Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli

Ruggero Maria Santilli
Ruggero Maria Santilli

Ruggero Santilli is a fascinating person. Once a scientist with an apparent normal career, now a fringe scientist running his own ‘scientific’ institute, publisher of two journals and founder of a dubious company which sells gas for welding purposes. He seems to have completely turned his back on regular science, but at the same time wants to hold up the appearance of a serious scientist and tries to get some of his articles published in regular journals.
When one of those was debunked, he asked one of the scientists of his Institute for Basic Research, Jerdsey Vladimir Kadeisvili, to write a defence. This was published as well.

Kadeisvili, however, is just an alias of Santilli, as will get clear when you read on. But I must warn you: according to Kadeisvili/Santilli I’m ‘a threat to America and mankind.

HHO and magnecules in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

While I was doing research for an article on cars which ‘run on water’, I encountered more than one reference to the research of Ruggero Santilli. It was, in fact, a tweet by Diederik Samsom (now leader of the Labour Party in the Netherlands) that drew my attention to Santilli. I had never heard of him before but now found out that Santilli already was widely known as a fringe scientist.
In 2006 Santilli published an article in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (IJHE): A new gaseous and combustible form of water. In this article Santilli claims to have found a new gas, HHO, which he produces using a (patented) apparatus from distilled water. It’s different from the stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2, you would expect to get from the process which looks like electrolysis. Santilli substantiates his claims by presenting all kinds of measurements, which results cannot be explained by assuming it to be a well-known gas (or a mixture). His explanation is revolutionary: there must be another kind of atomic bond and his HHO-gas is, in fact, the first of a family of new molecules, Magnecules. HHO, Santilli explains should be written as (H x H) – O, where ‘-‘ is the conventional molecular bond, and ‘x’ is the new ‘magnecular’ bond.

Comments and rebuttal of comments

In the same journal (IJHE) professor J.M. Calo (Brown University, Providence, USA) wrote some comments on Santilli’s claims. Although the article is modestly titled Comments on“A new gaseous and combustible form of water,” by R.M.Santilli, it comes down to a complete debunk. Almost no paragraph in Santilli’s article is without error or a complete misunderstanding of the measurements involved. Calo concludes:

The author provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called “HHO gas.” From the data presented, the gaseous product from the electrolyzer behaves in the same manner as would be expected of a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and watervapor.

The most important anomalies which Santilli presents can be easily explained if you don’t forget that while doing the electrolysis as he does, you also will get some water vapor in the resulting mixture of gasses. Santilli does not give any thought to this.
Now things start to get even more interesting. In reaction to this debunking article by Calo came two articles defending Santilli: one by Irish scientist Martin O. Cloonan (which I will not discuss here in detail, but I mention something about it in the comments below this article) and one by J.V. Kadeisvili, co-worker of Santilli in his Institute of Basic Research (IBR). Kadeisvili’s article is titled: Rebuttal of J.M. Calo’s comments on R.M. Santilli’s HHO paper.

Kadeisvili - rebuttal of Calo

It’s very peculiar. I doesn’t actually contain any scientific argument against Calo’s comments. Main points of Kadeisvili are that all measurements were acknowledged by the labs performing those on request by Santilli. ‘Under the pains and penalties of perjury, the Director of the blabla Laboratory of blabla, released a signed statement‘ is the kind of text you might expect in a court case, not in a scientific article. He concludes that Calo can’t be taken seriously until he has attempted to replicate Santilli’s experiments. A weird view on science. He who makes the most bizarre claims should be presenting convincing evidence before those claims can be accepted:

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

Who is Kadeisvili?

I became a bit more interested in Kadeisvili when I read the remarkable story of Brazilian professor Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr.: “A sad story”, in which he describes his cooperation with Santilli and how it ended. Rodrigues mentions that he suspected that several people around Santilli are in fact aliases of Santilli himself (he mentions dr. George F. Weiss, Editorial Manager IBR). Now Rodrigues himself is involved in some rather obscure business, so one could argue that something else could be behind this accusation.
But with respect to Kadeisvili, I had the same feeling. His style looked so similar to writings of Santilli and I could not find any biographical information on him. Almost all of his publications are in journals controlled by Santilli.  Santilli states that hundreds of scientists are connected to his IBR, but when I looked with Google Street View at the address (150 Rainville Road,. Tarpon Springs, FL 34689),  it surely does not look like a scientific institute.
From information on one of the websites of Santilli, it becomes clear that more people suspect that the IBR is, in fact, a one-man show. In an attempt to tackle some of these critical sounds, Santilli admits that at least one person who works in the societies that protect his work is using a pseudonym (look for ‘William Pound’ in [archived copy]). Playing around with fantasies is probably not illegal, but publishing in a scientific journal under a false name (defending an article of your own) is simply scientific fraud. But how do you prove such a thing?

Mailing with Kadeisvili/Santilli

I send e-mails to the addresses of the IBR and the Santilli Foundation in which I kindly asked for some background information on Kadeisvili, his curriculum vitae and possibly a photograph, mentioning that I was writing an article on different theories on HHO-gas. The first reaction of dr. George F. Weiss set the tone for the following communications:

Subject: Re: request for information about Prof. Kadeisvili

Dear “Mr.” Pepijn van Erp,

We would gladly cooperate not only by putting you in touch with Professor Kadeisvili (who is interested in direct exchanges with you), but also to provide you samples of similar gases (at no cost) for measurements before you throw any mumbo-jambo conceptual gyration, as well as copies of ongoing scientific and industrial developments in the field that are now receiving millions of $$$ invested from the industry (see attachment)!!! while the field is completely ignored in academia!!! to their evident peril!!!

However, before doing so, we want to know who are you, perhaps by providing us your CV. We also request the email of Mister Calo (mister because he wrote a note of criticism on Prof. Santilli HHO paper with zero technical knowledge in the field – something serious scholars certainly do not do!) so that he can receive copies of the correspondence since we do not do thin gs in the back.

Additionally, we wan t to stress that your evident suppression of scientific democracy did hit me in the eye, by carefully calling Cale “Prof.” while calling the discoverer of the new species, Prof. Santilli, as
“Mr.”, and reaching the much offensive absence of any title for Martin Clonan, a real Professor in Ireland.

Richard Anderson, Trustee of The R. M. Santilli Foundation, was even a bit more upset by my inappropriate addressing of Santilli:

Subject: Re: request for information about Prof. Kadeisvili

Prof. calo and Mr. Santilli??? You are a wako

I kept on asking for the cv of Kadeisvili or at least the names of the universities where he studied and got his PhD. And finally, I got an e-mail from Kadeisvili himself!

Subject: Erp’s serious cience or blabling??

Mr. Erp, you want to write an article on Prof. Santilli’s new chemical species of magnecules?? Come on !! You do not have the knowledge.In the event you and mister Calo had a minimum of science in mind you would repeat the measurements first before blabbling. At any rate, I provide it below in the event you are not scamming.

Note that he doesn’t seem to be able to spell his own name correctly. To make a long story short: the correspondence went on for several e-mails, but no cv of Kadeisvili was ever provided.  Things got more nasty after I stated that I had to assume that Kadeisvili does not exist because they couldn’t answer my simple questions. In the end, I received an e-mail from Richard Cox, member International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability. It starts as follows:

Subject: The returned defecations

Dirty man,

Prof. Kadeisvili provide you quite nicely various scientific information and references on Prof. Santilli’s magnecules and their industrial applications, and also invited you to be part of their forthcoming course on hadronic mechanics, and you answer with this filth below! You are a dirty filthy puking man in great need of some legal fixing for which our Committee has been set forth and fully funded, that’s what we do, fixing human filth in science, and here is part of the action going on to fix you.

Our specialized Investigative Agency on scientific filth that includes former CIA operatives has already “bugged” your computer and is now collecting info to identify your real name, affiliation and ethnic connotation.

Wow! And this goes on for a while. Here I will only give the last sentence, which is a gem as well:

As Professor Kadeisvili put it with gentle language very inappropriate for your filth “you are a threat to America and mankind.”

You can read the entire correspondence in Mailing with Ruggero Santilli – looking for Prof JV Kadeisvili – April-May 2012 (pdf-file). Later I noticed that two of the ‘people’ mailing me (George Weiss and Richard Andersson), where using the same computer. The headers of the emails give:

Received: from (HELO Ruggero-Santillis-MacBook-Pro.local)

Editor and Founding Editor in Chief of IJHE – family business?

After this experience it was clear to me: Kadeisvili does not exist and is just an alias of Ruggero Santilli. Now what? I had already sent an email to the Editor in Chief of IJHE, Emre Veziroglu, before my correspondence with Santilli/Kadeisvili, to ask if he had any information on Kadeisvili. He had nothing that could help me. After the experience described above, I wrote to him again about my suspicions, without providing the nasty details of the correspondence. I did learn however that Founding Editor in Chief of IJHE, is professor T. Nejat Veziroglu, father of Emre. In 2008 he received the Santilli – Galilei Academy Award as can also be seen in the following clip of the ceremony (from 3:00):

The Santilli – Galilei Academy (SGA) doesn’t exist any more; a copy of its website can still be found and mentions Nejat Veziroglu as a ‘member’. The SGA’s successor seems to be the Telesio-Galilei Academy, an association (still) full of fringe scientists. They probably broke up with Santilli after the problems Rodrigues had with him as mentioned before. Emre Veziroglu told me his father had received an invitation from Santilli to visit the IBR but had never had the opportunity to go there.

All this took place in April-May 2012. After that I didn’t pay much attention to Santilli’s actions until a thread on the forum of the Skeptics Society about Magnegas was revived: MagneGas, Anyone? It all had become a bit more clear to me how important it is for Santilli and Magnegas to keep up the appearance of a serious scientific researcher.

Santilli’s science, business and other issues

** on 1 Feb 2019  Magnegas has been rebranded as Taronis Tech **

The Magnegas company is selling gas mainly for welding purposes. They claim it’s a gas that contains some of Santilli’s magnecular HHO-gas [see update]. But in reality, it is just another syngas. All the official documents, like certifications, confirm this. Another claim is that Magnegas is a ‘green’ gas, it can be made out of liquid waste. From a recent press release:

TAMPA, Fla., March 18, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — MagneGas Corporation (“MagneGas” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MNGA), a  global gasification technology Company that safely converts liquid waste into a hydrogen-based metal working fuel and a clean natural gas alternative, presented its patented liquid waste to energy solutions to the House and Senate Science and Technology Committee at the Georgia State Capitol.

If you look carefully at the bottom of these press releases, however, you’ll notice the following statement:

The Company is currently using new ethylene glycol to produce fuel until proper permits to process used liquid waste have been obtained.

They never got a permit for using liquid waste, probably never will get one and I wonder if they ever really tried. Magnegas’ main business doesn’t seem to be selling gas but attracting small investors, who fall for the promise of Magnegas being a new miracle gas. That’s why it’s so important for Santilli to keep up the appearance of a real scientist.
The board of the company is filled with relatives. His son is now CEO, his daughter in law CFO and they all pay themselves good salaries. Meanwhile, the company is making losses which run in the millions since start-up. It looks like a pyramid scheme. There are have been many similar business schemes like this one in the past and in other countries.

Santilli’s other oddities include nominating himself for Nobel prizes many times. Silly hobby, because the is quite clear that this is not the way it works: it’s by invitation only. Another more evil side of Santilli is his slanderous attack on a real Nobel prize laureate, Steven Weinberg. Santilli holds him responsible for getting him kicked out of Harvard in 1981. On the website [archived copy] another one of Santilli’s fake organisations, there is a sinister piece [archived copy] about a letter which supposedly goes around in Arabic countries concerning a conspiracy of Jewish scientists including Weinberg. Santilli (actually his alias Richard Cox, which send me the nicest e-mail quoted above) claims to have found this on the Discussion page of Weinbergs Wikipedia page. It very much looks like a foul hoax in the style of The Protocol of the Elders of Zion to me.

New article by Kadeisvili in IJHE?

Latest article by Kadeisvili aka Santilli
The latest article by Kadeisvili aka Santilli

In the thread on the Skeptics Society forum, a staunch defender of Santilli’s ideas (posting under nick ‘isodual’) pointed to a webpage on the Magnegas website for some lab results concerning Magnegas. But it also showed a new article by Kadeisvili, in press at IJHE! It has been accepted on Feb. 2nd 2013 and is available online since March 6th 2013.
That’s just four days after I had sent another e-mail to Emre Veziroglu in which I urged him to get a good reference on Kadeisvili this time, before publishing this article. To substantiate my claims I had given him some excerpts of my correspondence with Santilli ‘cum suis’, similar to the ones above.
After a reminder a week later, I got a reply ( March 20th): they had checked the IBR’s website and it mentions Kadeisvili as Scientific Coordinator. Of course, I replied that it’s a bit naive to even assume anything like this as credible evidence. If Santilli doesn’t mind to publish articles under another name, he won’t be troubled mentioning the same name as a co-worker on his own website.

Next step: Contacting Elsevier

As I didn’t have any confidence in Veziroglu doing a real investigation, I tried to find out if something could be done via the publisher of IJHE: Elsevier. On the Elsevier website, a lot can be found about publishing ethics, but I found it impossible to find any information on what to do in case the Editor in Chief of the Journal is not willing to cooperate. So I wrote an e-mail to one of the Media Contacts of Elsevier, who I thought would be most appropriate, just asking what could be done and whom I could contact within the Elsevier organization with this problem (no names are given, just an outline of the situation). No response after a week, so I sent a reminder. And another reminder after another week to the general newsroom address. And again. Never got a reply.


Full texts of the articles can be found on the websites of Santilli and on other sites:

I’ve written (in Dutch) about Ruggero Santilli and the Telesio-Galilei Foundation on

There’s a lot of interesting material in this thread on the Skeptics Society Forum: MagneGas, Anyone?

Published on May 30th 2013

Update 17-1-2014
On the website of the IBR, something which is supposed to look like a cv of Kadeisvili (pdf) can now be found, dated December 2013. Unfortunately, it’s just a list of publications. Looking for the interesting information you’ll only find “(personal curriculum provided on request)”. Someone could give it a try …

Update 18-2-2014
The cv on the IBR website has been changed again, it now states that Kadeisvili lived from January 9th 1960 until January 16th 2014. So we are supposed to believe that dear old Jerdsay passed away the day before my previous update (pdf creation date Feb. 3 2014).

Update 1-11-2014
Santilli is officially no longer involved with the company. He stepped down as Chief Scientific Officer and Chairman of the board in 2013. Since then references to the claimed ‘special’ nature of Magnegas (that it contains magnecular substances) are nowhere to be found on the website (although it was never that much highlighted before either, I think). The company does still mention the anomalous measurement of the flame temperature of MagneGas conducted by the Institute for UltraFast Spectroscopy and Laser of the City College of New York, with a broken link, however. The report of that measurement is here (pdf) [alternative link], and if you ask me, I would indeed call this an anomalous measurement and not a measurement of an anomalous substance. It still doesn’t look like a financially solid company to me and they seem to be struggling to keep the MNGA stock listed on the NASDAQ, but I am not an expert on stock market operations.

Update 25-8-2016
Santilli has complained about things in this article that he sees as inaccurate. He has done so by sending me a letter via his attorney (see ‘More Santilli Shenanigans‘) but strangely enough, this complaint doesn’t mention a word about the main point of this article, that he committed scientific fraud.

Update 13-9-2018Settlement in Santilli vs. Van Erp and Israel

See also: Florida Genius Now Sees Invisible ‘Entities’ a post on the Santilli telescope (Feb. 2016)

Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider to support my blog with a donation.

91 thoughts to “Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli”

  1. Hi Pepijni,

    I came over this site while doing a search on Waldyr Rodrigues, who died in the beginning of the month. He was one of the greatest Brazilian mathematical physicists from all time. I only know him from his reputation, having only met him once in person in 1986.

    I would like to help you rectify one of your statements about him in your article. You mentioned at a certain point:

    “Now Rodrigues himself is involved in some rather obscure business, so one could argue that something else could be behind this accusation.”, and linked to the following article: as evidence.

    I suppose you referenced this issue and the article to try and provide a balanced overall view, and I am pretty sure you did not want to unwittingly use any ad hominem arguments, since the rest of your article is fairly balanced. Unfortunately you ended up tarnishing Waldyr’s reputation based on an “alternate-reality” article, or as people are saying more clearly in the overal media, “fake news” article. It took me just a 30 minutes of Google searching to find it out.

    First, I don’t need to make any ad hominem arguments about the authors of the report you quoted, I just need to highlight their own self-described credentials at the bottom of the article:

    “Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of’s The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network.

    An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive editorials for for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows and has also appeared on Iranian Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog”


    “Niall Bradley has a background in political science and media consulting, and has been an editor and contributing writer at for 8 years. His articles are cross-posted on his personal blog, Niall is co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network and co-authored Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False-Flag Terror Attacks with Joe Quinn.”

    In the USA those two authors are considered part of the “9/11 conspiration theorists” community. They are also highlighted as authors in Cassiwiki, owned by Cassiopeia (the same religious organization that Waldyr mentions in his funny report on how he got involved with the founders:

    As for Francesco Fucilla, without having been there, I can only suspect that he is probably an affable guy who was first duped by Santilli into naming the original “Santilli-Galilei” organization after him (I have noticed in some people from Europe and Latin America this reverence for those that live in the USA, “the center of the academic world”). However it seems that after Waldyr got in touch with Fucilla (described in the “Sad Story” doc you mentioned), the organization was renamed to “Telesio-Galilei” that same year, but by then the original honor “medal” had already been given. Notice that besides Santili, the 2008 prizes include Evans, which Waldyr also warned Fucilla about (according to “Sad story” doc – also see the following on the work of Evans: I suppose that after having made those two crucial mistakes in the first year, Fucilla decided then later to ask Waldyr to help lead the org.

    So please update the article taking into account this information. As for my contact information, I do not want to give it because I do not want to be contacted by the crackpots that went after Waldyr and Fucilla (from the article you mentioned), I also live in the USA. Please just judge the logic of my post, and publish it if you agree with it.

    1. I’m well aware of the nature of the SOTT website, but this particular article is pretty well researched by Quinn and Bradley, I think. I followed the discussions on the forum on this matter and checked the sources they gave. Also I had contact with a Dutch business man who was in the boards of one of the firms set up by Fucilla. You can read about Fucilla more in the Dutch blog posts I linked to in the text.

      1. Hi Pepjin,

        After your reply, I decided to I re-read the SOTT article up close. Again, what is evident is its bias. It supposedly is about “Corruption in Science” but instead of focusing on using sound logical arguments about how academic science research is conducted, it primarily goes on a tangent in detail about bad deals that Fucilla, family and friends are involved, and therefore TGA is bad.

        This is well known as Association Fallacy ( – this reference is not for you as you are most likely aware of logical fallacies given your background as a writer, but for the casual reader). This SOTT article uses “guilt by association” to try to prove its points by appealing to an emotional connection, but its arguments do not provide any hard evidence on TGA, it just states that “Fucilla has done bad things, ergo so is all that Fucilla has touched, including TGA”. It is almost a textbook example of guilt-by-association. See this final excerpt:

        “TGA President Mr Jeremy Dunning-Davies is right: we need openness and truth in science. But what kind of openness would anyone want from an organisation like the Telesio Galilei Academy of Sciences when their ‘founding father’, Francesco Fucilla, writes public messages calling for other scientists to be “dissected on a table like animals”? What kind of truth can anyone expect from organisations like the Telesio Galilei Academy of Sciences when their founding father and several board members are involved in what appear to be multiple businesses of questionable legitimacy and legality?

        Our brief encounter with the TGA, Francesco Fucilla et al have made it clear to us that, as with all such individuals and their operations, the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Sciences is simply not what it presents itself to be.”

        However, the article also makes a point about the other type of Association Fallacy: Honor by Association, and that was useful to understand this situation.

        “Indeed, based on our own personal experience with Francesco Fucilla and our research into his background, the establishment of the ‘Telesio Galilei Academy of Science’ by Fucilla seems to be an effort to associate as many real scientists as possible with Fucilla and his companies in order to lend scientific legitimacy to what is otherwise very ‘fringe’ (some might say crackpot), scientific theories and products.”

        Let me propose an “alternative view” that is valid, from a logical perspective, as much as the one from the authors. Assuming that all circumstantial evidence provided (which you are saying is well-researched) on business dealings by Fucilla and friends, and taking into account Napoleon’s saying “never ascribe to malice, what can be plainly explained by incompetence” (and no, this saying is not originally by Hanlon), you could say that at the least what might have happened is that Fucilla’s genius created a “mind field distortion” that led family and friends into accepting the infallibility of “the founding father” genius, including those hired as managers (that includes his son), who being professionals in the financial sector, came up with the idea of capitalizing on Fucilla’s ideas and, to anoint legitimacy on their businesses, convinced him and friends to act as “honorary executives”.

        In these honorary positions, you don’t have to do much – sort of a country club membership – other than showing up, sip wine and dine, and here and there evaluate this and that technical specification, and at the end get some nice little justified payback for the work you did of letting your god-like light shine on those mortals that surround you. At the least it seems that Fucilla was irresponsible for being naïve and lacking self-criticism in dealing with his own ideas and other people, and for effectively becoming a strawperson (“testa-de-ferro”) while accepting bad financial advice from those he trusted.

        I saw that Waldyr was listed in the companies mentioned (I looked up each reference using, twice as chairman and as a director in another, and my guess is that he fell into this same trap of honor by association as well. The article talks about such a scenario:

        “If this was just a case of wealthy philanthropists throwing money at scientists in hopes of realising life-long dreams (and maybe making a buck or two along the way), then there would be nothing to see here. It would just be business as usual, as much as it would just be ‘science as usual’.”

        Which is what I think Waldyr thought he was getting into, something that is business as usual in the USA, and that in Brazil is impossible: to have full, comfortable support for research, and also be involved with business, and be recognized, along the way, for your god-like status by a generous philanthropist. Maybe the latter was even more important than whatever potential financial gain, given his status in the best university in Brazil.

        As for Fucilla as a mastermind and a genius: there is no doubt he is a polymath (“Geophysicist, Author, Philosopher, Inventor, Oil Entrepreneur, Businessman, Film Producer”). These self-attributed qualifications make him a good and affable conversationalist, not someone who knows all science in depth, other than Geophysics. However, after seeing this site ( and what is in there, I have to think that he is no mastermind at all: in his delusions of grandeur, he allowed himself to become a naïve believer of crackpots such as Santili and Evans.

        One paragraph in this doc ( says volumes about how he was also into the fallacy of association by honor. Fucilla gets very passionate in both his denigration on perceived lack of knowledge, and in his appreciation for those he thinks deserve praise:

        “Going back to Mr Evans and AIAS, In 2009 I proposed to appoint Prof Rodrigues as Co-chairman of Telesio Galilei in order to partially repair the damage inflicted upon
        the Telesio Galilei Academy by the association to AIAS. The idea was to remove Mr Evans slowly, to finally demote him to just Full Member status.

        Mr Evans responded violently to my proposal, by attacking Steriwave Plc and not Prof Rodrigues for he had no defence against the accusations made by Rodrigues for Rodrigues is a GURU in mathematics and Physics, in fact one of the leading scientists of our times!!”

        Very informal, to say the least, for a business person, and improper for a scientist and intellectual: there is no doubt that Fucilla has a big mouth. I think that even Waldyr Rodrigues would not condone in such adulation from him, or this excessive denigration of Evans (after all Waldyr’s academic criticism of him was never ad hominem, but on his ideas, based on mathematical physics and logic). All this excessive “passion” cannot be normal.

        Fucilla’s site ( is so ugly and unbecoming that I had to use whois ( to find out whether it was his or actually from someone attacking him, I just could not tell at a first glance. It is his, so Fucilla’s ridicule is self-inflicted. He needs to hire a professional web presence manager, and maybe other type of professionals on how to sort out the reputation mess that his emotional interventions have caused.

        Maybe Fucilla saw himself as a new Medici, only to be betrayed by his own megalomania. On the other hand, maybe Fucilla was the mastermind who then attracted the other scientists, who knows? My gut feeling is the former, given his displayed naïveté, and the bad track record in history of geniuses investing money.

        As for Waldyr and TGA, I do not see Fucilla’s influence as big of a deal other than the “honor by association” that is customary in academics. You are informed of a prize, you meet over a few days with seemingly knowledgeable, affable people, you receive a medal, maybe a small monetary reward and a nice 1-liner on your résumé that helps a little for you to be one step ahead of others when going after grant money at your university. Politics in this way is the nature of all prizes of this sort, including the Nobel Prize. At the end, if such prize-awarding organization is not a self-correcting system where the chaff is weeded out based on merit, it will not attract anyone to receive any prize, no matter what the appearances may be. In addition, Waldyr seem to have had a good influence on TGA, at least for a while, give the roster of recipients after 2008, which seem at first glance to be legitimate researchers (for instance Djairo Guedes de Figueiredo, the one I can attest, is one of the greatest mathematicians from Brazil).

        Any other interpretation is to dabble in a conspiracy theory that implies that dozens of busy scientists, trying to go on about their lives under publish-or-perish, would somehow have time to participate in a “secret society” to receive medals for a meager profit. This idea is not only illogical; it is also ridiculous, as any intellectual will tell you that if they wanted to make money that would have not joined academia at all. The capital they crave is reputation, based on their own merit. Whatever the dirt, if any at all, is found to be associated with Fucilla’s business dealings, it will not stick on to the later TGA medal recipients, since prior to it they already had a reputation of their own merit.

        Again, I am just a reader who found this by chance but will not simply accept what is published in the internet without checking sources and thinking logically about what I read. Once again, thanks for publishing this and allowing me to keep anonymity to avoid the crackpots of

        Best regards.

    1. You do realize, I hope, that the principal author of that paper is basically anti-science and pro-paranormal. Back in the seventies, he tested ‘Geller children’, caught them cheating but nevertheless reported that their spoon-bending abilities were genuine!

      1. I read some texts on his involvement with these experiments in which they tested children to see whether they would cheat bending spoons, but as I understand it, his interest lies mainly with the scientists doing such an experiment, their methods and how they deal with results. In the recently published book containing the letters between Martin Gardner and Marcello Truzzi, the first one mentions however that Collins told him that he thought the ‘Geller effect’ is genuine, and that the experiment was set up to confirm it. But this is in a letter from 1981.
        Unless you can give more evidence that Collins is indeed anti-science and pro-paranormal in general, I’m inclined to think that his personal beliefs on the “Geller effect” have changed or haven’t played a role in his further scientific research.

        1. One of his co-experimenters and myself worked in the same field (crystal growth). This person (now deceased) told me – at a foreign conference – that they had watched the children through a one-way mirror. The children easily by-passed the inadequate seals, bent the specimens by hand, and replaced the seals. Collins’ conclusion was that they had done so only to avoid ‘disappointing’ the experimenters. Geller of course used the same excuse when he was caught cheating. Look at Collins’ reaction to Randi’s devastating Project Alpha: he attacked it on the basis that it was not set up as a proper scientific experiment. It did not have to be: it was a demonstration. Collins has, more recently, used a Randi-type scam for his own purposes. If you want proof that Collins is generally antiscience, you have only to read his books with Pinch. You know, if there is anything worse that a pseudoscientist, it is a naive skeptic. I have read everything that Collins has ever written … you should do the same.

        2. Thanks for the tip on the books, I’ll add them to my reading list. Discussion on Collins work in general is quite off topic here, maybe there will be another occasion. The article I found Arxiv is not bad as far as I can remember from the time I read it. I did find some errors in it, which I send to Collins and I also suggested another motivation for doing fringe science.

      1. Of course we did not see this. This ‘news’ is only spread via your own press release, which I only became aware of, because you/Carla Santilli was so eager to let me know via mail and here in this comment.

        None of the websites of the alleged co-sponsors have anything on this phoney award. Probably they don’t even know mr. Svetlin Georgiev is doing Santilli a favor in their name. It’s just a dull piece of paper – when printed of course.

        1. The other 6 people who got the same award must feel really good about your comments…and also the cosigners of Prof. Georgiev on the dull piece of paper must feel really threatened by your pompous judgement…. given your high position in science

        2. Well,  well, six other participants got a similar piece of paper! And we were almost made to believe this was an exclusive award. Maybe the other lucky ones also wrote some press releases to shout out to the world how pleased they are! Although now it looks more like a certificate to proof attendance to this seminar …

          BTW nice font was used for the name on the award(s). Not a very common font, I saw it used a little while ago under an attorney’s letter, maybe to give the impression of a signature. Did mrs. Sherri Stone prepare this awards, or do you or Ruggero these things yourselfs?

        3. Mr. Svetlin Georgiev is one of the slaves of Mr. Santilli-Stone-Petronio etc.

        4. Is the AIP (American Institute of Physics) also a slave of Santilli-Petronio? How about a half dozen of other sponsors….are they all slaves? How about the authors of the articles on Santilli’s theories who are listed as attendees at this conference …are they all slaves?
          I see you are all mute on this.

        5. AIP is definitely not in your pocket. They don’t seem to be happy that their name is used on this ‘award’. More people have asked AIP about this, I learned when I contacted them. We’ll see how this develops.

      2. Mr. Georgiev is the most squalid among the slaves of Mr. Santlli-Stone. In fact, on one hand, Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Fleming are two very ignorant guys who understand nothing of science. On the other hand, Mr. Georgiev is a lowest and unknown mathematician who hopes to have a career as a running dog of Mr. Santilli-Stone. As Mr. Santilli-Stone pays Mr. Georgiev, this latter organizes these ridiculous “awards” for Mr. Santilli-Stone

  2. Dear Pepijn and readers,

    I am pleasured to inform you that the paper that I wrote together with my students Reza Katebi and Nathan Schmidt, where we clarify and correct Mr. Santilli’s very elementary mistakes, flaws and misunderstandings in gravitation and cosmology, has been accepted for publication in Entropy, a serious, mainstream journal having impact factor 1.5 and edited by a prestigious Editorial Board, see The pre-print of the paper is still available here: The definitive version accepted for publication in Entropy is v2.

    Best wishes.

  3. Dear Pepijn and readers,

    Together with my students Reza Katebi and Nathan Schmidt, we wrote a paper where we clarify and correct
    Mr. Santilli’s very elementary mistakes, flaws and misunderstandings in gravitation and cosmology.
    The paper, which has been submitted for publication to a serious international journal – which is not American Journal of Modern Physics where the Santilli’s club is currently publishing their wrong results in gravitation
    and cosmology – is available here:
    The paper is dedicated to Mr. Santilli’s 80th birthday, hoping that this will permit Mr. Santilli to understand how the general theory of relativity and the Lambda-CDM cosmology really work and, in turn, will permit him to withdraw his very wrong claims in gravitation and cosmology.
    We also stress that the publisher of American Journal of Modern Physics, that is Science Publishing Group, is considered a predatory open access publisher, i.e. an exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not), see

    Best wishes,

  4. Having read some of the nonsense you write about,
    In my opinion you should find a new horizon in life !!!
    In fact, I strongly recommend
    That you change profession altogether as you are clearly
    Totally ignorant as to the facts of life !!!
    Just writing the word “fringe science”,
    Tells me you know very little about nothing !!!
    It matters not that santilli has made some
    Fairytalish statements, I can assure you , that the non fringe scientists (as you
    May cathegorize them ) are 10 times more fringe than santilli !!!
    In fact u challenge you to give me a list of non fringe scientists and
    I will show you from publications made, they are 10 times more fringe
    Scientists then santilli !!!
    In order to avoid writing a book on the subject, start watching football
    It is the closest analogy to describe the present state of the art as to science and fringe science !!!

    1. Is this Francesco (father) or Anthony (son) speaking? Your chosen name to display indicates the former, your e-mail address points to the latter option.

  5. ‘Luca Petronio’ tried to leave another comment just some minutes ago, but he can save himself these efforts. Unless ‘he’ can show convincing evidence that ‘he’ is a real person and not just a mere sockpuppet of Ruggero Santilli, I’ll keep blocking his comments as best as I can.
    Convincing evidince might be a certified copy of an Identity paper, like a passport. But that’s not enough: I’ll require similar proof of existence of ‘Richard Cox’ mentioned in my article and sincere and credible apologies for the threats which were made by him in my direction in name of the ‘International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability’.

  6. Today ‘Luca Petronio’ tried to leave another comment on this blog, directed at Christian Corda, but I have not let that one get through because of its anti-semitic nature. For who is interested in what ‘Petronio’/Santilli likes to share with the world, I’ll refer to

    One quote from that site:

    WARNING: corda is uploading all sort of messages in the jewish controlled website pepijin van erp / from the above documentation of foul and corrupt conduct ,the reader should be aware that most of these posts are adulterated and fake / by contrast our adjoining dossier has the original emails with complete identification of their electronic originations /

    That my site is supposed to be ‘jewish controlled’ is completely new to me.

    1. Dear Pepijn, dears readers

      Kindly notice that there are no doubts that “Mr. Petronio” is a mere alias of Mr. Santilli, exactly as Kadeisvili, Weiss, Cox, Pound etc. Mr. Santilli’s expression is indeed unmistakable. In any case, we have also an ultimate proof. In fact, in the text of one of his delirious emails “Mr. Petronio” did not realize that he was revealing his real identity. He indeed wrote:

      ———- Messaggio inoltrato ———-
      Da: Scientific Ethics
      Date: 30 aprile 2015 17:42
      A: ….

      …..More particularly, you should know that Italian “Judges” have been prosecuted whenever issuing claims of guilt against Americans under the violation the US Constitution. Here is a concrete case. Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by me. Vigorous prosecution against the “Judge” was initiated in the U. S. Federal Court and the Judge in Aquila, I believe, is still running now….

      Independently on his squalid and ridiculous accusation against Italian judiciary, it is obvious that if “Mr. Petronio” is a different person with respect Mr. Santilli, he should have written

      “Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by Prof. Santilli”

      instead of

      “Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by me”.

      This is a clear slip of the tongue which ultimately shows that “Mr. Petronio” is a sockpuppet of Mr. Santili…
      Notice that it is false that Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc. is irritated with me for the reasons written in his crackpot blog. There are lots of ridiculous lies and inaccuracies in that crackpot blog that it will be extremely simple for me to legally destroy Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss in the lawsuit. In fact, I
      saved ALL the documentation of my five years email correspondence with Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc and his servants and I will easily unmask their lies and inaccuracies. The real reason for
      which Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc. is irritated with me is that I publicly wrote that:

      “I am indeed very tired, bored and irritated in listening wrong claims as “general relativity is wrong” and/or “Hubble’s law establishes that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all directions in space. Consequently, the conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion and the big bang necessarily imply a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe”. The last statements on the lack of the expansion of the universe can be easily dismissed even by high school students… I also add that Santilli does not understand he difference between tensors and pseudo-tensor when he claims that general relativity is wrong, see this link: “.
      Again, I must stress that Mr. Santilli claims to work doing “scientific research” from almost 60 years. Then, if in almost 60 years nobody informed Mr. Santilli that the radial Hubble law and the expansion of the Universe DO NOT imply Earth at the center of the universe is not my guilty. I were informed on this issue when I were
      at the high school and my maths’ teacher told me on the analogy between the surface of the expanding balloon and the expanding universe… From a technical point of view, the universe is seen as a space-like hyper-surface having NO centre. This is written in ALL the textbooks of gravitation and cosmology and it is well known also at elementary, popularizing level. Again, if Mr. Santilli has NEVER read a book of gravitation and cosmology in almost 60 years is not my guilty. In the same way, if nobody informed Mr. Santilli on the
      difference between tensors and pseudo-tensors in almost 60 years is not my guilty. When Mr. Santilli claims that the Freud identity of differential geometry is in contrast with the Einstein field equations in vacuum he speaks nonsense. The Freud identity of differential geometry is composed by the Einstein tensor on the left hand side and by sums of products of Christoffel coefficients on the right hand side. If a student at the university would like to overtake an exam of “Introduction to general relativity” he must know that the Christoffel
      coefficients and, consequently, their sums of products, are pseudo-tensors instead of true tensors because, differently from tensors, they are coordinate dependent objects. In a local Lorentz coordinate frame all the pseudo-tensors become null (exactly like Mr. Santilli knowledge and understanding of general relativity) and the Einstein field equations in vacuum are retrieved. In other words, the Freud identity of differential geometry is a further strong proof that the Einstein field equations in vacuum are correct in contrast with Mr. Santilli’s crackpot claims. Again, if Mr. Santilli did not overtake his exam of “Introduction to general relativity” at the
      university is not my guilty… Thus, Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc. should return to study
      basic physics that he does not know and/or does not understand instead of waste his time to send us his squalid and delirious emails… In any case, as Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc. and his servants asked me to write papers criticizing Mr. Santilli’s crackpot stuff on gravitation and cosmology, I decided to satisfy them by writing a strong rebuttal against those wrong crackpot claims. But I will not submit it the Amercan Journal of Modern Physics Special Issue that they are organizing, see I will write a very strong paper in a serious journal which will show that Santilli’s stuff on general relativity and cosmology is completely wrong at very elementary level. I will also put it in international archives in order to show to all the world that Mr. Santilli’s knowledge and understanding of differential geometry and general relativity is completely null. This will be my gift for the 80th birthday of Mr. Santilli, who I consider only a poor man obsessed by fictional conspiracies and wanting to be surrounded by lowest slavers who do not admit criticisms.

      Best wishes,
      Christian Corda

      1. Dear mr. Corda!
        I recently became interested in R.M.Santilli’s research after visiting his website.
        It seems to me that you have deep understanding of the Santilli’s scientific developments.
        Which parts of his work, in your opinion, does deserve interest? And which doesn’t?

        Best regards, Victor.

        P.S. Sorry for my english – it isn’t my native language.

        1. Sorry, after Santilli’s insults, slanders and squalid antisemitism against me, I stopped to defend his work. Surely, is claims in gravitation and cosmology are completely wrong at very elementary level. The parts of his research work which should deserve interest are no more a problem of mine.

  7. Open letter to Ruggero Maria Santilli

    Although I received very squalid and racist insults and slandering by your collaborator Eng. Petronio, I do not want bad bloods between us. Thus, I write here my version of what happened.
    It is false that you are angry with me for my quarrels with Pamela Fleming and Sherry Johnson or because I claimed that the Hadronic Journal is not serious. I NEVER claimed that. Instead, you are angry with me because I wrote my strong criticisms in this website against your basically wrong claims in the research fields of gravitation and cosmology. In fact, I attempted various time in last years to explain you that the Big-Bang is NOT a cosmic explosion, I attempted various time to explain you that you do not understand how general relativity works, but you NEVER wanted to try to understand these issues based on your insistence that admitting the correctness of general relativity and of the big bang theory implies “being intentionally orchestrated to serve organized interests on Einstein,” or similar accusations. In order to understand general relativity and its cosmological applications, one must have a majestic knowledge of differential geometry through years and years of studies. I regret, but this is not your case. You indeed confuse tensors with pseudo-tensors when analysing the Freud Identity and you claim that “the radial Hubble law and the expansion of the universe imply the Earth at the centre of the universe”. These are very elementary mistakes, not “serious science”. Only people like Anderson, Fleming and Johnson, who can be good collaborators but have null technical knowledge of these issues and think that you are the Messiah of science, can claim that you are correct. You are completely wrong instead and you ridicule yourself within the Scientific Community. I regret, but this is the truth. Please, give me a SOLE name of a serious scientist who agrees with you on these issues. I well remember that not only myself, but also Leong Ying, Peter Rowlands, Jorge Ovalle, Herman Mosquera Cuesta and other researchers who attended to your conferences in last years attempted various times to clarify these issues to you, but it was as we were speaking with a wall. A lot of your friends agree with me on these issues, but they have fear to speak. I have no fear instead, because I work on these issues from almost 20 years. I am a physicist of gravitation, while you are an applied mathematician. You cannot pretend to be the greatest scientist in all the fields of science. Science is too much complicated today and there is no room for knowing-all scientists.
    Thus, as various colleagues insisted to connect such wrong claims in gravitation and cosmology to my name, I was forced to clarify my position. This is a real pity. I still think that you are a great scientists and that part of your research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns hadronic mechanics, and, in turn, the research of new clean energies. I appreciate also what concerns your iso-relativity theory and your iso-mathematics. But I still stress that your knowledge and understanding of general relativity and modern cosmology are very low and your wrong claims at elementary level on these issues have the only result to generate a strong lack of credibility on the rest of your research work. This is your biggest problem, and you are the worst enemy of yourself. Thus, you should not be angry with me. I wrote explicitly in internet which is my position on your wrong claims at elementary level in gravitation and cosmology to preserve my reputation and my career. If you do not understand general relativity and standard cosmology is not my guilty. You always claim the necessity of “freedom and democracy in science”. Thus, it is my right to openly claim that, in gravitation and cosmology you are completely wrong at a very basic level. You should accept criticisms and also a serious scientific discussion rather than permit your collaborators like Eng. Petronio insulting and slandering me sending squalid racist emails to me and my wife. You well know that the Scientific Community considers you a crackpot. You also well know that I defended you various times in last years against that definition. But I cannot defend and endorse your wrong claims in gravitation and cosmology. They are indeed indefensible because they are very wrong at basic level. Also notice that the issue that you are completely wrong in the research fields of gravitation and cosmology is not a real problem. I do not consider famous physicists like Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac and others as saints. None of them were infallible. They spoke a lot of nonsense in their career, but the few instances where they were corrected are well-known by historians of science and have fundamental effect on modern physics. The same could happen for you if you learn to be less arrogant and to accept criticisms.

    Christian Corda

  8. In the text of one of his delirious emails “Mr. Petronio” did not realize that he was revealing his real identity. He indeed wrote:

    ———- Messaggio inoltrato ———-
    Da: Scientific Ethics
    Date: 30 aprile 2015 17:42
    A: ….

    …..More particularly, you should know that Italian “Judges” have been prosecuted whenever issuing claims of guilt against Americans under the violation the US Constitution. Here is a concrete case. Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by me. Vigorous prosecution against the “Judge” was initiated in the U. S. Federal Court and the Judge in Aquila, I believe, is still running now….

    Independently on his squalid accusation against Italian judiciary, it is obvious that if “Mr. Petronio” is a different person with respect Mr. Santilli, he should have written

    “Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by him”

    instead of

    “Years ago F. Cardone filed a “querela” in Aquila against Prof. Santilli by claiming without any evidence whatsoever, that he was the author of a post signed by me”.

    This is a clear slip of the tongue which ultimately shows that “Mr. Petronio” is a sockpuppet of Mr. Santili…

  9. New updating: Mr. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Cox-Weiss-etc. sent an email insulting me to my wife’s job address… It seems that Einstein was correct when he claimed that “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”…

  10. Public statement by Prof. R. M. Santilli documenting Corda vomiting “fuck you”
    to American ladies for respectful request of work he had to do under payment of
    his salary thus ,mandating my “fuck you” to him as first gift. Lawsuits will set
    the sludge here.
    Luca Petronio

    Dear Colleague,

    For your protection, I feel obliged to inform you that we are preparing
    legal action in the U.S. and the Italian Courts against Christian Corda
    and all his employers because, following the payment of over $60,000
    over the years plus various benefits, we have documentation that Mr.
    Corda acknowledged his appreciation via “public” defamation, slander and
    libel again ourselves as individuals, against our research and against
    the Hadronic Journal that paid his salary, with documented, unsolicited
    libelous statements to various scientists of the type “The Hadronic
    Journal is not a serious journal” and other documented “public” slander
    for which we will request due financial compensation from Mr. Corda and
    from his employees.

    Additionally, the filing of legal action has been rendered necessary by
    the fact that, following firm but respectful requests to Mr. Corda
    “under his salary” to write papers on the political criticisms of our
    research which he proffered without any technical support at our 2015
    scientific meetings, at my subsequent presentation at the Mediterranean
    Foundations and in other occasions, Mr. Corda attacked the American
    “ladies” Pamela Fleming and Sherry Johnson with an incredible foul
    language such as “fuck you” and with conduct more appropriate for the
    sludge of life rather than for a scientist, thus mandating due legal
    response “American style.”

    Please have no worries for your possible past contacts with Mr. Corda
    and have no worries for contacting me in any way you wish, since I will
    keep your message strictly confidential. However, since we have hired an
    international Investigative Agency monitoring any additional defamation,
    slander and libel by Mr. Corda with the most modern possible CIA-type
    electronic and other surveillance, to avoid the risk that you are
    detected by the Investigative Agency and automatically implicated in the
    expected legal proceedings, I recommend that, from the date of reception
    of this message on, you abstain from, any contact whatsoever with Mr.
    Corda and abstain from answering any his emails.

    Ruggero Maria Santilli
    Acting Pro se

    1. I only let this comment pass, because it clearly shows that Christian Corda is not making up stories about his break up with Santilli.

      1. Dear Pepijn,

        A clarification is needed.
        I have NEVER had a real salary by Mr. Santilli, by the Institue or Basic Research or by the Santilli Foundation. I had, instead a research grant of 1.500 US Dollars by the Santilli Foundation for my PROPER research work, that had the number Research Grant Number RMS-TH-5735A2310. This is reported in my Italian individual income tax return and I have various emails by the trust of the Santilli Foundation, Mr. R. Anderson on this issue. Thus, when Mr. Santilli claims about the “firm but respectful requests to Mr. Corda under his salary” to write papers on the political criticisms of our research which he proffered without any technical support at our 2015 scientific meetings, at my subsequent presentation at the Mediterranean Foundations and in other occasions, Mr. Corda attacked the American “ladies” Pamela Fleming and Sherry Johnson with an incredible foul language such as “fuck you” and with conduct more appropriate for the sludge of life rather than for a scientist, thus mandating due legal response “American style.”” he tells stupid lies. In fact, all the additional work that I made for Mr. Santilli in last years, by organizing conferences, making editorial work for the hadronic journal, helping authors in writing papers (this was the reason for which I had a contrast with Mrs. Pamela Fleming. She asked me to help Dr. Ugo Abundo to edit a scientific paper ) was a free personal favour that I were making to Mr. Santilli. Clearly, if Mrs. Fleming asked me in arrogant way to make a non-remunerated job, I were forced to reply her in a bad way. Also notice that the request “to write papers on the political criticisms of our research which he proffered without any technical support at our 2015 scientific meetings” is merely ridiculous. Mr. Santilli claims that “Hubble’s law establishes that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all directions in space. Consequently, the conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion and the big bang necessarily imply a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe” is known to be completely wrong even by high school students who are well aware of the similarity between the Universe expansion and the surface of an expanding balloon… On the other hand, as clarified by Prof. Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. here, Mr. Santilli do not know the difference between tensors and pseudo-tensor, which is minimally requester to overtake an exam of “Introduction of general relativity” at the university… Thus, requesting to write papers against lowest technical mistakes, that can be easily corrected by high school students and first years of university students to a professional scientists is not only ridiculous, but also offensive….

        Best wishes,

        1. For the sake of completeness, “Mr. Petronio” (aka Santilli) did not limit himself to mandate his “fuck you” to me. He wrote “fuck you dirty jew” instead. I saved ALL his emails in order to prepare legal action in the U.S. and the Italian Courts against “Mr. Petronio” (aka Santilli) for antisemitism….

        2. Again for the sake of correctness: I NEVER told “fuck you” to Mrs. Sherry Johnson, who sometimes signs herself as Mrs. Sherri Josephson (another alias?). I merely replied to her firm but respectful requests with firm but respectful answers (again I saved ALL the correspondence…)

        3. Again for the sake of correctness, notice that, in the quarrelling between myself and Mrs. Johnson-Josephson originally Mr. Santilli and his collaborators gave reason to me. In fact, they terminate Ms. Sherry Johnson, see the following copied and pasted email:

          ———- Forwarded message ———-
          From: RMS Foundation
          Date: 2015-03-20 18:00 GMT+01:00
          Subject: Fwd: Personnell problems
          To: Christian Corda

          ——– Forwarded Message ——–
          Subject: Personnell problems
          Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:00:52 -0400
          From: RMS Foundation
          To: Anil Bhalekar

          Dear Prof. Bhalekar,

          Please be advised that we have been forced to terminate Ms. Sherry Johson because she engaged in a fight with Dr. Corda. We hope to locate her replacement soon and we shall let you know.


          Richard Anderson
          The R. M. Santilli Foundation

          Thus, it is false that Mrs. Santilli-Petronio-Kadeisvili-Weiss-etc. is angry with my for my quarrels with Pamela Fleming and Sherry Johnson. He is angry with me because I wrote my strong criticisms in this website against his crackpot, unscientific claims against general relativity and the big bang theory…

    2. It is my pleasure to add a message by Prof. Stepan Moskaliuk, who has been the Former Editor in Chief of the Algebra, Groups and Geometries, another journal of Hadronic Press of Mr. Santilli, who received the email by Mr. Santilli against me:

      Dear Prof. Santilli,

      You wrote below that Dr. Corda is “very bad” person.
      How I have to call you if you refused to pay me 6 000 USD for editing
      papers for the Journal “Algebra, Groups and Geometries” Issue 3 and 4,
      2015 in accordance with the Contract signed by Carla Santilli in 2012?

      Of course, as I told you in Rhodes: “money are only pieces of papers more
      important are our human relations”.

      But you consider your Colleagues only as your slavers.

      Your not slaver,

      Stepan Moskaliuk
      Former Editor in Chief of the AGG

  11. Dear Pepijn,

    There is a new, very squalid, development. This night I received a very frenzied email by a “person” (that I suspect to be a sockpuppet, because in the past he used various time the same email of “poor Kadeisvili” with the same way of writing… ) who calls himself Luca Petronio and claims to be the secretary of Santilli’s running dogs committee called “The International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability see“. I traduced the text from Italian to English (but keep in mind that it was even more vulgar in the original Italian language). Here its is:

    “Christian Corda,

    my friend, how are you? I was told that you have stomach cancer. I hope it do its function. you cashed by prof. santilli and his lady in four years more than sixty thousand dollars plus travel expenses, hotel, etc. and what did you return? you treated with a language of real shit Mrs. pamela fleming of the santilli foundation who paid you a salary of 1500 dollars a month! What a salary for the work you were doing. and then, to make matters worse, you have dealt with only language used by mafia port Ms. sherry Johson the American company tec who kept paying you since the santilli foundation had thrown you in the garbage appropriately in response to a behavior so filthy, either way your shits were in response to messages American professional and respectful. suit in my life I have not seen a person so lurid, immoral and senseless like you

    after all this shit behavior, to make matters worse, you made accusations vulgar to many scientists around the world to discredit the newspaper Hadronic journal that had paid a huge salary for four years. and in addition, other lavish as if what was done was not enough, you wrote public letters in the internet against the prof. santilli and his wife who have a single blemish in their lives: giving confidence to a jew like you. and then in identical language, and absolutely in mine, so I say fuck you dirty jew.

    the facts above are well documented with many witnesses. this message and to make you prepare to receive the just reward. First, our detective agency (which it is neither established in Italy nor in the USA ) has sent me a copy of all your mails made in recent months and that you continue to send because you are guarded day and night. pamela and sherry then sent me, very privately, copies of all the shit that you spit on them. and then I got from friends who have had the misfortune to contact other shit that you have laying around, with their certified in English that you paint just fine …. if you think that usa women treated in this way thee give smooth you are a fool absolute maniac and dangerous to be hospitalized immediately …… and then I made a beautiful dossier that weighs several pounds and I did copy here in New Jersey in many dozens of specimens. when you see it you will like why did just fine with headboard, contention list of all the hundreds of pages with progressive number for reference, etc. a very good work as you’ll see.

    then I started collecting all scientific contacts you have had in your life. I do not know if you understand the word “all” because it indicates all the colleagues who were contaminated by writing articles with you, all basically flawed because politics, all owners of the publishers who have had the misfortune to have you as dirt pseudoeditor, all colleagues editors who have the misfortune of being listed with you, all members of the group of prof. santilli who have had the misfortune to encounter a dirty shit like you, etc. etc., all names with mailing addresses for their receipt of the beautiful dossier documenting a person who you are, i.e. dirty and extremely immoral.

    not be in a hurry to enjoy the just reward because I have a problem that helps you. while you, as a good jew, exploit your wife because you are not able to earn the money, on the contrary I keep my wife with my work in a beautiful villa by 100 feet long in new jersey with pool, cadillac, corvette etc. condo in the Caribbean for the winter, and so on. and then I have to work and I cannot devote as I would like to complete your right reward.. then do not be hurry because I will act blow for blow at the worst time for you depending on what you do that we will know immediately.

    but you must be sure of one thing. your behavior and state of human baseness such as to require a reward proportional to the action. so I swear I’ll haunt until the end of all your scientific activities so you forced to prime time to make a job for living. and then thank me …. Do not rush for reward, just wait and see.

    I give you one last tip. this is the only email you will receive from me. I advise you not to answer because if you do you’ll get thousands of automatic rejections email of your shit that are activated every time I turn on this special computer that I use to treat shits like you, but it does what you want and pay the consequences, rejections that will increase until the paralysis of your computer, but do as you want and you’ll see …..

    Notice that he dossier also contains a copy of my driver’s license so that you will be humiliated even more claiming that I am prof. santilli. The dossier also contains statements certified by witnesses stating that prof. santilli leave our Committee in 1997 in order to give an additional opportunity for being be humiliated .

    in wishing that your stomach cancer is doing its job, I salute you very strongly

    Luca Petronio
    The International Committee on
    Scientific Ethics and Accountability

    I think that any comment is unnecessary in order to understand what kind of scoundrel, psychopathic and crackpot is “Mr.” Petronio. I only highlight his squalid antisemitism. On one hand, if “Mr.” Petronio is a mere alias by Santilli, I have only mercy for this poor old man, obsessed by false conspiracies and being at the bottom of the barrel. On the other hand, if he should be a real person I hope to have the pleasure to meet him sometimes in some part of the world in order to hit his backside with lots of kicks…

    Best wishes,

      1. “Mr.” Petronio is a crackpot and a liar. In fact, I never wrote something against the wife of Santilli, who is a great lady and the sole serious person in that crackpottery and collection of arrogant cranks. My only complaint in this squalid history is about the possibility to have created problems to her.

        Best wishes,

  12. Dear Pepijn,

    I have to inform you that I ultimately ended my collaboration with Santilli and his running dogs. My collaboration with Santilli started to fall into crisis during the Rhodes meeting in September 2015. In that meeting, I criticized Santilli’s stuff on antimatter, gravitation and cosmology. I am indeed very tired, bored and irritated in listening wrong claims s as “general relativity is wrong” and/or “Hubble’s law establishes that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all directions in space. Consequently, the conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion and the big bang necessarily imply a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe”. The last statements on the lack of the expansion of the universe can be easily dismissed even by high school students… I also add that Santilli does not understand he difference between tensors and pseudo-tensor when he claims that general relativity is wrong, see this link: I clarified that, although i think that part of Santilli research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies, this does not mean that I agree with all Santilli’s claims. In particular, I completely disagree with his claims on gravitation and cosmology, which are completely wrong. After that issue, the Santilli Foundation started to reduce my salary and I was attacked various times by Santilli’s servants (which I suspect to be mere sockpuppets…). It seems that the slaves do not permit their messiah to be criticized…
    Thus, I ultimately stopped to organize any conference activity for them.
    They also asked me to write papers criticizing Santilli’s stuff on gravitation and cosmology. Thus, I decided to satisfy them by writing a strong rebuttal against those wrong claims. But I will not submit it the Amercan Journal of Modern Physics Special Issue that they are organizing, see I will write a very strong paper in a serious journal which will show that Santilli’s stuff on general relativity and cosmology is completely wrong. I will also put it in international archives. Surely, they will accuse me to be “corrupted by scientific crime” and that my “work is intentionally orchestrated to serve organized interests on Einstein,” or similar frenzied accusations. Of course, I have not fear of such a crackpottery. This is the end of my collaboration with Santilli, but, really, I had enough of these ignorant crackpots and of all these madness and arrogance.

    Christian Corda

    1. Dear Christian,

      Interesting developments, thanks for letting me and the visitors of this blog know.

      1. Dear Pepijn,

        He is myself who thanks you for permitting to clarify my position on your blog. I have also to add another point that I forgot in my previous message but I think it can be important. After the Rhodes meeting I attended to another meeting of Santilli in the end of September 2014. In that meeting, I raised criticisms by other people on his stuff, with the sole goal to activate a debate. At the end of that meeting Santilli told me that his “Foundation” was informed about the ancient Jewish origins of my family. After these issues, his “Foundation” started to reduce my salary. In any case, I stress that I do not think that Santilli is a bad guy, but only an old man obsessed by conspiracies and surrounded by lowest slavers who do not admit criticisms.
        OK, I will bring back to you and your readers after my writing the paper against Santilli’s stuff on gravitation and cosmology and after the feedback by Santilli’s slaves on it.

        Best wishes,

  13. Dear Pepijn van Erp,

    I am sorry, but I am not the public frontman of Santilli’s ‘science’. I am in friendship with Santilli and I merely think that part of his research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies. This does not mean that I agree with all Santilli’s claims. I have indeed my personal scientific history. I principally work within mainstream physics and I have my recognized results, see
    Happy New Year to you and all the readers.

    1. Mr Corda,

      Maybe you can share your thoughts with me and the readers of my website on the ideas of Santilli discussed in this article. Dou you think that the Magnecules as proposed by Santilli really exist? Or is this one of his claims you don’t agree with?

      And what about the existence of Kadeisvilli?

      1. Dear Pepijn,

        Thanks and be free to merely call me Christian.
        Actually, I am not the attorney of Santilli and of magnegas. I did not know Kadeisvilli by person, but I only interacted with him by email.
        My intervention here is only for clarifying my position. There is something correct on what Francesco Solombrino wrote below. I have a Phd with a good supervisor in a Italian institution, the Pisa University. After that I found no position in the official Italian academies based on the aversion of Italian University barons, comprised my PhD supervisor, who became envious of my internationally recognized research (more that 100 scientific papers in international peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings, more than 40 of such papers are single-authored, see here the ones put in arXiv:, various international prizes, Editorial Board Member of 7 international peer reviewed journals, invited speaker in various conferences, etc. ) and I started to collaborate with Santilli for the sake of survival. Recently, Santilli and his USA collaborators reduced my salary and I am searching a new job. Can you help me? I would like to collaborate with you and the sceptical foundation Skepsis. But kindly notice that my general opinion is that although the 98% of the work of a researcher can be, in principle, wrong, it is a good thing to save the remaining 2%. This is the criteria on which I judge the resarch work, not only of Santilli, but of every researcher.
        Best wishes.

        1. Dear Christian,

          So you only had e-mail contact with Kadeisvili? Maybe you can explain how this can be as this seems strange to me. Kadeisvili was for instance scheduled for a lecture just after lunch at the ICNAAM 2012 conference, in the mini-symposium ‘Seminar Course on Hadronic Mechanics’ (link, nr. 50), of which you chaired the morning session. Wasn’t he there in person? And didn’t you attend the afternoon session?

          Skepsis doesn’t have anything to offer in sense of jobs, the foundation mainly uses its resources for the magazine “Skepter”.

        2. Dear Pepijn,

          Yes, I remember the ICNAAM 2012 conference, and the mini-symposium ‘Seminar Course on Hadronic Mechanics’. Kaidesvili was not present and Santilli told us that it was due to health problems. In my personal opinion, Kaidesvili was a real person, because, although his way of writing was similar to Santilli’s way of writing (this is not strange because Kaidesvili considered Santilli as his scientific mentor), his English language in his emails to me seemed better than Santilli one.
          Please, can you kindly give me a link for the magazine “Skepter”?
          Thanks and regards.

  14. It strikes me as odd that Martin O. Cloonan (whose writing style is angry in a manner common for Santilli but rare, in academia, and in the midst of a discussion about sockpuppets) refers once to “my paper” but later to “Cloonan’s paper”. Are these posts really written by the real Dr. Cloonan?

    1. Email address & IP point to Martin Cloonan. I just abandoned Disqus as commenting system, so I can’t check whether it was a guest account or a full Disqus account. In theory someone could have send those comments using a proxy at the Galway University College and using his email address, but I guess it is safe to assume that it is dr. Cloonan himself who left these comments here.

  15. First of all, crazy story and wonderful work as a journalist.

    I have something to add on Kadeisvili:

    Last week I was at the big AIMS Conference in Madrid (2500 mathematicans). There were a lot of special sessions (I was in Special session 48)

    Here you find the whole programm + abstracts

    Look at the programm for Special Session 56: (Room E7-202)!

    talks by:
    Ruggero Maria Santilli
    Jerdsay Kadeisvilli
    Christian Corda
    Arun S. Muktibodh

    Svetlin S. Georgiev
    Stepan Moskaliuk
    Gerard Berthier
    Carmen Ivone
    John Ruan

    John Smidth
    Laurent Peterson
    Peter Maers
    Nicolas Laurence

    Here is the abstract of Santilli:

    Origin and applications of the isodi↵er-
    ential calculus and isodynamical systems

    Ruggero Maria Santilli
    Institut for Basic Research, Palm Harbor, Florida, USA,

    “We review the physical and chemical origin of the
    isotopies of the di↵erential calculus, today known
    as the Santilli-Georgiev IsoDi↵erential Calculus (IDC);
    we review its use for the isotopies of dynam-
    ical systems; and outline various novel applica-
    tions in physics and chemistry http://www.santilli-”

    Advances in the Lie-Santilli IsoTheory

    Here is the abstract of Kadeisvilli:

    Advances in the Lie-Santilli IsoTheory

    Jerdsay Kadeisvilli
    Institute for basic research, Palm Harbor, Florida, USA,

    “We review the physical origin of the isotopies of the vari-
    ous branches of Lie’s theory formulated in the late 1970s
    by Prof. R. M. Santilli when at the Department of Math-
    ematics of Harvard University and present various ad-

    (You can find them on page 230/231 of the abstract book)

    The thing is that I only got to know about all this today on the way back (another postdoc telling me, he might add a comment to). Otherwise I would have gone there to see what happens.

    Now the best thing is:

    Some of the speakers of this seminar pretend to come from real prestigious universities, like

    Imperial College
    Sorbonne University

    Some come from universities I have never heard of

    “National University of Madrid, Spain” –
    Public University of Uruguay,
    Government University of Liberia
    London University of Art Sciences

    I don’t know if they even exist???

    But the best thing is: NONE OF THEM HAS A UNIVERSITY MAIL, all have yahoo or gmail as a hoster – this is super rare, usually you present your university mail address there (if you are not moving at the moment)

    But at least 3 of the Persons seem to be existent:

    Stepan Moskaliuk, Bogoliubov Institute for Theoretical Physics of NAS of Ukraine, Ukraine

    Christian Corda, Istituto Universitario di Ricerca Scientifica Santa Rita, Firenze, Italy

    Arun Muktibodh, Mohota College of Science, India

    It seems like that Moskaliuk and Santilli have their own journal:

    Here is the CV of Christian Corda

    He claims to be the editor of various journals, e.g.,
    Editor in Chief of “The Open Astronomy Journal”;
    Editor in Chief of “The Hadronic Journal”;
    Editor of the “Central European Journal of Physics”;
    Editor of “The International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences”;

    1. Next week there’s a conference in Narvik, Norway which also features a lot of the same names. See session M3 on

      This time the abstract mentions ‘the late Kadeisvili’. My guess is that Santilli almost never visits these seminars/sessions in person, but they will show one of his pre-recorded lectures. For instance this one: “Talk deliverd by R.M. Santilli due to Kadeisvili’s death’, so allegedly to honor Kadeisvili, but isn’t it a bit strange that the viewer gets a good detailed view on Santili’s decorations, but not one picture of this Kadeisvili? 😉

      Corda seems to be the public frontman of Santilli’s ‘science’, but he is also involved with the dubious businesses of Francesco Fucilla.

        1. “I know this because I corresponded with him numerous times, … , and his idea for this lecture, on which I totally agree”


      1. I am pretty sure that I have seen Santilli during the AIMS conference in Madrid. I happened to be by mistake in the room where they were holding their session, but i went away immediately because i wanted to attend another (more serious) lecture. It could be that he held two lectures, due to the alleged death of Kadeisvilli.

        Corda, Fucilla and their mysterious businesses seems to be already well known and criticized in some italian science journalism blogs ( Corda has a Phd with a good supevisor in a credible institution, but then he found no position in the academy and was offered a “professorship” in these dubious institutes. I think that these people somehow collect people with a real scientifical background but no chance of further career to build up a fake credibility. Through reciprocal awards between each other, self- or cross-citations, a impudent use of Open Access journals and (see they are often able to get grants and selling patents. Seems to be a lucrative job.

  16. Nice piece of investigation. Would be nice to have photo of the headstone. Does Elsevier have a scientific committee?

    1. I don’t think Elsevier really cares a about these kind of annoying questions. Maybe COPE could be an option, but I think the Santilli story will come to an end in the neat future anyway, the guy is quite old now and his company is struggling on the Nasdaq.

  17. Dear Pepijn,

    It would be a good idea to test the magnecule claim, by means of the
    simplest experiment: plasma arc gassification of destilled water, then
    lets see wat the mass spectrograph can make of the produced gas.

    Years ago I commented (positively) on Santilli’s isodual photon theory
    via email. Not long after, Santilli he offered me the position of associate professor at his IBR (no salary involved).
    I could publish one of my articles in his Hadronic Journal, although my paper had nothing to do with Santilli’s theory on hadrons. Still I am grateful for that, although it all is
    a bit odd, to say the least.

    I mediated between Santilli and the Dutch institute Wetsus (is researching everything to do with water), for testing his magnegas generator with respect to processing waste water. Santilli shipped one of his magnegas generators, but Wetsus could not get the device to work, which was told to me today by an employee of Wetsus.
    (That is the reason I found your site today, Pepijn, because I was checking the internet for independent confirmation of magnecules this evening, hmmm)

    Unfortunately I wasn’t brieved about this failure, no details about this were passed to me. It is rather odd that Magnegas inc does not get a permit to treat waste water, and that is why they sell ethylene glycol. This is very odd indeed, and this might add up to the Wetsus conclusion: it does not work, but I cannot be sure at all because I did not get any details on the attempt to test Santilli’s magnegas generator.

    So I believe the best way to “debunk Santilli’s chemistry” (if you want to call it this way) is to do a verifying or falsifying experiment. Destilled water will do.

    My gut feeling about your comments on Santilli is that you are correct about Santilli using different names for himself, but that does not make him a total fraud, although (if true) it is totally dishonoust. I disagree with you with respect to the Calo comment, it was not a total debunk. Indeed, Santilli has most likely forgotten water vapour, but there are more than enough unknown molecules in the mass spectography results. Santilli should have met this critisism much differently.

    Firstly, he should have welcomed the paper by Calo, secondly he should have dealed with the details of Calo’s comments, and that is the only way to do it.

    1. The Wetsus connection interests me, if you have any more info on this or just a person I could contact about this, please send me via e-mail: info[at]

  18. Hello Mr. Erp: I found your article while searching for updates about RM
    Santilli, whom I have been researching since 2004. As weird as it seems
    everything you say about Santilli, I wanted to know if you have ever
    read his book Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry and commented it with
    other scientists. The reason I make this question is because I once
    asked a Plasma Physicist Ph D, (at the time we both of us were members
    of a forum of a new free energy claim that this Ph D was highly skeptic
    about), if he knew about Santilli and what he thought about him. His
    answer was that Santilli was a person that “is probably so far ahead
    that just a few people in the world understand what he is talking
    about”. He refused to say anything else about. So, beyond all the
    oddities of his character and his paranoid behaviour, I have not been
    able to find people that would simply and plainly call Santilli a
    pseudocientist, and at least some respected scientists regard his ideas
    controversial, but not necessarily wrong.

    I recall the case fo a
    person that has a very similar behaviour (and even the same kind of
    outlandish claims) coming from a completely different field of science, I
    am talking about Dr. Mensur Omerbashich, who is a geophysicist that
    claims to have a theory of gravitation that puts Einstein to shame. I
    draw a parallel because some of the outlandish behaviour (Omerbashich
    even claims to be heir to the Bosnian throne, and also claims that
    there’s a conspiracy from jews in the scientific academia world).
    Despite of his outlandish claims, the research of this person is also
    published and he is still working for a Canadian University.

    I’m just curious about these people that otherwise seem to have been,
    at least at the first part of their careers, serious and sensible
    persons, but later become paranoid academia outsiders, and yet, their
    ideas are not simply to be written off because some serious scientists
    do appreciate them as a real aportation to science.

    Please do
    look about Mensur Omerbashich, if you don’t already know him, you will
    certainly be able to draw the parallel with Santilli.

    1. I have not read ‘Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry’ but I had a look at some of the more mathematical stuff Santilli has written. I must say, that I couldn’t make much sense of it. His math is not my speciality as a mathematician, that could be it, but normally you can follow the main lines of thought in an article anyway. So there might be some valid thoughts in there that I miss.
      His other ideas, like the one that the red light of the sun we see at sundown is caused by (iso)redshift are clearly absurd.
      I will have a look at Omerbashich, never heard of him.

  19. Just found this hilarious remark on the Yahoo! Finance message board concerning Magnegas. There is at least one user (‘donborghi’) on that forum promoting the MagneGas story and defending Santilli against any criticism. Now he suggests that one of those more critical users is in fact me using flattering words: ‘In the spirit of assumption though, dollars to doughnuts YOU are that pathetic HUMAN FAILURE blogger named Pepijin V.E. The dutch “skeptisis” who is a bigger loser than that Qwxyerian Wikipedia guy’ 😉

    Don’t worry ‘donborghi’ (or should we perhaps call you Santilli?), I don’t use obscure aliases when criticising pseudoscience.

    see the MNGA message board at Yahoo! Finance

  20. Nice story Pepijn.

    This guy even wrote a letter to the president.

    “Dear President Obama,

    I am bringing to your attention the capability of our Magnegas Corporation of using now our industrially available equipment for the recycling of the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico into a clean burning gaseous fuel known as MagneGas…”

    Read it:

  21. Fantastic stuff! I’m amazed with how much effort you put into this but, is certainly, great for science, in general, that someone does. One remark, however, in the interest of fairness it would be useful to say that Martin O. Cloonan’s article actually questions (part of) Calo’s rebuttal of Santilli’s article.

    1. Indeed Cloonan questions a lot of what Calo states, but most of it can easily be dismissed as nonsensical. Many of his arguments are like: ‘Santilli has shown in earlier experiments blabla’ which does not really convince me 😉
      He might have a point in criticizing Calo’s remark about an IR spectrum, though. But that’s probably the only thing that stays upright as a bit weird if we accept that Santilli fairly presented the evidence. Hard to judge because of the lack of details provided by Santilli.
      If we apply Occam’s razor Calo’s explanation should be favored by far.

      1. I don’t disagree, and neither is my point really about the content. It’s just that in the interest of fairness you could add a remark about in in the main story.

        1. OK, to be fair I will quote Cloonan’s conclusion here:

          In conclusion the IR data combined with the mass spectra and GC/MS data, the ability to achieve a temperature of 9000C and to interact with diesel (SDGC data) are inconsistent with Calo’s claim that the HHO gas contains only
          ‘hydrogen, oxygen and watervapor’. The data are consistent
          with anomalous behaviour for a gas obtained from water and thus the existence of magnecules is feasible. These results must also be viewed in light of Santilli’s previous experimental evidence for magnecules [4,7,8,10]. Furthermore Santilli has stated that further data on the HHO gas will be published [10]. There is ample experimental and theoretical grounds for magnecules including quantum electrodynamics.
          New ideas and theories must be rigorously tested, especially when revolutionary, but only with pure logic and objectivity and via the true scientific method. Objectively Calo’s analysis of the HHO gas does not fulfill these criteria.

          I hope it is clear from this that Cloonan is arguing that Calo didn’t convincingly prove that all measurements can be explained by assuming that ‘MagneHydrogen’ is nothing more than a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen and watervapor. But even if you would agree to all of the reasons Cloonan gives for that, it doesn’t give any support for the hypothesis of Santilli.

        2. That’s fine Pepijn.
          In fact i started reading the skepticforum on this topic and i have become fascinated by it! It’s just so compelling reading! This Santilli guy is an amazing character! And his aliases seem to have knowledge on everything! Physics, chemistry, engineering, law, personal knowldge, everything! I wish someone would write a book about him. Actually, even three, a thriller, a psychology essay and a sociology essay! Fascinating!
          It’s of course awful that science is diluted by the sheer scale of publications, but you have to agree that such a character adds colour to our world :-D!

        3. YES something dramatic needs to be done about the sheer volume and chaotic order of scientific publications. There is no moving forward as a collective and new ideas and theories hard to develop due to the sheer volume of data. Also there is a dramatic move away from basic research and too much emphasis on applied research.

        4. Hmm, do you have a better hypothesis for the measured anomalies with respect to “H2 O2 watervapor”, Pepijn? If not, Santilli’s hypothesis is better than no hypothesis at all.

          For instance, can you explain so many different unknown molecular species, considering all the anomalous mass spectrographic data from several different ‘magnegas’ samples (magnegas made from waste water or destilled water, etc…)?
          Have you ever heard of O2H+ ? Not me.

          But now that you have discredited Santilli’s personality as a scientist, can we trust his papers at all, especially the data? That is the real issue I suppose, so independent measurements following Santilli’s method of ‘magnegas’ production, is urgently needed.

        5. The issue at stake here is quite simple: Santilli makes an extraordinary claim so he should deliver the extraordinary evidence. Of course he could easily send some samples to independent (academic) labs, he makes enough money to pay for their intitial measurements. Now he can’t even present the slightest shred of evidence which seems good enough to be trusted.

        6. Dear Mr van Erp. This is Dr. Martin O. Cloonan who you are referring to above. First of all you are a mathematician. I am a PhD Chemist and thus you are in no position to criticize my Article on Calo and Santilli. In fact you are not qualified to comment on any chemistry or any science because you do not have even a degree in Science. Your analysis then is meaningless and carries no weight. Have you ever analysed an unknown compound via IR, NMR, MS and elucidated its structure via integrating these techniques! Have you ever used HPLC or GC! Have you ever discovered a new molecule or proposed a valid reaction mechanism. Have you ever proposed an original idea! I have, its called the Cplex-isoelectronic theory. I also graduated top of my class in Chemistry with 1st Class Honours. Calo is not a chemist, he is an engineer. He also is not qualified to comment on chemistry data from any source. In my article i highlighted the deficiency in Calo’s analysis due to his deficiency in chemistry. His technical use of chemistry through out his paper was mostly incorrect. I am one who supports new ideas and have seen in the past of new breakthroughs been put down due to ignorance and other motives. I have not stated in the paper that i am convinced magnecules exits. I have stated that we need to be open to new ideas especially as there are major concerns with present quantum chemistry. There is some grounds for magnecules in the sense that magnetic fields do have an effect on electrons. JJ Thomson used this fact to proved that electrons exist and that they have a negative charge. It is also inherent in Faraday’s Law of Induction. I am also not stating that magnecules do exist. There are some unusual results in Santilli’s evidence. This i have highlighted in the article. Whether Santilli’s data is accurate or genuine is not in my power to determine. His data i looked at was as presented in peer reviewed journals, that is all i could go on logically and ethically. I gave my objective analysis on this peer reviewed data. So you are unqualified to ‘dismiss’ my comments ‘as nonsensical’. Objectively you should go back to your field of expertise in maths and not invade on territory where you are out of your depth! YOU ARE NOT A CHEMIST! YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST!

        7. Well, I didn’t comment on your article in my main article, just because I’m not a chemist. Only because someone in the comments asked to give you some credit for posing possibly valid questions to Calo’s response, I gave my opinion on your article. To me it’s just not very important and I think I’ve made it quite clear why. Sorry if you’re are feeling upset by me addressing your remarks as nonsensical, but I think they are, if you consider what Santilli is claiming in his article. Maybe ‘nonsensical’ is not the most appropriate term, but something like ‘duh’ might be.

          PS anything to add that might give some clue about this ‘Kadeisvili’ persona?

        8. You state ‘I gave my opinion on your article’. I reiterate my point you are not qualified to give an opinion on my paper be it in an article or in response to someones comment on my paper. You are not qualified, period.My paper was a chemical response to Calo’s paper and not a response to Santilli’s articles. Again i repeat i did not state Santilli was correct or that he was incorrect in my paper. If someone is going to challenge someone else scientifically then they need to be precise and accurate, Calo was not precise or accurate in his scientific attack on Santilli. This is the crux of the matter and of my paper. I stated we need to be open to new ideas and give everyone a fair hearing and this includes Santilli. What if we lose crucial and new ideas due to ignorance and other evil motives! I agree Santilli needs to publish more experimental data on Magnecules, MagneGas and the HHO gas. You need to read articles more diligently, before you pass comment, to reflect the article accurately but you can only do this if you are qualified as you clearly are not. You are a mathematician! What level did you achieve in maths? Have you published a new and original idea in maths?

          Subjective terms such as ‘think’, ‘nonsensical’ and ‘duh’ are not scientific terms.

          Why don’t you submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal on Santilli’s work if you are so sure of your analysis!? You have not done so because you know yourself you are not qualified to do so. Anyone can put anything up on the internet. I would
          advise your readers to ignore your subjectivity unless it is some comment in relation to the field of maths.

          I have no comment to make about Kadeisvili and i certainly would give no insight to someone who makes comments like yours. Maybe you should try to solve the energy and environmental crisis since you are a self proclaimed expert at criticizing other peoples work. I will not be responding to any more comments on my paper on this website from anyone who is not a PhD Chemist or a PhD in some area of Science.

        9. I wouldn’t mind jumping into this discussion (all sounds very fascinating) but before I react, is it enough for me to have a PhD in theoretical chemistry (cum laude) before starting a conversation? If so, I’ll read up on the material and get back to you later with my thoughts. I’ll try to use proper scientific terminology, but I have to admit that the magnecules bit is new to me! You seem to have high standards for conversation partners, so I thought it would be prudent to first get you response before investing my time into this matter.

          Kind regards,
          Dr. Willem-Jan van Zeist

        10. Yes Calo does not convincingly prove that all data is consistent with a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Cloonan’s paper is not meant as proof for magnecules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Your comment might stay in the moderation queue for some time, especially if it is your first comment on this site. Usually all comments will be published, even if they express extreme disagreement with my writing, but I suggest that you find another place to leave rude and offensive comments. Also completely anonymous and non-English comments are not likely to pass moderation. Also read the Privacy Policy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.