How is the weather on Planet Rossi?


Peter Gluck posts links to his blog in many places, and I saw this yesterday. I’m mentioned (the day before). Speak of the Master of Hot Places….
EGO OUT, April 6, 2017

A year of litigation- the scales of Justitia have  great loads of stuff- facts and assumptions. Facts have weight the assumption not- just now a selection/separation process takes place. 4-5 months and we will have the Verdict.

Indeed. However, we might have some verdicts, at least, within roughly a month, how long I expect it will take to handle the three pending Motions for Summary Judgment.

For the time given, the IH party is making huge efforts to kill the Penon ERV Report.

Actually, this is Peter’s myopic version of what is happening.

The Penon report has numerous flaws, but may be irrelevant to the primary lawsuit, i.e., Rossi’s claim for $89 million and fraud. It is now completely clear that Ampenergo had explicitly rejected the Second Amendment to the License Agreement, voiding it, even though IH had signed it, this was not merely a signature defect on one copy of a document, as appeared at first.

Ampenergo was concerned that a premature GPT could void their right to further payment. No Second Amendment, no GPT, unless IH later explicitly accepted an independent obligation. No GPT, no payment due and no fraud against Rossi, and this may be completely decided (outside of possible appeals) — I predict it will — when the Judge rules on the IH Motion for Summary Judgment. I am currently studying that — and will study all the motions, I hope.

On this point, it does not matter if the Plant “performed” or not. If IH were convinced, and, the critical point, if they could make devices that would pass clearly independent testing, they would have paid for much less performance than contractually required for the GPT.

Rossi also appears to have massively confused issues by having two Leonardo Corporations (FL and NH), and they both still exist, and FL is not owned by Rossi but by Florida Energy Trust, which may or may not have Rossi as the beneficiary. So Leonardo (FL) may not have standing to sue IH under the Agreement. The lawyers will work that out, but the argument is stronger than I first imagined.

The counterclaims, however, could involve the Penon report and other issues. While these were included in the MSJ, those are more difficult and may require a jury trial.

They want: “Fiat Justitia, pereat technologia!”

Peter is not actually lying, he likely believes in his mind-reading. But IH actually is not standing for “justice,” but rather for the future of the planet, and their main and long-standing personal concerns were protecting the environment. Peter’s motto is a play on Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus, “Let justice be done, though the world perish!”

Peter believes, apparently, that Rossi is the friend of technology, and IH the enemy. But Rossi was going nowhere fast, until IH decided to find out the truth, and technology needs truth. Rossi v. Darden has shown, again and again, with overwhelming evidence, Rossi Says is, often, Rossi Lies.

(It’s been noticed that many Rossi statements turn out to be, not exactly lies, but misleading, and from context, we can readily infer that it was the misunderstandings that Rossi was deliberately creating. It is entirely possible to lie with truth. Just set up conditions where the truth will mislead, generally because of incomplete information or context. “Lies,” then, are statements intended to mislead.)

To Peter, lies don’t matter, all that matters is the technology! But if a technology is possible, it does not depend on an individual; rather, all that would happen if an individual is lost or overlooked is some possible delay. Technology, the kind that makes a difference, is a human development, not a personal one, and the deepest advances in technology become inevitable, garage inventor or not, because humanity grows and learns.

Peter’s motto might as well be Rossi Uber Alles. He really doesn’t care about people, — except Rossi, and then only for what Peter thinks Rossi has — and that is what became obvious.

Peter does not care about lives ruined (Fabiani is tragic), and especially he does not care about those who have sacrificed personal gain, risking loss, for truth, as whistle-blowers. Like Luca Gamberale, who violated an NDA in order to expose the massive problem with the Defkalion public demo in 2013, a problem with a flow meter, whereas Peter has claimed such are impossible and that Gamberale, and now Murray, were lying. Back to this.

The RvD litigation is surely not beneficial for the LENR technology, but
Andrea Rossi is focusing on progress and is developing a new species of his generators.

If Rossi has a real technology (with “QuarkX,” for which there is zero independent evidence), he has made it impossible to raise money, unless he does what he has, so far, refused to do: create fully independent verification of technology transfer.

Rossi lied to his supporters, for years, about what was going on in Doral, Florida. Peter doesn’t care about the lies, since it is all for a wonderful end, limitless power. Power. Love of power, what’s that?

Rossi made the choice to file Rossi v. Darden, and may have been relying on some really poor legal advice. If he wanted to earn $89 million, and with a real technology it would have been easy, he could have done so. The evidence is showing that IH was willing to go to great lengths to accomodate Rossi’s quirks, and hoped against hope that somehow Doral would prove the technology. But Rossi prevented verification, not trusting it, at best still paranoid about his “secrets,” and, at worst, a suicidal maniac.

Peter is not familiar with the facts of the case, with the clear evidence, but only with his imagination about the motives of IH. Peter is advocating and praising what has seriously harmed what he claims to love, the possibility of LENR. Money that could have been spent on real science, leading to real technology, was, instead, spent to, in the end, demonstrate a massive error, trusting Rossi Says. By demonizing IH, as Gluck does, he is attempting to injure the reputation of the strongest supporter of LENR research on the planet, working with many researchers. Only Rossi, who received directly $11.5 million, plus many expenses were paid, who has been funded at a higher level than anyone else recently, is complaining about IH. In spite of common opinion on Planet Rossi, IH investors are not complaining and LENR researchers are not complaining, even if they only received some “toilet paper,” Rossi’s term, as I recall, for penny stock in IH Holdings International, Ltd. But many have received substantial funding.

My bold:

The paper about the Wright Brothers has a fragment strikingly similar to the style and modus operandi of Rossi’s enemies.
Re the [Wright] Brothers: “Their lack of moderation was equally self-­defeating. Wilbur and Orville thought anyone who did not see things their way was either ignorant or duplicitous; anyone who overtly dis­agreed with them was either a liar or a cheat.

Peter doesn’t see it, he’s wearing blinders, but that is a description of Rossi, far more than IH, which showed, again and again, moderation, almost to an extreme, such that many accuse them of being dupes.

The day before, Peter told of a tragic workplace explosion years ago:

A sudden explosion and a long flame typical for dust explosions has killed a first of workers, a separation wall was thrown over the unique door blocking it so those who survived to the shock had only two choice to burn alive or to jump from the third high floor and to die awfully broken. I have seen them and this is one reason for which I disliked the wish of one of the IH pillars who wants that I should burn in the Hell.

It is apparently me that Peter is writing about. I’m not, however, an “IH pillar.” If I disappeared, IH would not start to lean to one side for lack of support. IH is supported by almost the entire LENR field (or, more accurately, is supporting it), and, it is appearing, by the facts which were, until now, secret, that IH has kept their promises, fully and impeccably, and the one who has violated contracts was Rossi.  Not just with IH.

I have received no benefit from IH, beyond a few kind words, in spite of Rossi’s claim that I’m a paid-for puppet. As to what Peter says about me, like much of what he writes, it is distorted. The distortion has been pointed out, to no avail. Peter doesn’t cite sources, commonly. He just repeats what he thinks was written. He’s no better with the facts of Rossi v. Darden.

I would go back and quote what I actually wrote, but it doesn’t matter. I was angry with Peter, and used a common English expression for severe anger. And I’m still angry, but not in the way he imagines.

Peter lost it somewhere along the way, and stopping listening to his true friends, people who had supported him. In any case, I mentioned Fabiani above. From a Fabiani email to Joe Murray, April 25. 2016, Rossi v. Darden had been filed about three weeks before.

sorry Joe

but I am very upset about the behavior of both parties.

Rossi is very disappointed with me because he thinks I’m an IH spy and IH did not pay the last invoice to me taking me around saying (words of JT) that the check has been shipped (over twenty days ago).

These two behaviors are really bad and not reflecting the honesty with which I worked for Rossi and IH.

He meant “jerking me around.” Fabiani goes on to attempt to be sociable with Murray, and talks about the two of them being in the same situation (between a hammer and anvil). I’m not sure why he thinks Murray is in difficulty also. Maybe he is, but it is not apparent.

However, Fabiani, if he is sincere (which I assume unless evidence is clear to the contrary), is indeed between a hammer and an anvil, or a rock and a hard place; however, he doesn’t understand the situation and reacts to it in ways that made it worse.

He has equated what appears to be a serious betrayal, where there was a clear expectation of being treated like family — Fabiani was apparently a close friend of Rossi’s wife — and this was the longer-standing relationship, whereas it ended with his being treated like a spy, totally unfairly, with, on the other side, a minor difficulty with a single check, and one easily resolved, if Fabiani simply dealt straightforwardly with his obligations.

Rossi, many times, referred to the two “IH men” on-site in Doral, i.e., Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani. From this, he claimed that IH certainly knew what was happening. Fabiani, doing his “IH job,” for which he was well-paid, would be an IH informant, agent, monitor. I.e., a “spy,” but spies are secret and Fabiani’s contract with USQL and thus with IH wasn’t secret from the parties.

(Fun fact: USQL is apparently half-owned by Florida Energy Trust. I.e., according to recent Rossi claims — though he wasn’t sure, as I recall –, by a trust which has Rossi as sole beneficiary.)

So years of loyal service were not enough to stop Rossi from throwing Fabiani under the bus.

I am still an electronics contractor. It has happened that the President of a company told me a check had been sent, when it hadn’t been sent. Liar? No, a miscommunication between him and the accountant who sends checks. I would never stop work based on some transient, one-time problem, with a company with which I had extensive positive experience. Looking over the record, IH paid their bills, even reimbursing Rossi for their share of the last Penon payment. Ironically, there is a story in the depositions (Fabiani or West, I forget which), of Rossi stiffing a contractor.

Fabiani had been paid a total of $355,659.10 by IH in 2013-2016. Then the last payment under the contract, due 3/30/16, apparently, for March, remains unpaid, $11,870.00.

The normal payment date would have been close to what Fabiani wrote. So JT (Vaughn) may have assumed that the check had been issued. And, indeed, it may have been issued, but then wasn’t actually mailed. At this point, IH knew that a major dispute was coming, possibly the suit. They would have wanted, very much, that last data from Fabiani. And so the check was handed to Murray.

Murray wrote back the next day, April 26, that he had the “check in hand” and was ready to fly to Miami to give it to Fabiani. May 16, he repeated the offer, or offered to FedEx the check to him, but “I need the data and final report in order to release the check.”

It appears that Fabiani did not respond. The report had been promised to be completed in March, so this would have completed the contract, and if there was a default in payment, it did not occur until April. Fabiani was acting outside of normal business practice, but thinks that IH behavior was “bad.”

I can imagine and sympathize with his severe disappointment, and fears. However, he appears to have thought that he could protect himself by destroying data. It is unclear at this point what he erased. He almost certainly knew that a lawsuit was in progress when he erased his emails. His deposition is extremely unclear.

This stands out for me from the deposition, because of the obvious human interest:

Q. When was the last time you were in the Doral warehouse?

A. The last time, one or two days after the plant was closed, yes, to take my material that had been thrown outside.

Q. What was that material?

A. My computer, my acquisition system, my electronic laboratory.

So Fabiani had worked for Rossi for years, then for IH, assigned to assist Rossi and report on the Plant, and his reward was to have his computer and electronics — precious to him, I would assume — thrown outside.

Fabiani had a month (March) in which to prepare the final report, with no other duties, to complete the contract.

It is not clear if he had all his notes.

However, I can say this from personal experience. It is difficult to work when your life just came crashing down, your close friend betrayed you and tosses your possessions outside, and you have a very uncertain future. He was probably evicted from his apartment, or it may have been threatened, that apartment was apparently owned by Rossi.

I know a way forward for Fabiani, having been through many personal crises.

Trust the truth, no matter what happened in the past: trust the future.

Today I read this on EGO OUT:

I have used quotations about thermodynamics because I have seen the laws of thermodynamics so many times applied bureaucratically, with an apocalyptic flavor and many times misapplied. A recent example is expert Rick Smith using them in order to demonstrate that the 1MW plant of Andrea Rossi has circulated water ni=ot steam and the steam – iif formed could not be superheated- so he ignored one critical detail – that the fluid had a temperature of 103-104 C at atmospheric pressure, has not studied/understood the structure and functionality of the Hot Cats and on this basis has claimed that the data of the Penon Report must be fake. He will get the proper answer in Court- where the real battles take place.

Peter has not understood the Smith report, and thus misstates it. Peter assumes, first of all, that the temperature and pressure data is real, whereas that data does not resemble real data, and Smith covers that, as have many other commentators. The pressure is not stated as “atmospheric” in the Penon report, but simply as 0.0 bar. This is an obvious error, so all comment assumes it is “barg,” or gauge pressure, and 0.0 barg would indeed be atmospheric pressure, which varies, which is probably why the proposed Penon protocol, as described in the documents, used an absolute pressure gauge, not a relative one.

The problem of interpreting the Penon report is that when the data and conditions are put together, they don’t make sense. The pressure is uniformly 0.0. Because the return “condensate” tank is open to the atmosphere — it appears, this is all fairly vague — a steam pressure of 0.0 would result in a zero flow rate, at least apparently. However, it is possible that there is negative pressure in the “customer area,” and then a pump to restore pressure, but a pump in the condensate line could also be an error or fraud mode; suppose it introduced air in the line; this would cause flow overstatement.

Atmospheric pressure varies, one problem here. Average sea-level pressure is 1.013 bar. The extremes at sea level, (non-tornadic) are about 0.870 to 1.086 bar. These would indicate a variation of boiling point from about 96 C to about 102 C. The variations at Miami were unlikely to be that great.

However, there are more problems. Peter is simply assuming that a temperature of 103-104 C indicates superheated steam. This is an old issue that was extensively discussed in 2011, considering the early Rossi reports. One cannot measure steam purity simply with pressure and temperature, because the idea that if a line is above boiling point, the steam must be dry, is simply false. It takes time to reach equilibrium. The biggest problem is the possibility of mixed flow, i.e., steam above liquid water. It is possible for there to be steam (even dry steam) above running liquid water, and the heat transfer rate between water and steam above is low.

This is why IH had installed a device to trap liquid water; Rossi removed it. This is why a single measure of temperature can be inadequate. This is why the flow out  of the Plant (as distinct from flow into it) was a required measure in the original description of the Tests for the Rossi plant.

Smith is not attempting to prove that the lines were flooded, but this is, rather, a possible error mode. It would likely be combined with a failure of the pressure gauge. Maintaining constant pressure and temperature, given all the variations in reactor performance, would be extremely difficult. If there is a constant temperature, that indicates saturated steam, not superheated. Superheated steam is free to vary in temperature, but saturated steam will be nailed to the boiling point at the relevant pressure. So the apparently constant temperature indicates incorrect pressure or temperature readings.

Understanding the “nature of Hot Cats” should be unnecessary to assess the steam power delivered. Steam is steam and it does not care how it was generated. One of the Planet Rossi tropes, Rossi has been emphasizing it, is that Smith is not a “nuclear engineer.” Whereas Penon is. Yet the Rossi Plant is essentially a boiler, and no knowledge of nuclear engineering is necessary to understand both how it would be assessed, and possible error modes. Indeed, nuclear reactors do operate sometimes as boilers, but … this is a small part of nuclear engineering, which is mostly about the generation of power from fission.

The irony here would be that no nuclear engineer has been trained to use LENR. The physics learned would be almost completely irrelevant — and misleading. Indeed, that Penon is a nuclear engineer may have made it easier for Rossi to fool him, if that is what happened.

Notice how Peter simply assumes that the data in the Penon report is accurate; he has not been following the discussions, obviously, or he would know that the Penon data was supplied either by Rossi or Fabiani, not directly obtained by Penon. Details remain unclear, and there was spoliation of evidence. In particular, discussions of the return condensate flow meter will probably remain that: discussions without proof, because Rossi, shortly after the conclusion of the “test,” removed all that piping; and he knew he was going to be suing IH, he knew he wasn’t going to be paid, so he was very clearly removing evidence. That alone may lead to his utter defeat in court.

Even if the Plant actually generated heat. However, when we look at the extensive evidence of fraudulent representation from Rossi, and how he has influenced so-called “independent testing” of his devices (including Lugano), leading scientists into face-palm errors, no information from Rossi, or collected in Rossi’s presence, or with a setup that he managed or influenced, can be trusted.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


4 thoughts on “How is the weather on Planet Rossi?”

  1. Hi Abd
    I should have researched better before posting.
    Rossi did say that but was
    just replying to a joke.

    Silvio Caggia
    December 28, 2015 at 5:37 PM
    @Frank Acland
    Every night, at midnight, Andrea has to digit a long password in the central computer, in order to avoid the container transforms into pumpkin: “Salaga dula mencica bula Bibbidi bobbidi bu”…

    Andrea Rossi
    December 28, 2015 at 7:58 PM
    Silvio Caggia:
    How did you know? Somebody here talks too much! I cannot answer positively or negatively.
    Warm Regards,

    He did post a comment about
    Mats Lewan Fabiani interview
    on his blog but he did not reply.

    November 26, 2015 at 5:58 AM
    Dear Andrea:
    The interview of Mats Lewan to the engineer of your Team Fulvio Fabiani has been very interesting as a backstage description of your work. You are inspiring.

    I apologize for not doing my
    research and posting on your
    blog from the top of my head.
    I will be more careful next
    time before I post or just not
    comment if not sure.


    1. Live and learn. One of the reasons I encourage people to cite sources is that it leads us to look at the sources, instead of the impressions we might be holding about them. This is how my learning becomes deep. I don’t just read sources once, I read them whenever I cite them. (If I don’t reference a source or am vague, it means I’m writing from memory, which I may do in conversation, but … it can be quite flawed.

      Reading the Fabiani interview was fascinating, knowing what we now know, I think I will comment on it. I love that scene in Blade Runner.

      Mats Lewan states as fact what clearly wasn’t. Fabiani can’t say exactly what he has seen, but he was obviously deeply impressed.

  2. Hi Abd
    I don’t know for sure but I think A.R. was upset with
    Fabiani unauthorized interview with Mats Lewan.Rossi said on his blog
    after the interview that someone in here (shipping container) is talking to much.
    If A.R. was referring to Fabiani
    it is strange because Fabiani
    was so positive about A.R.
    Maybe shows how paranoid and controlling Rossi is.
    Fabiani got a decent pay check
    even without the receiving the
    last one.


    1. Can you point to a source? Yes. Rossi was highly controlling, at the same time as apparently being personally undisciplined. It appears likely that he asks himself questions on JONP when he wants something to be said, then he answers with “My attorneys forbid me to talk about the case.” But even if those questions are real (which is unlikely for all of them, so clear are they as Rossi-speak), he still does answer sometimes. He just did.

      The Fabiani deposition and emails generate sadness in me. And not just for Fabiani. For Rossi also. What kind of a person treats his friends this way? What pain is he in? Or if not in pain, what is missing from his life?


Leave a Reply