Tuesday, June 7, 2016



Image result for effectiveness quotations

This is my favorite management quotation; however I have understood  from professional life that Effectiveness is also "NOT doing the things that are useless or wrong" and this comes usually before doing the good things."

Sometimes knowing what NOT to do, is a far more important question, than WHAT to do. (says Gapingvoid today)



Yesterday I made an error and I apologize for it:
- quote No 13- about Andrea Rossi- was not written by Jed Rothwell but by n anonymous called Bob. I have no excuses for it all I can do is to  try to not repeat such blunders!

However as predicted (there is no other way) Jed wrote:
"Fragments indeed. By taking fragments out of context, and selectively chopping words and rearranging things, you have managed to make several of these fragments mean the opposite of what I said, or you have distorted the meaning beyond recognition. Good job indeed. How very Orwellian."

I have to discover which fragments have contrary or crippled meaning in context and extracted from it. Not easy task!!!

b) An other comment by Jed Rothwell- text and context as he wishes

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 Thank goodness they have not withdrawn support for LENR in general.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.

My comment

Ignoring the sad fact that "almost everyone on the planet also thinks that Cold Fusion or LENR does not work as claimed" so it's nothing special with the E-Cat
we are now learning that Jed's source for the "E-Cat does not work" certainty was 
a sample of Rossi's own data re the Test. Not the ERV, not from IH? We have to believe this. 
The other thing we see here is the support given by IH to the LENR community
most probably funds- surely a good thing in principle and all we can hope is that this action will be 
- effective- will create a serious, powerful competition to Rossi (if you accept that a energy technology is the aim);
- efficient- the resources will be spent giving good results.

Effectiveness and Efficiency in the LENR field is a subject of vital importance-
see my:  

Thoughts about effectiveness and efficiency in advancement of LENR.

Quite early after its unhappy noisy start, Cold fusion- now LENR has changed from a field with problems in a field with troubles. You know problems can be solved and are solved while troubles persist and are poisoning situations and activities.
In troublesome areas both effectiveness and efficiency (see the Motto) are melting down or are asphyxiated- any negative metaphor goes- you cannot do the good and necessary things, you do things that enhance the trouble and effort/results ratio increases to astronomical values.
However we have to discuss two separate but related aspects:

- effectiveness and efficiency of the research and (if!) development activity;

- effectiveness and efficiency in convincing the world from scientists to investors to the Press and the great public that the field has meaning, truth, value and future;

Research activity:

To do good things- for 90% of the LENR community that is a good Fleischmann-Pons type cell. The possibilities of these cells are not exhausted these will lead to understanding of what LENR is and based on the Theory thus created we will help the researchers to a develop a very efficient energy generator.
To do not wrong things means to not try NiH systems till these do not possess the same degree of certainty as the PdD system.
My idea of incompleteness of the wet PdD system is ill-willed and very soon great progress will appear.
Listen to IH and its porta-voces and forget about Rossi he has nothing, he has chosen the worst instruments possible - do not follow him!

Convincing the world activity

A long history with many battles- as of heavy artillery books - Huizenga and Taubes at the enemy, Mallove, Storms, Kozima, Beaudette, Krivit  for LENR - who won?
Writing books is very inefficient, a heroic effort few new readers.
So many so good papers however not read outside a family circle. Patents? Good if applied otherwise too expensive. Congresses? Again only for friends- fast forgotten.
For real effectiveness we need breakthroughs, demos, products

Obviously this is just a sketch, our colleagues will say more practical things about how to increase effectiveness and efficiency in LENR. 


1) Rossi ends Agreement with Industrial Heat
Published June 6, 2016 | By jennifer



3) Energy from ferrites- inclusive by LENR 
Энергия из феррита

4) A document from 2012:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON Forward Looking Workshop on Materials for Emerging Energy Technologies
p 23- Vittorio Violante: 
3.4 Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: it is about PdD

The PACIFIC SENTINEL March 2016 p 22

6) Anatolii Vasilievich VACHAEV
ВАЧАЕВ Анатолий Васильевич, (1940-2000)
A very interesting complex story about Vachaev's plasmoid.

7) Nikolai Ivanovich IVANOV, associate of Vachaev

ИВАНОВ Николай Иванович, (-2012), д.т.н., соратник А.В. Вачаева

The continuation of the Vachaev story- I cannot comment

8) Is Fred Zoepfl totally losing it in the ECN dungeon since he was Revealed as an IH Insider?

9) A surprising question that must be deleted and forgotten fast!
Are IH and Cherokee on the verge of Bankruptcy?


From the ecologist philosopher writer Dave Pollard
Technology's false hope and the wisdom of crowa *(repost)
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2016/06/06/technologys-false-hope-and-the-wisdom-of-crows-repost/Preparing an answer and a discussion (I like Pollard's style but not his apocaliptic ideas)

Towards sustainable energy. Generation of hydrogen fuel using nuclear energy
Janusz Nowotnya, Tsuyoshi Hoshino-b, John Dodsonc, Armand J. Atanaciod,
Mihail Ionescud,Vanessa Petersond, Kathryn E. Princed, Michio Yamawakie,
Tadeusz Baka, Wolfgang Sigmundf, T. Nejat Veziroglug, Mohammad A. Alima

a Solar Energy Technologies, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia
b Breeding Functional Materials Development Group, Department of Blanket Systems Research, Rokkasho Institute, Sector of Fusion Research and Development, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 2-166 Obuchi, Omotedate, Rokkasho-mura, Aomori, 039-3212, Japan
c Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yanta District, 97 Yanxiang Rd, Yanta District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710061, China
d Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation, Locked Bag 2001, Kirrawee DC, NSW, 2232, Australia
e Research Institute of Nuclear Engineering, University of Fukui, 1-2-4 Kanawa-cho, Tsuruga, Fukui, 914-0055, Japan
f Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-6400, USA
g International Association of Hydrogen Energy, 5794 SW 40 St. #303, Miami, FL, 33155, USA
Received 15 January 2016, Revised 26 April 2016, Accepted 8 May 2016, Available online 3 June 201


Hydrogen fuel is environmentally clean when generated using renewable energy.•

Nuclear fusion is expected to be the ultimate option for the generation of hydrogen fuel.•

Structural defects are crucial in energy conversion by oxide semiconductors.•

The goal of the Future Earth program is to protect the environment for sustainable future.•

Training of technical staff for hydrogen energy requires novel eduction programs.


The increasing demand for sustainable energy results in the development of new technologies of energy generation. The key objective of hydrogen economy is the introduction of hydrogen as main energy carrier, along with electricity, on a global scale. The key goal is the development of hydrogen-related technologies needed for hydrogen generation, hydrogen storage, hydrogen transportation and hydrogen distribution as well as hydrogen safety systems. It is commonly believed that hydrogen is environmentally clean since its combustion results in the formation of water. However, the technology currently employed for the generation of hydrogen from natural gas, does in fact lead to the emission of greenhouse gases and climate change. Therefore, the key issues in the introduction of hydrogen economy involve the development of environmentally clean hydrogen production technology as well as storage and transport. The clean options available for hydrogen generation using nuclear energy; such as advanced nuclear fission and, ultimately, nuclear fusion, are discussed. The latter, which is environmentally clean, is expected to be the primary approach in the production of hydrogen fuel at the global scale. The present work considers the effect of hydrogen on properties of TiO2 and its solid solutions in the contexts of photocatalytic energy conversion and the effect of tritium on advanced tritium breeders.


Five Moments When Saying No Is Your Best Strategy


  1. Peter wrote: "we are now learning that Jed's source for the "E-Cat does not work" certainty was a sample of Rossi's own data re the Test. Not the ERV, not from IH?"

    It might have been the ERV. I cannot tell. The ERV is Penon, who is Rossi's puppet. It is the same numbers Rossi quoted to Lewan here, so I am sure it came from Rossi and or Penon:


    Those numbers plus a few others and a brief description.

    1. Seeing your not either part of the legal dispute why don't you share the data and descriptions so we can also decide for ourselves. NDA should not be valid for you when one party already leaked the data to a non employee (you).

    2. Except for the 100.1 C temperature value which you totally made up!

  2. Yes:
    Andrea Rossi
    June 7, 2016 at 9:06 AM
    Yes, we need more information before taking important decisions. The test will be a week longer.
    Warm Regards,
    Just wonder if that is a good or bad sign....
    3 Reply

    sam Gerard McEk
    3 hours ago
    I think it is a good sign.
    All A.R. comments in the
    first 7 days were positive.

  3. Peter
    Four more interesting comments from Ecat world.
    This is unusually modest for Rossi, so I guess, and this is just a guess, that things haven't gone as smooth as Rossi expected.
    0 Reply

    Pweet Curbina
    4 hours ago
    That's my thoughts too. I would take it that someone has seen something they are not happy with and have asked for the setup to be altered in some way to remove their concern, and the demo re-run. No evidence at all on this though, apart from watching previous demos on You Tubes. Sadly, that facility is no longer available to us now. That is probably a smart move by Mr Rossi. You Tube videos have torpedoed a number of his earlier demos.
    Steve Swatman Pweet
    3 hours ago
    But there again,The extension might be to push the QuarkX's to see how far they can go, because everyone is astounded, maybe to burn out point, maybe they have just exceeded all expectations.
    2 Reply

    Engineer48 Pweet
    4 hours ago
    Then again if say a few ABB engineers have seen the unbelievable before their eyes and reported back, they may have been told by senior management to hang fire as the "Big Boys" are coming to see the New Fire for themselves.

  4. From the lead article where it is written;-
    "The first Levi tests were pretty good, but the later one at Lugano was a disappointment."

    It was the early Levi tests which first rang alarm bells that all was not as was being reported regarding power outputs and high COP's etc. To me they were clearly very much worse than what the dialogue stated. The only way I could justify this at the time was that the ecat was said to take many hours to stabilize and that the test had been set up in a hurry for the purpose of showing something working.
    Even then, since no mention was made of such a situation, I found this very destructive to establishing a confidence in what was being reported. It was even more alarming that all tests seemed to suffer from the same defect. There was no real evidence of power outputs in the range of five kilowatts, but only of one or two kilowatts, which was disturbingly consistent with the rating of the electric heater elements.
    There is a great necessity when establishing a new technology to always tell the truth and report accurately. When someone says something is working and the evidence indicates otherwise, it is a huge barrier to it's acceptance in the wider community.
    By the time the Lugano test came along I was of the opinion it was probably also going to be in error and set up specifically to skirt around the point of error. Thus when the control test was terminated at a lower temperature than the final test temperature I thought the error would be contained there, but I didn't have the specific knowledge of how it was achieved. I smelled a rat but I couldn't find it.
    That deficiency was finally rectified by Thomas Clarke, with his very detailed analysis of the procedure and it's defect.
    So then it was clear that the long established precedent of flawed tests and demonstrations had continued.
    Thus I believe that to say that the Lugano test was obviously flawed but the earlier tests by Levi, or anyone else for that matter, were more believable is seriously in error. They were all in error from the very beginning and they were only more believable due to suspension of disbelief by way of giving it the benefit of the doubt.