which they are required to pay to continue their involvement.
      All that has happened is that after looking at this for three years they have now come to the same conclusion as almost everyone else on this planet and that is, the ecat does not work as claimed, and they have said so. That makes no statement about lenr in general, just Rossi's ability to show it working to the level he claims.
      Now I can appreciate that to the few left who still believe Rossi has something incredibly world saving and technically advanced, that will come as a complete shock and thus they react accordingly. To everyone else it's simply the logical conclusion to an event which was always going to happen and the only surprise has been why it took so long.

    5. Pweet wrote: "All that has happened is that after looking at this for three years they have now come to the same conclusion as almost everyone else on this planet and that is, the ecat does not work as claimed, and they have said so. That makes no statement about lenr in general, just Rossi's ability to show it working to the level he claims."

      Yes. Thank goodness they have not withdrawn support for LENR in general. You cannot imagine how relieved I was to hear that!

      I would like to quibble with this: ". . . they have now come to the same conclusion as almost everyone else on this planet and that is, the ecat does not work as claimed . . ."

      They did more than just "come to a conclusion." They did rigorous testing on their own with multiple reactors. (I did not know there was more than one reactor until they filed the motion to dismiss which references "reactors" -- plural.) They have a lot of knowledge. They have a solid basis to reach this conclusion. I do not think anyone else previously has had this basis.

      As for me, personally, I surely did not have a firm basis to judge Rossi. Some of his tests seemed to work, some did not. The first Levi tests were pretty good, but the later one at Lugano was a disappointment. I have reviewed my own papers and I am happy to see I left enough weasel words in them to cover my ass on this. Such as "assuming Rossi is independently confirmed . . ." Or "there are indications that . . ." See? I know how to write in academese to keep from looking like a fool years later. But seriously, I did not have detailed data on any Rossi tests. That was infuriating, but it was his decision to withhold information. For example, he never stated the make and model of the instruments, and he refused to put an SD card in his hand-held thermocouple so there was only a partial, hand-written record of temperatures. This is either extremely sloppy or deliberately perverse.

      I have now, finally, reached a firm conclusion. Why? Because I got a sample of Rossi's own data from the one-year 1-MW reactor test, plus some notes about the configuration. I would love to see more data. But this is enough to reach some solid conclusions. This is far more information than I ever saw from any previous test by Rossi. At last I have a clear idea of what was done, where the instruments were placed and so on. It was on this basis -- and this basis alone -- that I agreed with I.H. in their motion to dismiss where they describe ". . . inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." That is an excellent summary. I regret that I cannot describe my analysis or say why I agree so strongly.

      In other words, I did not finally go along with the status quo because I ran out of patience and gave up on Rossi. I went along because at long last I have solid reasons to go along.

      That's why it "took me so long" as you (correctly) put it.

      I hope that the ERV report or something like it is published, giving everyone an opportunity to examine the data and reach their own conclusions.

  6. In requiem.
    “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”

    Muhammad Ali is black
    Andrea Rossi is white
    Slaves to "cain't" they ain't
    Small men ain't right
    Impossible ain't no fact
    'Possible' is THE fight back

  7. Tom Conover
    June 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM
    Hello Andrea,

    How does your work go today? Would you describe your QuarkX(3) as troublesome, carefree, playful, or amazing today?


    Andrea Rossi
    June 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM
    Tom Conover:
    Warm Regards,

    1. Oh well, that settles it then. It's all going just great because Rossi said so. (sigh)

  8. Pweet
    I listen to Peter,Jed,M.Y,Ecat world.I.H. A.R
    and any one else that has an opinion and
    then draw my own conclusions.

    1. That's usually pretty safe so long as you weight the opinions appropriately. Be aware those with the most to lose will bias their opinion far more than those with nothing to lose either way.
      I have nothing to lose either way. I can't say the same for AR and IH. Both have a lot on the table so make sure there is independent confirmation of whatever they say, and make sure it passes the logic test. Just because someone says something, it is not worth much if it is totally illogical.