Friday, February 17, 2017


MOTTOImage result for professional quotesImage result for professional quotes
Image result for professional quotesImage result for professional quotes

Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (Margaret Thatcher)
Thanks dear Peggy,  exactly the same is true for a professional! 



The DeJAvu people dislike tremendously the recently revealed ERV report with its stellar results and make serious (will not use "desperate"!) efforts to destroy, demolish it. Nothing surprising in it , however the task is actually impossible due to the lack of real data, vital or mortal information-- as the diagram of the Plant. It is like fencing with an invisible foe. They are trying to hit the target with explosive projectiles or torpedoes that can bring down the ERV edifice.

Two days ago it was the  smashing testimony of witnesses who, visiting the Doral Plant could state that the pesky flowmeter reads 4 times more than it actually measures and the 103C fluid coming out from the E-Cats after an intimate contact of the active cores (at >800C) is definitely water NOT steam.  So he COP was constantly less than 1, no traces of excess heat were generated.  The testimony being secret and a proof of the para-normal capacities of those unnamed visitors, the explosion  of this torpedo was just a bit more noisy than the tamed flatus of a tired virus baby.

However the next torpedo is from an entirely different category.  JEd Rothwell has discovered a a paper and  I bet Dewey Weaver will congratulate him and say it is about a situation similar to that at the Doral Plant:

Jed's discovery

Here is an article and some videos showing how a flow meter can installed incorrectly:

Figure 4 shows how to correct the problem. As far as I know, Rossi had these same problems, and he did not install the kind of plumbing shown in Fig. 4 that would fix them.
The instructions for the meter are here:

Concluding sentence:
N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione).

Google translate:

N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance).

My reaction and answer to the discovery paper

An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed.  have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X) BTW this is your idea fixa.
The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- ascending pipe is simple and fine.
The main differences to the Doral plant case:

a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe 
b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.

You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.
However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant.

Now there are two cases possible in principle:
 A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible

B. Setup according to Jed
FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system. 
Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

But now we arrive to the part I really like- and this is the subject of this blog issue.
My revelation was that the paper warmly recommended by Jed and actually a good one is NOT a professional paper. Who is interested in flowmeter errors in the first minutes from the start? Does this paper claim it is the first one about flowmeter errors? Has it determined all causes of errors? It is only a nice amateur experimental paper (do you know a diminutive for paper in English- in other languages it is!)  for the landing period of the flowmeter. Not less, not more. I am personally interested in the problem, I have three watermeters in my flat- one for the kitchen second in the greater bathroom and the third in the smaller bathroom where te washing machine is.
It would be very bad if these instruments force me to pay fow watr I have not consumed. There are 30 flats in the block building and a central great flowmeter in 37 years there twas not problem- water flow/consumebalance good. Nice flowmeters.
My daughter works at the Metrology Office and they have a section for flowmeters. But I will not ask the specialists how to use the instruments  as flow multiplier I met this problem first when  Jed generated that anti-professional idea- an offense for any honest engineer and a form of dishonest craziness. Just thinking about is  symptomatic. It is counterproductive to discuss with people immune to logic.

Better let ;s think on:


In contrast with the DeJAvu people I have a deep respect for  profession and professionals.
I think the genuine professionals first virtue is  IDENTIFICATION- he/she is totally dedicated to the problem task project- lives it deeply and sincerely. Professional is simultaneously personal.
The professional is INFORMED tends to total information- now on the Web, in books, papers, patents, grey literature, at colleagues, obtainable by reverse  engineering, wants to know everything relevant. Builds and rebuilds knowledge taxonomies, constellation of concepts, has own systems of  knowledge management. brings life and dynamics in what he knows, learns till the last second of conscious life.
It is rather humble "know-it-well" than an arrogant "know it all." Is able to say I don't know with dignity, serenity and even charm.  This is in contrast with the amateurs 
who consider a "have no idea" or a "you are right, I was wrong" as an unsupportable lost battle and therefore never accept to be in  error or simply ignorant. It is a two-edged privilege to meet such individuals on the web and I am still comparing them 
with the political oppressors I met. 

.But more about this and about the Integrity of professionals tomorrow.
I have tio triple check this writing, I see very badly and I have made dreadful typos here and in my correspondence recently, for which i apologize.


1) From the Miami Court Pacermonitor re the Rossi Darden litigation
Thursday, February 16, 2017
143 misc Memorandum Thu 8:12 PM
MEMORANDUM of Law Regarding Communications With Deep River Ventures Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, Thomas Darden(individually), IPH International B.V.(a Netherlands company), Industrial Heat, LLC(a Delaware limited liabililty company), John T. Vaughn(individually). (Maugans, Michael)

142 order Order to Show Cause Thu 10:52 AM
ORDER that Third-Party Defendants, Fulvio Fabiani and United States Quantum Leap, LLC shall file answers to the Counterclaims [ECF No. 132] by February 21, 2017, or show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 2/16/2017. (wc)
utility ~Util - Set/Reset Answer Due Deadline Thu 10:55 AM
Set/Reset Answer Due Deadline: Fulvio Fabiani response to counterclaims due 2/21/2017; United States Quantum Leap, LLC response to counterclaims due 2/21/2017. (See DE#142 .) (wc)
2) Palladium: Rossi’s Potential Hydrogenating Hammer (Max Temple)

3) Actually a lot of this is about my bad deeds and unworthy words!
Rossi v. Darden, so what else is new?

5) Is the future of energy production entirely different from what it seems today?
Sieht die Zukunft der Energieerzeugung ganz anders aus als man es sich heute vorstellen kann?

6) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

February 16, 2017 at 6:45 PM

Dr Andrea Rossi,
Do you think that also the plants like the one that has been tested in the 350 days test with IH will be industrialized and put in commerce?
Thank you if you can answer,

Andrea Rossi
February 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM

Warm Regards,

[Download] Hacking the Atom: Explorations in Nuclear Research (Volume 1) PDF by Steven B. Krivit

) Conversations: Simon Derricut 3

I follow the group think Lenr discussions debates and mud slinging on the Lenr blogs.
I think we gain from it but sometimes I wish a respected American-style boss from the 40s or 50s would show up.
And say everybody shut up.This is how it is and this is how it's going to be.Now everyone get to work

It is well worth considering the following opinions. They are just opinions but IMHO have strong legs...

OPINION #1: That the lawsuit is a tactic to tie AR up and that the desire by IH is to allow other LENR projects (or equally non-LENR projects that offer new energy) to advance and bypass Andrea Rossi's claims. 

OPINION #2: Is that Andrea Rossi does indeed have a LENR device that has at various times generated abundant over unity power and at other times failed.

The premise for the above opinions include these points ...
- AR doesn't yet know how to fully control his devices 
- Andrea Rossi is near impossible to work with 
- AR has never maintained a partnership
- AR appears to have a high turnover of staff
- AR does not have a theoretical basis for his eCats
- AR *has* made far to many past claims that can be proven wrong
- AR is a 'lone wolf' and as such, is an easy target for being diverted (and that is happening irrespective of any deliberate intentions of IH)
- In a nutshell, AR doesn't fully understand his invention and thus is paranoid that someone else getting too close may see things he can't. IMHO he has very good reason to act paranoid about this. He desperately needs expert support but can't bring himself to employ it. If true, it will cost him dearly in the long run. 


Brillouin have claimed for several years that the one thing they can show is predictable control of their 'boiler'. Assuming true, then they *may* have what AR doesn't (controlability).

But despite all the hype about Brillouin and assistance from SRI, they have only been able to show a tiny COP (IIRC 1.2 - 1.3) and they have not yet shown a scaled up 'boiler' device (a point they and their supporters don't talk about very much, one has to delve deeply on this). SRI were supposed to help on this scaling. However, Brillouin & SRI may have made advances in power scaling but are keeping it secret (perhaps).

Brillouin are an easier entity to deal with for an investor like IH. IH are also clearly seeking to lock up as much LENR IP as they can get access to. They make this pretty clear in the press statements they release.

The most probable LENR winner is going to be the group that can lock onto an accepted theory. Maybe it will be the Widom-Larsen theory, maybe there will be a newer one. But, a good theory is crucial to proving an invention and having it patented. Personally I like the W-L theory best (at this time).


We are closer than ever to unlimited clean energy
RISE – Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable Energy



  1. Drew G.
    February 17, 2017 at 5:02 PM
    Dr. Rossi:

    Has a firm date been scheduled for the beginning of the jury trial between Leonardo and IH?

    Drew G.

    Andrea Rossi
    February 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM
    Drew G.:
    Yes, it will be in June.
    Warm Regards,

  2. From the second paragraph in the Daily Notes above,
    "103C fluid coming out from the E-Cats after an intimate contact of the active cores (at >800C) is definitely water NOT steam."
    I'm wondering what guarantee we have that the actual temperature of the "active core" was 800 degrees C ?
    And if it was at 800 deg C, what guarantee do we have that the water was actually in contact with it?

    With so many unanswered questions about every aspect of the whole test procedure from start to finish, it's impossible to make any firm conclusion about any part of the test.

    In view of the fact that in none of the earlier demonstrations was there allowed to be any coolant in contact with the high temperature ecat for the supposed reason that it would 'quench the reaction', I find it highly unlikely that it would now be used in contact with the high temperature core for the year long endurance test.

    If the original Lugano test had been allowed to use simple water calorimetry to test for positive COP, supposing it had been done properly, it would have removed all the later arguments over emissivity etc, and consequent positive COP or not.
    I think we need some very reliable proof before we take it that there was any coolant in contact with any part of the device which was at 800 deg C, or any temperature near that.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Nikola Tesla Documentary

  5. Peter, that link to Hacking the Atom is advertising copyright violation. The site requires a credit card to sign up. This is totally insecure, a probable scam, you have been taken in by spam, probably. Giving a credit card number to a copyright violator offering free access to lots of copyrighted material, promising not to charge the card, do you think that safe?