Sunday, November 13, 2016



Image result for defeatism quotationsImage result for defeatism quotationsImage result for defeatism quotationsImage result for defeatism quotations


It is Sunday, a minimalist day regarding the number of messages I am receiving. he same probably for the number of readers- 150-200 less than a in a weekday. However the problems of LENR do not relax and I am an incurable workaholic nly 3 years younger than Leonard Cohen  who passed away- so I try to discuss important things even today.
There are two subjects  till now: a) it is the duty of LENR community to answer to the obituary of our field- dated 1/4 century ago b) a starting discussion about LENR and mathematics- see 
the first paper at LENR IN CONTEXT-1 about the physicists scared by high level mathematics.

a) If the American Chemical Society thinks LENR died 25 years ago, then...
...then it is not difficult to guess what they think about its proper place.
I have already emphasized that it is our duty- as community to answer in a civilized but firm manner and to show that ACS is in deep error- nobody answered actually.
I also have said that we have to explain to ACS that there are essential differences between the energy produced by LENR and BrilliantLightPower' s hydrino energy- please do not combine or even mix them, treat them separtely! Two scienist friends have agreed with this.
Some inhabitants, prisoners of the Anti-Rossi Planet having the mission/tas/hobby
to use ANY opportunity to attack the person and the technology of Rossi have  considered that even this obligation to start discussions with ACS is good for saying that Rossi's LENR+ does not exist and is only my personl fantasy accepted by nobody else.  25 years ago Rossi had not much to do with Cold Fusion, and when he started to work with the classic system his fast conclusion and decision was to discover his own way and technology.
It is inconceivable ethically and scientifically to not respond to ACS, it is defeatism of low quality.

b) Even physicists are scared by mathematics, LENR theorist are scared by Unitary Quantum Theory.

Prof Lev Sapogin's presentation - slides aimed for SSICCF20 China shown here  two days ago, still has no echo- probably due to its mathematical level. Still waiting,I wonder what will say a high class mathematician as Jean Francois Geneste about UQT?
I have not excelled in mathematics (but have a great practise n engineering calculus)  however my very first publication ever was a problem in the Romanian Gazeta Matematica in 1953 - I remember it and I try to explain it in words.

""Let's be the square ABCD, the middles of the four sides are EFGH. Let connect with lines A and F, H and C, then F and G -this intersects HC in point I.
Calculate the surface of the trapezoid AFIH as % of the surface of the square!"

The solution has some similarity with the Golden ratio and I remembered tis old stuff when I entered my Golden Year (79 is the atomic number of Gold).


1) Phonon Energy to replicate MFMP Glow Stick experiment

2) Italo R.
November 13, 2016 at 1:36 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,
It seems to me that the IH attorneys with their enormously increasing in complexity and quantity of produced pages, are trying to explain the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, wanting to demonstrate that the E-Cat is dead (or never born) AND alive in the same time. Mission impossible…

Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Andrea Rossi
November 13, 2016 at 8:16 AM

Italo R.:
That’s an interesting interpretation of the Schroedinger paradox.
Anyway remember that in Physics nothing is impossible, everything is associated to a probability number and complacency is always a very dangerous attitude.
Warm Regards,


4) Trump Victory will have little or no Effect on Fusion


Even physicists are 'afraid' of mathematics

Date:November 11, 2016
Source:University of Exeter
Summary:Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests.

The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.
Dr Tim Fawcett and Dr Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page.
Dr Higginson said: "We have already showed that biologists are put off by equations but we were surprised by these findings, as physicists are generally skilled in mathematics.
"This is an important issue because it shows there could be a disconnection between mathematical theory and experimental work. This presents a potentially enormous barrier to all kinds of scientific progress."
The research findings suggest improving the training of science graduates won't help, because physics students already receive extensive maths training before they graduate. Instead, the researchers think the solution lies in clearer communication of highly technical work, such as taking the time to describe what the equations mean.
Dr Fawcett said: "Physicists need to think more carefully about how they present the mathematical details of their work, to explain the theory in a way that their colleagues can quickly understand. It takes time to scrutinise the details of a technical article -- even for the most distinguished physics professors -- so with many competing demands on their time scientists may be choosing to skip over articles that take too much effort to digest."
"Ideally, the impact of scientific work should be determined by its scientific value, rather than by the presentational style," said Dr Higginson.
"Unfortunately, it seems valuable papers may be ignored if they are not made accessible. As we have said before: all scientists who care about the dialogue between theory and experiment should take this issue seriously, rather than claiming it does not exist."
The statistical analysis is free-to-view at
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of ExeterNote: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
  1. Andrew D Higginson, Tim W Fawcett. Comment on ‘Are physicists afraid of mathematics?’New Journal of Physics, 2016; 18 (11): 118003 DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/11/118003

Ask Ethan: What if gravity isn’t really fundamental? (Synopsis)


  1. Peter said: "Abd, please abandon empty and useless rhetorics and answer to ACS! In a way it is your duty too."

    Forget the ACS. It is not important -- Nobody cares about it. What's important is to finish the process against Rossi. You need to answer the questions about Exhibit 5: Why you discount eyewitness testimony in favor of wishful thinking and interpretation of Rossi Says, and so far, why you have not acknowledged the problem of pump location -- that I've seen.

    Peter you are actually confused, but, yes, it results from your obsessions, possibly. I know that for myself, at 72, an additional factor shows up, fear of "losing it." If I react to that fear without clearly identifying it. I don't resist The S word... Senility. It is just your paranoia.

    1. (lter I was informed that not Abdis the real author)
      But I can answer- I have shown many times the real value of that clumsy Exhibit 5. Value negative works aganst
      its authors, promoters and very disordered not professional.
      I prefre SSS- Serene Senility Syndrome more than simple senility. Paranoia is not justified in my case.

    2. Exhibit 5 was probably written by Murray as a memorialization (a reduction to writing) of comments or questions asked of Penon in February, over the two days that Murray visited and met Penon. That there would be conflict was clear by early December, 2015, when IH claimed that the Doral plant was not a "Guaranteed Performance Test" and Penon was not "ERV." By February, Rossi and IH were already dealing with each other through Annesser and Jones Day. Rossi filed Rossi v. Darden the day *before* payment would have become past due. He was in a very big hurry. The idea that he didn't know non-payment was coming, sometimes advanced, is clearly false. So he was deceptive when, early in March, he claimed that there was no problem with IH.

      Exhibit 5 is simply what it is, the comments and questions of an experienced engineer, apparently. Penon might have answers for the question, and was contractually obligated to serve IH. As you are likely aware, Penon has disappeared, it appears that IH has been unable to serve him notice of his being sued, so, any day now, Penon might be "dismissed without prejudice" as a defendant. That means that IH could refile if they find him. His absence would probably make the "ERV Report" largely useless to Rossi.

      You may believe that Exhibit 5 is "clumsy," but the questions are real, and obvious, in fact. The matter of the half full pipe is clearly a question, any responsible engineer would ask it, based on Murray observing a rust line indicating that. The layout may allow for the possibility of a half-full pipe, depending on details that we do not know. By assuming details are one way -- initially wrong, by the way -- you can come up with the idea of impossibility, but Murray was only asking an obvious question, given what he saw! There are other major problems with the "1 MW" claim, but this is not the place to go into much detail.

      Initially, "Planet Rossi" reacted to the lawsuit as if Rossi was going to kick butt, and IH was obviously going to lose. As facts have come out, many readers are backing up. Rossi still has not Answered the countercomplaint, the document with Exhibit 5, so we don't know what he will say. The judge has not ruled on Rossi's motion to dismiss. It is unlikely to succeed, from my review of the documents and law, but Rossi will, when the judge rules, if the countersuit is not dismissed, have two weeks to respond, and could ask for more time, which would almost certainly be granted. From the interrogatories we have seen, he is fishing for a Wabbit to pull out of the hat, it is appearing that he doesn't already have one ... but we will know in not long.

    3. I did not write the above comment, though it was put together from pieces of prior writings -- and distorted, out of context. While that is my Facebook user name, used in some places, this is not connected with Blogger, and what I have always used here is the name on this post, which is my Google account name. That is Ul- vs ul.

      The above was designed to create false impressions. It is easy to verify that my comments here, for a long time, have the name on this post, not the one above.

  2. I did not post the above comment, here. It was faked. Peter knows my email address and can confirm if he wishes. It does extract some things I have said, here or there, at other times, but then adds something that is probably the purpose, to establish a pretense that I have an agenda to "finish the process against Rossi." I have no such agenda. I am assisting the community in understanding the lawsuit, and I do have personal conclusions, based on my study, but I don't have the concept of "importance" that is pretended.

    I would not provoke Peter by repeating what I wrote before. Someone is a liar here, it's not Peter and it's not me. Someone is attempting to create offense. I could speculate who it is, but I won't. They know who they are, and so does Reality, and that's enough for me. It all comes back to Reality, and we can't hide from it.

    1. Constructive contradictions are tools of progress. Re Rossi vs Darden the war takes place in the Court- what happens in the blogo- amd forum-sphere is not really relevant

    2. Sure. However, Rossi v. Darden is not a war. It is an attempt to resolve a dispute, primarily over the payment of $89 million that Rossi claims is due, and the suit was filed by Rossi, and IH is defending and has no made counterclaims. Exhibit 5 is a compilation by Murray, an IH engineer, of questions he asked of Penon before the final Report was written, together with some observations underlying the questions. He did, we can be reasonably sure, observe what he claimed to observe, entirely aside from conclusions, and did ask those questions, which have, so far, not been answered by any evidence or allegation in the case. Exhibit 5 also apparently quotes some of what was in the preliminary reports, confirming what Jed Rothwell had written as to what he had seen "from Rossi."

      Yes. What happens in the blogsphere is generally not relevant to the case, except that some Rossi blog comments have been quoted as a basis for certain IH claimed. Any attempted denigration of Rossi on the blogs would not affect the case in the least. So ideas that comments are "paid FUD" are almost certainly false. Such would not benefit IH. To justify payment, companies want to see benefit! IH is not raising funds from the public, they are generally immune to public opinion, but ... Rossi might be.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.