Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

  • This is probably one of the most stupid threads on this forum. At one point we were discussing what we knew about the 1-year test, based on Rossi's, Lewan's, Rothwell's, Dewey's, and IH's statements. Now we are discussing whether or not a blogger - who has a sincere interest and commitment to furthering LENR and finding the truth - is biased and/or "correct" in his opinions? This is a meta-discussion. While we have had such "transient" meta-discussions regarding, for example Dewey's belligerent and/or contradictory and sometimes cryptic statements and Jed's sometimes hyperbolic statements and consistent misquotes, the main goal of the other threads (I thought) was to discuss LENR in general as well as the Rossi technology/test specifically. I suggest that this thread be deleted by the forum moderators immediately! Including this message!

    P.S. Since apparently Abd created this thread (BTW I'm not aware that he has any first-hand knowledge about the 1-year test) and has consistently and long-windedly argued in concert with Jed (but sometimes more objectively than Jed) that the test was a failure etc., it seems apparent to me that - given that both Jed and Abd have ALREADY expressed their positions clearly, repetitively, voluminously and multitudinally (is that a word?) on many occasions - there is no need to create a separate thread to discuss these points further, at least with respect to Peter's blog. Instead this seems to be an attempt to discipline and/or intimidate Peter Gluck, who I respect as a wise and impassioned supporter of LENR. I note that I had previously considered creating a thread to discuss Jed Rothwell's hyperbolic statements and misquotes but decided against it. Abd should be ashamed! The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that both Rossi and IH will have their day in court, and then and only then will the truth come out. Same thing for the QuarkX. Either it works, and if so Rossi will market a working product, or it doesn't. Until then, repeated jawboning, e.g. repeating the same information and/or misinformation, only appears as an attempt to distract and convince people without presenting the complete facts. While we can all enjoying kibbitzing in the meanwhile, and perhaps even discuss actual technical issues, I expect that the Rossi saga is nearing its conclusion, one way or the other.

    P.P.S. Here is a link to Peter's blog; See the issue of yesterday June 9 entitled MY BLOG AND THE "PRIMUM NON NOCERE" PRINCIPLE
    Also, I don't think that Peter is a blogger advocate for Rossi. He is simply endeavoring to promote and support LENR and is also trying to present all sides in a fair manner.

  • Dear Peter Gluck,

    using your metaphor I would think it's indifferent to her, as long as she will get the money.

    Maybe it's a little bit comparable to IH's employees who have been working in the plant. I don't mean that they only were interested in their paycheck, but that they simply did what they were supposed to do. And that was the operation of the plant, not a judgment about the COP.

    This had been the job of the ERV, who also wasn't truly sovereign, because the insufficient test procedure had already been defined in the license agreement. And we know from Mats interview, that the ERV had been instructed by Rossi how to calculate the results.

    Then add the huge red flag, that none of IH's people had been allowed to see the "production of the customer".

    I can't help, when this is not recognized as what it really is.

    It's simply a farce (and maybe the staging of an experienced magician).

    But also an 89m $ farce.

    No one can seriously think, that anyone would consensually pay 89m $ for a farce like this.

    I'm very amazed what people select as their believe system.

    With best wishes


  • Let's summarize:

    We have the following people claiming that the 1MW test was succesful
    -Andrea Rossi(!)
    -Fulvio Fabiani( the engineer who created the power system ) & Barry West
    -the customer and their engineers (according to Mats Lewan)
    -Fabio Penon(ERV)
    -people who read the ERV report said there is no way based on the data that it didn't work. (according to Mats Lewan)

    While the E-cat test was 8 months in, WF invested 50 million dollar in IH. Off course TD told them the 1MW reactor has only a COP of 1 and you don't have to believe a word Rossi says. You know, he lies all the time. But invest in us now!

    On the other side we have a guy who DID'T read the ERV report(his words) claiming he has special inside information that it's all a fraud. We also have an investor in IH who can't explain why IH doesn't want to cancel the e-cat licence.

  • Actually I am grateful to Abd- my traditional discussions partner
    for publishing this here.
    In the spirit of audiatur et altera pars I have created a possibility for Rossi to tell what he thinks.

    Thank you, Peter.

    Unfortunately, that is not all that you did. What you wrote and reported could be useful, because it shows, not so much what he things, but how he thinks. You became, some time back, a strong advocate for Rossi and against classic LENR research, consistently treating it as useless, and promoting "LENR+" as the real deal. It was obvious that you believed that the future of LENR required practical devices ASAP, and Rossi was offering that, or so it seemed. In fact, Rossi could have turned the world upside down by the end of 2011, if he actually had reliable devices. From my position, we still don't know if he did.


    IH denies his technollogy, his Test, his results, instrumentation unsuitable, measurements flawed, ERV incompetent, excess heat zero. After 352 days of experimentation, 3 partial reports
    of the ERV- he has nothing and was demonized indeed including by people connected at laeast by symapthy with IH.

    Like Rossi, Peter, you are not careful. IH has not commented on the ERV, as such. They made a general report of insufficiency which matches which has been observed by others, since 2011. We do not yet know what is in the ERV report. We only have Rossi's claims about it, and some unverifiable rumors from the other side. Dewey Weaver is not Industrial Heat, and just as Rossi lost distinctions, years ago, you also have lost them. Here, you use extreme language, like Rossi. "Demonized," for example. Jed has called the ERV "incompetent." That is Jed shorthand for "wrong." But it is unclear that he knows what is in the ERV.

    "Incompetent," however, is not "demonization." Some have speculated that the ERV was corrupt, paid to support Rossi. I still would not call that demonization, though it could be libel. However, claiming that IH is an evil corporation out to destroy Rossi for profit, and hang the effect on the energy future of LENR, hang the trillion dollar a year lost opportunity cost for delay in LENR application, that is "demonizing." Who is doing that?

    You lost balance, Peter, probably from the strength of your desire.


    And it seems everything has happened when he asked the money. However now his opponents are trying to build a retro-history in which IH knew from the start that nothing works.

    Who is that? Dewey is claiming that they thought the Rossi effect was real. It is IH opponents who are claiming that they made a completely stupid investment, they should have know better, etc.

    IH may have known from the start that Rossi claims were suspect. This was all common knowledge by 2012, I'd say. I.e., there was always something off about Rossi demonstrations. There was never true independent confirmation. Possible artifacts, such as overflow water, were ignored and rejected based on exactly what is mentioned in the footnote in the Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, " relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." This is not new. The Motion does not specifically apply it to the ERV. It is just a hint that by basing the Motion on the Complaint, they are not accepting what is claimed in it. That's all, really.

    But knowing that they were suspect -- as nearly everyone in the field thought -- was not the same as knowing that there was no anomalous heat. Defkalion disappeared when an artifact was found. If they had real results, addressing the artifact would have been simple. But they did not. IH decided to take the risk. Was this the best way to invest $11.5 million? I don't know. But it's not nearly as unreasonable as some claim.

    We do not know what negotiating conditions IH faced. The situation as I'd see it was that we already knew that if anyone tried to nail Rossi down, to insist on clarity, he would slam the door. Fraud or eccentric inventor? For whatever reason, they agreed to the procedure in the Agreement, which was a setup for failure. This is the fact, and I have not seen this pointed out by others: a result and payments are immediate, contingent on a report by one person, with no time allowed to review the report, to check it for errors, to "appeal" it, and no process allowing for breakdown. I cannot imagine a lawyer approving that, from the IH side, unless the client said, "We will take the risk. We want to know, and this is all that Rossi will accept."


    These things were discussed many times my blog and I were called ugly names and "asked" to shut up.

    You were informed that you were damaging yourself, your reputation, and the field. You are reactive to being called names. I know how to defuse disputes, and part of it is to drop the reactivity. When we do something that offends people, they may be, themselves, reactive, and may "call us names." If we want to re-create communication and cooperation, we will look underneath the words to the intentions and stands and the possibility that we actually did something to offend, and that this either wasn't necessary or at least need not continue. So we apologize and don't mix the apology up with any self-defense. It backfires, and for unknown reasons, they did not teach us this in kindergarten. Indeed, we believe that we must "fight back." That might be true for adolescent boys.


    Yesterday it was decided to stop suh unsolvable discussions first for 30 days however Abd wrote this long message, he knows why.

    I had not read your next day's post yet, that's "why."


    Only the trial will solve the problem- who is right

    That is never my question. The entire conversation over right and wrong is divorced from reality. At this point, we don't know if there will be a trial. And then the trial may or may not result in clarity on the reality of the effect. So far, the legal process has revealed much more about what Rossi has experienced and believed.

    What I see is his personality, his "face," call it. And having Rossi as the face of LENR has been causing damage for years. He looks like a fraud, or alternatively, looks insane. And this has all been out there since 2011. Someone supporting Rossi was immediately considered deluded. Look at the critique of Joshua Cude here, since 2011 he has been quoting comments from Jed and myself from that year as proof of how deluded we and all "cold fusion enthusiasts" are.

    Our sin? Being supportive of Rossi based on the evidence available at the time. In my case, as I studied the demonstrations and reports like that of Kullander and Essen, I eventually found huge gaps, and, yes, that included the use of the wrong instrument to measure steam quality, while not making simple investigations that would have resolved the issue. I did not then convert to "anti-Rossi," because a flaw in a demonstration does not prove much beyond the possibility of error. But this became a pattern. Every demonstration was like this. There were Major flaws, and the flaws were never addressed; Kullander and Essen stonewalled critique. The Lugano professors stonewalled critique. This wasn't science, it was commercial fluff, publicity, serving Rossi.


    Tyhe discussion is like chronicized illness- incurrable, insolvable, useless.
    Going back to my Blog.
    Greeting to you all, Abd included- he hs good intentions

    Peter, if you can recognize what you did, it could make a huge difference for your life. Better late than never. Please don't go on like this:

    Dear Jed,

    You are ne er responding to the questionn of timing and you never show your data but you insiult aanybody who does not believe you.

    When hysterical people fight, they talk like this. "You never," and they make dramatic generalizations, like "anybody." That's a measure of your reaction and actually says almost nothing about Jed.

    Here is what I recommend: trust reality. Trust it deeply and unreasonably. After all, that is where you and I and all of us are going. From that position of trust, events will take on a depth they did not have before. Your understanding will transcend the personal. Honestly, whenever we come to this point, we become grateful. For this, it was worth being born and all the pains of birth and life.


    As regarding your hydrophobic Jeremiad against Rossi naswer to Axil I do not dare to comment it here beacaue I am polite
    but it is the most horrible injustice in LENR I will say you who does harm to LENR.

    In my training, if I said something like that, I would be told that I was lying, that I'm not polite, I'm an asshole. -- and part of the training is the recognition that we are all assholes, because we are all inauthentic, caught in habitual self-defense, we all lie like this until we transform, and then we still do it out of habit, for a time. "Hydrophobic Jeremiad"? Really, Jed uses hyperbole -- or comes to strong conclusions. About a certain scientist, he wrote "stupidest person on earth." It's obvious that the person was not literally that. He uses the term "Idiotic" fairly often. He has been claiming that the exclusion of the IH expert from the customer area in the test was "proof" of fraud. ahhh..... evidence but not proof. This is Jed Rothwell, and everyone in the field has quirks. Well, there is one I can think of who doesn't, or, the way I'd put it, I have not seen his "edges."

    But Jed's remarks were not a rabies-infected utterly insane vitriolic rant. Yet you responded to them as such, perpetuating the conflict. You were so concerned about "who started the war." I often respond to "who started it" question, "God did, because he said the Word and it exploded in that terrible chrysalis, and all this comes from that. We may never know "who started it," because there is cause before cause, turtles all the way down. But we can tell who is maintaining it. Just open your eyes, and see yourself with the same eye with which you see others, and you will know who is maintaining it.

    In the training, because the training is about empowerment, not "truth," the answer we come to is always, "I am."

    All the best, Peter, and enjoy the warming weather.

  • STDM,

    We don't know about Penon sticking with Rossi, as Deweysays at one time Penon was siding with Rossi, and another time alluding him to be with IH.

    Your part about Woodford is interesting, because based on Deweysays (just picking on you Dewey :) ) it does not sound like the rest of IH's portfolio would justify $50 million investment. That seems to indicate their main purpose for investing in IH, was because of Rossi. And we know they jumped on board this past summer...well into the GPT. So what you say about dropping $50 mil for a COP1 is crazy.

  • We have the following people claiming that the 1MW test was succesful
    -Andrea Rossi(!)

    In the complaint, yes.


    -Fulvio Fabiani( the engineer who created the power system ) & Barry West

    Where is this?


    -the customer and their engineers (according to Mats Lewan)

    This is indirect, subject to Mat's interpretation, which we do not necessarily accept.


    -Fabio Penon(ERV)

    where is this?


    -people who read the ERV report said there is no way based on the data that it didn't work. (according to Mats Lewan)

    Again, subject to Mats' interpretation and obviously incomplete investigation. We have seen comments like this since 2011. There is a report and people seeing it go OMG! Proof! And then, the morning after, she's not as beautiful as she was the night before. And then, when she leaves, we notice our wallet is missing. Probably an accident, proves nothing, right?

    So we have SDTM claiming that we have what, speaking for the public, we don't have. The only voice cited in the above that would represent any kind of independence and substance would be Penon. We don't have his report, because if we had his report, we would not need rumors about it, we could assess it for ourselves. If this comes up in court, there will also be other evidence introduced, I'm sure. Evidence that we don't have, though some of it might be among the many rumors.

  • If I may be permitted, I would like to make a few constructive comments:

    (1) Peter, keep doing what you're doing, e.g. providing balanced and complete coverage of what is going on in LENR and also providing additional insight as well as information on developments in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Asia. Specifically, your Q&A interviews with Rossi are of great interest.

    (2) I suggest also interviewing Abd about his *positive* thoughts on the future of LENR and his background in LENR, and what he is doing, thinks might be done etc. to advance LENR

    (3) Same thing for Jed

    (4) Same thing for a number of others if possible including Norman Cook (about his theory), Storms, McKubre, Forsley, Mosier-Boss as well as if possible Godes, Mills, Bazhutov (I think you've already done him), Etiam OY, Lundin & Lidgren

    Keep up the good work!

  • @Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax states:


    You (Peter)became, some time back, a strong advocate for Rossi and against classic LENR research, consistently treating it as useless, and promoting "LENR+" as the real deal.

    Lomax is personalizing a technical point. Peter has recognized that low temperature reactions are problematic. When water restrains the temperature of the reactor to or under 100C, the critical reaction temperature is only reached sporadically at or in local hot spots.

    Peter has recognized that the true environment in which LENR occurs is in the plasma phase in which the temperature of the dielectric gas (protium, deuterium) reaches at least 1000C.

    The metal substrate can be either nickel, palladium or platinum(group 10 elements). These metals need not remain solid, they can melt and the reaction is still viable.

    Sub 100C reactions are problematic and marginal as shown by many current and past LENR experiments. This technical point has nothing to do with Rossi and anyone who connects an experimental process to any given individual is simplistic.

  • Pardon me Jed as you're earnestly devoted to LENR/CF: but as an archivist of all things LENR/CF in its pre-breakthrough form, exciting and new, Rossi having the goods would mean the end of your gig.It is only rational that you would be biased against such a possibility and find good angles to try and disprove it.

    By that logic:

    When Abraham Lincoln heard about Lee's surrender at Appomattox, he said "darn, what am I gonna do with the rest of my life?"

    After the Wright brothers flew for the first time, they lost all interest in airplanes.

    As World War II ended, millions of people in New York, Los Angeles, London and elsewhere broke into glum tears and went about in silence because they no longer had an important reason to live.

    Martin Luther King was upset when LBJ signed the voting rights act.

    Look here, idiot: I have devoted decades of my life to this cause. I have accomplished nothing. Every major cold fusion research project has failed. The world at large does not believe cold fusion exists. If this goes on for a few more decades I will be dead, I will have wasted most of my working life and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the world will be probably be faced with catastrophic global warming and energy shortages.

    Do you really think that is what I want??? Are you serious? That is the stupidest accusation I have ever heard in many years.

    Furthermore, what do you think would happen to me if cold fusion succeeds? You think I will have nothing more to say and do, and no one will come and ask me what happened? I remind you history books are written by the winners.

  • You are ne er responding to the questionn of timing and you never show your data but you insiult aanybody who does not believe you.

    I responded to the question of timing many times. I told you that I.H. expressed doubts about the test early on. I do not know exactly when because I only heard about it several months into the test, but they did not believe the results then, for good reasons. No one who understands calorimetry would believe such sloppy work.

    I have not shown you my data because I am not authorized to do so. You should ask Rossi to show you this data. Even if he cannot give you the entire ERV report he could easily tell you the instruments, the configuration and some sample data. No one is stopping him from doing that. He is the one who is hiding information from you, not me.

    Rossi has given you NOTHING. Yet you believe him. Why?

  • -people who read the ERV report said there is no way based on the data that it didn't work. (according to Mats Lewan)

    Mats Lewan is wrong about that. Many people who have read the report, or sections of it, or previous versions, found good reasons for thinking it did not work. I.H. outlined these reasons: the measurements were flawed and the wrong instruments were used. If Mats has learned about the details of the test, yet he does not see holes in the test large enough to drive a truck through, he does not understand calorimetry. Many people strongly disagree with this opinion of his.

  • But it is unclear that he [Jed] knows what is in the ERV.

    That is incorrect. I am sure the data and description I got is similar to what is in the ERV. It is also similar to what Rossi described to Lewan, with the same numbers and configuration.

    The configuration was changed after the reactor was moved to Florida. Dewey said here that Rossi removed the steam trap and other essential instruments. I do not know what the original configuration looked like, but I know what the final one was. I have been told the ERV describes the final configuration, not the starting one. It is not possible to do valid calorimetry with the final configuration, in my opinion.

  • Jed: you are an archivist of pre-breakthrough LENR/CF, as I wrote
    Obviously since this is pre-(public/civilian)breakthrough you know a lot about experiments that do show signs of LENR, but nothing is theorically or practically stable. You cannot provide a powerful reactor or the theory that would allow it, because otherwise, we wouldn't be in a pre-breakthrough situation.
    If Rossi has the goods, do you understand what it means? that you lose your status as master keeper of all things LENR-related

    This is not an accusation, merely an observation
    The way you express yourself, with rage, is quite telling: you are afraid Rossi might be it

    It's a sad truth that most of us love stuff because of the status they confer upon us, rather than out of pure selfless interest or love

  • Peter, what is your view on the fact that IH was not allowed to see the customer side of the plant setup?

  • so you are contented with the timing of the Events?

    There is nothing strange or suspicious about the timing of the events.

    IH people were in the plant had access to all data- how much time do they need to understand the plant has COP,1 and what is the natural reaction to such a disaster?

    They did not take any time to understand the plant has a COP of 1. It was obvious. Soon after the test began, they told me and others that it was not working. They were hoping Rossi would correct the problems with the calorimetry, and then make real excess heat appear. I was hoping that too, even though I heard the test had problems. I was expecting Rossi would make it work. That is why I signed up for Mats Lewan's symposium. I admit, I felt trepidation. Mats can tell you I repeatedly asked him for assurances that he would not hold the symposium unless the ERV report came out. To his credit, he did cancel when it became apparent the report would not be published.

    There is no reason to question the timing of these events, or the sincerity of I.H. They did all they could to help Rossi. They leaned over backward to give him every opportunity to make the thing work. No one should question my sincerity either. You see plenty of evidence in the record that I was hoping Rossi's claims were real, and that I gave him the benefit of the doubt. So did I.H. If anything we both went too far, giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

  • The technical possible bad news is that IH currently could not make NiH LENR.
    I hope the dead end is only Rossi's process, and that process observed by :
    Didier Gras&al in Thomson CSF (zircon, sputered with Nickel then electrolysed with Ni amodosulfate )

    is confirmed.

    Replication of Mizuno/Cleanplanet

  • Shane D - The WIF team has visited many IH labs and projects. They know what they are doing.
    Rossi is only at the center of his universe and continues to generate lies / spin to try and influence for his purposes. Rossi was / is accurately portrayed with IH investors who know how operate in the real world.

    Rossi has managed to snooker many credible people and those who continue to stick by his side will soon see their credibility going the way of Rossi's reputation.