The second edition of “An Impossible Invention” is out

AII_cover_eng_200pxTo everyone who has read my book ‘An Impossible Invention’ — thanks for all your support so far! Everyone of you has meant a lot to me, and also all personal messages, emails, reviews, comments, text messages and even phone calls that I have received from all over the world.

Now a second edition of the book is out, in English and in Swedish.

It’s available as e-book, both at An Impossible Invention Shop and through Amazon. It’s also available as paperback through Create Space and within a few days through Amazon. Click here for details on how to get the book.

An Italian translation is underway and will hopefully be released in the beginning of next year.

Read more at the book’s web site .


108 thoughts on “The second edition of “An Impossible Invention” is out

Add yours

  1. This string seems stuck at 106 posts so Happy Hannuka, Merry Xmas, Whatever Muslims celebrate (they always seem to be having some religious holiday) and Happy New Year to all.

  2. @Mats

    Have you read the newest piece of Rossifiction?

    What do you think of this? This is the same Rossi who said on his blog JONP in 2011 that he could make his own isotopes of nickel cheaply and in quantity. Then, someone on Vortex said they heard he was buying Ni62. At first, exotic isotopes of nickel were required to run the ecats. Then, it was RF or AF power pulses at “secret frequencies”. Now, the basis for the reaction is mysterious isotopic shifts which most nuclear physicists who bother to comment find impossible.

    Any opinion, Mats?

  3. @Mats

    The relation between a scammer and a scammed is primarily a win – lose situation. But in many cases it is also a shut up – shut up relation. This is very likely to be the case when the fraudulent transaction is unknown to the public.

    The scamee realizes that he has a minuscule chance to get a refund and the scammer shuts up for obvious reasons; the best customer is a secret(!) and silent customer. So the scamee has nothing to gain by crying wolf. On the contrary, going public he will only reveal what a fool he has been and probably still is. Being scammed is a shame better kept in the closet.

    Of course going public could save others from being scammed, but I am afraid that for most fooled fools this is, as in this post, just an afterthought.

  4. Mats you wrote:
    “I doubt that any company ever paid anything to DGT.”

    Do you really believe that there aren’t company/people “victims” (that paid and have lost a lot of money) of DGT?

  5. I think this quote from EGO OUT also speaks for itself:

    I smiled as I was multiplying in my mind 1300 companies times the $40 million dollars that is rumored the average cost to buy rights from Defkalion… But how real is all that? I pressed him for company names and proofs. He refused, saying that he is bound by confidentiality agreements that were requested and signed with businesses that already purchased rights.

    After their failed demo Defkalion has vanished into thin air. The company is welcome at any time to make a new, more convincing demo. Until it does, RIP.

    Unless X companies want X times US$ 40000000 back of course. 🙂

  6. Hola, Mats! Are you there? I have more questions from my reading of the book but I don’t want to go on until you have a chance to respond.

    1. @maryyugo
      Yes I’m here 😉
      I know about the Defkalion forum and I read it from time to time. From the tone in the answers it seemed to me that there either was a very solid team with great confidence between team members and team leaders, or that Hadjichristos answered most questions by himself. I would guess the latter. I didn’t bring up this in the book, as many other things — when you write a book you have to make choices all the time since you cannot put in everything, and this was one of the things I decided to leave out. Reading the book you will find many other events regarding Defkalion and specifically Alexander Xanthoulis. I think that they speak for themselves and that they altogether give a picture that wouldn’t be altered much by adding further details.

  7. @Mats

    While I read your book’s discussions of Defkalion, I’d like to know if you followed their on line forum. They never said who was making the responses but the style corresponds with the other on line messages I have seen posted by Hadjichristos.

    As you know, Defkalion discontinued this forum and deleted all its contents from the internet sometime in 2013 if memory serves. Did that event mean anything to you?

    Several people preserved copies so if you don’t have it and you’d like to read it, I can make a copy of the Defkalion forum available to you. Some of the claims in this forum are amazingly… uh… ambitious. And not a single one of them ever happened.

    I was wondering if you were aware of what Hadjichristos was saying in the forum in terms of who was testing the “Hyperions”, and what their operating parameters were and how he was treating anyone who questioned his claims.

  8. Reading Wikipedia about chicken eggshell transmutationist Corentin Louis Kervran:

    “The scientists who collaborated with Kervran on many of his specialized experiments gradually referred to the thesis of transmutation at low energy as the “Kervran effect”.”

    If you want to be remembered get an “effect” named after you. It may work just as good for a Nobel Prize winner as for a failed Italian inventor.

  9. @Mats

    Biological transmutations sound quite reasonable to me. So I have come up with a complementary theory. If nuclear reactions are an integral part of our living organisms, why could not life be an integral part of what we normally regard as a purely nuclear environment?

    Take the Sun for instance, she could be alive! We realize that this is not by any means a new idea, the Sun goddess has been worshipped since ancient times. You may find my theory improbable, but on the other hand there are a lot of things that we do not yet understand in plasma physics. I quote Professor Hanno Essén: “Plasmas have never been well understood. The theories are still very weak.”

    Be a little humble please and try to think outside the box. Or at least, try to prove me wrong!

    1. H-G, that’s a good start 😉
      But you need some experimental data to support your ideas.
      And you also need to have this data examined at a minimum by other people. Welcome back, the door is open.

    2. Well, the whole world is full of astrological data since ancient times. And I am sure there must be even at least a serious and scupolous professor behind some of them somewhere in some epoch. ..

  10. What gets me about the search for weirdness is that people doing it tend to criticise those who don’t bother for bias. In reality, it is usually those who chase weirdness who are biased, because a sober assessment of the matter would say it is likely not true.

    Still it is virtuous to chase weirdness and one in a hundred times you will hit gold. But some weirdness, for example Rossi, is so well investigated already that the chances become much smaller.

  11. “So what do you do? Ignore him and his results because they are impossible? Or try to find out if there’s a way that they can be possible? Or, if you cannot, maybe just let them be, waiting for other more qualified people and for more knowledge that one day maybe bring a possible explanation? Meanwhile you could at least avoid to make any statements in neither direction?”

    Those are not the only two options. For example, you could do a thorough and careful investigation of them: which will likely show the error. To remain questioning is a virtue. To remain questioning with a presumption of extraordinary theories being likely to be true is silly.

  12. @CimPy

    Just for fun, read this:

    “Biological transmutations — nuclear physics of life even at the level of bacteria and plants — have been suppressed since the dawn of chemistry.”

    Click to access InfiniteEnergy115.pdf

    In the article there is a picture of this incredible machine:

    It does look pretty real but still I have great difficulties to believe that somebody actually built it. But if they did, it should be preserved as a reminder for future generations that there is no limit to the inventiveness of humankind and also no limit to its stupidity.

    1. The “RAR gravity motor” makes sense only as part of a carnival – that is: it could be useful to attract tourists or customers to shops in the nearer.
      A trip herearound should be enough to anyone who should have any doubt (if even one could have had).

  13. “I hate books where the author forces his interpretation on the reader — ‘writing it on your nose’ as we say in Sweden — and I hope to have avoided this in my book”

    As long as you give credits, for example, to “chicken transmutation” (biological transmutations) as if they were true and scientifically accepted, you have not.

    1. Yes Cimpy, biological transmutations are provocative, aren’t they? I think so too!

      First you have to accept a transmutation process that doesn’t bring radiation, like LENR, otherwise the organism will die. But then it cannot even produce more than very small amounts of energy, because heat will also kill the organism. Clearly unthinkable!

      Yet, what intrigued me was this clear statement by a scientist who has a great deal of experience, who is meticulous and who has a high class laboratory. He is obviously not a fool (I now refer to Pierre Baranger, quoted in my book, who did experiments with plants, not chicken).

      So what do you do? Ignore him and his results because they are impossible? Or try to find out if there’s a way that they can be possible? Or, if you cannot, maybe just let them be, waiting for other more qualified people and for more knowledge that one day maybe bring a possible explanation? Meanwhile you could at least avoid to make any statements in neither direction?

      (By the way, I did not give credits to biological transmutations ‘as if they were true and scientifically accepted.’).

    2. Mats, have you ever worked with chickens and plants? ‘Cause I have and I can tell you no professor – no means how much serious and accurate – will ever make me believe he could really check all the ways elements would reach those creatures. But I appreciate the way you switched far away from the alchemic chicken Ig.Nobel winner…

      So what would I do? For sure I will not spend years in babysitting plants to demonstrate they do not “transmutate”: I already know they can not, they do “normal biological chemistry”.
      And how about you? Would you run in for a try?

  14. @Mats

    “You obviously focus on things supporting your suspicions of him being a born liar and scam artist, whereas others are struck by Rossi’s stubbornness and his extreme capacity of focusing.”

    It is quite possible for a person to simultaneously possess all of the above attributes.

    BTW, I think it is an excellent idea to let maryyugo peer review your next Rossi book. 🙂

    1. Naturally my dear H-G.
      I’m pleased to see there’s also something for you in my book!

  15. @Mats

    On pages 81 and 82 of your second edition, you say that Rossi had replaced the burner in the premise’s boiler with an ecat and “…said he had heated the building with it for months (!) — an alternative way to estimate the heat-energy output since you could compare output with the gas burner used before.” In Rossi’s first ecat patent application, this incident was described and said to have occurred in 2007.
    While this may sound superficially reasonable, it is so colossally unlikely in so many ways that it was the first giant red flag which alerted me to the possibility that Rossi was a scammer back in 2011. When I first read this claim, I asked Rothwell about it by personal email. He told me someone he knew who was reliable had seen the boiler but he wouldn’t say who or what tests if any had been done. I asked what happened to this marvelous machine, which would have to have had a very high output, and Rothwell tried to find out and couldn’t. He also could not get photos.

    There are so many things wrong with this story that I am not sure how to begin! First, from my experience in heat transfer measurements and calorimetry, I can tell you that this is *not* by the remotest stretch of the imagination, an alternative way to estimate the ecat’s output. It is a dangerous and unreliable method of testing a radical and uncharacterized “New Fire”. The only reliable way to accomplish a proper test would have been precision calorimetry, something that Rossi to this day has not achieved. Nobody in their right mind would simply stick a fusion reactor (!) in the place where a gas burner had been!

    Second, in order to have heated an entire building, this ecat would have had to feature both a high output power and some method to couple the power to the boiler. Winters are cold in Italy!

    So we are expected to believe that in 2007, Rossi had an ecat with enough power to heat a building, that at a very early stage in its development, he had no concerns about radiation, thermal runaway or explosion, that he had worked out a way to transfer the heat to the building, and that this marvelous machine was somehow lost or disassembled. And it was then replaced with the much lower power, crude-looking, steam temperature ecat which Rossi displayed in 2011? Rossi never said either the size of the building or the power output of the gas burner the ecat replaced.

    Krivit knew of this claim when he went to Italy to see Rossi in 2011 but he never pressed Rossi about it. He wrote that he wanted to visit the factory to see it but he was rushed and it was out of the way and it was so incredible anyway that he didn’t bother. I was amazed about that. Had it been me, it would have been the first thing I asked about.

    Most amazing of all, no reporter, including you, Mats, pressed Rossi on this absolutely unbelievable story!

    Do you now believe that Rossi actually had such an ecat, that he was able to heat an entire building with it in 2007, and that after he removed it from the boiler, it was never seen or displayed again and simply disappeared to be replaced by much lower power ecats (and eventually by the even lower power and lower COP (power ratio) hot cat)?

    I learned at early age that people who lie, particularly in a facile manner, about their claims, will lie about anything. And from a wonderful movie about a large and complex scam (“House of Games” ) I learned that whatever you don’t fully understand in a scam is the part which will “get you” later.

    It seems to me to be wrong to quote Rossi’s preposterous story so loosely in your book without noting, at the very minimum, that there is no evidence that such a heater ever existed. If you were writing objectively and critically, as one should about such a world shaking device as the ecat, it would have made sense to ask Rossi what the power output was, what the device looked like, whether you could you see a photo, why it was not kept or replicated or independently tested, and what happened to it.

    Can you please explain why you did none of those things and instead, published this absurd claim exactly as Rossi told it to you? And do you still believe it? (thanks)

    1. @maryyugo
      Good point. I should have asked you to review my first edition before publishing 😉
      This is another of those sayings and claims by Rossi from his background which I found poorly documented and easy to doubt. In fact, again, I just let him say it in the book to let the reader judge (in this case it’s indirect, not a quote, and if I remember right I based this also on what Cassarino told me, but I wouldn’t believe that Cassarino had confirmed the information in any way). And you’re right that also here it could have been useful to point out that the claim is weak and not supported by any evidence at all.

      At this moment I don’t find this episode in my notes, but I think I discussed it with Rossi, without getting much useful information.

      In general you can see that the story regarding Rossi’s background is limited by the fact that a lot of things cannot be confirmed (and this goes also for many things that Rossi was and is accused of), and I therefore avoid going too much into detail. My description is a kind of orientation of what seems to have happened and what kind of character Rossi was/is.

      You obviously focus on things supporting your suspicions of him being a born liar and scam artist, whereas others are struck by Rossi’s stubbornness and his extreme capacity of focusing. This is also what I hoped to achieve — a story where different readers will find different aspects of the story, and different “truths”.

      I hate books where the author forces his interpretation on the reader — ‘writing it on your nose’ as we say in Sweden — and I hope to have avoided this in my book.

      Keep reading!

  16. Rossi is a kidnapper. But he has not snatched away a kid. Instead he has kidnapped the language and tools of technology and science and abused them beyond recognition.

    Whether Rossi himself believes in what he is doing or not is irrelevant. It is like contemplating a person that claims to be Napoleon reborn. Is he truly Napoleon? Or is he delusional? Or is he just trying to fool us in order to sell an autobiography from his previous life as an emperor?

    We do not need to ask this type of questions about Rossi. All we need to do is to look at the proven results of his projects. In doing so we find that we are looking at … nothing. At least nothing positive or useful. Since he has promised a lot more than that, so far he has not been successful and the chances that he will ever be can only be measured by an imaginary number. Or perhaps an extremely small irrational number.

    There has been a lot of talk about proof here, maybe this could be helpful:

  17. It seems that once someone has made incredible claims and put together a demo that has convinced a few cherry-picked naive scientists – even though it can be shown that the demo was leaky as a sieve and proved nothing – they have passed a blessed gate.

    From then on the burden of proof is the other way round. As long as they maintain they have made the incredible technology to contradict them would be tantamount to calling them a fraud. That cannot be done without proof that they are a fraud. And whomever makes the devices has control over how or if they are tested.

    What should happen is that observers look at the lack of evidence and refuse to be convinced without much stronger evidence than exists. They can stay silent on the matter of fraud which is after all much more difficult to prove than that a particular device does not work. And if the device is genuine the production of much stronger evidence is no problem.

    But that is not what does happen, as we can see. Maybe 90% of observers do what they should. The remaining 10% are enough to provide funding, academic credibility, journalistic support, etc..

    1. Both
      leads to nowhere (“This webpage is not available”).

      You can still find it here, under the name of ADA432046
      or here, as 2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf or here, at freeenergyscams (of course!)

      Trick is to search fro the title “Application of Thermoelectric Devices to Fuel Cell Power Generation”, not for pdf name “Thermo(2004)”. And yes, it disappeared from DOD (and even from Rossi self story). Someone told the version hosted at freeenergyscams was not the correct one, but I can find no difference between that and the others, a part that “free energy scams” is not a site ruled by believers.

  18. Sometimes we confuse proof with strong evidence. You can’t prove any of the fraud assertions about Rossi and Defkalion because neither will allow definitive and truly independent testing or assisted replication attempts.

    But there is overwhelming evidence that Rossi did not learn how to make highly efficient thermoelectric converters and then gave up the process because it was tedious! That would be as if Edison had given up making the light bulb *after* he discovered how to make long lasting ones. Yes, they were tedious to make, those first light bulbs, and very expensive. But a bit of engineering cleared it all up and the rest is history.

    The best evidence (and it’s very compelling) that Rossi never had what he claimed in TE devices is that there was no followup of any sort. The “12 atoms” statement is also ridiculous, as Mats admits. So very strong evidence of a scam, not actual proof. CERL apparently agreed. They removed all traces of their original paper from the internet.

    For Mats: It formerly was here:

    Now, that link, as you can confirm, gives a “not found” error.

  19. 5) Here is what Gary Wright had to say… the relevant parts begin about half way through. Gary tends to over-write stuff a bit, LOL:

    “We contacted Hi-Z Technology, Inc in San Diego, California. At first they were hesitant to answer our question if Rossi or Leonardo Technologies Inc. had in fact purchased any modules. After awhile they did confirm that Rossi had purchased a few modules from them.

    It is our position that not only did Rossi purchase enough working modules to make his device that he tested at the University of New Hampshire but he also purchased enough factory rejects to build the 27 modules, but from Russian sources.”


    ” Speaking of how Rossi and LTI can build and sell these for only $300 to $500 a kilowatt, they say:

    06) Reductions in production costs are achieved by a series of innovations:

    Instead of purchasing high-priced raw materials refined to a purity of 99.999%, LTI purchases lower-priced materials of 99.5% purity and uses their proprietary electric/laser refining process to process the raw material required by their process.

    Proprietary doping impurities are added.

    Robotics are used for mass production.

    Instead of producing small thermoelectric generators, large 1-kilowatt devices are produced resulting in economies of scale.”
    In case this sounds familiar, it’s the same exact claims that Rossi made for the domestic ecat. He said he somehow produced nickel isotopes necessary for fuel and he did it himself and cheaply (itself a Nobel possibility) but of course he never showed it. Robotic factory sound familiar?

    “Here we have another confirmation that Rossi was claiming he had a robotic factory. Now everyone can see where Rossi came up with the idea for his robotic factory in Florida. The Florida BRC went looking for the Florida robotic factory but found just a condominium.”

    (BRC: I think he meant NRC = nuclear regulatory commission. Wright filed a complaint with them and they investigated and Rossi told them he made nothing nuclear powered in the US. Was that a lie?)

    1. Thermo stuff? That was clearly a scam. There should be no doubt on that. Of course, no one can proof a destryed device was not able to make miracles of 80% of energy while all other similar, even 10 years later, can barely do 25%. In fact, we have no evidence the original lost device was not able to do it.
      Really a pity we have only reports of people saying it was true and not a working machine able to make it. In the whole world and in more than 10 years, no matter how precious that invention would have been.

  20. @Mats

    I must admit I only skimmed your first edition when someone shared it with me. Now, I purchased my own copy of the hard copy edition from Amazon and I am reading it more carefully. I hope we can discuss it here but if not, point me to where.

    First, I do enjoy the style and the colorful descriptions of places and people. It’s good writing.

    My first question has to do with the Thermoelectric converters. On page 60, you say that Rossi’s results were amazing. And that a report by the US Army etc. etc. … carried out in early 2000… seven days… reached 100 Watts. You give as a reference for this the 2004 report by Huston et al, which can be found here:

    Click to access 2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf

    I have these questions about this item:

    1) Where in the report does it say that such tests (yielding a continuous 100W for appreciable periods) were conducted by the Army (DOD/CERL), that anyone from CERL ever saw the tests, or for that matter that ANYONE who can be quoted and interviewed ever saw that test other than Rossi or Cassarino or other Rossi cronies?

    I have read that report cover to cover. It was a while ago but IIRC, I was struck at the time by the fact that NOBODY mentioned by name had SEEN the purported highly efficient thermoelectric device, much less measured it, and the only reference to it was basically a “Rossi says” that it had been tested in the maintenance plant of the University of New Hampshire by what amounted to mechanics.

    Can you say the page in the report where it says that anyone credible or reliable saw or tested that device? Someone you or me could now interview?

    My theory is that no such device ever existed.

    2) Are you aware that DOD/CERL removed this report in entirety– all 150+ pages of it — all of the work which cost US taxpayers more than $9 million before it was done — that this was removed from their web site? And that they do not answer inquiries from Gary Wright about this project? The only place you can find the report now is in Krivit’s archives! To me, this says DOD was very embarrassed about the whole sordid experience with Rossi. What do you think about it?

    3)Do you not know that if Rossi’s prototype had really existed, Rossi (or someone at CERL or a colleague pf Rossi’s) would CERTAINLY have reproduced it? At any cost and any expenditure of time? It would be worth millions or billions if such a prototype could be made at all. Other people could then do the engineering to make it practical and it would revolutionize energy recovery (as the CERL report spends (wastes) most of its space to point out!). Rossi’s explanations for why this did not happen seem ridiculous and incredible to me. Do you believe him and why?

    4)You quote absolute nonsense from Rossi without critical mention or do you really believe that the position of 12 atoms (!) in grams or kilograms of materials determines whether or not the Seebeck Effect can be achieved with efficiency?

    5)In the light of Gary Wright’s evidence, doesn’t it now seem clear that Rossi delivered reject parts, some bought from a company in San Diego which admitted selling them to Rossi? And other components he delivered came from Russia? And all looked like junk and barely made 1% of what Rossi had claimed when they even worked at all?

    OK, so Rossi was in jail after the start of this debacle. Why did he not fix things as soon as he got out of jail? It would have been worth a huge amount of prestige and money.

    6) Did you confirm the story that there even was a fire which destroyed the prototype and Rossi’s notes?

    Thanks in advance for your reply.

    1. @maryyugo

      1. I don’t claim that the report relates evidence for the 100 watt measurement. I agree that it’s possible that this value might contain errors, not known how large, since there’s no detailed report available. Your theory might of course be right.

      2. No

      3. I believe that there might have been a prototype showing better efficiency than existing technology, although exaggerated by Rossi, and that he was not capable of transferring his knowledge, maybe not even knowing the details of what he had obtained.

      4. You will find, reading the book, that I often leave quotes as they are, without comment, to let the reader judge for him/herself. I agree that this particular claim is hardly credible, and that there could have been reason to point this out. In fact, I consider that quote the most dubious thing I ever heard Rossi say.

      5. I’m afraid I don’t know the details of what Gary Wright has reported on this. But I think that it’s clear that Rossi himself had doubts about achieving stable results in this field. I agree that another question or two to him could have made this clearer.

      6. My source on the fire is Cassarino who I consider to be trust wordy.

  21. @H-G

    It comes down to proof.

    I am struck by how often the argument is “you cannot prove XXX is incorrect, so I give them the benefit of the doubt because of positive indications.

    When XXX is claiming something contrary to accepted laws of physics with no hypothesised explanation you might think that “proof XXX is incorrect” was getting the wrong way round, XXX needs “proof he is correct” for anybody to accept his claims.

    But that is contrary to the tenets of LENR magic realism.

    Anyway, that is why the X3.3 issue is interesting, it just could be proof even magical realists will accept.

  22. @cimpy

    I’m willing to bet that Rossi reckons electrical power measurements are getting a bit too hot. The next model perhaps will be gas-powered, and the issue will be correctness of a gas meter, or some flakey way of estimating gas consumption via weighing? The world is your oyster for new measurement errors that none of us have yet thought of!

    One of the many long-standing inconsistencies highlighted by Rossi’s talk of gas “stimulus” is that with a COP of 3 there is double the input heat emitted, so why on earth can the reaction not be self-sustaining? Thermostatic cooling works well and can keep temperatures stable.

  23. @andrea.s

    You are right, and I agree. But, let us face it, there are a very large number of inconsistencies that Mats does not consider outweigh the positive indications. Such, to my mind, magical thinking cannot be changed by more of the same.

    On the other hand this X3.3 issue is different because it is a provable error in the written and (it is claimed) scientific report from third parties. And it is simple enough that no-one can dispute it.

    I can see no reason why they would not have corrected this, unless they cannot. They said they had stored the data to allow such correction. They stated that they would correct the report. they have replied (informally) to the clamp hypothesis (I know you and I don’t find their reply convincing, but the fact that they replied shows that they want this report to be corrected if possible). Mats currently, I expect, rests his view on the fact that there is no proof of power error given the possibility of NTC. But that explanation would allow the authors to correct their report, including evidence of the NTC, and revising the statement that the wire was Inconel.

    The fact that they have not done this should matter even to Mats. If they did do it, there would be other inconsistencies that matter to you or me and most other observers, but I expect those have less weight with Mats.

    Louis de Bernieres is one of my favourite authors – I like magical realism – but science is something different and I think in this Rossi story the two have got mixed up unhappily, doing no service to scientists.

  24. “Who is right, Andrea or Andrea? You decide”

    LOL (!)

    A new model is in sight. All the matters of previous ones will be forget (or at least, believers will pretend to), as usual.

  25. Andrea.s has used the Gecko circuit simulator to emulate the results from the Ferrara and the Lugano tests. I have done a similar thing using Excel with the built-in Visual Basic support, a powerful feature that most Excel users are unaware of. My results are very similar to those of andrea.s.

    The results from the Lugano test can be reevaluated in a way that restores validity of standard physics. This is achieved with a simple but controversial assumption of wrong polarity of one of the current clamps. Moreover, as andrea.s has documented, the same is true for the March part of the Ferrara test.

    The December Ferrara test results cannot be reproduced in this way. The power multiplication factor that is claimed for this test is 5.6, very close to 6, Andrea Rossi’s earlier standard claim. This high value could require some of TinselKoala’s Cheese Power as well.

    So the question boils down to: Who is right, Andrea or Andrea? You decide.

  26. Thomas,

    allow me to remind that, if the authors in their (imminent?) report update were to defend the 3.3x drop in resistance, perhaps with the hypothesis of SiC resistors instead of Inconel , then the inconsistency in currents pulsewidth should be explained. The infamous figure 5 well fits a 3KW consumption and 1.2 ohms, whereas admitting a 0.36ohm resistance and 900W consumption the pulses should be much narrower.


    good luck with your book. Either way, this incredible story is worth being told.


  27. ( should say that for me there is absolutely no contest – the negatives are very strong, the positives non-existent. But then I weigh my own judgement of the science stuff against that of the “experts” observing the tests, who seem remarkably unexpert when that is done.)

  28. Mats,

    To add to the list of indications below that Rossi does not have LENR, which I guess don’t outweigh what you see as positive indications, how about this?

    The latest TPR has as you know an error. If the element is some novel type of SiC with unusual NTC, then the anomaly is explained, but the report remains in error because the authors say the element is Inconel.

    The authors claim they want scientific credibility and as you know that means bwing precise and correcting errors. This error is easy to correct, they have the data to check the reistance vs temperature characteristics of the element. That data does not infringe IH IP because it is merely validating data already provided: no new data.

    Why have they not made the small change to the report needed to do this? It has been two months. And they said they would change the report to deal with criticism. Am I too impatient?

    They know of this matter, since I and perhaps many others have informed them.

    How can there be any explanation of the silence consistent with a simple correction that does not threaten the report’s conclusions?

    Best wishes, Tom

  29. The test failed, you get way too many line feeds. This is what the original looked like in Word, using Ascoli65’s instructions but with slash instead of backslash:

    1) In Word 2007 start with ”Blank document”.
    2) Write ***, Enter.
    3) Write your text.
    4) Write ***, Enter
    5) Save as Web Page, Filtered.
    6) Open with Notepad.
    7) Copy what’s between *** lines.
    8) Paste in WordPress post editor.

  30. @Mats

    This is a test. If it looks awful, please delete it!
    If it works, it could be a nice way to make posts more stylish.
    Moreover, spelling and grammar may be improved. 🙂
    Even if it works maybe you can recommend a simple free
    html editor that could do the job?
    —————————————————– To the test ——–>

    In Word 2007
    start with ”Blank document”.

    Write ***,

    Write your text.

    Wite ***,

    Save as Web Page, Filtered.

    Open with Notepad.

    Copy what’s between *** lines.

    8)      Paste in WordPress post editor.

  31. @ H-G Branzell,
    How do you make text bold or italic in this dang editor?
    Sorry, the special characters did not appear in the previous comment. I try again.
    (less_than)b(greater_than)bold text(less_than)(back_slash)b(greater_than), removing all the parenthesis.
    For the italic text: “i” instead of “b”.

  32. @ H-G Branzell,
    it is a comparatively short list
    I mentioned just the apex the list. The list of public declarations from UniBo people confirming the huge amount of excess heat produced in the demo is much longer.

    Here (1) you find a list of 13 sentences taken from Italian media and web sites. This is only a very partial list because it includes only 3 sentences from Focardi and none from Levi. For translation, you should rely on a translator, sorry. I wouldn’t alter the meaning of the original assessments, doing that from myself.

    I think that Lewan knows many other details on the support given by the physicists of UniBo to the scientific credibility of the “Rossi’s says”.

    How do you make text bold or italic in this dang editor?
    bold text, without the underscores.
    For the italic text: “i” instead of “b”.


  33. OT

    Nothing in common with the book by Mats, but it may be still interesting

    Here you can find a deep analysis of the Rothwell’s recent report about the Mizuno’s cell generating anomalous heat. Google translate makes a good job. English version to come soon (as soon as I can get some free free time without playing watching soccer).

  34. @Ascoli65

    I admit that I may have exaggerated a bit, but still it is a comparatively short list. Perhaps Mark has something to add?

    I have seen the video again and I would like to add this point to your list of credible Rossi statements:

    (5:43) “The yellow line is the water temperature after the reactor, and when the temperature was 101 was not water of course, it was steam.”

    Yes, of course it was steam. No need to show it IRL.

    But you must remove this one from your list:

    (8:12) “After this study it’s possible to have considerable improvement. Today we had a ratio of 15, i.e. we have generated about 15 times the energy input.”

    (8:30) “There is still much to study … now we have the Ford T but we can get the Formula 1”.

    Three years later we are now down from a ratio of 15 to a ratio of 3. According to Less’ law we can predict that around 2018 the ratio will be down to 1,286. Instead of using a Formula 1 car we will be walking on our own legs like the Neanderthals used to do.

    Otherwise I think it is a nice video. I get quite nostalgic when I hear the regular beat of the little pump…

    But there is one thing I do not understand, not in the video. I think that you can help me with that. How do you make text bold or italic in this dang editor?

  35. @Mats

    After the publication of TPR1 Rossi says: the fuel is 62N and the ashe are the Copper.
    After the publication of TPR2 Rossi says: the fuel is the nickel in natural isotopic composition while the ashe are 62Ni
    Everything is normal for you?
    For me, this thing is like discovering my wife in bed with another man …
    Are we more jealous in Italy than you in Sweden? Is tihis the problem? 😀

    1. @Sandro75k
      I’d like to answer that at least we have politicians that behave well, but in this very moment we have a really nasty government crisis which will probably lead to new elections (first time since 1958), less than a year after the ordinary elections. Very Italian style… 😉

  36. @ H-G Branzell,
    Your list is too short. There are many reasons why so many people still believe in Rossi. This reasons are all provided by authorative people, that, differently from us, had the opportunity to examine very closely the ecat in operation.

    Among these reasons, the first and most important one is contained in the video “Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 2/3 ( ).

    The most meaningful sentences from Rossi (see the subtitles) are:
    (1.53) – Thank you very much for your presence, I hope that everyone was able to enter and hope, I was able to explain the operation of the reactor at all.

    (4:48) – with no difficultous calculation we can say that the amount of water, if I remember correctly, it was around 16/17 kg/h of water.
    (4:52) – and given the heat of vaporization, the amount of energy we have produced was around 10/12 kWh/h of energy flow out
    (5:12) – The average consumption in entry that is the energy that we consumed to produce these 12000 W was an average of 600/700 W

    (6:24) – The experiment was done by us and we were subject to review.
    (6:33) – We’ve brought this reactor to be reviewed, people who have done this test, which now give me the exact numbers of what happened, are professors at the University of Bologna

    (8:02) – After this study it’s possible to have considerable improvement. Today we had a ratio of 15, ie we have generated about 15 times the energy input

    Many of us realized that the calorimetric data are wrong, but until the professors of UniBo will not explain how they managed to make appear the excess heat, the hoping people will believe their incredible results.

  37. @Mark hazelton

    You suggest that maryyugo should compile a list of reasons not to believe Rossi. That is a lot of work, much simpler to make a list of reasons to believe him. In fact, I already prepared such a list; I have pasted it between the dotted lines below.

    Everything that Rossi has promised that is not between the lines you should not believe.

  38. Mats, I look forward to read the updated second edition of your book. I think the first edition was a good piece of journalistic work; well written, well researched and fun to read. I think you are brave and do the correct thing to write about this contoversial subject. Regardless how the story about Rossis E-Cat ends, it is definitely a story worth telling. The same applies to your work with this blog where you have patiently and openly replied to – in my view often unfair – critisism against your involvement. It is currently the silence of the test team that deserves critisism, not you.

    I don´t know how confident you still are that Rossi’s device works but I advice you to mentally prepare yourself for a sad and disappointing ending. Maybe you then can invlude a chapter that analyzes the psychology behind the entire affair. What motivated Rossi and why did so many believe that almost free energy production was true..

  39. Maryyugo, perhaps you should compile a list of the many reasons NOT to believe Rossi, then post that list on multiple websites and multiple blogs… multiple times.
    Many people may find that behaviour obsessive… but don’t worry…. lack of sleep and continuous reading never did Don Quixote any harm!

  40. Right Gunnar. And I might add that Quantum Australia tried also and the days they went to see Rossi, the ecat mysteriously was not running although Rossi was saying at the time that more than a dozen were under continuous testing and photos of his shops showed three units on his workbench.

    Furthermore, there is the issue that Rossi chose mostly crooks and dupes to represent him exemplified by Schneider, was it? In Germany. Schneider, IIRC, was also selling free energy scam magnetic motors! And then there was that dope Green in Australia who sold sub-distributor agreements for most of the world and advertised four month delivery for megawatt plants more than two years ago.

    Then there was the supposedly free power a Scandinavian country was supposed to get from a Rossi plant. I’m sure that happened.

    And when Rothwell, the ultimate LENR enthusiast and I tried to assemble a team to go to Italy with our own test equipment and methods (sparging the steam, for example) in 2011, Rossi initially said yes but never allowed it to happen. He refused Rothwell!

    And then Levi refused to even reply to an inquiry by email by no less than Brian Josephson about replicating his liquid flow calorimetry experiment (about 8 months ago).

    We could and probably should enumerate even more reasons not to believe Rossi. There are so many. it’s difficult to recall them all!

  41. @maryyugo

    Just a couple of points to add to your excellent review.
    Rossi was offered one million Euros by Dick Smith for a successful test with the Swedish professors as witnesses. He called the offer a clownery.
    Later, he was very happy to collaborate with people from NASA until he understood the test they offered would reveal that he is cheating. First, he was willing to pay for the test, later he stated that NASA had to buy an e-cat if they vanted to test.

  42. BTW, your book’s second edition is now available on Amazon and I plan to buy a copy for my library in soft bound. I am also advertising it for you on and when I have time, on the Moletrap. I hope that when Rossi crashes, you will send me a free signed copy of the final edition, LOL. Well, you’re a good sport, Mats. I like you and I am happy to buy your book.

  43. “I don’t claim there’s proof that the E-Cat works. I state this clearly in the last chapter. My assessment is that there are good indications that it works, enough to report on it. Can you get this??”
    Sure. You’re entitled to make your assessment. However, in my opinion, it is a very poor one. The indications that the ecat works are unconvincing, sloppy, and weak. The real indications are overwhelmingly that the ecat does NOT work. Please Mats, take the time to absorb the info below at least once!

    First, you gloss over or even ignore much of the excellent evidence that Krivit assembled showing that Rossi was the perpetrator of Petroldragon and not the victim.

    Second, you ignore Gary Wright’s excellent (if overly verbose and flamboyant) investigation and my well based arguments that Rossi grossly cheated the Department of Defense’s CERL Branch with his supposed work on thermoelectric devices, the prototype of which has never been acknowledged by anyone other than Rossi. If such a prototype were possible, it would be worth billions. Rossi’s excuse that it had to be hand made is ridiculous and completely absurd. And why would Rossi deliver reject junk parts from Russia to CERL if he could really make high efficiency converters? At ANY cost?

    You do not make enough of Rossi’s constant lying and contradictions in his JONP blog. Or maybe you really believe that ecats will be impossible to open or replicate, he doesn’t need a patent, he has a million unit factory ready to go complete with robots, that he makes nickel isotopes cheaply, that the correct way to make a megawatt plant is to loosely assemble 100 leaky 10kW reactors in an old storage container!

    It doesn’t seem to disturb you that after three years, Rossi’s claimed performance has dropped from an ecat which heated an entire factory (2007) to Levi’s test which yielded steady state power of 35kW (135kw peak) for 18 hours with a power ratio of 30 (2011), to the current lame tube furnace which is said to make about 3kW with a power ratio around 3 (2014).

    You don’t seem to realize that Rossi has gone through more than 6 public demonstrations without a single proper calibration in three years– NOT ONE! NOT EVER! Even though dozens of people he supposedly attends to have told him to do so including Josephson and the crowd on Vortex.

    Rossi has never done the same test twice! Don’t you think this may be because, like a stage magician, he cheats with different tricks and doesn’t want people to find out how?

    You don’t seem to be affected by the fact that SG found no excess power and also a grossly wrong measurement of input power, and Rossi refused to allow them to make a proper measurement?

    Maybe it makes sense to you that Aldo Proia took his money back and left with his tail between his legs when his company, if the ecat were real and he had kept the European distributorship, would be worth billions of dollars? Do you ignore his description of how Rossi never showed him a working machine and never accepted a single prepaid order for the megawatt plant?

    It doesn’t disturb you that the simple, original, Levi-tested device which made steam, could have become a trillion dollar product world wide simply by heating home and industrial spaces? But that not a one was seen? Rossi claims he has “certificators” and “customers”. Did you ever investigate that to see if any exist? I doubt that they do. Because a simple steam generator would be worth so much, there was never a need to develop the bizarre “hot cat” except that the complications provided more ways for Rossi to cheat the professors. You don’t see that?

    Finally, are you not aware that if the wonders of the ecat were real, after three years there would HAVE TO HAVE BEEN at least one proper test done by credible and reliable people in a major facility, which would cause billions in outside investments from major companies and make Rossi a Nobel Laureate and a billionaire? But the only thing Rossi has gotten is $10 million from a new company with no obvious facilities or presence of any sort? And run by someone (Vaughn) whose expertise and interest is mostly in religion? Have you asked IH to see their factory and test results? Have you interviewed Darden or Vaughn? Hey, you’re a reporter! You can do those things.

    With ALL of the above and much more, you STILL don’t see that the ecat is a fantasy? A ripoff? A scam and a cheat?

    Wow. Just WOW.

  44. @Mats

    Mats, I always dreamed a wife like you. I could have a lot of lovers and she would never suspect anything … 😀

    1. Sandro75k, I m not sure you would be happy: there is no “proof” she would be more honest – she could even betray you first for some coins from a librarian…

    2. Well Sandro, you see, if she were like me she would have suspected you already when you dated your first lover. But she would have waited to bring you to court until she had proof, or avoid claiming to be sure in the book she wrote book about your affairs, before she had evidence, since you’re probably the kind of guy that would try to sue her for defamation otherwise. And because she’s decent even with those who don’t deserve it.

    3. “she’s decent even with those who don’t deserve it”
      Let’s hope. Unlukily Sandro75k can’t say for sure as he as no proof about that woman that could stand in a court.

  45. Mats,

    “That doesn’t exclude:
    1- that there was heat production (even though I don’t believe there was)
    2- that Defkalion has seen signals of LENR during experiments in lab, but that these results were too weak to be presented, or mis-interpreted.”

    If you read the Gamberale’s Report you should note that a very large “excess of heat” of about 17kW! has been obtained also using Argon gas (instead of Hydrogen) that is the “inert gas” respect to the claim of reaction (DGT claimed it to prove that reaction “work” just with Hydrogen).

    The Report proved that set-up (not reliable in the sense not able to measure a real produced heat) and it can be used easily to got/produce a false positive.

    Anyway I attach below part of my old comment (translated approx from Italian), arose after July demo.

    “In this case what you see in the video [ or in terms of physical and technical aspects is absolutely depressing and disarming.

    More of (alleged) 30kW of energy produced in the form of heat that it would dissipate within a room with the windows closed (the standard conditioner – perhaps 3-4kW – visible in the video, the effect of which, considering the heat produced by the body of the people present at the demo would give a contribution absolutely insufficient cooling) without a single drop of sweat to be paid by these in hours and hours of testing the “reactor” activated at full power and in the midst of a torrid July of those warm summer days.

    The “supposed” steam produced, about 40 kg/h @ T 150° C (I hope that someone has experience of what voglai say such a value, those who don’t have can get an idea in proportion to this short video showing steam produced in quantities of just 7 kg/h:

    and that it should condense into only a heartbeat through the small gray plastic drainage in which flows (perhaps) a limited, in comparison to the amount of water vapor through a small duct that among other things (see per minute 1:13:40) displays the cutting off of the cooling water in closed position.

    Scientific journalist invited to witness the event, Mats Lewan, who from the top (hot air rises also in Milan) observe quietly and intrigued (a few cm together with one of the Greeks) open drain at the top, without burning or scalding the face or eyes due to the strong heat that inevitably it would be dissipated in the air around the exhaust.

    The steam that, in those amounts (if they really were true) through the pipe at a speed of 70-90 km/h, strangely does not produce any detectable effect, like the distinctive hissing noise/vibration even exhaust puffs or gurgling due to alleged mixing with water, but only a slight breather maybe not even comparable to that produced by a domestic hot iron of a couple of kW.

    DGT that, “as a precautionary method” (claim as excuse about “dry” steam, but steam at T so high, we are around 150° C and standard pressures, it’s an issue not relevant, steam is dry) inconceivably in their calculations on public display, omitting to consider (totally) the contribution of enthalpy of evaporation, i.e. substantially most of thermal-physical contribution to the alleged heat produced.

    For everything there is a single simple and trivial explanation, a staging in which the energy/heat produced was (to be generous) at least an order of magnitude lower than it should have been based on the parameters shown on the screen. ”

    A so huge “claimed” heat production (not weak or mis-interpreted) cannot exist without give large natural and physical evidences and this is evident even if the test “set-up was not reliable ” so:

    did you write in your book, clearly, that no evidences of excess of heat (under your eyes) you obtained from them related with demo of July 2013?

  46. @Giancarlo

    You wrote:
    “We could call it water flux amplification just to distinguish it from improvements obtained in the meantime by CF smart engineers, the input power amplification.”

    Let me add that we must not forget the steam amplification:

  47. @Giancarlo

    I love that picture. Why are there so few oscilloscopes in Rossi’s demos? Probably they are forbidden because they would reveal to many “industrial secrets”. Or lack thereof.

  48. I see that a lot of comments here are against Mats’ statements about Defkalion.
    Once a time, gentlemen, I’ve to disagree with you.

    Defkalion actually have a technolgy that makes it possible to obtain a high COP.
    It resembles the former Rossi’s technology, the one we saw in the 2011 e-cats.
    We could call it water flux amplification

    just to distinguish it from improvements obtained in the meantime by CF smart engineers, the input power amplification.

  49. Mats,
    “There’s no proof that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work.”

    your statements are absolutely staggering.

    Besides not having realised what was going on under your eyes on 23 July 2013, you demonstrate that you did not even read well the Gamberale’s Report of March 2014.
    In addition to what happened and what you well know, even in its technical conclusions Gamberale wrote clearly:

    “the overestimation of the power produced is compatible with the non-functioning of the TDI technology itself.”

    “non-functioning of the DGT technology itself” Mats!
    How can you write here “no proof that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work”?

    If figuring out the substance and the technical contents you need that a judge ruling officially, I suggest you to adopt just technical valutation method.

    I always intended that you had been an unwitting victim, but these your words now make me doubt this.

    Are you aware of the damage of what you wrote here for all people that work seriously and scrupulously about LENR?

    1. @Franco
      What was proven by Gamberale’s report was that the set-up was not reliable and could provide any result, without any heat production. That doesn’t exclude:
      1- that there was heat production (even though I don’t believe there was)
      2- that Defkalion has seen signals of LENR during experiments in lab, but that these results were too weak to be presented, or mis-interpreted.
      I repeat: I don’t believe Defkalion has a working technology.

  50. @Mats, I think it would solve the discussion about prove if you told us what kind of indication, in your opinion, would completely excluded that Defkalion has a working technology under development.

    1. @Gunnar
      I suggested involved people, or people with knowledge of internal operations of Defkalion, giving testimonials that can be confirmed and that hold in court. That’s one kind of evidence.

    2. “giving testimonials that can be confirmed and that hold in court”

      Is not it a bit odd that you write ligtly about miracles that, in your opinion, could happen while you require “court evidences” to state they sound false?

      Did you ask for “court proof” to write alleged E Cat COP? Do you hold “court proof” 62Ni was really produced inside E Cat during its run and not put in (before or after) by a hand trick?

      “Defkalion has seen signals of LENR”
      Or even signs of an invisible Dragon – there is no “proof” they did not held one for some minutes….

      DGT game is over; you should realize you should not try to get more vsibility whispering again “it could have worked if one could believe those measurements” which definitely proved to be a fake: there would be no “proves” you’re not trying to sell more books or even cat-balls…Can you “prove” you do not?

    3. @cimpy
      See earlier comment on proof and indications.
      And I also believe DGT’s game is over.

    1. Gamberale’s report is referred to in the second edition and it’s one of the most important updates to the book — actually the main reason I wanted to make a second edition.

    1. My blog post at is now updated with the following:

      (UPDATE: Since this is intensely discussed on my blog I want to stress the following: My assessment and strong belief is that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work, and there are plenty of indications in the book that the company played a false game. Yet, because I subscribe to the principle of not judging without proof, I prefer to leave Defkalion the benefit of the doubt until this is proven).

  51. Mats, in your new book, it says who has sampled fuel and ash in the last E-CAT’s test?
    No Telling no one ever!

  52. Mats, CimPy is right, DFKs were plenty caught with their hands in the jar and you still leave them an opportunity? Forgive me to be so crude but looks like your priority is to save you readers count instead of showing the plain truth.

    1. @Robbinz
      I’m reporting all this in my book. But I believe in the principle of not judging without proof, so my statement in the blog post is simply an expression of what is applied in all fair societies: You have to leave people the benefit of the doubt until the contrary is proven. Yet you can report on what happened and let people judge for themselves, and I did. I agree with your assessment, and I believe most of my readers do. There are plenty of indications in the book that Defkalion played a false game. I believe you should accept this view.

    2. “But I believe in the principle of not judging without proof”

      And do you have any proof E Cat does work? Any proof Rossi tells truth?
      A pity there is no evidence you’re not selling stuff scam related…

    3. @Cimpy
      This is the heart of the matter: I don’t claim there’s proof that the E-Cat works. I state this clearly in the last chapter. My assessment is that there are good indications that it works, enough to report on it. Can you get this??

    4. And did you state clear enough there is plenty indication the Greek Cat is a scam? And did you remember both Cat have same father? Did you write about critiques to both TPR1 and TPR2? And not from fusionists ones.

  53. Mats, not be able to bring evidence is different from saying that there is no evidence!


    no comment!

  54. Mats, we are Italians. We all know what happened with Defkalion in Italy.
    If you did not understand it means you’re too naive to deal with these issues.

    1. @Sandro75k
      I understand it but I cannot prove it, and I don’t have the right, as a reporter and author, to claim that. I can report what happened, and I did. It’s in the book now.

  55. From the “There’s no proof that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work” mam, what do you expect, maryyugo? This from him revealed who Mats is: someone who could state that “there is no proof that mr T. is not from future (or from Mars)”. “There is no proof that mr O. is not a reptilian”. “There is no proof Aliens are not among us”. “There is no proof an invisible red Dragon is not in my courtyard”.

    That’s all about Mats, folks.

  56. PS: I hope you revised the book to include the recent Aldo Proia/Prometeon story and Defkalion’s encounter with Gamberale et al. Also Pomp et al’s impression of the newest experiment.

  57. Yikes Mats!

    “There’s no proof that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work. ”

    Of course there is no proof. THEY DON’T ALLOW “INDIPENDENT” TESTING! There is no proof that my pink invisible flying unicorns (PIFU™) don’t work. So why are they not in your book?

    1. @Maryyugo (and Cimpy)
      Flying unicorns are not in my book because my assessment is that they don’t exist (even though I cannot prove it). Same goes for Defkalion’s technology, whereas my opinion is that there’s sufficiently support for the E-Cat’s being valid for reporting on it. That’s all.

  58. A clear cheat, and you keep on saying it is not evidence of a fraud?
    Well man, that’s wonderful, you know. I am waiting to read from you about R6 – for sure you would say it is worth an investment…

    1. I won’t tell you that Cimpy. I told you that I don’t believe Defkalion’s technology works. But I repeat, there’s no proof.
      It doesn’t necessary have to be a technical proof. An inside non-anonymous testimony from those involved, testifying about the plans for fraud etc would be good, if it can be confirmed. That would be a proof valid in court.

    1. Well, you know Cimpy, you talk a lot about proof. There’s no proof that Defkalion’s technology doesn’t work. There’s a lot that indicates it doesn’t, and personally I don’t think it does. But I cannot claim that it’s proven.
      And that essentially means ‘it cannot be completely excluded…’.

    2. Thus ex DFK Europe CEO must be liars. And GSVIT with them.
      Probably a joke was the report you posted – do you remember it?

    3. No Cimpy, they proved that the demo set-up was not reliable and that the result was thus not conclusive. But they didn’t prove that the technology doesn’t work.

Leave a Comment. Latest comments are displayed on top. Comments are not threaded.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: