Thursday, June 23, 2016



The first Western journal to which I had access  was Chemical Engineering,  the US magazine somewhere in 1960 and there I have discovered the column "You and your job"- as an introduction to the science of Management. I think the two quotes I have first found there and remembered, were:

"Is a PhD important? I think some of the stupidest people I ever met had PH while some of the smartest even had no idea what a PhD is" (anticipating Carlo Cipolla's second law of Human Stupidity: "Stupidity is independent from ANY other characteristic of an individual"

" Beyond ages, continents, countries and cultures there are only three kind of people: nice, difficult and wimps"

With the first it is a pleasure to discuss with the second you can discuss but with the third it is waste of time to try any communication "
Just FYI, I am "difficult"


Learning IH-ese language from Jed Rothwell- or is it his own?

On the LENR Forum I have asked these 5 - in my opinion, normal and natural questions without any toxic or explosive in them:

The questions are these:

1- Did Rossi and IH have a valid contract that states; that if the general performance test were successful, they should pay a great sum to Rossi?

2- IH has not paid and said the Test was not good; where is the first written document with serious warnings from IH to Rossi saying this; was it after the 1st, 2nd or 3rd ERV report?

3- IH employees have participated at the test in parallel with Rossi's men; is there a written document showing they are in any way discontent with the test and the test being “a disaster”?

4- When was the total incompetence of the ERV discovered; i.e. the inadequacy of the measuring instruments and when was it stated that the measurements are fatally flawed? (a document dated in 2015?);

5- Rossi claims: “All I know is that Darden and JT Vaughn collected $150 million after the test of the 1 MW E-Cat began, using the first and second report of the ERV as a tool to get the money, then after the 4th report ( equal to the former ones) they said what they said and did not pay” Is this slander and false accusations? Is this slander or false accusation?

OK- I have received a kind of non-answer for three of the questions from Jed Rothwell but I dislike what he says and how he says itJed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote:

 (First three questions reproduced) Then then follows:

1. The answers to these questions are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. No businessman I know would answer you.

2. The answers are not relevant to the discussion. The sequence of events and the timing is not relevant to anything. It makes no difference when I.E. decided the test was invalid. Whether it was the first month of the test, or the last day of the test, their evaluation stands. It stands on its own technical merits. The date it was arrived at has no bearing on the validity. I.H. had the right to re-evaluate the facts and change their minds at any time.

4. Your obsession with the timing and sequence of events is weird. Your earlier notion that I.H. somehow "committed suicide" by allowing the tests to continue long after they expressed doubts make no sense at all. They did not increase their risk by doing that. It did not cost them anything.

5. In point of fact, I and others told you several times that I.H. was not satisfied early on, in the first months. For some reason you don't like that answer. You don't want to hear it. You don't believe us. Fair enough; no one says you have to believe us. But that is the only answer you are going to get. So the question arises: WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWER?!???

 Later, he added:
I should say none of your damn business. I suppose you are asking nosy, stupid, irrelevant questions that you know will not be answered, because you think that makes you look good. You must think this makes you look like a brave investigator. Titin the reporter. I think it makes you look foolish.

No I am not alone I have Readers and I cannot tell them tales which I cannot believe 
and you Jed are only adding to their lack of credibility.

Dear Jed, I think this was too much- I have to put a label "dialogue impossible " on you. Remembering your past merits in cold fusion...I will meet soon Chris Tinsley, Gene Mallove and Arthur C Clarke and will sadly relate them that you became a nasty bully boy, who knows why?


Rossi on Leonardo Scientific Committee Members

1) Appeal for a broader diffusion of LENR information LENR / Fusione fredda: un appello per una più ampia diffusione delle informazioni.

2) Alert for a Document Preview

The Coldest Case

D Kushner - Foreign Policy, 2016
... In November 2014, Bill Gates visited Italy's leading hub for LENRresearch, the Italian availbale via proNational Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and Sustainable Economic Development,
where he was briefed on the latest cold-fusion activities. Full Text. ...available vi Pro-Quest

3) Clear Evidence of Dodge Weaver Deceptions and Attempts to Rewrite History by “Librarian” Jed Rothwell?


  1. Why don't you address your 5 questions to the actors concerned (IH & Rossi) instead of complaining publicly? It is not reasonable to suppose that extraneous commentators on a blog site are going to give you the confidential information you seek. Has it not occurred to you that in the unlikely event that contributors to a blog could actually answer your questions that they would also be constrained by non disclosure agreements?

    If you want reliable information go to the source directly. To ask such questions on a blog site where nobody is authorized to respond is not "normal and natural". On the contrary it demonstrates your incomprehension of normal business practice.

    1. If you go back through the blogs you will see that the person(s) that Peter was directing the questions to, where the very same person(s) that reported the information that the questions referred to. So I think they are the proper one(s) to be asked. They seem to have no problem reporting at least some of the confidential information they have received from someone that I.H. has had conversations with. So yes I think they should respond to Peter's questions and yes it would be wonderful if I.H. would respond with useful information but I don't see that happening. As to complaining, they continue to spread information of which they are unwilling to provide any proof, so I think asking and complaining is warranted.

    2. dear Robert

      thank for the help, people first judge then think.

    3. Robert you have not addressed the issues raised, namely that Rothwell and others have a contractual duty to keep confidential information confidential. You and I do not know what is confidential and what is not. If you want proof of statements, I suggest you wait patiently until the Court publishes them.

  2. Peter,

    I am again dismayed at the unrestrained anger towards you. You have been assaulted with the most vicious tirade, by a couple of adults that should be able to respond to your inquiries without insult. I have not been able to determine what causes their need to use such abusive language to some rather simple questions. I can only come to the conclusion that it is a case of horrible, gut twisting envy of Rossi's discoveries. They wonder, "How could someone without a PhD or a formal background in science, have possibly found the answer that so many have been searching for, for years". They just can't bring themselves to accept this possible truth. The worst response was to your question as to when was the first occasion that Rossi was alerted in writing by I.H., to their finding that he was not using the proper equipment or making the correct measurements. Jed's repeated insistence that he has told you several times that they had informed him of the errors, very early on, completely side steps the issue as to whether they informed him in writing rather than verbally. Jed is well aware of the fact that a written complaint holds much more weight than some undocumented, and possibly never actually given, verbal warning. I feel it is a shame that someone like you, that has given so much in the discussion and furtherance of LENR and LENR+, must weather such a barrage of disgusting responses from those that supposedly care about the future of this potentially earth shattering technology. I didn't miss the fact that you said you would soon be with some extremely bright minds from our past. I hope by soon, you mean many fruitful years in the future.

  3. Peter
    Jed better watch NONE OF YOUR
    BUSINESS answers if he is called
    to testify in Court.

    1. First, there is a big difference between questions asked in a court and stupid, nosy, irrelevant questions asked by Gluck which he knows will not be answered. He is only asking to make himself look good. The content of his questions is senseless: the timing of I.H. decisions was up to them, and has no bearing on the validity of the decisions.

      Second, it is inconceivable that I would be called upon to testify regarding this matter.

      Third, in the unlikely event someone asks you a nosy, irrelevant question in court, the judge is supposed to overrule.

    2. Whow THAT's gross. You call Peter stupid, nosy and irrelevant.
      That really crosses all lines. I'm wondering for long who removed your and the gangs brains.
      Alone the fact that one writes 289 blog entries with all the same basic content and expects others are obligated to believe this, is absurd.
      Giving any evidence is not even an option.
      Isn't that a bit counterproductive ?
      Greetings to the boys of the FUD machine from the next idiot in a long row of idiots.

  4. Peter,

    I am afraid that some of your questions are simply not relevant. The most important points in the dispute between Rossi and IH are relatively well known. First, Rossi sold IH an expensive technology license agreement, for which Rossi received so far about $11.5M (contract executed). Second, in a technology license, the licensee has the reasonable expectation (if not also contractual) of being taught how to practice the technology such that they can develop products and profit from their investment. This is the most fundamental part of a technology license. Clearly, Rossi has not taught this to IH because IH has said that nothing works that Rossi has taught or given them. It almost makes no difference if Rossi has working technology or not - if he hasn't taught the technology to the licensee, then he has failed in the most fundamental technology license obligation. Third, it appears the contract had a further requirement that, not only should Rossi have to teach IH the technology, but Rossi had to continue to develop the reliability and then demonstrate reliable operation to receive the next milestone of the agreed payments. I have been told that Rossi basically does what he wants, and Rossi would not allow any IH steering of his work plan. Rossi went on to attempt a demonstration of reliability without even having first demonstrated (through technology teaching) to IH that the technology works at all. He apparently did not respond to the fact that IH was not ready to move on to the "second phase" without Rossi having completed the first phase - teaching IH how to make a working, high power, high COP LENR reactor. If this was your money, wouldn't you want to see the first and most important milestone (teaching and transfer of the technology) actually completed before moving on to a subsequent milestone? Clearly this was not done, as I believe IH when they say that nothing that Rossi has taught them or given them has worked. As I see it, Rossi either has no technology or did not want to give the technology to IH, even though he had a contractual obligation to do so. Rossi has a bad history of failing to live up to his licensee obligations. I think it is time for Rossi to honestly meet his contractual obligations. IH should insist on Rossi teaching IH engineers the mainstream high power, high COP LENR technology for the $11.5M already paid.

    1. Bob Higgins,

      At least you have responded with civility. What you say may indeed be true but do you actually have proof of what you say or is this your interpretation of what has been hashed over in the blogs? If you do have proof would you mind saying what that proof is. You say that he has not provided the required information to either build a high COP e-cat and/or he has not provided the proper operating procedures to make one function. Is this information directly from I.H.? All I have read from I.H. is that the ability of the E-Cat plant to produce heat is unsubstantiated. Do you have more direct information? You indicate you have been told that Rossi does pretty much what he wants, was this by someone that has worked with Rossi directly?

    2. Is it the teacher's problem is the student cannot or will not learn. The people that Rossi was teaching were employees of IH. IF the employees fail to learn because if of incompetence or neglect, is it Rossi's job to force the IH employee to learn. Is it not the job of IH management to verify that the technology is transferred? After all, teaching is a two way operation where either end, the teacher or the student, can fail.

    3. Re Bob Higgins post above;-
      Very well summed up and expressed Bob. I think you've summed up the situation very accurately.
      I've no doubt there will be some who disagree, but they will be the same people who are amazed we are in this present situation, and yet we are.
      The fact is, the situation we are in now is explained very believably by the summation above. And all without the interference of big oil, big government or big anything, rather just big claims proven wrong. When IH finally state their case I'm sure most of your posting will be shown to be true.

    4. Obviously this is not my first hand assessment, as I have never had the pleasure to meet Mr. Rossi. IH has publicly stated that nothing Rossi has given them or taught them has worked - and IH is loaded with competent staff. The comment that "Rossi basically does what he wants" came from an insider who has been involved with Rossi.

    5. I will agree to disagree regarding your assessment. I do thank you for your calm, reasoned reply, something that has been severely lacking in the blogs, of late.

  5. 'No businessman I know would answer you.' That is not an answer I would expect and it seems that Jed claims his answer is business related. I am sure Peter was asking for personal answers, honesty, no business or politics. This answer of Jed very much devaluate his unbiassed position.

  6. Quote from above reply by Jed R. :-
    "5. In point of fact, I and others told you several times that I.H. was not satisfied early on, in the first months. For some reason you don't like that answer."

    Perhaps just as critically, I could say :-
    "5. In point of fact, I and others told you several times that I.H. would not be satisfied early on, in the first months, or any other months. For some reason you didn't like that answer."
    Now, it turns out that IH have finally reported what we always knew was coming, and that is, they don't like what they've found. And everyone is surprised.
    Why is that? when the final outcome was so glaringly obvious from all the priors.
    All that has happened is, we have arrived at the place to which we were always going. And there's lots of old friends and associates there to greet us. Defkalion, Prometeon, and a few other licensees, all in the same place, and all unhappy because they thought they were going somewhere nice but didn't.
    Oh well, Not to worry. For our next excursion we wont be in the dark because the way will be lit by the dazzling light of the Quack ecatX

    1. Pweet wrote: "Now, it turns out that IH have finally reported what we always knew was coming, and that is, they don't like what they've found. And everyone is surprised."

      Yes it was not surprising to me, but it was disappointing. Right to the end I was hoping Rossi would clean up his act and do the test properly. I think I.H. also hoped for that. They told me and a few other people they were dissatisfied. They gave us few details, and they asked us not to talk about it, because they wanted to maintain a cordial relationship with Rossi and to encourage him to fix the problems. I thought that was very sensible.

      Gluck and others were surprised at the negative results. Beyond that, somehow they have the weird notion that I.H. was obligated to give everyone their evaluation of the test at every stage of the year. That there is something underhanded, or illegitimate about holding back an evaluation and giving Rossi many months and many opportunities to fix the problems. They seem to think it is not possible I.H. saw problems all along and yet they neglected to inform Peter Gluck of their evaluation.

    2. I haven't seen any information that shows any negative "results". All I've seen so far is I.H.'s statement that they were unable to substantiate Rossi's 1 MW plant. I would love to see "results", but so far no one has published a single measurement or a photo of the improper instruments, or even the make and model of the instruments the ERV used to conclude his COP of 50 to 60. Just more of the same, "non-proof". We will see who has the proof once this finally, hopefully, makes it to court.

  7. Interesting posting in regards to states of hydrogen:

    sounds similar to Mills hydrino theory to me.

  8. an objection is overruled, the judge has determined the objection is invalid. The question may stand. The witness must then answer the question.

  9. Nobody sane will believe Rossi anymore. Obviously, people like Torkel Nyberg of the Sifferkol have serious mental issues.