Wednesday, September 28, 2016



Image result for selling your soul quotes quotationsImage result for parallel quotes

It can be a good short term business, but...  Too many parallel lines in LENR...


a) What are the two Mottoes about?

The first one is sad. When after 1989 Romania became again a capitalist, normal country I have discovered very fast that the capital unpardonable sin in this regime is to be poor and made great efforts to get rid of this status. Now this has evolved and the correct statement today is "people feel guilty if they have less money and assets than they want" The effect- locally and globally it is lot of corruption.  People do ugly harmful things for money including killings and false witnessing. LENR seems to not be immune to this, one of the symptoms can be the sudden, total spectacular change of opinion & position & tone regarding the main Conflict from the field.

The second Motto is about things that cannot meet in LENR but had to. I will tell more about this in the coming days.

Answering to a comment by Simon Derricutt

I have no idea who Simon s, however he seems to have a positive reputation- and it was said he is good thinker.  Habitant of the IH Planet for the time giving but ..who knows, I dare to hope he will not use insults and will not refer to imaginary diagrams and manufactured proofs that I have to swallow passively.. I will answer to his comment:

He speaks about"honest mistakes" and "conservation of energy" too somewhat  out side the main subjects 

In order to achieve a commercially-viable form of LENR, it makes sense to me to see what works to a small extent and try to improve it. If we have something that works reliably, it also aids the theoreticians work out why, which can then lead to a better experiment. Trying to replicate a process where the data is obviously false is not a good path. Limited resources are better spent in replicating experiments where the data is honest and believable. 

Dear Simon, this is in my opinion a capital error, in technology/inovation the things do not work in this way. The solution is usually based NOT on incremental, step by step increases but on sudden quality leaps, not only on changes but on deeep transformations. See, very recently I offered this :

Learn from the Best: Google’s Nine Principles of Innovation 

 Please read about no. 3. "10X better than ten percent." Believe me, I have personal experience in innovation, do not follow the dogma! What you think is good for development not for real innovation.

For Rossi, how the data was faked is not really relevant. There's no point in arguing how it was done. If the heat had been produced, it would have had obvious consequences that have not been noted.

It is not about Rossi- it is about a technology than can be VERY important. You speak about "faked" as about an axiom; the Test lasted a year and nobody told it was a fake. Do you seem to have absolute certainty it was a fake-  ab ovo- the problem has 
an imposed solution, isn't it? But if it was a fake, than it is obvious that what the leaked ERV Report in Exhibit 5 says - for 10 months mean values- 1398kg/hor water, 68.7C warm water converted in 102.8 C steam is not OK. If as it was said the result was simply 20kw in 20 kw out- I hope you can easily calculate it- means actually 31 liters of water per hour.  How was the flowmeter convinced to show 1398 instead of 31? Such a difference is easy to be remarked.
You have not seen the ERV Report (I don't know why IH does not makes it public if its inded a catastrophey- think about the flowing- the inner temperatures of the ECats are also shown there- are they as low as the steam temperature or more hundreds of degrees as if the thing works? Still thinking 20kW in, 20 kw out? It was said you are a thinking being..

I'm thus no longer interested in following the Rossi saga. I do however still expect that others will succeed. LENR research is alive and well. More parts of the puzzle are emerging, such as the metal hydride patent that Alan Smith unearthed.

LENR country is  a free one, you can be interested in what you decide to. It is clear that what we need is serious, powerful competition for Rossi's claims. But- back to Google's principle no 3 it is additive excess heat vs, multiplicative excess heat.

It is still possible that there is indeed some transmutation happening in Rossi's reactors, though there is as yet no clean evidence about that. It is not possible that they produced the amount of excess heat he claims in the Doral test.

I think you well know about the leaked result- analysis made in Sweden, very significant isotopic shifts. The authenticity of the sample can be denied, however the plant in Doral can furnish thousands of ash samples for analysis.  myriads of proofs. 

Please think over the situation and your position, things can be complex., I hope you are not in the sphere of influence of the first Motto.


1) Edmund Storms' paper for ICCF20
I have received a poster paper aimed for ICCF20 and I have obtained the kind permission of the author to offer it to my Readers- as it is; very condensed great idea/words ratio. My thanks to the Author!

A Description of the Mechanism Causing LENR

Edmund Storms ICCF-20 • 

All theories rest on assumptions. 
 • These assumptions must be clearly stated and be consistent with observed behavior. 
• Progress in understanding LENR is hampered by the repeated failure to state and justify the assumptions used to explain the behavior. 

2 The assumptions on which this theory of LENR is based are as follows: 
• The LENR process cannot take place in a normal chemical structure but instead requires a unique and rarely formed modification called here the nuclear active environment (NAE). 
• All observed LENR takes place in the same kind of NAE. 
• Formation of the NAE follows all the laws known to apply to chemical processes.
 • The nuclear mechanism must function in collaboration with the conditions 
existing in the NAE. 
• The nuclear mechanism involves fusion and transmutation by all isotopes of hydrogen. 

3 These assumptions are so well supported by observed behavior that any explanation in conflict should clearly explain why this conflict exists. 

LENR has two faces: 
Chemistry creates the unique conditions and physics describes the nuclear process. The phenomenon can only be explained by a marriage between these two sciences with LENR being the offspring. 
The theory needs to be applied what is real about the material not to the ideal conditions imagined to be present. 

 4 The logical consequences of these assumptions are as follows: 
• The LENR process involves two separate steps. The nuclear process cannot take place without the NAE being formed by modification of the normal structure. Consequently, identification and creation of the NAE must be the first goal in the reliable creation of the LENR effect. 
• Once the NAE has been identified, this understanding can be applied to creating the NAE in all materials in which LENR might be initiated. 
• A crack having a gap of a few nanometers is proposed to be the NAE in this theory. 

5 Other assumptions and consequences can be found at: 
• “The explanation of low energy nuclear reaction”, Infinite Energy Press, Concord, NH, 2014. ( 
• “Explaining Cold Fusion”, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015) 295-304. • “How the explanation of LENR can be made consistent with observed behavior and natural laws”, Current Science 108 (2015) 531-4.
• “How Basic Behavior of LENR can Guide a Search for an Explanation” , J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 20 (2016) 1–39 (to be published).

2) Update on House Committee on Armed Services LENR Directive

3) NEW THREAD Me356's #1 Secret For Excess Heat Revealed

4) Conversations on LENR with John Maguire (Ed Storms and Frank Acland)

5) Rossi: Research on QuarkX is ‘Jazz, not Classical Music’


Discovery: A new form of light
Date:September 26, 2016
Source:University of Vermont
Glow-in-the-dark stickers, weird deep-sea fish, LED lightbulbs -- all have forms of luminescence. In other words, instead of just reflecting light, they make their own. Scientists have discovered a new method to create fluorescent light that may have promising applications from LEDs to medical imaging.


Problem Solving at Its Finest

From Tanmay Vora:
5 C’s for Great Talent


  1. In the novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1984), by George Orwell, the Thought Police (Thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the superstate, Oceania, who are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. The Thinkpol use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (e.g. telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest citizens of Oceania who would challenge the status quo — the authority of the Party and of Big Brother — even if only with a thought.

    George Orwell’s concept of “thought policing” derived from his “power of facing unpleasant facts”, in his criticism of society’s prevailing ideas — which often placed him in conflict with other people and their “smelly little orthodoxies”.

    Jed Rothwell, the recently minted despot of Oceania and his newly indoctrinated army of minions has taken up the role of creating a thought police force what attempts to squash any idea that work against their doctrinaire. He is intolerant of any counter through and will browbeat descent into submission.

    We members of the LENR Oceania might not always be right in our thinking, but we sure dislike being incessantly browbeaten in what we think and say.

  2. You wrote: "How was the flowmeter convinced to show 1398 instead of 31? Such a difference is easy to be remarked."

    The flow meter error was wrong a factor of 6, not 45. The main error was that reactor produced pressurized hot water instead of steam. You are correct that the flow meter error was easily discovered. People from I.H. discovered this and other obvious errors, and they asked Rossi to correct them, but he refused to do so. They complained about this during the entire test, to me and to others. They described this briefly in the Motion to Dismiss, and in some detail in Exhibit 5.

    You do not believe the claims in Exhibit 5 but they are all correct. Most of them can be seen in Rossi's own data.

  3. Peter - it seems your assumption that the ~1MW was produced is based on the published readings of temperature, pressure and flow rate. If those readings were correct, then you would of course be correct.

    I'm basing my rejection of these figures on the absence of the other effects that 1MW would have had to have produced. To some extent Jed's mention of the IR survey of the Doral site is important here and AFAIK we only have Jed's information from IH on this with no confirmation in the legal documents. There is also other corroborative evidence of this lack of heat and in fact the lack of steam:
    1: The water being circulated is dirty. If it was indeed turned to steam and condensed then it would be distilled water.
    2: No-one mentioned that the locked room was much hotter than the reactor room. There was not a lot of fan noise.
    3: JM Products seem to have not produced anything. There were no staff running the process in the locked room and no deliveries of raw materials or exports of finished products. It would be a severe lack of due diligence for IH to not have had kept a watch on who and what entered the Doral site, with $100M at stake. A few webcams would do the job, after all.
    4: If the ~1MW didn't go out through the roof, and there was no endothermic product being produced (and even then, getting above 50% of that heat at ~100°C absorbed would be a miracle), and the heat didn't go down the drains (the hot-spot that would produce would be noticed by walking on it) then there seems to be no route by which ~1MW could go. It's significant that no-one remarked how hot it was in that area, and they would have done if it had been. It would have been out of the ordinary, but if it was ordinary then no-one (except pedantic people like me in analysis mode) would remark upon it.
    5: At the least, Rossi's refusal to allow people to verify what happened in the locked room is suspicious. Don't look behind the curtain to see that the Wizard of Oz is just a normal person. This is a Red Flag, to warn you that things may not be as they seem, and that you should tread carefully in accepting data without full corroborative evidence. The corroborative evidence here is severely lacking - see points 1-4. As such, the IR survey is just the icing on the cake though I would like to see it acknowledged legally.

    Other little points, such as that 1MW was charged for on the days when the reactor was said to be turned off for maintenance, just add to the feeling of wrongness.

    Since Rossi (and not a trustworthy third party) took the used fuel out of the reactors the day before the test finished, there is no isotopic analysis that would be valid. I expect you remember one of the earlier analyses of used fuel where there were grains of pure Copper salted in to match the predicted amount of Copper produced overall. If there had been grains of Copper-Nickel alloy, then it would be more believable, but what other reaction can you think of where a grain of metal would be either unreacted Nickel or 100% reacted Copper, with nothing in between?

    (to be continued)

  4. (continuation)

    With Rossi, therefore, there's too much evidence that the data given is false, and often there is evidence that it is intentionally false. Since it's an obvious business ploy to keep his competitors going down the wrong track, this would be a reasonable explanation if Rossi actually had a real technology that worked. This isn't good science, but it would be good business. Keep people guessing as to what is actually happening, then hit the market with something that works. For this reason, I've sat on the fence despite the poor measurements. I think this has been Jed's attitude as well, but I haven't asked.

    This time, however, the heat was obviously not there. It is also obvious that Rossi did not prepare to be able to deal with 1MW of real heat. It thus follows that the (so far unpublished) ERV report that presumably says that 1MW was produced is false. The flowmeter readings are probably false, and there was almost certainly no steam but only hot water that got dirtier as it was recycled through the system.

    How much evidence do you need to be certain that the heat wasn't there? There's certainly no evidence that it was there, and it would have been very noticeable if it had been.

    For the Lugano test there's no mention of needing goggles to look at the reactor. I've worked with stuff at around 1100°C and that needs goggles if you don't want your eyes to dry out. At around 1400°C the need for goggles would be mandatory, yet it wasn't mentioned. There's no evidence of the paint on the support being charred. It didn't reach the temperature stated, so didn't produce the power calculated. Bad experimental technique to measure the temperature, made more obvious when you consider that the Type K thermocouple inside the reactor didn't melt, where it should have done.

    You are correct that LENR may be (and I hope becomes) a very important technology. We won't achieve that with false data, though. If you haven't done so so far, look up patent US20150221405 for more pieces of the puzzle. Add that with Ed Storms' ideas and there are the glimmerings of a picture of getting to a system that doesn't produce neutrons, though you may need to also add in some of Mills and Holmlid to get to a possible experimental proof of this.

    I've given my evidence as regards the Doral test being false. I've also predicted that Rossi will not explain where the 1MW went, and I'm also predicting that JM Products will be shown to have not produced anything in the locked room and have bought no raw materials and have not sold any products, and that it is a shell company with no employees and no transactions other than money in and money out. I don't know whether this will be proved in the legal proceedings, but it would be remiss of the lawyers to avoid this problem or that JM Products was not a third party but controlled by Rossi.

    What I see in the Doral test is bad ethics (from Rossi) and bad measurements (from Rossi or controlled by Rossi) that are deliberately so. For this reason I don't expect Rossi to ever produce the LENR+ that you would like to see. That does not preclude someone else achieving it, though. Tom Darden has shown that he has deep pockets and is backing other experimenters, and intends to test out even low-probability methods. I suppose that places me in the IH camp, since I do want to see LENR working and IH are trying hard.

  5. Side notes:
    Celani made an honest mistake. I was hopeful he'd got a repeatable and replicable method that would have been your LENR+. Systematic errors can be hard to spot, especially when it's something new being done. Where possible, therefore, it's a good idea to get a demonstration of principle that does not depend on the measurements being correct. If the system will run itself and a load, you know it is definitely producing energy and the measurement errors only affect the amount in excess. This is where Mills' demonstrations fall over even though the measurements indicate that it should be easily possible.

    Conservation of Energy is central to the Doral test. If 1MW went into the locked room, then one way or another 1MW must have unavoidably come out of it. It won't have disappeared somewhere, and will leave evidence of where it went. For this reason alone, the data Rossi has published is wrong. Other evidence points to it being faked as well as wrong.

    With physics, we get big leaps and incremental improvements. F+P was a big leap in thinking though the heat output was in general small. One experiment with a cubic centimetre or so of Palladium burnt a hole through the desk and the concrete floor, and showed that it could be dangerous to use large quantities. That made calorimetry more of a problem, though. Since then, most people used small quantities (just as valid scientifically) as they didn't want to commit suicide. Rossi used larger quantities, possibly since he didn't expect it to actually work....

    Maybe a better motto would be "look at the details".

    1. Simon,

      I am disappointed- are you not able to answer directly to what was discussed; you send here a mixture of well known ideas.
      What I wrote to you was abaout:
      a) incremental vs exponentail progress (philosophical dispute)

      b) the necessity to discuss about technology not the perosn Andrea Rossi

      C( abnd thiis is the essence- the striking contrast between the existing ERV dada -from IH and the tscsm= "20kW in, 20 kW out"
      You reject the dat becasuse yiou have the certainty that JM does not existed, 1MW could not be consumed,

      IOf this is true than IH has no problems and the Tru=ial is a formality.

      Please give me ahonest publishable answer to c)

      You are using a deluge of words as the meeker of your two gurus.
      Fair play please!


    2. A better motto would be "stop believing speculation", which is what your screed basically amounts to. But I will directly address one point:

      "For the Lugano test there's no mention of needing goggles to look at the reactor. I've worked with stuff at around 1100°C and that needs goggles if you don't want your eyes to dry out. At around 1400°C the need for goggles would be mandatory, yet it wasn't mentioned."

      No. I have had years of experience with temperatures from 1000C to 2500C, and temperatures between 1000 and 1400C do NOT require goggles. The system I reference specifically was putting 5000W of rf furnace energy into a bed of carbon chunks (cylindrical pieces 1/4" dia x 1/4" long, bed about 1" dia and 4" long) contained in a fused silica tube. Temperatures measured with an NBS traceable optical comparator pyrometer (NOT camera). 1400C is a pastel yellow, and NOT uncomfortably bright. Worked with the reactor running for hours on dry eyes, no goggles...nor did any of the other folks who passed in and out.

  6. "So, Peter, please explain where the heat went. I know this sounds like a cracked record, but it is important. Also explain why the multiply-distilled water became dirtier over time."

    I know it is a waste of time writing this, but I'll give it a shot. The heat went out the loading dock door. That requires no large roof-mounting cooling, and generates virtually no fan noise (large fan, slow rotation).

    All this garbage about "dirty water" is speculated upon due to brown stains on a system sight glass. Clue...ultra-pure distilled water is one of the strongest solvents known. It WILL dissolve iron out of even the best stainless steel. But the iron so dissolved is Fe3+, which is VERY strongly colored, and WILL adhere strongly to the tube walls, appearing as a light brown stain. But this coloration probably only indicates ppb levels of iron in the circulating fluid....not gross contamination. In real-world steam systems, if the buildup gets to be a problem, a chemical cleaning of the tubing is done to remove it, basically adding a bit of sodium bisulfite to reduce the Fe3+ (VERY insoluble) to Fe2+ (very soluble). But this is only done if the coating impedes heat exchange, which takes a very long time.

    So your orange stain means zip about "water getting dirtier with time" didn't happen.

    1. there are two interesting document that i let you interpret, about estimating temperature from color

      one is interesting at it use digital camera
      maybe the method can be applied.
      at leats the photographies can be compared.

      the other is simply a Kiln user trick :

      Lowest visible red to dark red: 885 - 1200F (473 - 648C)

      Dark red to cherry red: 1200 - 1380F (648 - 748C)

      Cherry red to bright cherry red: 1380 - 1500F (748 - 815C)

      Bright cherry red to orange: 1500 - 1650F (815 - 898C)

      Orange to yellow: 1650 - 2000F (898 - 1093C)

      Yellow to light yellow: 2000 - 2400F (1093 - 1315C)

      Lugano test should thus be lighter than light yellow

      If the Thomas Clack theory is true it should be cherry red.

      the calibration should be dark to dark red.

  7. So what color did the "eye" witnesses ascribe to it?? I'm very familiar with "eyeball color temperature" scales. Surely they weren't all color blind.

  8. Anonymous - since it seems you have experience in these temperatures, please consider the internal type K thermocouple that was used as part of the control system. The scientists did not have access to the reading from this. It didn't melt. This should give you an idea of the upper limit that the Lugano test actually achieved.

    1. there is a more serious problems that shoudl amaze the supporters.
      If the TC was type K, the designer of the device have anticipated some temperature range with some margin.

      You can say there is an accident, but here type K says something about the expectation of the designer.

      why not use a platinum based TC that support much higher range if the working temp is around 1300C ?

      I would do it and David Fojt did it, because he is a professional.

    2. What both of you fail to understand is that a type K thermocouple can be used quite successfully as a control element in a system in which part of the reactor is hotter. Just mount it offset from center where the reactor runs a bit cooler, and calibrate for the delta T. Since it is being used for feedback control, it needs precision rather than accuracy. The absolute reading of the sensor is irrelevant, as long as it is repeatable.

      Apparently you have also forgotten that the reactor DID have a calibration patch for the Optris attached toward the end of the reactor, which did NOT suffer from the supposed emissivity error, and could have been easily (and accurately) used for such a calibration.

      Another thing that seems to have been forgotten in that discussion is the fact that the Lugano scientists TOOK A SAMPLE of the alumina tube specifically for the purpose of determining its emissivity. The literature data values they used for initial calculations were to be updated later by values obtained from that sample. Since the values in the paper have not been replaced, the logical conclusion is that the literature and experimental values were not sufficiently different to change the reported values.

    3. Anonymous - where would you expect the maximum temperature to be? In the centre of the tube (where it appears that the type K TC was mounted) or at the outer envelope (where the emissions were measured)?

      The Ferrara test did use a patch of known emissivity, but I did not see that mentioned in the Lugano test report. Maybe I missed it, but I did look.

      With all of Rossi's demos that I've read about or seen the videos, there has been some dispute about the readings and there have been indications that they are maybe not what they seem. Not enough steam produced, wrong colour, etc.. If I'd seen a demo where all the evidence matched up I'd have happily backed Rossi, since I have no doubt that there's enough evidence that LENR works at times. Instead we get conflicting evidence from Rossi.

      Would you have used those methods, or would you have added some extra confirmations? Use the steam to heat a water-tank of known size, for example, and measure the rate of rise of the temperature. Measure the air-flow and the temperature rise for a container around the Lugano experiment - may not be as precise but it would confirm the heat to a reasonable margin. Use two or three different methods to measure the heat and see if they agree to within experimental error.

      At the moment, it comes down to whether you believe in Rossi, or not. I don't want to need to believe, I want good data and proof. With a megawatt on offer, such proof shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

    4. "With all of Rossi's demos that I've read about or seen the videos, there has been some dispute about the readings and there have been indications that they are maybe not what they seem. Not enough steam produced, wrong colour, etc.."

      That is what pathological skeptics "do"....generate a hurricane of FUD about any and every possible area, "see what sticks", and push that. There is at least one report that has never been debunked in any way at all...the very first overnight test with Rossi and Levi present. The touted supposed failure mode (steam not dry) for that period of time was ruled out, because THERE WAS NO STEAM, and the "in" and "out" temperatures were determined unambiguously by thermocouples reading less than 100C.

      Pretty much every "point" you have raised and touted as certainties, are not certain. They are speculations.