Friday, March 17, 2017



Image result for manipulation quotationsImage result for manipulation quotations

Populism, beyond politics is  this
"We,  the best people, will protect you, good people, against the bad people;
by any means. Join us!

Truth is not the first casualty of war alone: it is the first casualty of populism.
(Anthony Daniels)


Dear Readers,

One strange life model  popular today is this:
- individuals spend during their last year of life for medical issues as much as in the rest of their lives. Not effective and efficient for sure.
A strange analogy is my case- I will get during a year (not surely but probably my last) as much offences/insults as in the rest of my life. 
The reason is that the Internet exists and I dared to confront a group of well organized and lead people, who tries to dominate, impose their opinions, are populists, try to manipulate the public opinion and act respecting all the Commandments of the Oppressors.
Nothing good will com out of this my friends think I would better focus on Science and  good things. I have understood and not only from M.L King that injustice somewhere is injustice everywhere. More tomorrow about this but any suggestion from you will be welcome and appreciated.
yours as ever,peter


1) From the Miami Court Pacermonitor re the Rossi vs Darden litigation

Thursday, March 16, 2017
176order Order on Motion to Seal Thu 10:17 PM 
ORDER denying174 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA)
174 motion Motion to Seal (Public) Thu 7:47 PM 
Plaintiff's MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions with Attachments per Local Rule 5.4 by Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. (Chaiken, Brian)
Att: 1  Text of Proposed Order
173 order Order Thu 9:38 AM 
ORDER on March 9, 2017 discovery hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 3/16/2017. (mkr)

2) Rossi: Using Graphene for Direct Electricity Production with the QuarkX

3) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

March 17, 2017 at 6:36 AM

Dear Andrea,

May I ask if particular Isotopes of Nickel are important to the ECat LENR process.

1. Some have claimed that fuel enhanced with Ni62 is needed in particular for proton ejection but this seems curious to me as pure Ni62 seems to be the end product when the fuel is exhausted. Or is it in fact the Lithium which is exhausted and the Transition of Ni to Ni62 is a non relevant circumstantial effect?

2. Others have suggested that evolution of the lighter isotopes of Ni to Ni62 provides some of the energy balance seen in LENR.

3. Are there other attributes of certain isotopes of Ni such as Ni61 that are important? If the fuel becomes exhausted when no more Ni61 is present I wonder if this is relevant? Ni61 is interesting in that it is a mossbauer isotope and has a recoil energy that I think is a few degrees above the Debey temperature for Nickel.

If the answers to any of this is proprietary information i understand.

It is fascinating what new things I learn about physics chemistry and materials even independently of LENR when reading about all these properties.

I wish you all the best in the weeks ahead, and am looking forward to the days when you can demonstrate your quarkx. It will be fascinating.

Best Regards
Andrea Rossi
March 17, 2017 at 8:05 AM

Thank you for this insight of yours.
Warm Regards,

It is always interesting to hear differing points of view on scientific matters. It is also a reality that in as little as one word, any commentator can seek to discredit other peoples scientific ideas and descriptions e.g. just use the word 'pseudoscience' - no other commentary is needed, so it seems. That one word conveys a plethora of criticisms and put-downs.
If I use the word 'pseudoscience' to describe someone else's theory/ideas/whatever, I am also implying that anyone who believes or supports the points being challenged, is deficient in logic or intelligence or analytical ability, in that they appear to not have the ability to grasp why it is pseudoscience. What a powerful word this is!.
In following the 'for and against' arguments re P&F Pd-D, LENR Ni-H, and re the Andrea Rossi eCat(s), and re the MIlls' Hydrino theory, and the Mills SunCell, it has become obvious that it is impossible for most people to know who speaks with the greater authority. The broad issues are typically far to complex for even the cleverest minds to claim they know best. It seems there is always another clever mind who claims to know even better.
What can be learned from all these discussions is that most people are passionate about what they believe and many are willing to express their passion to various levels of intensity, and, that is generally a good thing. Passion usually drives achievement. But it can also cloud the reality and obfuscate the bigger picture.
The bottom line for all these inventions is 
a) Does it work ?
b) Does it benefit anyone ?
c) Is it affordable ?
d) Is it practical ?
We can add to this list another issue that is less critical but when understood allows for potentially greater exploitation (i.e. cavemen didn't need to know the theory of fire)
e) Exactly how does it work ?


1) The LHC Just Discovered A New System of Five Particles

2) Next-gen steel under the microscope
Date:March 16, 2017
Source:University of Queensland
Next-generation steel and metal alloys are a step closer to reality, thanks to an international research project. The work could overcome the problem of hydrogen alloy embrittlement that has led to catastrophic failures in major engineering and building projects.

3) Time crystals are real, but that doesn’t mean time is crystallized (Synopsis)

The same in Science, especially in LENR!?


  1. I hope Dr Rossi and Dr Mills inventions
    pass Doug Markers five points.
    Then there technology is used to make
    the World a safer and better place.
    Then all the Countries of the World work
    to eliminate this weapon.

  2. Peter - asking the right question is very important. My question, of couse, is that if the 1MW of heat was produced at Doral, what was it used for and where did it go afterwards? This is a central question that you always duck with the statement that "Rossi will explain it". Instead you point at the size of the steam-pipe, the meter-readings, the unknown layout, or pretty-well anywhere else but the evidence that the heat was not actually there and that it was not used for any productive process. In fact the evidence is that JMP was a shell company set up by Rossi that had one part-time employee and no product at all. It was a dummy customer for the heat that was claimed to be produced, and had no use for that heat if it had been there.

    Pointing at other "replications" such as Parkhomov, me356, or various Russian experiments, does not address the question as to whether Rossi actually knows how to produce a reaction or the heat that he has claimed. Those people do not know what Rossi actually did and thus cannot replicate him. What they are doing is what they think Rossi did, and though they may possibly have found a working solution they have no relevance to the question of whether the Doral test actually worked. That question simply depends on the available evidence for Doral.

    Given the lack of hard data on the actual piping size/locations and placement of the meters, it's pretty pointless pinning any opinions on the various possible speculations as to layout. We just don't know, and it's better to simply say that we don't know. There obviously will be hard data as to the financial aspects of J-M Products that will show the lack of any purchase of materials or sales of product commensurate with a power-bill of $30k/month. I've been through the calculations here of what efforts would be required (and what evidence-trail would be produced) in dissipating 1MW of heat, and how that evidence-trail is simply not there.

    As far as I can see, Rossi has not got LENR+ but simply produced the appearance of it by bad measurements. That does not imply that his underlying ideas were wrong (they were developed from Piantelli's methods) or that something that appears to be similar will also necessarily fail. It also does not preclude the possibility that someone running a "replication" of Rossi (such as Parkhomov, MFMP or LookingForHeat) getting it right and getting a real LENR+. It simply says that Rossi himself doesn't know how to make it work for real.

    I'd ask you to re-examine the available data. Ask yourself the question of where the heat went, and what it was used for. If you approach this as the industrial chemist you are, you'll find the available answers unsatisfactory. If you go back over the history of Rossi's demos, you'll find all the answers unsatisfactory, as well. I would have liked Rossi to have been right, and it looked like what he was doing had a chance of being workable. There was never undeniable evidence of that heat, though, such as making a cup of tea in a time commensurate with the claimed power.

    On LENR Forum, you are not polite in your defence of Rossi, so it's not unexpected that you should get some impoliteness back. You refuse to accept the evidence that Rossi faked the measurements, even though that is overwhelmingly strong. Ignoring negative evidence is not the correct way to run science, even though it is something that is done at times - but then the predicted outcome doesn't materialise. Please re-think your conclusions based on what has actually been shown rather than what you wish to be true.

    1. 1879: Thomas Edison crowns 14 months of testing with an incandescent electric light bulb that lasts 13½ hours.

      Arc light had been developed and was beginning to be deployed but it was bright and harsh. Edison wanted a invent a light with a softer glow obtained when electricity passes through a filament and heats it up until it glows.

      Edison figured he and the 40 researchers at his Menlo Park, New Jersey, development lab could come up with a good incandescent bulb in three or four months in 1878. MAking an assumption that a incandescent light would be easy to invent, he prematurely announced that he’d come up with the bulb, stock in gaslight companies took a dive.

      Edison’s lab put a lot of effort into making a bulb with a platinum filament, but that work went nowhere, because platinum has a relatively low resistance. But gas bubbles in the platinum had led Edison to develop an efficient vacuum pump to remove the air from the inside of his bulbs. And that created a new opportunity: carbon.

      Edison pushed hard on his research assistants, whom he more or less affectionately called “muckers.” After testing hundreds of materials, they baked a piece of coiled cotton thread until it was all carbon. Inside a near-vacuum bulb, it stayed alight for more than half a day. The “three or four month” project had taken 14 months.

      So, what we see here is Edison leveraging profits from one invention to finance the next, announcing a product well before it’s completed, dodging and defending intellectual-property disputes, missing a big deadline, working his development staff feverishly, unveiling a prototype in a splashy and impressive event, and still needing more time before it was actually available to end users — in select markets, of course.

      Edison is now a hero of invention. What Rossi is doing has been done before. Nothing succeeds like success. Like Edison and the lightbulb, if the E-cat works, all will be forgiven and forgotten over time. Rossi will be another added to the lists of the heroes of invention.

    2. Axil - nice story, and it also gave us the adjective "Edisonian" to describe a long sequence of experiments without a theory to guide them. Rossi does appear to have done this, but also announced that each iteration worked and demonstrated it with less than convincing measurements. IIRC it was in fact Swann who invented the electric light-bulb, but Edison found another 1000 ways to make ones that didn't work before he ended up with the one that did work, and again we see a parallel. Rossi may not have done those 1000 different designs yet.

      In the end, though, your last paragraph is well-worded. If the E-Cat works.... I think the evidence available says that it doesn't yet work. There's maybe some evidence that the general method will work (much like the light-bulb) but not that Rossi has tamed it.

      If Rossi had had a lot of assistants (as Edison did) and had run a lot of experiments in parallel in the same way, then maybe he would have similarly benefited from the ideas of those assistants and produced a good result. Unfortunately he's kept secret what he is actually doing and has sent would-be replicators on a wild goose-chase by lying about his materials, methods and the ash produced, and so delayed the emergence of a more useful method of making Ni/H work. I suspect he'll end up as a side-note in history and someone else will be credited with bringing LENR into commercial use.