LENR+ is never having to apologize

Once upon a time, IH Fanboy, while clearly a Rossi supporter, was more or less coherent, at least sometimes, as I recall. That’s gone out the window. Gross errors are made but never admitted or directly confronted. If Jed, say, points out a fact that doesn’t fit the IHFB story, IHFB then changes the subject to something else where maybe, he thinks, he might “win.”

At this point he is more or less reduced to “You don’t know everything” and “You have no proof that,” when, in fact, anyone sane recognizes that little is proven, but much is plausible and even probable. At this point, to be careful, the only evidence that exists in Rossi v. Darden is depositions, most of which we have not seen, basically what is provided under oath. The pleadings are not evidence, rather they supply, sometimes, documents which may later become evidence, being attested under oath — and then the witness may be cross-examined.

Nevertheless, we have seen plenty of evidence that, if introduced — as we would expect if this case goes to trial — would strongly indicate various conclusions. IHFB is arguing against many who are pointing out the problems with what he’s claiming, but he doesn’t back up and become careful. I would not expect him to lie down and play dead, but rather to become more interested in balance.

Here is an example of what I’m writing about:

IH Fanboy wrote:

oldguy wrote:

What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn’t believe Murray’s views.

Aw, oldguy was poking IHFB, playing Gotcha! Cotcha! Contradiction! What to do when someone pulls that? Smart would have been: “Murray was right here.” And then if he still wants to pay IRYW (I’m right and you’re wrong), he could add. “Got a problem with that? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” At least be funny! Or one’s on-line life is doomed. But, no, IHFB doesn’t get that he’s out on a limb, up the creek without a paddle. He insists on something totally preposterous to anyone who has been following the case and the discussions.

There is nothing about absolute vacuum–anywhere.

Of course there is. Jed first brought it up when he was saying what was in the preliminary ERV report he had seen. “0.0 bar.” Surely IHFB knows that this is an “absolute vacuum” — at least to the nearest tenth of a bar. Bar means absolute pressure. Period.

Then when we saw what appears to be the actual Penon data, sure enough, every day, the “steam pressure” was “0.0 bar.” This was an obvious error, so obvious that Murray simply ignored what it actually said and imagined what it might have meant: 0.0 barG. Gauge pressure. 0.0 barG is the actual atomspherice pressure, because barG is generally with respect to the atmosphere, barG is a difference in pressure.

By saying that “there is nothing about an absolute vacuum — anywhere,” IHFB is stating with great emphasis what is plainly and provably wrong. This has, for years, been my habit: talking about the discussion itself, where there is a record. That may be why I dislike it when moderators delete stuff, because it was there, it was part of the discussion, people saw it and might be reacting to it, but it becomes impossible to disentangle the mess if part of it has been “cleaned up.”

So then IHFB compounds it with a double ad hominem:

You likely picked up on that canard from Jed.

It doesn’t matter who it came from. Jed claimed to base his comments on a preliminary report he’d seen. While we are free to doubt him, the fact is that he now claims that everything that he had seen was in Exhibit 5. That isn’t strictly true, Jed saw the report and lists of numbers, Jed means something slightly different. He means the substance is reflected there. But in this case, we don’t need to depend on Exhibit 5, we can see, more or less, what Jed and Murray saw, almost certainly: 0.0 bar. For the purposes of this discussion, an absolute vacuum. And, yes, it’s preposterous and yes, Penon didn’t mean that. It was a mistake, which is very simple.

I think the author of Exhibit 5 was told certain things (e.g., the atmospheric temperature bit), and expressly claimed other things (e.g., the piping is DN40).

I notice this all the time. Writers make gross errors and don’t fix them. None of this is about “atmospheric temperature.” Murray wrote about “atmospheric pressure.” Some blogs don’t allow corrections, but LENR Forum does. For reference, here, Exhibit 5. Murray states:

The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.

This has been poorly read in some of the discussions. A fuller context for that statement, Murray addresses Penon in Exhibit 5, which is a memorialization of his questions.

You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). […] According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was […] and the temperature of the water and steam were […]. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.

I have previously pointed out that the last sentence has two separable clauses. Is Murray himself stating that “DN40” was reported? From the last sentence, no. It would not be written that way. However, Murray is listing data from what Penon “stated” and what he had “reported.” The verbal statement, apparently, was “nominally atmospheric pressure.” This indicates what Penon meant, in his written reports (the preliminary seen by Jed and the “Final Report,” by 0.0 bar. It was simply an error, it should have been 0.0 barG. As to the piping, the language here indicates that Murray is rehearsing facts for Penon, not an “allegation.” He is not “claiming” that the piping was DN40, he seems to think that this was known and accepted.

Was he in error? Of course that’s possible! I revise my earlier opinion, though, I see no evidence that “DN40” was necessarily Murray’s personal observation, only that he doesn’t seem to think that there is a contradiction. The pipe size is not crucial to Murray’s question, though it would enter into a detailed analysis.

If I had to make a decision based on this evidence, though, it would be that Murray believed the pipe was DN40 and expected that Penon would not argue with this, and I’d assume DN40, then, unless there were stronger evidence for a different size. If the pipes were insulated, it could be difficult to estimate the size from a photo. To be clear, this is about the return pipe, that would carry water, not about the steam pipe itself, pre-condenser.

 It is not a matter of whether I believe the author of Exhibit 5–whatever was written in that exhibit was written. The DN40 piping is probably outright false.

I wouldn’t be so sure. IHFB is correct about “belief,” though. At this point, Exhibit 5 is a report of personal information and belief, and, if supported under oath — which is expected — it will be accepted by the court unless and until it is controverted. To the extent that the court accepts Murray as an expert, his conclusions, such as his conclusions about flow, may be admitted, but that is not necessarily his role in the court process. What is probably most important about Exhibit 5 is that the questions were asked and were not answered, indicating default of professional responsibility by Penon. If it is necessary to establish his conclusions, I would expect to see independent expert testimony.

IH Fanboy wrote:

I have good reasons to believe that the DN40 piping claim is false. If you remember, I used a picture of the old plant and using known dimensions of shipping containers, was able to show that the exit pipe of that plant was very likely DN80, based on a proportional analysis. The chances of Rossi changing from DN80 to DN40 is next to nil.

There is a major contradiction running through all this. IHFB is pointing out certain things we don’t know, and more or less demanding that in the absence of definitive knowledge, conclusions must be avoided. Yet he has a “belief” about one of these things. He is effectively, here, asking what has become a number of participants who are highly skeptical of his claims to accept his prior investigation, but he does not link to it or show it. I certainly don’t remember. Many of those discussions became so convoluted that I stopped reading them. He is claiming we don’t know enough, but asserting “I believe.” Doomed, wouldn’t you think?

Was the old pipe insulated? The construction of the customer return was new. DN80 pipe is more expensive than DN40, and perhaps this was a longer run. Bottom line, this is flimsy. But, of course, the devil is in the details. Instead of running on “belief,” how about actually taking the time to find the old discussion and link to it? How about focusing on fact instead of belief. Presumably that old estimate was fact-based. So what facts, how were they analyzed?

On the other hand, the entire purpose of this is doomed. What has been shown is that there are enough problems with the ERV report that it can’t be trusted. Unless Rossi comes up with a Wabbit — he is desperately searching for one, this is obvious in his discovery revelations — the Doral plant wasn’t a GPT, and at that point the actual function of the Plant becomes almost irrelevant. IH will then be, presumably, attempting to prove fraudulent representation, which is more difficult.

(What looms large, if no GPT, is the problem that, even if Rossi’s devices work with him present, IH claims they could not verify this in independent testing. That’s devastating to “Rossi technology.” Nobody will invest in his technology, in the future, without full and genuinely independent testing, or, at least, if they do, they would have been fully warned. They will be aware that if there is a disagreement, Rossi is likely to sue them. He’s really screwed himself over by filing the action, given what we know.) IHFB continued:

As for the pressure measurements, there are some mixed signals. The test plan had specified an absolute gauge. The ERV data doesn’t specify what is meant by 0 bar. The Exhibit 5 says it was atmospheric pressure. So, take your pick.

Yes, the test plan specified an absolute gauge. 0.0 bar has a very clear and precise meaning, but it would be crazy in context. Exhibit 5 is entirely derived from Penon information on this point. There is a contradiction, one might think, in Exhibit 5, between what Murray wrote and what is actually in the Final Report. There are a number of possibilities. IH has alleged that there was data in the preliminary reports that was missing in the Final Report. Murray was not looking at the final report, but only at preliminary copies. So maybe something changed. However, the simplest explanation is not accusatory. Penon simply used “bar” incorrectly, in the tables. And then Murray, knowing what was intended — and confirmed by what Penon “stated” about atomospheric pressure — simply referred to it as barG. And then we have the problem with 0.0 barG.

What pressure gauge was actually used? Obviously, at this point, we don’t know. Penon removed those instruments. He might have used an absolute gauge and then translated the data to barG, but that seems strange. Much more likely, he used a different pressure gauge.

None of these approaches lead to confidence in Penon’s work. It appears that he was to have been deposed last week in the Dominican Republic. We are unlikely to see that unless there is some dispute over it, until one of two events take place: a Motion for Summary Judgment, which might possibly rehearse some uncontroverted fact, or this goes to trial.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Paradigmnoia wrote:

@IH Fanboy ,
Sure.
And we don’t really know pipe sizes, temperatures measured, electrical energy in, or amount of water heated.
So bin the whole works.

Agreed! That is part of this exercise, to show those who have formed such sure conclusions to question themselves. Nothing is certain at this point. Jumping to conclusions can be very damaging to LENR and the public’s perception of it, and especially LENR+.

IH FB is confusing LENR and “Rossi”. Rossi is Plan A. Plan A does not depend on public support, at all. The only kind of “Plan A” that needs it is faux Plan A, fantasy Plan A. Plan A will happen regardless of what the public thinks. It only takes one person, or, more realistically, a small group. To the extent that Plan A is possible, it cannot be stopped. The Planet Rossi meme of “the market is the judge” is correct, for Plan A. All the cheers and boos and hisses and “sustain” on blogs are irrelevant to Plan A.

So for Plan A, “Rossi Savior” and “Rossi Evil” are irrelevant. The outcome of the trial may affect Rossi’s ability to continue development, but that is the trial outcome, not the Judgment of the Blogs.

For Plan B, however, public support is very important. Because there are private investors and donors, who will disregard the fluff, Plan B may continue even in the face of the maintained rejection cascade, but public funding (which could be greater than private) will be elusive and difficult. For that purpose, the best condition is that the extreme claims of Rossi be discredited, rejected, and that Rossi be considered the way he apparently wanted to be considered, as a fraud, while, at the same time, IH be supported for having had the courage to confirm or disconfirm Rossi’s claims, in spite of obvious appearances. Rossi’s claims were not about LENR itself. Rossi has attached to various theories when it served him, but the entire NiH approach is not the place to start, educating the public about LENR. We do not have a clear theory as to fuel and ash for NiH, no heat/ash ratio, none of that. To the extent that Rossi has been mentioned, the issue has been confused, and it can backfire.

If Rossi is sufficiently damaged by the lawsuit, he might not be able to continue. If the Rossi Effect is real, that would be a shame, but we would also have to notice that he brought this on himself. Perhaps Rossi’s strength was also his weakness, his bull-headedness.

If Rossi sees that he cannot continue, and if he actually cares about children (with cancer or otherwise), he would then disclose all his secrets. Ideally, he’d publish them. Notice that to maintain a patent, he’d have to do this anyway. To hit the market, he’d have to put technology out there where it could be independently examined. Rossi will have to trust someone, or he and his work is toast. Dried-out, cold toast.

Jed Rothwell wrote:

IH Fanboy wrote:

That quote is about as obtuse as it gets, and you provided no attribution or source, nor who inserted the sics.

That quote was uploaded by Rossi in the lawsuit filing. Abd inserted the sics, as I explained previously.
If you do not believe Rossi, who do you believe?

This is what happens, how someone who is expressing sincere belief can be led far astray. There is a conversation. The normal human mind does not remember the sensory, nor, typically, exact wording. It remembers “meaning,” which is invented, in a process that usually creates ideas that will then predict the future. When there is emotional reactivity, it is the emotion that is most strongly remembered and associated. What IHFB remembers is not what was actually stated, but how he thought about it, later, his reaction. His reaction was “it’s wrong,” so then he proceeded to invent reasons for it to be wrong. Since he didn’t notice the attribution, he objected to the lack of it. He did not go back and reread what he’d read. Why should he? He had already read it once!

When what was said becomes controversial, I always attempt to find it and check my memory. Usually, my memory is sound, but not always. If I erred, my stand is to immediately correct it, when possible, hang how it looks, I’ll worry about reputation later.

Now, everyone here should just believe me, right? That would create a Planet Lomax. While trusting my intentions is reasonable — I’d say! — my suggestion is to verify as much as possible. I make mistakes. At this point I remember Jed’s posting and, yes, he did attribute. But what is the reality? It’s crazy to argue about something that can be verified in less time than it takes for normal argument.

Here is what I find. In objecting to the sics and lack of attribution, IHFB was not referring to Jed’s post, but to one by THH. THH did not clearly attribute. Sloppy, to be sure, but that’s common on public fora.

Here is where Jed posted the Penon description, Tuesday, February 21.  Perhaps IHFB missed it. Jed credited me for my “[sic]” insertions. One of them was probably incorrect, as another pointed out. The original was here. The Penon description is attributed on that page, linked to a local copy. The description was dated 9 February, 2015. The alleged first day of the “test” was 24 February, 2015, see the “Final Report Annexe.”

(I may have somewhere stated that the test began on 31 January, 2015, because of the weird way that the data is paged. That is, I did make that mistake, but may have caught it and corrected it before publishing.)

IHFB went on and on, apparently not recognizing the taste of his foot in his mouth. I’m going to stop with this one, because I’m mentioned in it. Most of what I point out here is also noticed by others….

IH Fanboy wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

The data uploaded by Rossi means nothing to you?

The ERV data deposited in the court docket does mean something. Aside from the weirdness the latter half of November, the data has a certain interesting realness to it, as if there were a real, varying load, and with spikes in input power generally corresponding to FLP data. It doesn’t immediately come across, to me, as fake data.

To someone with high experience reviewing calorimetric data (Jed Rothwell), it does. So start with that, with respect for his experience. That doesn’t mean that he is right, but if you believe he is lying, forgeddaboudit, this all becomes posturing to impress others.

All this counterargument means is “I don’t see it.” The depth of the error is more than might be apparent. There are multiple factors interacting here, and, while it can be useful to focus on one only, reality is generally more discernable by first becoming clear on each factor, as to the range of possibilities, then looking at all of them. With each factor, some alternate explanation might be possible. However, how likely is this? That something is possible does not make it probable. And then, what about a series of possible but improbable “explanations”?

Or do you actually believe the pressure was 0.0 bar and the flow rate
was exactly the same for days, even when Rossi said the machine was
turned off? Do you seriously believe that nonsense?!?

The thing is Jed, you immediately jump to conclusions without considering alternative possibilities.

Perhaps. Jed has been studying and following Rossi since, likely, before 2011. At some point, one settles. Human ingenuity is endless. “Alternative possibilities” may always be invented. However, has IHFB found some? I’m looking. I don’t prejudge, I have learned to set aside expectations — which I have, like everyone else — and see what is actually there. It’s part of my training.

I had never observed that kind of behavior from you until you became intimately involved with IH. It is a shame. 0.0 bar.. what? We need more information. 1 atmosphere? With DN80 piping and a slight vacuum created by the heat exchanger, you all of the sudden plausibly have the pressure instrument showing 0.0 bar. Are you sticking with DN40 as your final answer?

Jed is a major figure in the field, and has been granted some level of access on promise of confidentiality. I have been granted that (to a lesser degree than Jed). My project is facilitating research, creating structures and processes that will resolve the scientific question of LENR. It is not promotion of anything other than scientific research, which must be, overall, neutral. I.e., I’m not suggesting and working for research to “prove” something, but rather to resolve questions and confirm or disconfirm prior work. I would be delighted to find that the Rossi Effect is real and that he hits the market with a product. However, absent that showing and activity, and aside from bringing a certain level of attention, a double-edged sword, Rossi has harmed and continues to harm the field. Above, IHFB is arguing like the last valiant defender of the flame of truth, in a hostile world. “DN40” is a tiny detail, and Jed doesn’t actually know the pipe size, he has reports — apparently more than one, but he can correct that. IHFB has convinced himself that the pipe was DN80. While that affects some of the arguments seen, it’s irrelevant to others. By focusing on where he thinks he can win, IHFB misses the trees in front of him in favor of an imaginary forest.

0.0 bar has a very clear meaning, if it is the reading of a gauge. Because that meaning is impossible, we — starting with Murray — interpret it as 0.0 barG. Atmospheric pressure, by definition, i.e., the actual pressure, not merely nominal pressure, pressure varies with altitude and the weather. If the system is open at the other end, as it appears it is, i.e., the “other end” is the internal tank to which system cooling water is returned, then we have an issue of what creates high flow. There is an obvious possible answer which has been rarely mentioned: a pump in the customer area, after the heat exchanger. This pump creates low pressure there, allowing high flow with 0.0 bar in the steam line. Peter Gluck thinks there must be a pump there, before the flow meter. He might be right, but it would not be the E-cat pumps.

The flow rate was exactly the same for days probably because the granularity of measurement apparently was 1000 kg/h for this flow meter, and once you dial in the pumps, the variance is quite small, as has been pointed out numerous times here by different people. You refuse to consider these as explanations, but that doesn’t mean that alternate possibilities don’t exist.

Within the restricted world of IHFB’s attention, he can construct alternate scenarios. First of all, the flow meter was the wrong meter for the application, because of the 1000 kg increments of the flow meter reading. This would not be a rate reading, it would be integrated water flow. The meter is being operated below specified minimum flow, which, as pointed out, could produce lower flow readings, not higher. However, in the contrary direction, pipe volume occupied by other than water, typically air, could produce higher readings than actual water flow. Depending on what happens in the customer area, there could be extensive error. One of the kinds of pumps used with steam condensers uses an injected fluid or gas; this would work with air or water. It would create the vacuum needed, but could also fill the pipe largely with air.

Absent some kind of pressure manipulation in the customer area, and with the internal tank being also at 0.0 barG, there is a difficult problem, but it gets worse.

As to the even when “machine was turned off.” What machine? Which one was turned off? The plant was composed of multiple conglomerations of e-cat reactors grouped into “tigers,” with backups to spare. We have no idea what was actually going on!

The question refers to variance in the number of “machines” operating. This particular issue is complicated and I have not been following all the discussions. At some point perhaps I will review this. What is the correlation between:

  1. The daily flow
  2. The input power
  3. The Johnson reports of delivered power (it was always either 750 or 1000 KW).

“We have no idea” is not true. We have ideas, indications, and some evidence. IHFB’s position is obvious: because the evidence is strongly indicating that something was off about the “Test,” he is making the “you have not proven it” defense. But we don’t need to prove anything. We are simply, for the most part, observers, noticing this or that. Some of us have agendas like proving that we are right, we were always right, unlike the rest of you. If only they had listened to good, sensible people, IH could have saved themselves millions of dollars. However, what I notice with IH is that they seem to be over $20 million ahead, with more money on tap if they need it.

Also, the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. You cannot heat a small space with 1 MW of heat with no ventilation and survive. That is a fact. You can deny, deny, deny it, but facts are facts and this is indisputable, irrefutable proof that Rossi is lying and that you are deluded. You are ignorant of the fundamentals of physics and common sense.

And no, there was no invisible chimney.

I would not say “lying.” Rossi is, most likely, my opinion, delusional, but high-functioning in a way that can confuse the naive. I don’t think that IH was naive; rather, they recognized the alternate interpretations that IHFB wants to point out. They decided to find out. They found out. That, in my book, was a win, even if they’d have won much more if Rossi had a real technology and followed the Agreement.

But there was ventilation. And there was a chimney! This has been pointed out by Alan with photographic proof. The chimney is not sized to vacate ALL of the 1MW heat. But it could a large portion of it, and the rest could be used to heat vats of water, then mixed with cold water on its way down the drain, keeping it under the regulated heat levels. This too has been shown by others to be possible, including your friend Abd! You can deny, deny, deny, but there are plausible alternate explanations for nearly every puzzle.

Alternate, yes. Plausible, no, not collectively. I explored cooling with water last year, extensively, researching the water economics and regulations. As Jed points out, you cannot discharge 80 C water in the public sewer system, it would create visible effects and it would be illegal. The chimney shown is not in a location to be used for the suggested purpose. This is truly a major problem for the idea that Rossi was actually generating a megawatt. IHFB here, simply names some alternatives but does not actually explore them. I’d encourage him to do the math. Rossi originally claimed that whatever heat was not “consumed” by the customer was vented out the roof. Large endothermic process without a large movement of product doesn’t seem to be possible. A great one would be melting ice. But there would be a very large amount of ice needed, day in and day out. The simplest thing would be venting steam, but that would, of course, be highly visible.

It is obvious: IHFB is desperately clinging to whatever possibility allows him to “keep the faith.” In a way, this is noble, but he has added something that is not noble. He’s claiming that others are wrong. I like Richard Garwin’s “They say there is no doubt. But I doubt.” It’s honest, and that is, in fact, a great counterargument, except for one problem. It does not correctly state what “they say.” Garwin has cartoonized the “believers.” His “they must be doing something wrong” was a plain admission of his pseudoscientific position (more commonly called, in a case like this, “pseudoskeptical.”)

What comes to mind for me as the strongest issue is the combined claim of 0.0 barG steam pressure, constant water flow, about 104 C steam temperature and then an assumption of complete vaporization. I’m not the first to point out that if there is total vaporization, there is no control on the steam temperature, a small change in heat generation will produce a significant change in steam temperature.

[Thanks to THH for the link to his post covering this issue, it was that post that brought this out clearly.]

From the tightly constant normal daily total flow — a problem because of timing effects as point out by many — we must assume that the reactor metering pumps are set to create a constant flow, regardless of actual heat production.

As reactors aged, there would be a decline in efficiency, apparently. Why did Rossi refuel on the last day of the Test? If Rossi was able to tightly control heat production, to maintain the constant steam temperature at full vaporization, what was he varying? Originally, the main control was heat, but if he is operating in Self-Sustain mode, that’s gone. He isn’t controlling the cooling rate, we just defined that as constant. As well, what happens when the load changes?

There is a conclusion: bottom line, the flow data shown was not a recording of flow meter readings. It was calculated, at best. Or it was assumed. The flow meter does not show rate: it shows accumulated water flow, in units of a metric ton, 1000 kg. IHFB, with his “1000 kg/h” is not simply making a spelling error, he is missing the point. The apparent set rate is 1500 kg/h, but the meter would be just like a water company water meter, which doesn’t show rate, but accumulated usage, in units of 1000 kg.

Conversations: Simon Derricut 5

Simon writes long, thoughtful comments. Another. My comments, thoughts, reactions are in italics, indented.

Abd – it’s been obvious for a long time that Peter ignores evidence he doesn’t like. I’ve tried to show him that the evidence for 1MW doesn’t exist except for what Rossi’s metering shows, and I’ve given him calculations of how much water would be required to put that much energy down the drains (to both keep the locked room suitable for life and to avoid a heat-plume being visible and measurable by an IR survey), yet he still thinks that Rossi will provide an explanation that will be physically possible. As an experienced industrial engineer, he should be able to do the calculations himself and recognise that the claims are absurd as they stand. There comes a time when it’s not worth the time spent analysing the claims since Peter will not accept the results if they show that Rossi does not have LENR+. Of course, that’s what any sober analysis will show. Continue reading “Conversations: Simon Derricut 5”

Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom

Hope springs eternal. Throw enough mud at a wall and some will stick. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. A sucker is born every minute. La, la, la, I can’t hear you! Please explain!

Peter Gluck has been vilifying cold fusion heroes, now, since the filing of Rossi v. Darden. Before that he mostly confined himself to disparaging basic LENR research as useless, weak, a dead end, whereas his “LENR+”, now, is the savior of humanity and the Nobel Prize would not be enough as a reward. How about $89 million of someone else’s money for a start? Continue reading “Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom”

So who’s in the Dominican Republic?

Since I last commented on case documents, we have:

02/20/2017 0144.0_Rossi_hearing_notice amended 2/23
02/21/2017 0145.0_Discovery_Order misc. including Rossi screen names order
02/21/2017 0146.0_Discovery_Order various including Boeing deposition
02/21/2017 Discovery Hearing (no document)
PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Discovery Hearing held on 2/21/2017. Total time in court: 15 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, D. Porpoise Evans, Christopher Perre (Digital 10:50:40) (cg1)
02/21/2017 0148.0_Discovery_Order re deposition in Dominican Republic, site inspection
02/21/2017 0149.0_USQL_Answer (Fabiani)
02/21/2017 0150.0_IH_Hearing_Notice re bank subpoenas, Rossi/JMP non-response
02/21/2017 0151.0_Rossi_Memo_re_138 Mazzarino privilege claim
02/23/2017 0152.0_Discovery_Order_re_privilege (Hearing 2/23).
02/23/2017 0153.0_Rossi_memo_opposing_143 re Deep River Ventures privilege
02/23/2017 0154.0 Discovery Hearing (no document)
02/23/2017 0155.0 Discovery Transcript (no document yet)
02/23/2017 0156.0 Discovery Transcript (no document yet)
02/24/2017 0157.0_IH_reply_to_153

Stuff is Happening.

145 is mostly routine Magistrate business. This Order came out of the hearing February 7, and includes deadlines that already expired. There are warnings of possible sanctions. I would not conclude much from that. These warnings have been issued on both sides.

However, as to the interests of the peanut gallery,

Plaintiffs shall serve their supplemental interrogatory answers to Defendant, John Vaughn’s First Set of Interrogatories by February 10, 2017. Such responses shall include all screen names or aliases Plaintiff Rossi uses to post information on the lnternet. To the extent Plaintiff Rossi does not use screen names or aliases to post information on the lnternet, he must issue a response verifying the same.

D.E. 148 has this:

 … the defendant is permitted to question the witness set for deposition in this matter on February 22, 2017, in the Dominican Republic. The plaintiff shall provide the defendant with the name of the attorney for the witness who is scheduled for deposition in the Dominican Republic. 

Some of the orders coming from the Magistrate seem to reflect an inability of the lawyers to agree on relatively simple things. The indication here would be that the witness is someone whom Rossi might not want to have deposed. And an obvious guess is Penon, who was missing, IH had been unable to serve him.

Also in D.E. 148:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that if the defendant’s expert is available after the conclusion of the deposition in this matter taking place today locally, the site inspection shall occur today after the conclusion of that local deposition. If the defendant’s expert is not available to inspect the site today after the conclusion of the local deposition in this matter, unless the parties agree otherwise, the site inspection shall occur on March 2, 2017, at 9:00 AM.

This is obviously to be an inspection of the Doral site.

D.E. 149 is the USQL (Fabiani) Answer and Affirmative Defenses. While I saw nothing of much note in this (being mostly unexplained denial, which is legally sufficient), I intend to prepare a Merge document with this as with the others, to show the Answers in context of the Claims being answered. It is otherwise unintelligible. One point:

150. Third-Party Defendants state that the Technical Consulting Agreement speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 150 to the extent that they are inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement. Third-Party Defendants also deny that the Agreement was properly renewed.

From what we have seen, this claim will likely be estopped because he did accept payments pursuant to the Agreement.

This is interesting, an Affirmative Defense:

The Technical Consulting Agreement is sufficiently ambiguous that upon a determination of the intent of the parties, no breach by the Third-Party Defendants has occurred. The intent of the parties was for Mr. Fabiani to assist Dr. Rossi in his work on the Ecat technology. Mr. Fabiani’s duties and obligations to provide data were of minor consequence to the Third-Party Plaintiff and Mr. Fabiani did in fact provide data to the Third-Party Plaintiff for the entire term of the working relationship. Any data not provided was excused by the failure to pay all sums due to the Third-Party Defendants.

This is at a level of contradiction with what Rossi has commonly claimed, that IH had “two men” on site to report to them what was happening, one being Fabiani (the other would be Barry West). However, it seems fairly clear that the primary duties of both of them was to assist Rossi. At the end, it appears from emails shown that Fabiani stopped talking to IH, when Murray offered to pay him the final payment in return for the data. And then this contradicts the idea that the agreement was not renewed.

(A party may assert contradictory defenses.)

These contradictions appear in the rest of the Affirmative Defenses. Fabiani’s points are at least arguable.

D.E. 150 is of some interest. These are additional issues to be addressed at the upcoming Hearing, time permitting:

Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., on (1) Plaintiffs’ and ThirdParty Defendants’ J.M. Products Inc.’s objections to Defendants’ subpoenas to Bank of America, N.A., BankUnited, Inc., and TD Bank, N.A.; (2) Plaintiffs’ violation of the Protective Order entered by this Court on October 14, 2016; and (3) Plaintiff Andrea Rossi’s failure to respond to Industrial Heat and IPH International B.V’s Third Request for Production.

(See D.E. 144 for Rossi business at that hearing, which was amended from D.E. 135). The salient business here is IH claim of attorney-client privilege with regard to certain requests for production and an IH motion for a protective order, which was rejected because not according to procedure, then there are memoranda re law on this, from IH and from Rossi.

Without detailed study, I have a rough impression of the IH case being stronger, but …. not enough to really call this. Rossi is fishing, looking for admissions that they never intended to pay him, i.e., that he was defrauded. So far, his searches have come up with what pulls the rug out from under some of his arguments: Woodford had committed an additional $150 million if needed, so if it were prudent and necessary, IH could have paid the $89 million. However, that was obviously contingent on Rossi performance on his part of the Agreement.

D.E. 152 is an Order affirming privilege for two emails (one from Darden to a “Mr. Zalli”) and adjudging no privilege for one (involving Zalli and “Mr. Uzi”).

D.E. 153 is a Rossi argument against the Mazzarino privilege claim.

D.E. 154-156 are discovery hearing business. Transcripts will be available someday before the end of time. (Actually, 5/24/2017).

D.E. 157 is the IH reply. My immediate reaction: yeah, I thought so. Basic standard; while there may be exceptions, if one communicates with an attorney expecting confidentiality due to common interest with the client, it is probably covered under attorney-client privilege. I’m not, at this point, reading up on the case law.


In comments below, there were speculations:

Bob says (February 22, 2017 at 11:34 am):

P.S.
If I were a betting man, I would bet the “secret” expert located in the Dominican Republic is none other than Penon. But then I would not bet much either! This drama has some interesting twists and turns in it.

Abd ulRahman Lomax says (February 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm):

Yeah, strange, isn’t it, “Penon” also popped into my mind.

Dewey Weaver played with this on LENR Forum. Shane had asked, February 23, 1:22 am

Dewey,
Is the “site inspection” to occur in the Dominican Republic, or Doral? ECW has it as the DR, and after re-reading that section, it sure sounds like it could be…or it could be poor wording. If so, and it is the DR, could you give a hint as to what the heck took place there? And while you are at it…who is this DR witness IH is deposing?

OMG. Shane isn’t reading our blog! WTF?

ECW badly mangled this interpretation of DE 148, and apparently the dense fog there confused Shane. Alternate interpretations of text are common; and this is a reason why one will sanely attempt to understand every word. Yes, errors happen; however, the Order Frank interpreted contained multiple clues that indicated that there were two separate and distinct depositions, one in the DR, and one “locally,” with IH’s expert witness. The DR deposition was “set for February 22,” whereas the Order was February 21, and refers to the expert deposition as “today.” The alternate reading doesn’t work, and was so deviant from the obvious intention or the Order that it did not even occur to me as a possibility. There is only one major “site” in the case that could possibly be inspected, and that might take a court order to allow. Doral.

In any case, Shane’s question still stood, who was the DR deponent?

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Shane – the site inspection is slated for Doral. Some have correctly deduced the DR depo witness (three initials, first initial A and last initial d). You can study the order and find more details – the Court had to get involved in an interesting way.

OMG, Dewey Weaver reads this blog!

Shane wrote:

Thanks. So the site inspection is in Doral. As to identifying the DR witness with the riddle: “3 initials, first A, and last d”, which does not add up to 3, and then give me my homework to go back to the documents to piece together, sorry, I just am not in the mood to do that. I already spend too much time going over this stuff. Instead, how about you be clear this once?

Life is a riddle, a puzzle, and it is particularly puzzling when we make assumptions about the clues. Dewey did not state that the clue would identify the witness. He wrote that “Some have correctly deduced …”

“Initials” was possibly misleading, but that would not obstruct decoding the message, because the task the clue gives doesn’t depend on the “initials” merely being letters. What are the three letters? The first is A, the last is d. Let me think…. what could that be. If the first part of that sentence is understood, one would be looking for … the name of someone who “deduced” the identity. In fact, it wasn’t a deduction, either, but this is the task of life, again: to see through a forest of noise at something that, then, is reality. Dewey was playing, and, contrary to common Planet Rossi belief, he is not paid as Minister of Propaganda. He is a human being, and does have, in fact, quite an interesting job that leads him to be highly informed on Rossi v. Darden and quite a few other sometimes-murky topics.

I maintain multiple interpretations as far as possible. As we will see, there are those who believe that whatever comes from Dewey is unreliable, but … let’s put it this way: these people are unreliable, themselves.

I’ve been studying Dewey’s comments since NCKhawk, and, where independent evidence has appeared, he has not been misleading, even if he has erred or misstated something on occasion. In this case, if the deponent was not Penon, he is being directly misleading, in a matter that could easily become public. Under the Ministry of Disinformation theory, that would violate MOD Manual section 12.57: Never make a verifiably false public statement. Maintain, at all times, plausible deniability. When Rossi says, for example, that he’s in North Carolina, he probably is, until and unless there is some specific evidence contradicting that.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Shane D – I was trying to let you know that Abd got it right on the DR depo.

Thanks, Dewey. Of course I got it right. What I wrote actually could not possibly have been wrong, I have absolute certainty. I did not write “It was Penon!” I wrote that the name popped into my mind. And it did. Q.E.D. This points up something: how to be a careful witness, how to distinguish between inference and intuition and the like, and fact. Basic ontology. Dewey might have written, Abd’s intuition was right. (and Bob’s!) Intuition operates this way. It doesn’t need “reasons.” It doesn’t need to be certain. Intuition, my understanding, is based on the operation of a vast association engine, with most “processing” occurring outside of consciousness. Of course, having thought of Penon, I could then find “reasons” to support the idea, but I didn’t bother.

More mishegas continued on LENR Forum, the usual mixture of cogency and mind-boggling trolling or idiocy. Meanwhile, on ECW,

Bob wrote: (Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:54 AM)

The inspection was to be at the Doral facility using an expert hired by IH. (The identity has not been revealed as far as I know.) This did not take place yesterday and is now scheduled for March 2.

The witness who has been deposed in the Dominican Republic is Penon and the court ordered deposition was filed by IH, not Rossi.

(The above two items per post from Dewey Weaver)

Shane D. provided a clear synopsis of the new documents at :

[Link to LENR Forum]

[and then he quoted Shane].

Here, Bob wrote: (2017/02/24 at 1:21 am)

today, I was going to make a post about the latest court documents and received a message stating I had been banned from ECW when attempting to save the post. I did not receive any notification from Mr. Ackland nor did I receive any warning about any transgressions I might have committed.

I sent him a private email asking if there had been some issue and he responded later in the day stating “Yes, I took that action based on your posting history on E-Cat World. ” It continued stating that E-Cat World was not a place for skeptics and that “it seems you are firmly convinced that the E-Cat is simply fake”.

Bob’s Discus profile seems to not exist now. For comparison, here is the NCKhawk profile. It is unclear to me if an administrator can delete a Discus profile. My guess is not. However if a user is banned, I’m speculating that the profile becomes disconnected from the posts. I don’t know if NCKhawk is actually banned. In any case, Acland’s reported email comment to Bob indicates a banning of someone for their assumed mental state, rather than for offensive posts, and there are many users on ECW with the mental state ascribed here to Bob. But maybe he is banning all of them. Definitely, skeptical comment seems sparse there.

These are the ECW “commenting guidelines.” It does not appear that Bob violated the guidelines, and the normal, routine sanction for violations would be deletion of offending posts. “Belief status” is not given as a standard, though it says that

E-Cat World is a site that takes LENR seriously, and accepts it as a valid field of research, and a potentially useful energy source. ECW is not a venue where LENR/cold fusion skeptics are given free rein, or a place to debate whether LENR/cold fusion is real. Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon, an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.

However, under

… the following types of comments are subject to moderation:

We find:

Comments that state openly or by implication that LENR/cold fusion/E-Cat is a fraud or hoax

The lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden, is rife with evidence that particular events involving the E-cat involve fraud. What Bob did that apparently triggered the ban was to quote what had been written elsewhere about events in the case. There was no direct implication of fraud (if Bob had intended such, he’d have pointed to much more specific evidence.)

So … I think that Frank overreacted, and perhaps he’ll rescind the ban and apologize. It’s up to him, of course, it’s his blog. Balancing that freedom is the fact that anyone else may comment on what he does, on his blog if he permits it, or elsewhere whether or not he permits it.

Ordinarily, banning people while not deleting allegedly offensive comments or at least warning them (if, for example, the comments have received a response so that deletion would cause harm to context) would be offensive for a moderator. The biggest problem, for me, as a writer, is, however, (1) deleting comments without opportunity for the author to recover what was written, and (2) banning which prevents authors from correcting errors, or responding to critique, without any necessity and notice. This is rude and inconsiderate.


There was a bit more on ECW of interest.

wpj US_Citizen71 Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:06 AM

DW and ABD say that it’s Penon that is there.

Strange how it has gone from “Rossi says” to “Weaver says”. He also say that there was no site inspection.

Mike Rion wpj Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:36 PM

Yeah, it seems most of the posters on LENR Forum are converts to the new religion called Dewey Weaver, who is nothing more or less than a paid shill of IH.

Typical blogviation. First of all, I did not “say that it’s Penon.” I merely wrote that the name occurred to me, as I imagine it might occur to anyone with extensive knowledge of the case. But I don’t know the fact. Dewey, as an IH insider, might actually know. Rossi, of course, would also know, but would not reveal this, very likely, and I suspect that the only reason we know about the DR deposition and the site inspection is that Rossi would not voluntarily agree to these.

From the name and behavior, I suspect ECW Mike Rion is LENR-Forum Rionrlty. Rion appeared on ECW April 10, 2016, shortly after Rossi v. Darden was filed. He started up on LENR Forum the day before. I’ve been looking at his recent LENR Forum posts, they tend to be classic Planet Rossi. He is apparently a real person, and Mike Rion is his real name, and he is indeed a “retired real estate agent,” living in Hemet, California, apparently about 71 or “in his seventies.”

There is no coherent community on LENR Forum that believes something just because Dewey Weaver says it. I do not report DW Says as “fact,” other than the fact of him saying what he said. Rion calls Dewey Weaver a “shill,” and has treated the documents filed in Rossi v. Darden as if there was big news there. There was not. We knew that Dewey was working for IH, and that he was involved in communicating with the scientists in the LENR field. While it was not known specifically that he had a consulting contract and was probably paid (we still don’t actually know that), it was simply not surprising information.

What was known very quickly, by the end of April, 2016, was that Weaver was an IH insider, that he was a principal in an LLC, Deep River Ventures, which was an identified shareholder in the parent company of IH, IHHI. His comments and statements, then, would be easily known as involving a “conflict of interest.” Nothing changed about that with the court documents. I knew, well before 2017 dawned, that Weaver was a gatekeeper for IH. I’d met him at ICCF-18, in 2013, so this wasn’t new.

On LENR Forum, Rionrlty wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

If you’ve got something concrete to contribute RiRi then bring it otherwise your professional troll status is setting up faster than super glue in the high desert.

Jones Day is doing one heck of a good job on behalf of their clients. These judges are no nonsense and there is very little worry about where this case is heading on the Def / CP side of the battlefield. The same cannot be said for Planet Rossi.

I’d agree with Dewey. Is it because he wrote it? No, it’s because, since early on with Rossi v. Darden, I have been collecting, studying, and analyzing the case documents, individually and in consultation with an attorney, plus reading all the other arguments. I’ve identified and reported on apparent Jones Day errors, but my overall assessment remains that Jones Day is being effective, and I see just about zero possibility that Rossi’s suit can survive trial, and it may not survive even that long, it is highly vulnerable to Summary Judgment. This is not about a belief in Dewey Weaver, about a belief in fraud, as such, nor about any kind of hatred of Rossi. I don’t hate Rossi.

Rion’s comments are highly provocative and accusatory, designed to poke, not to communicate and find agreement. That’s trolling. Most trolls are anonymous. Not all.

Dewey, I’m a retired Real Estate Broker in Southern California and I would love to get paid for posting on forums, but so far I’ve received no offers. Interested? No one has anything concrete to deliver, you because of ND and biased credibility, and the rest of us simply because it hasn’t been supplied to us yet. Along with the rest of the poster’s here we must wait and see what the Jury decides, unless it settles out of court.

Dewey just delivered an apparent fact: the Dominican Republic deponent was Penon. If this were false, it would be useless, and would prove harmful to some supposed anti-Rossi or pro-IH agenda. Having studied Dewey’s comments for almost a year, reading them over and actually compiling them, I can report my preliminary impression: when Dewey reports fact, and when it becomes verifiable, he’s not been lying. Dewey, for that year, has been refusing to answer certain questions because of NDA, which is not just with IH, it would also be with those with whom he regularly communicates.

Rion is ontologically naive. “We must wait.” We “must” wait for what? If I were thinking of investing in Rossi technology, damn straight I’d suggest waiting! However, by what rule are we prohibited from looking at fact as we have it — and even at opinion — and presenting conclusions? Rion is interacting with Dewey, here, who actually knows what’s going on, we can assume, far more than any of the rest of us. Rion then deprecates what Dewey writes, effectively because he’s an insider, but Rion has speculated at length about this case, without knowledge, for almost a year.  I haven’t notice that he’s contributed anything of value. (which is true for many blog participants, to be sure). So ….

Dewey Weaver wrote:

RiRi – Oh yeah – our field attracts a lot of loud mouth real estate brokers who find themselves credible.

You got nothin’ – thanks for clarifying.

More comedy – less pain.

That’s Dewey Weaver. He is not a spokesperson for Industrial Heat and IH does not necessarily approve of what he writes. While he is under an NDA, that’s between him and IH and anyone else involved. What I’ve seen him write, I doubt that IH would sue him. My guess is that it has been suggested that he tone it down a bit. I suggest that myself. However, my training is in working with people engaged in transformation, and a level of tolerance is required. Nobody will be perfect in any respect. On Planet Rossi, the standard idea is that there is a massive campaign to discredit Rossi, coordinated by APCO, and accomplished with many paid operatives. It’s preposterous. Of course, Sifferkoll and Rossi claimed I was paid, so … obviously I’m not going to admit it, and, obviously, I will lie.

I could go into detail about what Rion wrote on ECW. I won’t. I think he’s sincere, and massively deluded, his thinking is far from clear, and appears to be afflicted with old-guy paranoia, if this is not addressed when we are younger, it gets worse with age as our flexibility declines.

I am, by the way, probably close to his age. Rionrlty is not engaging in real conversation. He’s just tossing cheap shots. Exceptions? Anyone may point to one in comments here. I love being wrong, it is the fastest way to learn. That would be the argument against judging “before we have all the facts.” We might be wrong! But I DGAF about being wrong, because I can correct errors, as far as anything that actually counts. People who are terrified of being wrong paralyze themselves so that they cannot learn. (And then this shades into firm attachment to being right, already.)

If there are any errors on this blog, please point them out! A sincere attempt to correct errors can lead to useful conversations, whether they are “right” or not.

If I repeat it enough, it will become true

or, alternatively, if they didn’t get it the first time, if I keep claiming I proved it, surely they will recognize The Truth and agree with me.

This is the apparent position of Asocoli65 on LENR Forum, who keeps beating the same drum he has apparently beaten since 2011. Here is the latest incarnation of his idea:

Ascoli65 wrote:

And, again, could you explain me, please, how his [Rossi’s] geniality could have induced some “credentialled academics” who teach Physics in a prestigious University to unintentionally write in the calorimetric report that the steam was “checked to be completely dry” by using a “HP474AC probe”, an instrument which is not suited at that scope, and, above all, which didn’t appear in any of the many photos or video frames available after the January 14, 2011 demo?

To Ascoli, this was a blatantly obvious smoking gun, and that nobody else picked up on this proof of … of what? He is hinting that this is so preposterous that there must be some other dark force operating.

What’s the basis for his claim? Continue reading “If I repeat it enough, it will become true”

Conversations: Simon Derricutt 4

Again, Simon Derricut. My comments in indented italics.


Abd – some useful updates, but unless I’d been checking I wouldn’t have known they were there. Maybe a note in the header that there’s an update could be helpful.

I will, in the future, add a comment noting any post updates, so that people following the blog may get a notification.

It should be possible to come to a consensus of what data is available and at least to some extent as to how trustworthy it is. There are however a lot of words to go through, and I’m not going to go through the blogs to weed out the real information from the flames and misinformation by now since it hardly seems worth the effort.

It is a huge amount of work to do. However, that is about the only way to convert those mountains of dreck into something useful. I also know that anyone who actually does this will learn a great deal. If it is, itself, condensed and published, it will also benefit others. (The way I do such work, it is often itself long and not focused, because it is raw research, initially. It is then more work to boil it down to essences.) Continue reading “Conversations: Simon Derricutt 4”

And now for something completely different. Links!

The discussion on LENR Forum that I covered yesterday fell into a series of Planet Rossi trolls doing what PR trolls do: repeat the same stuff over and over, hoping it will stick. Sometimes, eventually, that stuff stands because nobody bothers to answer it Yet Again. Victory! Proven! Nobody Could Answer! So, bored by this and the constant temptation to point out how Stupid it all is, I noticed mention by a concern troll of a Marianne Macy article that I had not read. And that led to more articles, some I had not noticed before, some that I had, and some that I read now with new understanding. Join me in a ride through Reality, it’s fun. Continue reading “And now for something completely different. Links!”

Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom

Okay, the title may be meaningless. So sue me.

Because the recent IH disclosures have revealed the contract between Industrial Heat and Dewey Weaver, there has been much blogviation over this. Aha! they proclaim. We knew it! He is Paid by Industrial Heat!

But that has been obvious for a long time, that Dewey was working for Industrial Heat — in addition to being an investor in it. This has nothing to do with whether information from Dewey can be trusted or not, other than the obvious necessary caution. It means that the man probably knows some things that the rest of us don’t know. Anyone who will take all statements from someone in Dewey’s position as Gospel Truth would be foolish. Dewey makes mistakes, among other things, and then much of what he has written is clearly not factual, but judgment. Judgment is conclusory in nature, and it’s not difficult to tell the difference between testimony from knowledge and the expression of conclusions, though sometimes circumstances may be confused. I.e., I might say that X is true, but the reality — and I’d say this if asked — could be that So-and-so told me X is true, and I trust So-and-so. That is why it must always be possible to cross-examine witnesses, to tease out fact from conclusions.

In a legal matter it is up to the judge and/or the jury to come to conclusions. Witnesses provide fact as grist for that mill, and judges and juries assess the probity of testimony and its implications, and attorneys may present arguments for this or that interpretation, advancing the interests of their clients.

This — and the other blogs — is not a court, a brilliant observation which has been made by many. We are the peanut gallery. However, some people who read these blogs might be makers somewhere, somewhen, somehow. We are interested in and discuss Rossi v. Darden because it’s there, or because we have some axe to grind, or some critical interest to protect. What I find hilarious, in particular, are those who say, “this is all useless to discuss, because the court will decide,” and who then argue strongly for some position, often in ways blatantly contrary to the evidence available, and full of contempt for other views.

What’s true is that almost none of this discussion will have any influence on the outcome of Rossi v. Darden, but it may help us understand it.

(It is possible that some of us may come across something that was overlooked by the attorneys. It can happen. )

Most of the issues are already laid out well enough to make predictions. Such predictions are not certainties. There may be a Wabbit. If we are so lucky as to see a Wabbit, our entire perspective on life can change. But we don’t expect to see one when we get up in the morning, do we?

So, Dewey Weaver is being discussed on LENR Forum, and Peter Gluck, who wrote he was going to abstain from comment on LF, didn’t. We are not surprised.

Eric Walker pointed to the Industrial Heat Memorandum of Law that provided so much information about Deep River Ventures, i.e., Dewey’s LLC … so I’m starting with this, a rock tossed in the river. Splashes? Ripples? How deep is the river? Continue reading “Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom”

Conversations: Pweet

Pweet posted a comment, and it brings up some issues worthy of a blog post. We seem to be establishing a Conversations series here, creating connections and understandings. This will, I expect, expand and will greatly expand when we have more users here with Author privileges. Eventually, we will have a governing structure that is not Abd Says, but here is where we start. Every real journey starts Here, not in some imaginary place.

Before I cover Pweet’s comment, some history. Googling the name, besides a lot of porn (I have no idea why, except that the porn pages have thousands of words at the bottom to trick Google into displaying them), I found what may have been my best post ever to LENR-Forum, put up shortly before I was banned, as a response to Pweet speaks and Gluck responds. As can be expected at my age, I had forgotten about it, though I did immediately recognize it.

As usual with LENR Forum, what might be useful or cogent or thought-provoking is buried in the avalanche of dreck. There is no process for creating or measuring consensus, other than a crude upvote/downvote system that doesn’t sort posts, so to find anything of value takes massive work which mostly isn’t done. We could set up a rating system here that would allow finding the Best Posts on any forum, and that can be done with overall neutrality. However, that’s a suggestion from a chief, a tribal elder. Are there any Indians?

Looking for the original Ego Out posts, I came across one of the strong evidences that Rossi lies. So why not collect these? Rossi Lies.

Little by little, we go far. And for one of those massive Lomax diversions, see this page, which shows how blogs create rumors that are passed on as fact. I knew that aphorism from the Spanish, which he covers, but also from the Arabic, “shweya shweya.” Now, where were we?  Continue reading “Conversations: Pweet”

Conversations: Simon Derricutt 3

Simon again. Quoted in full, my comments in indented italics.

The only evidence that points to the 1MW having been produced is the ERV report, with the quantity of water turned to steam and the measured temperature of that steam. As has been noted many times, the data we’ve heard about doesn’t seem consistent with what might reasonably be expected as a set of real measurements, but it is nevertheless the data that exists.

It exists in a sense, yes. That is, there is a report, incompletely presented, just the data tables without explanatory material, and without attestation of any kind.  Continue reading “Conversations: Simon Derricutt 3”

Attracting flies with vinegar

For many years, I’ve tended to write reactively. This was powerful:: 

Powerful to a degree. What is more powerful is the deliberate creation of useful and/or attractive content. But still, I look around and take themes from what I see. And what is see is, often, Someone is Wrong on the Internet. My ontology tells me this is bullshit. I don’t even believe in Wrong. But, dammit! They are wrong, wrong, I tell you!

For two days I’ve been gathering a study of the posts of Dewey Weaver, and it’s taking a lot of time, for obvious reasons. The occasion was a repetition of old claims that Dewey is unreliable. Some of this is based on a claim that he is biased. Well, duh!!!

Of course he is biased, it would be absolutely amazing if he were not. But he is also knowledgeable, he is an IH insider, the only one we know about who is writing in the public forums. Dewey states a lot of opinion and judgment and what might be called bluster — though it might also be called knowledgeable prediction. I’ve been looking for fact, i.e., things that Dewey has written that are factual in nature, rather than judgmental. It is not difficult to discriminate. Bias can certainly appear in what facts — or alleged facts — one selects to mention, but it would be foolish to discard facts because they come from someone possibly biased, rather, the possible bias is simply another element in our process of filtering information. So has Dewey provided unreliable information? That is a question that can be answered, to a degree, with research.

That research, of course, distracts me from the All Important Latest Bullshit on the blogs. Then I look, and OMG! … yatta yatta. Continue reading “Attracting flies with vinegar”

Conversations: Simon Derricutt 2

Continuing the conversation:

(Abd comments in indented italics.)

Simon Derricutt wrote:

Abd – my memory runs a bit different than most, I think. When I was designing digital circuits I found I needed to know far more than my brain could actually hold, and of course the half-life of knowledge in electronics design was somewhere around 18 months then. I needed to have a lot of books (and later on CDs) open at the same time to be able to check on precise details of any particular component. I thus learnt to hold only the important points and an index in my head, and I really only needed to be able to find the information quickly. These days I tend to only note the important points and rely on a search to find the source data.

Of course. Especially as we age, holding a lot of information as readily accessible becomes more and more difficult. However, key concept: it is still there if it has been seen. Then intuition functions to bring up associations with it. It’s crucial to recognize the fuzziness of all this. Intuition provides indications based on that massive association engine, the human brain. Then we verify and confirm (or correct), and each time we do that, our “understanding” — a fuzzy concept, generally — becomes deeper.

As such, I noted the fact of the cloud-chamber experiment, and that it was stated at the time that the Nickel was the obvious source (tracks have one end on the Nickel) and that it decayed over a couple of hours. I will need to search for that source again. Krivit mentions it in your link, but not in the detail I remember. As you say, though, Piantelli did keep secrets – maybe in the hope of achieving a working system first. Since cloud-chambers were used initially as a quantitative test, some of the disclaimers seem a bit odd.

I cited the apparent original publication. In addition, as I mentioned, Krivit has it. There are two photos, showing two tracks, both originating in the nickel. The cloud chamber examination was two months after the experiment, so they would not have, in a short time, been able to see the decay you remember. I think others have assumed that the cloud chamber examination was prompt, so maybe you read this elsewhere. One of the problems in the field is a lack of clean-up. I worked on a Wikiversity resource where that could happen, but there has been, so far, little interest and participation. Posts on this blog can be cleaned up, but that is going to require wider participation. “Journalists” like Krivit are interested in the flash, not so much in building reliable resoruces; Krivit will sometimes add a note about an error, leaving what was based on it prominent and obvious (and in error) while the correction is obscure.

Maybe I’ve spent too much time reading comments on the blogs, but the general impression I get there at least is that something dramatic is needed to reverse the rejection.

Yes, that opinion is common. As to too much time, the harm is only if you believe what you read as accurate; even when the general sense is sound, the details are often off. I’ve often been accused of nit-picking, but if you’ve got nits, you’ve got lice. In an academic environment, courtesy would be to thank people for corrections! There has been a search for the dramatic for about 27 years. As my trainer would say, “How’s it workin’ for ya?”

Instead of accepting what we had, and then using ordinarily scientific techniques to study it, to characterize it, to create data that can be subjected to statistical analysis, etc., too many kept changing their protocols, looking for something better than what Nature was revealing. This created a vast pile of essentially anecdotal evidence.

Miles went beyond that (and so did McKubre and SRI). There is a lost performative in much of the thinking of the cold fusion community: convincing to whom? Once there was the idea of a vast rejection cascade, the mass of “mainstream scientists,” who must be convinced, a paradox was set up: a rejection cascade means that a general consensus has formed of bogosity, and such a consensus requires truly extraordinary evidence to overturn, and “extraordinary evidence” has been misunderstood to mean some specific demonstration that simply can’t be explained any other way than by a nuclear reaction. Yet such demonstrations have existed for many years. The vast majority of them are not reliable, i.e., there is no specific protocol to follow that will generate the effect, that is both convincing and easily replicable. If it is not easy to replicate, and with the expectation of bogosity, who will bother?

Absolutely, a reliable high-heat experiment that could be reduced to a reliable kit, if it is inexpensive, would manage the revolution. Got one? You mention the Nanor and a possible price of $30,000. If that is a fair price, this thing is far, far too expensive for something reported to generate a few milliwatts. Few would buy it, if any, but IH might — and, in fact, I would not be surprised to find out that they have already arranged independent testing. They are working with Hagelstein and the connection between Hagelstein and Swartz is close enough that Hagelstein would not talk with me, because Swartz. He did not explain, but it was obvious.

If a “believer” buys such a kit, tries it, and confirms heat, what then? The report would not be trusted, unless it was very unusual for a cold fusion report, and could be confirmed without buying another device. But if the kit comes with an NDA, this is useless (though a prohibition against dismantling it could be acceptable, if the heat levels are high enough).

This is the bottom line: Plan A does not require public support, it basically asks us to do nothing until the Home Depot product appears, or the like, a true, available, commercial product. So great. I can enjoy the weather or whatever, politics, how about carbohydrates in human diet?

Relying on Plan A is disempowering! It more or less assumes that nothing can be done, but someone (Rossi? Who?) will save us. If what Fleischmann thought was correct, i.e., that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to commercialize cold fusion, we might be waiting a long time. Who is going to invest billions without a solid science foundation?

Pointing out how accurately P+F could measure heat flows, or the correlation in Miles, just leaves the sceptics still sceptical.

Again, by being fuzzy about whom we would seek to convince, we leave ourselves up the creek without a paddle. First of all, if we care about science, we must be skeptics. It’s essential to the method. Secondly, it is not necessary to try to change the minds of skeptics. Behind this is an idea that they are wrong, and if you believe someone is wrong, you will almost certainly have damaged access to them. What can be done is to ask skeptics to review evidence, to suggest experimental tests, to help design good work. Some of us have many years of study of the field. When we see a skeptical objection, we may rush to correct errors. Far more powerful is the Socratic method, i.e., bring evidence before the skeptic, asking for review.

Most of the well-known skeptics cannot handle this. And trying to convince them is mostly a waste of time; what they write can be useful in exposing the array of proposed artifacts or errors. The goal of convincing skeptics leaves us out of the equation. Rather, we would properly be constantly looking to prove ourselves wrong. If we fail, maybe some skeptic can help us! I’ve been reviewing some old discussions, where Thomas Clarke was very active. To me, he appears to be a genuine skeptic, not a pseudoskeptic. We need more people like him…

It is not necessary to convince the mainstream. What is necessary is to convince editors at a mainstream publication that a foundational paper is worth publishing. That’s a specific group of people. While it is possible to create political pressure, that is not where to start, because any attempt to try to force someone to abandon their prejudices will create back-pressure, resistance. It is necessary to convince, for a given project, a single funding source, and such exist that are not attached to cold fusion being bogus.

What I saw, within a couple of years of beginning my study of LENR, is that there was little effort going into foundational science, and heat/helium was occasionally mentioned, often without the critical correlation information. The Miles work is apparently reliable. Without requiring a reliable heat-generating protocol, it is only necessary to have some heat, enough for significance, and then the ratio can be estimated.

This was most missed: Huizenga recognized the importance of Miles. Instead of imagining Huizenga with fangs, that demon who attempted to destroy cold fusion, we needed to underscore what he had done. By that time, the early 1990s, the rejection cascade was entrenched. But why wasn’t there more follow-up to Miles. I certainly don’t have the whole story, but much of it was politics, and specifically a strategic decision made by Pons and Fleischmann. For starters, the helium results they had seemed to negate their theory of a bulk reaction. The appearance is that they torpedoed the Morrey collaboration that could have established cold fusion, firmly, by 1990. Why? The only reliable result (the ratio of heat to heluim) in the field was largely ignored, and was still being ignored when I recognized it from reading Storms. I began conversations with him, and he agreed to write a paper on it.

He submitted the paper to Naturwissenschaften, and they came back and said that they would prefer a review of the field. He then wrote his 2010 review. I think it was a mistake (though easily understandable). A focused paper on heat/helium would have been far more powerful; instead that clear message was diluted by a mass of details, and the same thing had happened in the 2004 U.S. DoE review. Hagelstein et al through everything and the kitchen sink at the panel, apparently assuming that the weight of the papers — it was huge — would cause all skeptical objection to collapse, but the crucial information was buried in all that detail. Most of it was targeted to there being “something nuclear.”

And people still argue that way. It’s fuzzy and unconvincing, except for someone who undertakes seriously independent study, and to do this objectively probably takes years.

But my Current Science paper often elicits positive responses from skeptics. Essentially, they agree that this is worth further investigation, and that is a huge breakthrough! It only takes a few to expand understanding of LENR.

The cold fusion community is very poorly organized. Suppose some graduate student’s thesis is rejected because it related to cold fusion. This actually happened (in 1990?). How quickly would we have pickets on-site? Is there a community consensus about the most important necessary investigations? Short Answer: No.

(But there is a relatively broad agreement that the heat/helium work is worth doing. To be sure, when I first started chatting up this idea, there was objection, basically on the level of “we already know this so it is a waste of time.” However, it was not — and is not — necessary to convince everyone. In the end, it is the funding source that must be convinced. Do we have professional fund-raisers involved? Not until Industrial Heat, AFAIK!)

The reason that Thermacore didn’t repeat their test was that they were not certain whether there was a chance of a fission-type explosion, and I presume Brian Ahern will run his test at a sufficient distance, just in case it isn’t a benign meltdown. You are right in some ways that it won’t help, but if it works it will change the atmosphere from a refusal to believe to an acceptance that there is a real effect.

There is a good chance that it will work. I predict that, unless other aspects of the context change, it will change only one aspect of LENR community opinion: the reputation of NiH will go up. It will have no impact, in itself, on mainstream opinion, unless there is far more there than a single meltdown (i.e., exact replication!). If there is major heat, then a Miles-class study might identify the ash. If Storms is correct, the major ash would be deuterium, tricky to measure, but with a lot of heat, it could be done.

Ideally, if Ahern cannot confirm LENR with the Thermacore experiment, perhaps he can identify artifact. That would be quite useful, and too little work of this kind has been done. We must stop thinking of “negative replications” as bad. The data is golden, it is only premature conclusions which create problems.

It may make possible the years of work then needed to explore the parameter space. This, I think, is the value of an “impressive” demonstration at this moment. I think “dramatic” may be a better description. I thus think Brian’s experiment is actually useful at this time, though earlier on it may have backfired by giving Rossi a peg to hang his story on.

It’s speculative, Simon. It’s Brian’s time to spend, and possibly his money. To progress, it is not necessary to convince everyone. Key, for me, is prioritizing what will then loosen up funding and support. A search for Massive Heat could be very, very expensive, much more expensive than fundamental research. However, the same group as is doing heat/helium also has a planned program with exploding wires, prior work having shown an ability to quickly test materials for LENR in this way. Color me skeptical, but … they do know what they are doing!

You are right that I’m hoping for something to convince scientists that there is something real to be investigated, and that thus there will be more tolerance of those that do investigate and less rejection of results that are against current theory. Back in 2011, when I was not convinced by Rossi, I spent around 3 months reading lenr-canr.org (thanks, Jed!) and ended up considering that the effect itself was real and worth investigation.

Most who engage in that long-term study come to that conclusion. Consider that half the 2004 U.S. DoE panel considered that the evidence for an anomalous heat effect was conclusive. Conclusive. That’s a big word! And that panel was unanimous in recommending research on fundamental issues. So, that being 13 years ago, what happened? Bottom line: we did not hire APCO. We sat around like victims, bemoaning that nobody would listen to us. Many of the old-timers are wallowing in despair. It’s embarrassing! My message has been, hey, guys, you won! How about starting to behave as if you did?

How about the generosity of victors?

Rossi’s control-system was crazy.

Well, depends on the purpose, doesn’t it? Given the massive appearance of at least some kind of fraud, his control system worked for him. It made no sense for a commercial system, but we don’t know exactly how the 1 MW plant control system worked. It had the potential of controlling cooling, which is what would be needed. I would imagine, as well, thermal plugs that would open at overtemperature to overcool, rapidly, a reactor, in case the normal control failed. The reactors have to have an insulating space, to allow the reactor temperature to be higher than the coolant temperature. A thermal plug could flood that space, it might destroy the reactor, maybe, but better than an explosion.

Boilers are dangerous, as Jed has been pointing out. A 1 MW plant would be very, very dangerous, making one without having years of experience, bad idea. Rossi’s whole 1 MW plan was grandiose, and obviously so. It was not good business, at all. Unless the goal were fraud!

Mitch Swartz did run LENR 101 courses at MIT, and demonstrated the system running. Yes, it was proprietary and he wanted to make money from solving it, but in the course of that he’s also produced students who believe LENR is real because they’ve seen it, and thus there’s a better chance of one of them getting a good theory that is crazy enough to be true. That’s the advantage of the newly-minted physicists where they haven’t been told something is impossible.

I’ve heard Mitchell speak. He is quite different from, say, McKubre, or Hagelstein, for that matter. Both are cautious. Swartz is flamboyant and dramatic, he has a story about how horrible the U.S. Patent Office is. The actual history deviates a bit from how he tells it. It is not clear what the audience was for those courses, many came from outside. Someone who “believes LENR is real because they’ve seen it,” though, is, from those demonstrations, inadequately cautions and would be unable to handle community pressure, because, as McKubre has said, watching excess heat is like watching paint dry. At the level of heat involved with those demonstrations, there really is almost nothing to see, and then one must trust the analysis of the demonstrator.

It is not difficult to overcome the “impossible” meme. The simplest way is to ask what it is that is impossible. Imaginary conversation, using Nate Hoffman’s Old Metallurgist and Young Scientist:

OM: You say that cold fusion is impossible. What does that mean?

YS: Fusion at room temperature is impossible!

OM: Why?

YS: The coulomb barrier.

OM: The coulomb barrier must be overcome for the nuclei to get close enough to fuse. Is that it?

YS: Yes. To get close enough, an incoming nucleus must have enough energy to climb that barrier.

OM: Yes. Easy to understand. Now, what about muon-catalyzed fusion?

[Watch as eyes betray internal confusion, unless they have extensive experience with this process.]

YS: That’s not the same! There are no muons present!

OM: How do you know?

YS: Well, they would have been reported!

OM: Yes, I’d think so. But you just said LENR was impossible at low temperatures! Was that accurate?

YS: Obviously I had forgotten about muon-catalyzed fusion.

OM: Okay, we are now talking about possibilities, not realities as such. It is possible that there is some form of catalysis other than with muons?

YS: I can’t imagine it.

OM: Right! However, can you say that it is impossible?

If, at this point, they insist that something unknown is impossible, see if there is something else useful to talk about, because they are absolutely nailed to a pseudoscientific claim, unverifiable. Humiliating them by rubbing their nose in it will not make any friends. However, many scientists at this point would acknowledge possibility, but might still assert improbability, with a fairly good argument:

YS: If this existed, we would have seen evidence for it already.

And at that point, one takes them through the existing evidence. If they start wanting to see proof, tell them that proof is for fanatics, that science runs on the preponderance of the evidence, and begins when we start to actually look at evidence rather than simply shoving ideas and beliefs around.

Mills is not claiming LENR because his theory says it isn’t, and if LENR is shown to happen then his patents are only worth the paper they are written on. I think that some of his measurements (maybe a lot of them) are probably good but that the explanation is not right. I suspect he’s got part of the puzzle.

Frankly, I have only expectation from having watched Mills for years, and I know that such expectations can be different from reality. I’m not considering investing in BLP, so I don’t have any need to know at all. I know that LENR is real, heat/helium nails it, as to any reasonable preponderance of the evidence. So research into a reality is useful, regardless of whatever happens with Mills and hydrino theory.

One of the hazards of coming to accept the reality of LENR in the face of what appears as scientific consensus is that we become, then, more vulnerable to unreasonable acceptance of other wild claims. However, this is the thing about apparent consensus. It is usually right, or at least partially right. We tend to focus on the exceptions, which certainly exist. However, social mechanisms do not need to always be right, it is enough if they, overall, increase survival efficiency. Then we have faculties for dealing with exceptions, but most people are not trained in them. It can take training!

I’m maybe not the best person in persuasion, since I just present what I think is true and why. As such, when I’m explaining something against what they believe, it requires them to think about things. Maybe that’s why my Free Work idea has languished for a while….

Ya think? Simon, there is a whole ontology and body of practice for dealing with transformation. Your idea is reasonably common among smart people, smart but untrained. It is disempowering, as you may realize.

If you present what you think is true, your presentation will be, frankly, half-assed. The first step is not our expression of “truth,” because that’s a fantasy, not reality. The first step is listening! In my training, convincing someone of something is actually rejected as a goal. One of my program leaders called it “slimy.” The goal is to present opportunities for a person to make a choice, hopefully an informed choice. Believing that we know what is right for others (“the truth”) is arrogant! However, you do have your experience to share, as it may be appropriate, and you will know far better what is appropriate if you have “listened with loud ears.” 

Open doors and widows [sic]? A nice mind-picture.

Thanks. Words can do that. Widows also open, but in a different way.

AFAIK we still don’t have an exact solution for a 3-body gravitational problem except in cases of 3-way symmetry. There are now so many quasi-particles around that a solution for solid-state has to be a numerical approximation, and maybe even then we don’t have enough variables tagged.

Bottom line, and it’s quite simple: what we don’t know is huge. In the training, a circle is drawn, the “circle of all knowledge.” Then there is a small wedge drawn, a pie slice. “What we know that we know.” And then another slice, next to it, “What we know that we don’t know.” And then the rest of the circle (most of it) is labelled with DKDK. What we don’t know that we don’t know, and it is then said that this is where transformation comes from.

Then the training proceeds to demonstrate this, in many ways, and in extended training, it is not uncommon to see what would appear as miracles, unreasonable results arise anyway, etc. At no point is one asked to “believe in” anything. That is not how it works.

“The point is not at all to convince the person that cold fusion is actually happening, only perhaps that (1) it is not impossible, (2) there is evidence for it, (3) the idea is testable, and (4) tests are under way, fully funded.”
That’s a good plan.

Thanks. I thought so, and so did others, who encouraged me.

At the time, I noted the LR115 but I think you also had CR39 available if required. Long time ago, so I said CR39 now as the better-known sensor material that I could remember. Still, I couldn’t see the point of replicating the experiment myself just to be able to say I’d done it.

Nobody has replicated the SPAWAR neutron findings, so there is another purpose. I only have a little CR-39, quite old, that was given to me. It requires development at higher temperatures with more concentrated NaOH, it’s more dangerous. Yes, it’s better known, but LR-115 tracks are crystal clear, because a full track is clear, bright, against a red background. It’s a thin detector layer, much more precise, and then stacking is possible. I’ve thought about experimenting with the basic CR-39 material to make my own detector layers and perhaps color them. Again, this is something that could be done at home. Basically the material can be dissolved, I think it is in MEK, and then that can be evaporated. One would simply want good ventilation, MEK fumes are not safe.

One advantage of CR-39 is apparently a broader detection range for particle energies. LR-115 has a narrower range. (If a particle’s energy is higher, the energy deposited per unit length goes down, until high energy particles leave no track. In my images of alpha tracks, they are a long cone, and the fat end is where the particle was almost stopped.)

For Rossi’s systems to self-loop, there would need to be a heat-to-electricity conversion in order to supply the high-grade heat needed. A Sterling engine would do this better than a steam engine. The claimed COP was big-enough to do this. Controlled (and rapid) cooling would be needed as well, but nothing too difficult to design.

There is a much easier way for self-loop, that does not require electrical conversion, if it is acceptable to have powered start-up, and that is taking the fuel into self-sustain, but controlled cooling above self-sustain temperature, but below the point of damage. I.e., if the reactor is below self-sustain temperature, cooling is off, the reactor is heated to start, presumably electrically, though gas-fired would certainly be possible. As it reaches self-sustain temperature, and passes it, no more heating should be needed, input power would go to zero (except for control systems, of course, and those should not use much power, it is only imagining that it’s needed to heat the reactor that leads to much higher power needs).

The Rossi claim that he needs to keep the reactor temperature low, because of the risk of runaway, indicates that there is a self-sustain temperature that Rossi is staying short of. With good insulation, heat generated remains and increases the reactor temperature. Obviously, if cooling remains constant, at self-sustain, the reactor would run away, because control through heating would be lost at this temperature. So, obviously, one needs tightly controlled cooling. I thought of an array of mirrors that would reflect heat back at the reactor, but that could be rotated to let heat through. However, pressurized water cooling could be simple. At any time the cooling can be increased to take the reactor below self-sustain and it would shut down. If necessary, the water could be — with suitable venting! — brought into contact with the reactor chamber itself, very rapidly cooling it through flash boiling.

Basically, if the fuel exists that would behave as needed, engineering a self-powered reactor should not be difficult. The problems are with reliability of the reaction itself. If there is a fuel that would work, for how long would it work? For “proof” purposes, it needs to work long enough to generate enough energy to be well beyond the possibility of chemistry. That is not necessary for science, though it would obviously be desirable.

For IH, once I understood that they didn’t necessarily believe Rossi but were instead forcing him to reveal what he had, their strategy made sense.

Right. What they did was allow the possibility of it being real. If they had “believed” that it was fraud, 

IIRC, Miles’ experiment took around a year to do. As such, I didn’t really expect it to be replicated even with the prospect of better accuracy since there has been a lot of thinking since.

Well, the difficult thing is getting the reaction to happen at all. The actual heat/helium measurements were not so time-consuming. I don’t expect exact replication of Miles, as such. Miles has already been confirmed in a more general sense, i.e., electrolytic PdD. Remarkably, a Miles outlier, his PdCe cathode, shows that there may be unknown sensitivities. I hope that PdCe is eventually tried and that, if anodic etching does not release helium expected from the heat, that the cell is thoroughly analyzed. However, I would not suggest any altered cathodes for initial work. The point is to build up data that can be correlated across many samples. Exactly what they do will depend on the methods and equipment available. Miles had a sampling protocol, samples were sent off blind. 

For Larsen, W-L theory predicts things that aren’t seen in the experiments, with neutron-activation being the big problem.

It’s nice to know there are some grad-students on the job. It has seemed that for the most part the experiments are by old people who thus can’t be sacked for having heretical ideas. Plan B looks pretty good. We may not see the flowering of it in our lifetime, but there’s always the chance of a lucky breakthrough from one of those grad-students who has an inspired guess and is allowed to test it out, since the field is real science.

I would not advise that, frankly. However, this would be between the grad student and their advisor. The grad student’s career is on the line. I wouldn’t want to base that on a guess. On the other hand, if there is valuable information that would be gained by testing the guess, maybe. By the way, searching for the Grand Artifact imagined to be behind cold fusion reports could be valuable work.

Discussions like this are good at exposing what I don’t know. Useful but a bit public. As far as possible, though, I don’t base my opinions on belief but on data, so if I find out new data my opinions may change. Alternatively, finding out that what I thought was good data may not be (as in Piantelli’s cloud-chamber) can also change opinion. That’s maybe the benefit of that post-it wall, in that such variations in how sure we are about some data can be graded and moved around as needed.

Simon is welcome to write me privately. The Piantelli cloud-chamber data is interesting but simply not conclusive.

Conversations: Simon Derricutt

This comment by Simon Derricutt is worth review in detail. So, below, my comments are in indented italics.


In reply to Abd ulRahman Lomax.

Abd – I suspect the Journal of Scientific Consensus exists as Wikipedia. Generally, Wikipedia is pretty good at stating what is generally-agreed, and where there’s disagreement there will be a lot of editing going on as the factions try to get their view to be the one that’s visible.

Ah, favorite topic! We then cover many issues. Continue reading “Conversations: Simon Derricutt”

LENR Forum messcellany

But first, an interesting post from a newbie:

WMartin wrote:

[from the point of view of a pipefitter, something is off about “the pictures of the conex holding the ecat”].

Yes. And Rossi vigorously excluded people with experience from his demonstrations, this was all obvious by the end of 2011. “Conex” is a shipping box, it would refer to the storage containers used by Rossi for the 1 MW plant. Martin did not point to the photos. However, his comment is devastating. Something is way off about the “1 MW Plant,” this is merely one more piece of junk on the pile.

Now, to the mess. Ascoli65 brought up some old stuff. The apparent theme is that Rossi is a tool of nefarious forces. Continue reading “LENR Forum messcellany”

If our knowledge expands, is that “backpedalling”?

A remarkable post on LENR Forum — and posts like this are part of the reason that most scientists stay away.

IH Fanboy wrote:

[17 alleged examples of Dewey or Jed “misinformation.”] Here, I look at them, having known for a long time the tactic of presenting “overwhelming evidence” that vanishes when examined. Is that happening here?

Conclusion: IH Fanboy was creating noise, personally attacking Dewey and Jed, in a highly misleading way, with the effect of distracting from new information from Dewey about the lawsuit.

Continue reading “If our knowledge expands, is that “backpedalling”?”

Living in a fog

Planet Rossi is enshrouded in fog. Some of the fog may be deliberately produced, of the nature of FUD; however, much of it is simply wishful thinking that interprets evidence in certain ways, and is not even aware of the interpretation, it imagines it is declaring fact.

The Request for Hearing filed by Rossi on Tuesday is seeking a Protective Order. The Motion is extremely brief. The title:

NOTICE OF HEARING (add-ons – to be heard if time permits) 

And then the text is in a box, unusual as well:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order As to the Depositions of J.M. Products, Inc., United States Quantum Leap, LLC, Fulvio Fabiani, and The Boeing Company

There is no clue what this is about. There are, as discussed, two kinds of Protective Order. The one that there is a stipulation about is about protecting disclosed information, already disclosed. This may be different, this may be attempting to prevent information from being disclosed, and, if so, it does make sense that this would not be described in public, more than it has been.

On E-Cat World, Frank Acland posted:

I believe this is the first time I have heard mention of Boeing in connection with Rossi, and Boeing has not been brought up in the court case until now. The only possible connection that I can think of is that Rossi has said in the past that he had been doing some kind of research involving a jet engine, and there was some kind of connection with an aerospace company — but as usual he was pretty vague about it all.

It sounds like whatever the depositions here are, that Rossi’s team is seeking a protective order, which means they don’t want the information in the depositions to be made public. So we might not find out what Boeing’s involvement might be. But it’s interesting to see them mentioned.

This was reasonable speculation.

Ged wrote:

We know Rossi was investigating the use of the QuarkX output for jet engines. Boeing most likely would have just consulted Rossi on what output, tolerance, and other design conditions would be necessary to work with different jet engine designs, and seen the data regarding all that. Maybe they even went as far as doing simulations. This would explain why Boeing is appearing on the Leonardo’s third parties’ side of the table.

What I notice is “Leonardo’s third parties’ side of the table.” There is no indication of Boeing being on “Rossi’s side.” Rossi previously opposed subpoenas for uninvolved parties (ie., his bank, and the telephone service provider).

 barty wrote:

According to Dewey Weaver (investor in IH and good friend of Thomas Darden) Boeing was testing the E-Cat together with IH: (LENR Forum link).

Well done, barty. Straight information, clearly attributed, including the affiliation of Dewey. How this was taken:

Ged wrote:

This is the first we have heard of this… Dewey is also extremely biased (monetarily and personally! Can’t get more biased than that) and has already heavily and intentionally mislead with statements about this case many times before, as we have seen as more data is released (as well as used absurd ignorance/hyperbol like the place melting and the heat being visible from space).

That’s a personal attack without evidence. “…. heavily and intentionally mislead.” I have never seen an example of that. Dewey is not a careful witness, writing like a scientist. He is, as stated, a friend of Darden and an investor — and a consultant for Industrial Heat. This is not any secret, and it’s obvious. Dewey has strong opinions. However, this would be a simple fact, the relationship of IH and Boeing. (The place melting would be hyperbole; it merely would get too hot for human habitation, if a megawatt were being dissipated in that warehouse without heat handling equipment, so … what was “misleading” about a little hyperbole, easily recognized as such or at least marginal? Some stuff might have melted, in fact, with a megawatt. Don’t carry a chocolate bar into the place! I don’t recall seeing that statement, but Dewey wrote quite a lot on Mats’ blog and elsewhere. “Visible from space” is quite possible, for a megawatt dissipated in a warehouse. Depends on what one was looking with, of course, but that much heat should be visible in the IR from a satellite, and, in fact, it is quite possible that IH purchased such images instead of hiring a helicopter, which is what I’d thought they might have done. If Dewey said “visible from space,” I’d certainly consider it possible! It makes sense, but not to someone who will knee-jerk reject anything from such a biased source.

In short, I don’t believe him or anyone till we get more actual information.

There is no basis for considering it a lie. It’s testimony, “information.” Sure, one may want to see corroboration, but if we consider the side Ged is arguing on, the constant flow of disinformation from Rossi, with a series of clear lies, exposed by uncontroverted evidence, and this comment about Dewey stands out in its full ridiculousness. Sure. Wait and see … but meanwhile, what is stronger, baseless speculations or actual testimony from someone likely to know?

Could be Boeing just made or leased some important piece of equipment and that is the extent of their involvement, or gave some consulting not directly related to the E-cat (like consulting on how to build a jet engine), and much less than actually testing one. Considering they are showing up on Rossi’s side and not being brought out by IH, that also is suggestive (could be they are the ones behind JMP in that case, that is how baseless we can speculate with such meager info on this surprise appearance).

One could speculate endlessly, it is always possible. However, none of these are at all reasonable in the sense of being substantially likely. Further, Rossi has actually commented on this, and this more or less nails it.

It’s hilarious: his attorneys have told him over and over, he claims, not to comment on the case, but …. he does.


    • Darius

      Dr Rossi, Now there comes a new claim that Boeing tested the Ecat for/with IH, and it did not work for them, were you present during this demonstration?

    • Andrea Rossi

      Darius:
      I never knew of this demo and I do not know with which apparatus it has been done. I apprehended of it during the litigation. The replications and tests I have been informed of from September 2013 through February 2016 are the ones on the base of which Cherokee Fund Partners-IH have collected 250 millions in UK and China. No further comment.
      Warm Regards,
      A.


Now, Rossi lies, so we cannot assume this is true. However, take it straight: Rossi did not know of the relationship with Boeing “until the litigation.” This matches Dewey’s story, this was between IH and Boeing. Then, of course, Rossi introduces his meme about $250 million from UK and China, which has, so far, no support. He continues the drumbeat about Cherokee being involved, when it has been Industrial Heat from the beginning. Yes, Darden got entree by being Cherokee principals, but Cherokee would have no business investing in Rossi. This was something Darden and Vaughn wanted to do, personally — and obviously.

Now, this is fascinating: If Rossi doesn’t know anything about the testing (probably not “demo”)  — and I would expect IH to have arranged fully independent testing, with Rossi not present, very much with Rossi not present! — then why a Protective Order motion?

This was last-minute, tacked into today’s hearing. If there is a difficult issue, I’d expect a temporary Order while they argue it.

One thing is clear from the Rossi comment, assuming he is not lying. This was not about Rossi and Boeing collaborating in some way. All that speculation was just typical Planet Rossi, as Dewey pointed out on LENR Forum:

Dewey wrote:

Bob – they’ll continue to create alternate realities as long as they possibly can. Fake news is real news on Planet Rossi.


Update, February 10, 2017:

“Darius” asked again.


Darius
February 9, 2017 at 1:34 PM
Dr Rossi, According to the source on LENRForum, IH did in fact present a ecat to Boeing and that it did not work. That would seem highly unusal that the priciple engineer was not part of such an important presentation?

Andrea Rossi
February 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM
Darius:
No comment.


Rossi deletes spam and other garbage. It’s clear that, at the very least, he approves what he wants to be seen. Most observers seem to have concluded that many posts on JONP are sock puppets, i.e., Rossi himself.

Here, he makes an argument that would be typical for Rossi. How could one expect the ecat to work without Rossi being present? An easy answer: of course not, since it never has worked without Rossi Grease.

If Dewey is correct, IH asked Rossi to assist with their work to verify the technology, and Rossi refused, being too busy with the “test under way.” What Dewey has claimed now is that they asked or allowed Boeing to do their own verification. This would not be a “presentation.” Presentations are what Rossi has done for years. He’s put on a show, a “demonstration.” But what everyone sane wanted, and a real commercial effort would absolutely need, would be devices that can be made and work according to clear instructions (such as a Patent!), not with Rossi Grease.

This is so obvious that it’s a complete wonder that Rossi supporters manage to show their faces from time to time. MrSelfSustain just changed his user name on LENR Forum to THEDEBATEISUSELESS, and then dropped a LANCB message.

Rossi Motion for Protective Order

135.0_Notice_of_hearing Rossi motion for Protective Order re 3rd P defendants’ depositions. (Hearing scheduled Thursday February 9, 2017)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order As to the Depositions of J.M. Products, Inc., United States Quantum Leap, LLC, Fulvio Fabiani, and The Boeing Company

This strikes me as quite unusual. There is a Protective Order Agreement in place. It allows a disclosing party to label disclosures (and depositions) as Protected, which are then governed by special rules. Normally, it is the disclosing party that designates material as protected. However, there is a provision that allows any party to designate material as protected. However, this motion might not be about that kind of Protective Order. It is possible that this is an attempt to prevent certain questions from being asked in depositions. An example was produced on ECW of a case where a shareholder in a plaintiff company — not a party to the dispute — was to be deposed by defendant action, and the court agreed with the plaintiff that this was way overboard intrusive, probably a fishing expedition. But we don’t know, and some people are inventing interpretations not supported by any evidence so far. Continue reading “Rossi Motion for Protective Order”

Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand

Among many other things, I was a folksinger, and strong in my repertoire was The Times They Are A-Changin’. The words are worth reviewing.

Yesterday, I published Age, the New Age, Believers, and Peter Gluck. It was a series of observations about LENR-Forum and the interaction there of Dewey Weaver and Peter Gluck. Dewey was frank with Peter, and Peter didn’t like it one bit. I was also frank with Peter, here, and ditto.

We are both aging, as are others, and there are some who hate being reminded of it, especially as age begins to affect how we relate to others. None of this should be any surprise. None of us get out of this place alive.


The aging of LENR scientists, and the effects of that, is a no-touch issue, and because of that, nothing is done, it being believed, apparently, that aging is like race, nothing can be done about it, so bringing it up is terminally rude. But plenty can be done, often. I have not been willing to give up. Not surprisingly, this post stirred up a shitstorm on LF. All of this reveals community dysfunction (and a few hints of function). Instead of starting a new post, I will document the response on LF: Get out of the new road. The original post, so far unedited:


Continue reading “Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand”

Breakdowns create breakthroughs

On LENR Forum, Rigel wrote:

Mods, a humble request. Let these words stand. Let us clean up our own mess. Strong people have strong opinions. Please

This was after some extensive flame warring and mutual recriminations, of which a small part was discussed yesterday on And now for something completely different.

Bob then did something rare enough to be remarkable. He admitted error, here and on LF.

IH Fanboy responded:

I must say, Abd is one of a kind. Looks like we have recursive forums. Perhaps someone should start a new one that critiques Abd’s, and so on, and so forth.

Thanks, IHFB. Continue reading “Breakdowns create breakthroughs”