A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Kirk Shanahan is the most-recently published, practically the last standing critic of LENR who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. His view of himself might be that he has demolished “cold fusioneers,” as he has called researchers and writers, but that they are stubborn and refuse to recognize utter defeat.

Funny how easy it is to imagine that about others and not notice the old saw: that when we have one finger pointing at others, we have four fingers pointing back at ourselves. Any sane skeptic must be aware of this problem, and not rely on self-assessment for conclusions about social position, argumentative success, and the like.

On LENR Forum, kirkshanahan wrote: 

Wow…I thought we had dispensed with Abd’s garbage on this forum. Oh well…one more time…

In this case, I didn’t post my “garbage” to LENR Forum, someone else did, and that’s a sign that someone else saw it as worthy of consideration. I like it this way. Consider it some kind of informal peer review. Zeus46 is anonymous, but so is most genuine peer review in journals.

Shanahan has never figured out how to use the Forum quotation interface, which would allow him to properly attribute the quotation. He makes his attitude clear. Most LENR writers don’t bother with Shanahan any more. I’ve taken him seriously, have agreed that some of the dismissal of Shanahan may be unfair, and, as part of this consideration, I have identified and pointed out errors; yet I have never encountered gratitude for this, only abuse. I continue only for one reason: CMNS needs critique, and it’s not easy to come by, so I encourage it.

Because there are now several posts and pages relating to Shanahan, I’m creating a Shanahan category and will be applying it. This post is a review of his LENR Forum comment. I did not make that comment, Zeus46 did. If Shanahan had difficulty distinguishing Zeus46’s comments from mine, Zeus46 did link here.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: There are 38 references listed. 3 of them refer to the ‘general rejection’ of LENR by mainstream science (they refer to the books by Huizenga, Taubes, and Park).

ABD: The books are references for the statement: “The special condition required to cause the LENR reaction is difficult to create. This difficulty has encouraged general rejection by conventional science [13-15] and has slowed understanding.”

My response: What’s yer point???

Shanahan takes every discussion as a debate, and in a debate, some will never concede fact alleged by the other side. It will either be wrong or “beside the point.” Sometimes I have points to make, other times I simply note, for the reader, fact. What I wrote was simple, verifiable fact, and if there is no point to simple, verifiable fact, then there is no possibility of communication. Consensus can be built from fact.

What, indeed, is the point of Shanahan’s asking “What’s yer point???” ??? Someone seeking straight and clear communication would have written nothing or would have written something like “Yes.” Not what he wrote. This has been going on for years.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: If you look closely at Figure 2, you will see the He/Heat values exceed the theoretical amount in some cases.

ABD: No. In one case, the value is on the theoretical amount, but something must be understood about this data. If what is being calculated is the heat/helium ratio, and if the actual ratio is a constant, experimental error will cause greater deviation from the actual ratio if the produced heat (or helium) are at low values. I have never seen the data presented with careful consideration of error bars as they affect the ratio.

My response: As I put in my original disclaimer, I did this review quickly, and Abd has found a minor error I have made. Let me correct that now.

Does he correct the error? (Yes, below.) “I thank Abd for noticing my error.” Shanahan doesn’t do apologies, not that I’ve ever seen. And then he, has, in the past, gone on to assert that it doesn’t matter, because New Reason He Was Really Right. He doesn’t break that pattern here.

(On LENR Forum, authors may edit their posts, so he could actually fix the error. He could use strike-through to avoid making the comments of others unintelligible. He could point to the correction, etc. As of this writing, the original post has not been touched. When I see an error like that, I immediately address it. In a recent post here, I’d made a huge mistake. When it was pointed out, I immediately unpublished that post, returning it to draft status, responded to the user who had pointed out the error, and created a new post documenting what I’d done. And then I fixed the error, and rewrote the post that had depended on it. Shanahan seems to have no concept of using these fora to develop scientific or social consensus. Will he ever turn around?)

What is funny is that once again, correcting my error places Storms in an even worse light.

Once again, we can see the polemic intent. It is about good light and bad light. Does the light change reality? Bad light on something would be bad interpretation. From my own training, what is highly likely is that Shanahan will careen from one error to another, because the error of others is a matter of certainty to him. He won’t recognize nuances, and what occurs to him as a result of his world-view he will think of as plain and simple evidence or … proof. What does he come up with?

Storms’ Figure 2 is an alternative presentation of the ‘heat/helium correlation’ idea. He plots the number of experiments obtaining a value for the number of He atoms/watt-sec that lies within a specified range versus the mid-range value for that ‘bin’, in a typical histogram approach.


He overlays a Gaussian fit to the data as a curve on the graph. The number of experiments obtaining a He/heat value in the selected range is indicated by a pink box on the plot. Storms also adds a vertical black line on the plot, and labels it “D+D=He”. I observed pink boxes at larger values than the black line.

Here is the plot:

My mistake was to imagine Storms was using the data from his book’s Figure 47, which does show 1 point above the theoretical line and to assume he’d added a couple more (which would be expected based on prior data characteristics). In fact there are several pink boxes at zero values and most are above the black line. Only 1 lies below. So, my mistake, Storms does NOT show any positive values above the theoretical line.

That wasn’t the only mistake, the imagination didn’t fit what was in front of him. Shanahan, as well, knew that this was not the data from the 2007 book, because there were more data points. Yes, he wrote quickly and without caution.

So, I have to ask, what happened to the data point from Figure 47 that was well above the theoretical line? Apparently, without telling anyone, Storms has rejected that datum.

He does tell us in his formally published paper. And I pointed to this. In correlation studies (and that original figure 47 was a correlation study) one will report all data. In attempting to determine a ratio, one may eliminate clear outliers. I discussed all this, and Shanahan starts out responding as if he has never seen any of this. He is reactive and attached to his point of view, which boils down to “I’m right and they are wrong.” Does he go any further than that?

But that radically alters the interpretation of Figure 2. As I noted in other comments, that one datum alters the estimated standard deviation such that the 3 sigma spread encompasses the 0 line as well as going well over the theoretical line. It also swings the average up a bit. If you clip it out, you get a radically different picture, i.e. supposedly ‘all’ data points are now below theoretical (and we (meaning Storms and other CFers) have an ‘explanation’ for that). In my prior comments on Figure 47 from Storms’ book, I discussed why clipping out that high value was an illegitimate thing to do.

Miles reported it. The purpose of Storms’ Figure 47 has been ignored; it appears to me that it was an attempt to show that the ratio settled as the reported energy (or average power for the collection period, similar) increased. As mentioned above, in a correlation study, cherry-picking results is very dangerous. Miles did not do that. He also has zero-heat and zero-helium results (and three outliers of a different kind, experiments where reported heat was significant, but no significant helium was found). All results are part of Mile’s full consideration. Shanahan almost entirely ignores all this.

Storms’ Figure 47, nor his values on the next page, do not consider the 0/0 or 0/energy values. However, that next page does show the “flyer,” and has a note on it: “eliminated from average.”

So of course Storms looks “worse” in this light. The “light” is what Shanahan sees with his eyes closed. He may again excuse his “errors” — if he does admit error here, I suspect he might not — by his having written quickly, just dealing with one paragraph at a time.

So let’s see if he straightens up and flies right:

The functional difference is that including it leads to the conclusion the experiments are too imprecise to use in making the ‘desired’ conclusion. Excluding it means you can use the data to support the LENR idea. But which of these is forcing the data to a predefined conclusion do you think?

What conclusion? And is it “desired” or observed?

Data like this was enough to inspire about $12 million in funding for a project with the first declared purpose being to confirm the heat/helium correlation with greater precision. That’s the only “conclusion” that I care about, long-term. Long ago, within my first year of starting to again look at LENR evidence, I personally concluded that there was much stronger evidence, with a replicable and confirmed experiment behind it, than was commonly being represented — and that includes representation by the CMNS community. There are historical causes for this that I won’t go into here.

It is SOP to exclude an obvious outlier, when calculating a data correspondence, i.e., a ratio, particularly where the outlier has less intrinsic precision than the other values. Whenever this is done, it should properly be reported; it is unfortunately common for LENR reports to only show “positive” results, perhaps because some workers might do dozens of experiments and only see signs of LENR in a few. That is a systemic error in the field that I’ve been working to correct. Some researchers think it is preposterous to report all that “useless junk,” but that is the kind of thinking that has inhibited the acceptance of LENR, allowing vague claims to seem plausible that it’s all “file drawer effect.”

Abd said: “I have never seen the data presented with careful consideration of error bars as they affect the ratio.” – Perhaps, but I have discussed just that before, and now again in summary. Obviously Abd reads what I write, but apparently very selectively (which is typical of people looking to discredit something but not seeking to understand).

And Shanahan’s response here shows how he understands what I write, which is apparently very little. He does not show evidence of my reading “selectively,” yet proceeds to draw conclusions from his own imagination.

He apparently agrees with me, makes the point that he’s said this before (and he may have, I don’t know). I was writing about what was in front of me, his comments, and commenting, mentioning a problem that I know, and if he were interested in the development of consensus, he’d acknowledge the possible agreement. But somehow he converts this to an intention to discredit him.

Rather, my goal is to separate the wheat from the chaff. What is useful about Shanahan’s commentary? As I think I pointed out, few are paying any attention to him any more. The attention he is getting on LENR Forum and here is almost the entire sum of it. As far as we know, he is not submitting critiques of published papers to journals, nor is he writing and submitting original work or reviews. He is more or less, now, confined to complaining about how he has not been accepted, while continuing to display the personality traits that suppress consideration in the real world.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: I have previously commented in this forum on the related Figure from Storms book, which only had 13 numbers on it rather than 17, where I noted that the spread in the data indicates the precision of this measurement is too poor to allow one to make the conclusions Storms does. This hasn’t changed by the addition of 4 points.

From his notice of 17 rather than 13, Shanahan could have realized that this wasn’t the same data. Likewise what Storms writes about “four independent laboratories,” whereas Figure 47 reported from two. What conclusions? I infer several possibilities from this, one of which is that Shanahan is not truly familiar with the evidence. It can be tricky to remember stuff if you believe it is all bogus, it tends to blur into one solid mass of Wrong. (This is an aspect of how belief undermines clear understanding.)

From the Storms paper under review:

This ratio has been measured 17 times by four independent laboratories, the result of which is plotted in Figure 2. This collection shows a range of values with an expected amount of random scatter. Of considerable importance, the average value is equal to about 50% of the value expected to result from d-d fusion. This difference is thought to result because some helium would be retained by the palladium in which the LENR reaction occurred. When efforts were made to remove all the trapped helium from the palladium, the expected value for d-d fusion was obtained [33].

Figure 2 : Summary of 17 measurements of both helium and energy production during the same study [32]. Superimposed on the distribution of values is a fit to the Gaussian error function. The fit is typical of an expected amount of random error being present in the measurements. The value for this ratio resulting from deuterium-deuterium (d-d) fusion is known to be 23.8 MeV for each nucleus of helium made.

Unfortunately, ref 32 is to a Storms paper that does not contain support for the caption. Decent journal editing would have caught this. I have seen the histogram before, but couldn’t find it easily (as I write this, I still haven’t found it); but I was able, without much difficulty, to find the data, given in Storms Current Science paper, which I cited. It is also in his 2014 book.

ABD: Shanahan doesn’t know what he’s looking at. The “Storms book” he is referring to is Storms (2007). Figure 47 in that book is a plot of helium/heat vs excess power, for 13 measurements from two sources: Miles and Bush & Lagowski. The Miles data is more scattered than the Bush data. Miles includes one value with the lowest heat (20 mW). The associated helium measurement generates a helium/heat value that is an obvious outlier.

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

My response: “Shanahan doesn’t know what he’s looking at.” – Really? Really??

Really, really, and literally really. Truthfully and on clear evidence. He didn’t know, and has acknowledged that he thought this was from Storms (2007), when it obviously was not. An error. Small or otherwise.

All-too-common interpretive principle: Your errors are fatal, demonstrating ignorance and stupidity and worse, whereas mine are minor, trival, of no consequence, and I was right anyway.

“I think”? Yes, Abd is right, you have to guess at where it comes from.

Well, I did better than guess, but it’s not a certainty, merely very likely, since Storms has published this data at least twice, once in his book (2014), which Shanahan might not have, and once in Current Science in 2015, with the appropriately named Introduction to the main experimental findings of the LENR field — and this was cited in my response.

This was an actual peer-reviewed paper. I know that my own paper’s review in that Special Section of Current Science was real (and even initially hostile!), and also the copy editing was strong. That’s a real (and venerable) multidisciplinary scientific journal. If Shanahan thinks that nonsense is being published there, he could certainly write a response. If they wouldn’t publish it, I would, I assume, working with him to clean it up — or THH could assist, etc. — arrange publication anyway, but I doubt that Shanahan has tried. (We could help him clean it up, and what he submitted to Current Science would be his choice, not ours. I.e., I would advise, with help from anyone Shanahan was willing to allow to see the draft.

As I noted in my initial review, the referencing on this paper stinks. Where the data comes from is actually not specified, so you can’t check it.

That’s correct that it is not specified, but it is possible to check it.

The citation error is one item on the pile of indications that this was a predatory publisher. I’ve seen this happening to more than one older researcher. Takahashi, a genuine scientist, not marginal, published in a predatory publisher’s journal.

However, what’s the topic here? Formally, on LENR Forum, the topic was the paper. So, granted, it’s poorly referenced. What else can we agree upon? Shanahan wrote, however, about the underlying data, and it’s easy to find the substantially identical underlying data. I did not actually research this all the way. The Current Science paper gives references for all the measured values. With only a little work, someone could reproduce the histogram with full references. How important is it?

From my point of view, all this is likely to become relatively obsolete soon. The standing evidence — which Storms does show, as did I in my own paper — was quite enough to justify significant investment in research funding. Shanahan is, too often, focused on being right, whereas the real world is focused on exploring science and especially mysteries with possible major real-world consequences.

How much attention should be given to Shanahan’s CCS and ATER ideas? Basically, unexpected recombination, the major core of this, should be always be considered with the FP Heat Effect, and, where practical, measured (which can include finding upper bounds). That has already been done to some extent (Shanahan seems to mostly ignore this, but he’s welcome to correct me or request confirmation).

Abd makes some interesting guesses about where it comes from, and most importantly, he notes that Storms’ is picking and choosing what to look at. A clear recipe for making the data say what you want it to say, instead of what it actually says.

Again, he could be agreeing. However, I’ve personally gone through the exercise of looking at what data to present in a summary chart. I wanted to present it all, in fact, all the data we have. I came to realize that this was a monumental task, with hosts of data selection problems. Many of the data points are isolated measurements. Then there are variations in experimental technique. I don’t think that Storms selected the data to show based on desired outcome. On the other hand, Storms does not state how he picked what studies to show.

His 2014 book lists 30 helium studies. Many of them provide no clear information about the heat/helium ratio. Many are obviously flawed in different ways. Post-hoc analysis of correlation studies is problematic; it is primarily useful for suggesting further research. Even the Miles work, which is outstanding for this, was not designed in full anticipation of the importance, and was not uniform experimentally. Miles did not set up a full protocol for rigorous correlation study. Close, but not completely. For example, what do you do if some incident creates possible major error in measuring heat? Miles varied the cathode material and created two outliers (that don’t show in the Storms chart). Apparent heat but no apparent helium. Miles later wanted to study this, I think, submitting a proposal to the DoE, which was denied. I suspect that the importance wasn’t established, and investigating Pd-Ce cathodes remains a possible avenue for research. I do not recommend at this point that the Texas Tech/ENEA collaboration complicate the work by trying to explore outliers. Yet. First things first! Keep it as simple as possible, as few variables as possible.

Right now, I’m only considering, and only a little, Shanahan’s response. A deeper study would list all helium studies and set up some selection criteria in an attempt to generate more objective data for a histogram. It might look at the sources for the histogram and compare these studies with the entire body of studies. Until then, my impression is that Storms’ selection criteria were reasonable; particularly if we understand that what is really needed is more precise confirmation, that this does not shut the book, close the case, lead to a final conclusion, and for what purpose would we even think this?

I notice that Shanahan’s critique here is ad hoc and without foundation. He is essentially alleging cherry-picking without showing any evidence for it. The single outlier is acknowledged by Storms in the prior publications. The failure in sourcing is really a journal failure, my opinion; for when a paper is submitted by a scientist in his eighties, I don’t expect perfection. AStorms did not ask me — or anyone, as far as I know — about the wisdom of that submission there. I’ve advised him against spinning his wheels with useless and unfocused repetition of speculations, his “explanations.” He doesn’t like it. So I’ve mostly stopped.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote:

This newer histogram I think is from data in Storms book (2014), The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Table 9 (p. 42) is a summary of values. There are 19 values. It looks like Storms has omitted one value (2.4 x 10^11 He/W-sec) as “sonic” (Stringham), one as an outlier (4.4), and maybe one as “gas loading,” (McKubre, Case), then perhaps has added one. Or maybe he left in the Case value (2.0).

ABD: It’s been confirmed. Maybe Shanahan should actually read my paper. After all, I cited his JEM Letter. It is not a “hand-waving” argument, but, obviously, this cried out for more extensive confirmation with increased precision. And so, I’m happy to say, that work has been funded and is under way. And they will do anodic erosion, I’m told, to test what is apparent from the two studies that did it (McKubre and Apicella et al, see my paper for references). These are the two studies where dissolving the surface of the cathode took the helium level up to the full theoretical value, within experimental error. Two other Apicella (Violante) measurements did not use anodic erosion, and results were at about 60% of the theoretical.

My response: The quote attributed to me is just what Abd wrote immediately above. Cut-and-paste malfunction. If Abd will actually use my quote I might be able to respond.

Apparently Shanahan did not look at my original comment. It’s here, as cited by Zeus46: Reviewing Shanahan reviewing Storms. What is quotation of Shanahan and what is my comment is clear there, I hope. Zeus46 translated the blog format to LF format and incorrectly set up quotations. It was not exactly a cut-and-paste error, but a reformatting error. Shanahan could easily have responded to what was written; after all, he knows what he wrote and then what I wrote, and he could be even more clear if he actually followed Zeus46’s link and read the original.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: Exactly so. So one shouldn’t try to work with these numbers until they are shown to be free of the errors Storms points out, which hasn’t happened.

ABD: Shanahan ignores that correlation can show relationships in noisy data. (This is routine in medicine!) Leakage, quite simply, doesn’t explain the experimental evidence. It could have had an effect on some individual measurements. No, we were not going to wait for “error-free” measurements, but rather how to proceed was obvious: the data shows quite adequate evidence to justify funding further research to confirm these results, and this is a replicable experiment, even if heat, by itself, is not reliable. The variability creates natural experimental controls.

My response: “Shanahan ignores…” No, I don’t. But Abd ignores the point that correlations derived from fictitious data (excess heat is likely not real) are worthless. For the record, I have been using statistics for many years, and Abd has added nothing to my knowledge base.

And I can see here — and, I’m sure, many others who read this can also see — the problem.

First of all, “fictitious data” is not defined. Shanahan is not actually talking about fiction, i.e., made-up, invented data, as distinct from the results of actual measurements (and calculations from measurements). Correlation is how we distinguish random variation from systematic, causally connected variation. What the heat/helium data shows is correlation, which can be quantified. The quantification shows a high probability that the data is not random.

(Storms uses that data to show the kind of variation typical of experimental data which is, by the nature of the work, approximate, not fully precise.)

There is, then, likely, a causal connection. This, in itself, does not show “nuclear,” only that there is likely some common cause.

Shanahan, when he says that the data is “fictitious,” is actually stating, with remarkable lack of sophistication, that because the heat data might be non-nuclear in nature (his own theory), it’s fictitious, not “real.” That’s preposterous. It’s real, that is, there is actually an anomaly, or Shanahan’s entire publication history is bogus. He is simply claiming that the anomaly is not nuclear in nature. Not “real nuclear” heat. But real heat, in some cases, caused by unexpected recombination, or … a real measurement anomaly, systematic, caused by some kind of calibration constant shift, perhaps caused by heat being generated in a place different from expectation or calibration.

This runs into many problems that he glosses over, but one at a time. Cold fusion researchers have studied anomalous heat, it is often called by a neutral name, like the Anomalous Heat Effect. Shanahan agrees there is an AHE. He claims it is due to unexpected recombination or sometimes, perhaps, other causes.

Great, so far. Now, in some studies, there was a search for other results, measurement of tritium, neutrons, transmutations, and other possible correlated conditions, i.e., material, current density, etc., and in particular, and with the most interesting results, helium evolution (generally in the gas phase in electrochemical experiments, but also some other study).

Helium, of course, could, in some experiments, be the result of leakage. That’s been the standard objection for years. However, in some experiments, helium levels rose above ambient. Still, someone might suggest that local helium was high because of nearby experiments releasing helium.

However, would we expect, then, that heat and helium would have strong correlation or weak correlation? If a correlation is proposed, what would be a plausible explanation for it, and how could this be tested? Have those tests already been done? If not, is it possible to suggest that there be tests for this? Is it plausible enough to justify spending research dollars on it?

Shanahan is clearly rejecting the significance of correlation.

“Leakage, quite simply, doesn’t explain the experimental evidence. It could have had an effect on some individual measurements.” – And it certainly does. But in the ATER/CCS proposed mechanism there is a way to get increasing He signals in cells that show apparent excess heat. You all will also note that Abd does not respond to my specification that lab He concentrations need to be reported. Another thing he conveniently ignores.

I’ve made the same suggestion. I don’t ignore this. Once one is arranging many helium measurements, background helium should be routinely measured. However, Shanahan refuses to recognize the infinite regress he is creating. Some local anomalous helium would be very unlikely to correlate with heat. It would contaminate controls as readily as experimental heat-producing cells. Shanahan here is not being specific; he is assuming that increased heat production represents some major difference in cell behavior. In fact, it’s typically only a few degrees C in temperature, and cells with high heat may actually be at a lower temperature, it depends on experimental details.

And then how likely is it that the ratio ends up roughly on the money for deuterium conversion to helium? With reasonable consistency, over many experiments with multiple research groups? The work that it takes to obtain the AHE and the work that it takes to collect precise helium samples is quite different. The sampling with Miles, at least, was done blind. And Miles did measure background helium, and also studied leakage, quantified it.

“the data shows quite adequate evidence” – As I noted, that is true only if you start dropping out data that causes that conclusion to not be true. That’s bad science.

Shanahan is quoting out of context. “Adequate” had a specific referent, which Shanahan ignores. Adequate to justify new and substantial funding to test the hypothesis. What data? What conclusion? Shanahan is struggling with ghosts, cobwebs in his mind. Must be frustrating.

“The variability creates natural experimental controls.” – What? That makes no sense.

No sense to Shanahan, demonstrating that he is lacking in sense. This is really obvious, so obvious that I’m tempted not to explain it unless someone asks. Okay, I’ll say this much, though I’ve said it many, many times.

What happens with FP Heat Effect experiments is that researchers will make a series of cells as identical to each other as reasonably possible. Further, with heat/helium, the same cell is observed for heat and gases are sampled for helium. With different cells, but ostensibly identical, the only clear variation is the amount of heat, so “dead cells” are controls. What is different about a dead cell vs one showing anomalous heat. This is basic science, reducing variables as much as possible.

When Miles reports 33 observations of heat and helium, with 12 showing no heat and no helium, and 21 showing heat (and 18 showing significant helium), that is not 33 different cells, it is a smaller number, with multiple samples of gas taken with heat measured (and averaged) for the gas collection period.

Unfortunately, not all the cells were identical. However, the single-cell results, showing helium varying with average heat in a single collection period, are self-controls of a kind, because the cell is identical. To discuss this further would require very detailed analysis of the Miles work.

That Shanahan doesn’t see the idea shows that he has never deeply considered these reports, which go back to 1991. He looks at them enough to find what he thinks a vulnerability and takes a potshot. It gets old.

If THH here wants to assist looking more deeply at Shanahan’s claims, great, or if anyone else wants to do that, I’ll support it. THH has already started some of this.

ABD quoted me and wrote:

KS wrote: I published a consistent, non-nuclear explanation of apparent excess energy signals, but of course Storms refuses to recognize this.

ABD: Shanahan expects Storms to “recognize” Shanahan’s explanation as “consistent” with the evidence Storms knows well, when Shanahan, with obviously less experience, does not recognize Storms’ opinions, and merely asserts his own as valid?

My response: Read carefully here folks. Abd is pulling a fast one. He implies I ignore Storms’ opinions/conclusions. I don’t, I provide an alternative. I do not assert it is valid, I assert it has the potential to be valid. Like all proposed mechanisms, it must be confirmed experimentally, but that will never happen when the people who can do so refuse to accept it and instead resort to falsified representations of it to justify ignoring it. Abd’s response above is a veiled ‘call to authority’ (“Storms is the authority and Shanahan isn’t, so believe Storms”) which is recognized as an invalid logical technique, often used to intimidate others into silence. It has no inherent truth value.

I have not said “believe Storms,” and on this issue, in particular, I do not depend on Storms for anything (other than I specifically cited in my own paper).

In fact, I encouraged Storms to write in more detail about heat/helium and he actually wrote a paper on it and submitted it to Naturwissenschaften. They came back and requested a general review of cold fusion. I regret that, in fact, because a general review will cover a vast territory whereas cold fusion needs focus on narrow specifics, confirmed results, and especially the clearest and most widely confirmed.

Storms has made errors in his heat/helium publications and I have pointed them out.

My point was that Shanahan appears to expect Storms to recognize his critiques, when Storms has addressed them — at least some of them, and Shanahan has presented a bit of a moving target — years ago and considers the matter resolved. Shanahan uses Storms lack of continued consideration as if it were proof of Storms’ scientific bogosity.

There is a far better approach, that could work to move beyond the limitations that Shanahan experiences, but it seems he is not interested. He prefers to complain about others. And if this isn’t true, he’s quite welcome to demonstrate otherwise. Starting here and now.

At this point I can’t tell if this is Abd or Zeus46 writing, but whoever it is wrote:

“Shanahan’s views are idiosyncratic and isolated, and he has neither undertaken experimental work himself, nor managed to convince any experimentalist to test his ideas. To the electrochemists involved with LENR, his views are preposterous, his mechanism radically unexpected.

I wrote that, and all Shanahan needed to do to identify this would have been to follow the link in Zeus46’s post. He calls it the “full monty.” I.e., the “real deal.”

Yes, I’m sure that response is frustrating. After all, LENR is anomalous, unexpected. However … Shanahan’s explanations are, generally, a pile of alternate assumptions, chosen ad hoc, and his claim is that they have been inadequately considered, but who decides what is adequate and what is not? Shanahan?”

But these paragraphs are nothing but CF fanatic fantasies. There’s nothing in them worth responding to.

“Who decides what is adequate and what is not” is a question, not a fantasy. I then proposed a possible answer: Shanahan. What does Shanahan think? How does he assess this?

I proposed a practical standard: funding decisions. It’s enough if it is funded, not if it is not.

Nowhere in all this does Shanahan point to any “fantasy.”

He is fighting his own ghosts, wasting his own life. It’s quite common, and this has almost nothing to do with cold fusion, itself. It’s a people thing, and that’s my primary interest: people. Not cold fusion, that’s just something that I happened to learn about, for better or worse.

Mysteries abound when eyes don’t see

When we fail to observe the world carefully, and without strong prior belief, many mysteries appear, and often questions that support prior belief, i.e., argument from mystery, argument from lack of imagination, or, often, very restricted imagination.

When we have knowledge, these questions often vanish because possible answers become obvious, and where these possible answers have high organizational function, we may choose to accept them, at least until we have even more knowledge (i.e., evidence combined with a broad sense of possibilities).

On LENR Forum, SSC wrote (links added)

THHuxleynew wrote:

SSC seems just to be incapable of imagining uncertainty – and then fits his rationalisation around his lack of imagination. In this case that IH could be confused by Rossi’s setups, and the other independent tests, working when their own – done with much weaker technical resources, we know, Dameron, did not. So I have some sympathy with SSC – lack of imagination is no crime.

Error in general is not a crime, except when it is…. The problem is an imagination that follows established tracks, and particularly, here a track laid down by Rossi, as a major theory behind his lawsuit, but that ignores obvious other possibilities, including some well-established by evidence, rather than the kind of imputation that SSC uses here (which Annesser and Chaiken also use, it’s quite visible in the Murray deposition.)

Dear TTH, it may be that I am lacking in imagination, but in any case I would not speak of “uncertainty” talking about IH…. Please read PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (doc 254), where you can find these words:

“Notably, Defendants could not point to a single document in which they notified Plaintiffs of their alleged inability to replicate the technology, whether as a result of their incompetence, faulty equipment, inferior materials, or outright lies. See SOF ¶¶ 31, 33. “

This is citing Rossi’s pleading and the Rossi declaration as evidence, and the claim is presented in a narrowed way that might easily be overlooked. There are two general kinds of evidence in the case: documentary evidence and testimony under oath. Documentary evidence will be subject to interpretation, the claim is often that it “speaks for itself,” but here Rossi is referring to what the documents do not say. Maybe. We’d have to look at all of them to verify this. Meanwhile, the public record contains evidence that IH showed Rossi — in person, not by an email and formally — that their tests were not confirming his claims, and that Rossi was irate.

SSC is writing from what he believes, which is ultimately based on Rossi Says, and what he quotes here shows it. That is not admissible evidence. The question asked assumes a context that was missing, open communication. It ignores timing. It ignores what is completely plain on review of the record: IH strategy for communication with Rossi, it was designed and controlled to “not piss him off.” This is so obvious that Annesser uses it to ask Murray why the visit to the plant by Murray was proposed for July 2015, if it was expected that it would upset Rossi.

It obviously did upset Rossi, so much so that he violated the Term Sheet to deny the visit (by generically denying the right to visit of anyone not already agreed, until the “tests under way were complete,” I think is how he put it, as if Rossi had that right. It was the IH Plant and they had a clear right to visit it at any time.

Rossi counsel is attempting to have it both ways: IH should have told Rossi, in writing, and that they did not has some implied meaning, and then that IH was provocative by scheduling the Murray visit. (As if “provocative” has some legal significance here. Annesser and Chaiken seem to be, to some extent, grandstanding for Planet Rossi.)

(IH had no legal obligation until and unless Rossi himself put in writing that the Doral test was the GPT, and that idea is also missing from the documentary record, as to the contractually required prior consent in writing, and probably did not happen until later in 2015. In fairly short order, IH formally challenged the GPT interpretation, but we can see evidence that IH still hoped to negotiate something with Rossi, some test or way of moving forward that could satisfy the parties.)

There are e-mails and documents where you can read that IH has initially obtained good results from its E-Cat tests.

There are documents that can be read that way. However, I strongly suggest reading the Murray deposition, the whole thing (423 pages!). IH largely abandoned its efforts with Rossi by the middle of 2015, focusing on other technologies. It appears that they allowed the Doral test as a last-ditch opportunity for Rossi to perform in some way. There are many other comments in depositions on this. SSC, like Rossi, focuses on a possible fact: no written notice, but ignores all the rest. That Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgment failed. Does SSC know why? He is here citing argument that was not accepted by the court, the only part of this that is admissible testimony is Rossi Says, in the form of the Affidavit cited.

After Rossi had sued them, they began to say that they had never seen excess heat. But this complaint never came officially to Rossi. If at one point they really realized they were not able to replicate the reactor, why did not they even send an email to Rossi to tell him about it?

Nor did the Rossi intention to consider Doral the GPT ever come “officially” to IH. Until that intention was registered in writing, it did not create an enforceable obligation. If IH had decided to push and shove, they would have needed to formally notify Rossi of their inability to make devices that worked reliably, when thoroughly tested. (This is not the same as “never seeing excess heat,” unless we are careful about what “seeing” is. Operating reactors do not in themselves display “excess heat.” It must be inferred from measurements, and what is truly bizarre in the history of Rossi Results is that on occasion the results were directly contrary to plain and simple sensory evidence. Instead, error-prone measurements were used and attempts to confirm them (i.e., with control experiments and independent measures) were resisted strongly.

I decided to look at the material quoted by SSC in detail. I had started to look at the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, but had originally abandoned it because the exhibit numbering was highly confusing (which was also noted by Industrial Heat in their Opposition.)

So I did a study, published at RvD: Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgement – Replication

It takes about a day to do one of these.

This is what I’ve seen about Planet Rossi. It does not appear that those who comment like SSC have read much of the case. The question of why IH would not inform Rossi in writing of their failure to replicate has a very obvious answer, and it’s answered in the documents (because Annesser asks it in depositions!).

Reading the case takes a lot of time. There are many hundreds of often-confusing documents. But if one wants to have an informed opinion, there is no substitute for becoming informed. What I see on Planet Rossi is the repetition of certain simple memes, often repeated.

I also see this from Rossi himself, which should not be surprising.

If anyone wants to move from imagination and fantasy to reality, and on the questions and claims made by SSC, I’d suggest reading, in particular, this, and this. Or read the whole section on replication in the Rossi Partial Motion for Summary Judgement: those links refer to paragraphs in it, as quoted on the Study page. Read the evidences, don’t just read Rossi’s claims based on them — or my comments or IH objections. Read sworn testimony and attested documents, actual evidence that can be introduced at trial.

And notice how, sometimes, pleadings distort the evidence, in ways that are easy to see. Sometimes they actually lie, it’s that blatant. However, it is not unlawful to lie in a pleading, pleadings are not sworn testimony. It’s a crime to lie in a deposition or in the attestations that are sometimes provided. Notice that the witness in a deposition is sworn. The lawyers aren’t.

If life is a vote, I’ll say that the Eyes Have It.


SSC wrote some more:

Darden has raised funds from investors, so it’s fair to suppose he has spoken well of the E-Cat with them. You may also not give too much credit to document 254, but it is a text presented to the judge and can hardly contain easily disprovable things. In that document you can read this:

“There is no written evidence that, prior to Defendants’ receipt of $50 million in investment funds, Defendants ever told Plaintiffs that they believed Plaintiffs had violated the License Agreement or that the 350-day test taking place in Florida was not the GPT. See SOF ¶ 60”

This lack of understanding of legal process is common on Planet Rossi. (It’s common in general, but here it is used as part of a syllogism, one that can easily be shown as a fallacy by simple counterexample). If SSC reads what is linked from above, he will fund abundant claims made in DE 254 that are not supported by the evidence cited or that are even contradictory to the evidence.

One way to explain DE 254 is that this was Rossi’s last chance to lie in his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, it would not be contradicted by IH. So he repeated stuff from before, ignoring contrary evidence and response. Just saying it over again. If his goal was to fire up his base, it worked. I don’t think SSC is Rossi, the English is too good. Though it could be an English-speaking puppet.

What is not true: the claim that the Defendants received $50 million. They did not. The $50 million was received by an independent U.K corporation that is not a defendant in Rossi v. Darden, but the distinction — which is legally quite clear — is suppressed in Rossi claims because he is playing on emotions. Here there is an attempt to connect the $50 million with the GPT issue, as if it is somehow relevant. Unfair!!!

What is not true: that IH never told this about the GPT to Rossi. They obviously did, from evidence presented. However, the question is not whether, but when. It was certainly before the end of the test, but IH would not say that to Rossi, for all the obvious reasons, until and unless Rossi claimed the reverse. We don’t know when Rossi first claimed that Doral was the GPT, but there is no evidence of it being mentioned when the move was planned to Florida, and no mention, as far as I’ve seen, until IH and Rossi started communicating through lawyers, and that was clearly before the end of the “test,” easily by about the beginning of December, 2015.

Why would anyone tell him it was not the GPT if he didn’t claim it, and if the context was that Rossi knew the Second Amendment had failed, and the time had expired? IH knew that Rossi knew — because Cassarino forwarded the Rossi mail about it to IH.

What it would have taken to start up a new GPT would have been a written agreement. IH was willing to sign one, the original Second Amendment. That Amendment failed because it required Ampenergo sign-off and Ampenergo refused. But IH could certainly have signed a new Agreement, and would have had no trouble with Ampenergo if AEG rights were respected. So why didn’t Rossi propose that, instead of proposing this cockamamie faux customer? I find the answer to that question distressingly clear. Rossi is crazy, and demands control, doesn’t deal straightforwardly in cooperative enterprises; instead he lies and manipulates. It is crazy rather than merely controlling and selfish, because he is headed for a serious fall, and my guess is that he also dominates his attorneys. They sound like him, except for better English.

As to violations of the License Agreement, and setting aside the various minor alleged violations, SSC would probably be referring to the claim that Rossi may not have disclosed all the necessary IP for replication. We have testimony that IH people complained to Rossi, concerned that they could not replicate. They certainly would not have sued him for failure to disclose unless they first formally claimed the failure, perhaps demanding specific performance. They were not ready to do that, so they didn’t.

Failure to disclose is simply one of the IH stated possibilities: failure to disclose necessaries, or false claims of performance. Annesser is insistent that there are other “logical possibilities.” Maybe the Russians put Darden in a trance so that he couldn’t function to make the fuel properly. After all, if they could steal the fuel from a sealed reactor, why not stealing his mind? Logically possible, hypothetically. Really, we couldn’t make this up.

Read those pleadings and, if you care about Rossi, or about simple honesty and straightforward argument, weep.

Back to the investment, the original IH investment was in 2013 and probably the $20 million issue was completed in fairly short order. The large investment in IHHI came in May, 2015, and was not invested in Rossi technology, i.e., it was not spent, apparently, on attempting to develop E-Cats, more than a little. What of it has been spent already was allocated to diversifying, exploring other LENR possibilities. So what does this have to do with “praising the E-Cat”?

The Woodford rep statement about the Rossi technology as being “core,” besides being often misquoted (including in pleadings and even in a joint stipulation as agreed), is probably, then, a misinterpretation, with the meaning being imputed to make it into something it wasn’t, which has been very common in this case.

Four bit fever

There has been some discussion on LENR Forum of data resolution in the Fabiani spreadsheet. From Jed Rothwell:

LENR Calender wrote:

2) If you look at the T_out data from this file


It appears that it wasn’t to the nearest 0.1 deg C. Here we are working with a discrete set of possible temperature values: 103.9, 104.5, 105.1.

P. 7 shows 4 digit precision.

LENR Calender wrote:

So more accurate would be to say the temperature data was reported to the nearest 0.5 or 0.6 deg C.

I have never heard of an electronic thermometer that registers to the nearest 0.5 deg C. It is always some decimal value: 1, 0.1, 0.01 . . . This one clearly registers to 4 digits, although I doubt the last 3 are significant.

It is clear that this was not an “electronic thermometer,” but a temperature sensor that generates a signal, often it is a voltage, that varies with temperature. As an example, the TI LM34 sensor generates 10 mV per degree F. This voltage may be sensed and recorded by computer using an ADC, which will have a certain resolution. We are possibly seeing the resolution of the ADC. The voltage reading will be quantized by the ADC.

Looking at the data on page 7, we can see that the only Tout values are 105.0728, 104.5046, and 103.9364. The first jump is 0.5682. The next jump is 0.5682, the same. This is 1.02276 F; the resolution is close to 1 degree F.

I’m suspecting an 8 bit ADC, with full scale being 256 F. Whatever, the resolution sucks. Maybe someone can find the magic approach that explains the exact decimals. (The device provides a voltage which is digitized with the increment being one bit. The temperature is then calculated using an offset and a ratio. This creates the 4-place decimals.)

The Tin temperatures also show quantization. The increment is the same, 0.5682 C., so the values are 63.4544, 64.0226, 64.5908, 65.1590, 65.7272, 66.2954, 66.8636, 67.4318, 68.0000, 68.5682, 69.1364.

That exact value of 68 C pokes me in the eye…. coincidence, perhaps.

There is no sign of calculation roundoff error there; these numbers are likely multiples of 0.5682 C exactly, plus some offset. The recorded data may have been volts, recorded to a certain precision, and then for the spreadsheet this was multiplied by a constant, so the quantized voltage then shows up as quantized temperature. This was not recorded with high precision.

The pressure is also apparently quantized. Now, this is wild: the pressure is close to 1 bar. Absolute pressure, not gauge. The only values shown are 0.9810 and 1.0028, and the value oscillates between them. So the increment is 0.0218 bar. What gauge was this? Penon had said he was going to use PX3098-100A5V, an Omega gauge. This is a 6.9 bar full-scale absolute pressure gauge. The specified accuracy is +/- 0.25% FS, so it would be +/- about 0.02 bar. Then we have possible digitization error, so total error could be 0.04 bar.

The digitization error was unnecessary, at this level. Besides the fact that the pressure gauge selected was too insensitive if pressure was going to be close to 1 bar, the quantization indicates that low-resolution ADC was used. Who chose the ADC hardware? Fabiani?


I took the first page of Fabiani data, loaded it into a spreadsheet (I used the OCR’d version of the file from thenewfire), sorted it by pressure, and then averaged the temperatures. The results:

0.9810 bar, 19 values, average temperature is 104.5345° C.
1.0028 bar, 28 values, average temperature is 104.5452° C.

A difference of 0.02 bar would ordinarily represent a difference of about 0.54° C for saturated steam.

It appears that the outlet temperature and pressure are uncorrelated.

As has been pointed out by others, it is very difficult to maintain constant pressure and temperature with superheated (dry) steam, as was claimed by Rossi. Saturated steam will maintain a fixed temperature at a particular pressure, but that temperature for 1 bar is 99.63° C.

The temperature does vary, as described above, there are three values for temperature: 105.0728, 104.5046, and 103.9364.


Wong assumptions, cabbage conclusions.

First, some basic thermodynamics. Just because I can.

At this point I see confusion as to the motions in limine. “Granted in part and denied in part,” what parts? Color my mind boggled. That her reasoning wasn’t given, that’s not surprising, Altonaga can do that. But that an order is entered, that can’t be understood, that is unspecific, is unexpected.

In any case, I decided to pay more attention to the Wong opinions. This is a study of his Expert Disclosure. It’s cabbage, appalling. Continue reading “Wong assumptions, cabbage conclusions.”

Let’s just remove the outliers

Second of the series of posts I promised on the He/excess heat correlation debate, as noted by Shanahan and Lomax. And this one is a little bit more interesting. Still, I’m going to examine the many issues here one by one, so if you expect a complete summary of the evidence from this post or the ones that follow you will be disappointed.

Lomax here:

[Quoting Shanahan in italics] On the other hand, the energy/helium ratio does not have this problem. The independent errors in the He and power measurements are unlikely to combine and create a consistent value for this ratio unless the helium and energy both resulted from the same nuclear reaction.

Yes. Very unlikely, in fact. On the order of one chance in a million, or more.

As I have noted the value is not consistent, thus the quoted statement is nonsense.

The value is consistent within experimental error.

There is much more of interest in these comments than might first appear.

Continue reading “Let’s just remove the outliers”

Minds open brains not falling out?

First of a sequence of comments on Lomax’s recent blog here on Shanahan’s review of Storms posted in LENR Forum.

Lomax writes:

Ah, Shahanan, obsessed with proof, lost science somewhere back. Science is about evidence, and testing evidence, not proof, and when our personal reactions colour how we weigh evidence, we can find ourselves way out on a limb. I’m interested in evidence supporting funding for research, and it is not necessary that anything be “proven,” but we do look at game theory and probabilities, etc.

I agree with Lomax’s second statement here. Science is exactly about weighing evidence. And I understand the explicitly acknowledged bias: Lomax wants more research in this area. I disagree with the statement that “Shanahan is obsessed with proof”. It would be accurate to say that Shanahan, both implicitly and explicitly, is looking for a much higher standard of evidence than Lomax. There is no proof in science but when evidence reaches an amount that overwhelms prior probabilities we think something is probably true. 99.99% and we call it proof. The numbers are arbitrary – some would set the bar to 99.9999% but this does not matter much because of the exponential way that probabilities combine.

Let us see in detail how this works. Continue reading “Minds open brains not falling out?”

Reviewing Shanahan reviewing Storms

A New Source of Energy using Low-Energy Fusion of Hydrogen

On LENR Forum, Alainco posted an abstract and link to a new Storms article on LENR. Kirk Shanahan promptly reviewed it. This post will study the Shanahan review. It is possible that we will review the article itself more intensely. But first, a little on the journal itself. Continue reading “Reviewing Shanahan reviewing Storms”

Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017

I’ve been watching Judge Judy videos and then I see much, every day, that is, as it were, screaming for comment, examples of how people behave on Planet Stupid. It’s amazing to watch Judge Judy in action — and the other “court shows,” they are pretty much the same. The plaintiff or defendant are stupid, sometimes both of them. “Stupid” means that they don’t see, or refuse to see, what is in front of them, but only stand for what they ‘believe,” usually a variety of “I’m right” and/or “they are wrong.” On Hot Bench, they face a panel of judges, all experienced lawyers at a minimum, with real courtroom experience. From behavior and comments after the show, the parties have learned nothing. And that is often what the Judge is telling them. (“Shut up and put on your listening ears,” Judge Judy says to a plaintiff who is interrupting, insistently, obviously obsessed, obviously not listening.)

Once in a while a losing party will say that they learned something. It’s relatively rare! That happens even if the legal and social issues are open and shut. “I’m right” is the foundational belief for many people, for sure! It’s axiomatic Truth.

Some people would rather die than be wrong. Or even merely to listen to the opinions of others about it, without interrupting. Basic skills.

Index to sections of this post
JONP old crap and where it leads
Long and useless on LENR Forum
Clueless rolls on floor laughing
But What If? RossiSays…
Surprise! Pot Calls Kettle Black!
And now for something completely different

Continue reading “Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017”

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining

Please. Don’t.

That’s the title of the book by Judge Judy that apparently led to her extremely popular TV “arbitration” show, presented as if it were a small-claims court. As an actual judge, Judy Sheindlin was known as outspoken, but on the TV series, she takes this to extremes. She’s smart, and she’s quick, fully “self-expressed.”

A comment by Sam, here, pointed to Youtube of her work, which I watched.

I think we might get somewhere if they let this
Judge handle Rossi VS Darden.

I dive into the world of Judge Judy, new to me. Continue reading “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

Takes a licking and keeps on ticking

Just like a Rossi demo! (Those were the days! Live TV!)

The occasion for this brilliant wit, a masterpiece, if I say so myself, and I do, is ele’s continued citation of the Cherokee legal stuff, even though it is completely irrelevant to the topic, Cherokee is an LLC that makes risky investments, and a few fail, and the accounting is complex, and with that, an SEC settlement of $100,000 for an accounting error, with no finding of intention to defraud anyone, is SOP, and equivalent to me being fined $0.05. Yet to ele, this is “very interesting.”

I covered this first on Ele mental my dear, posted 5/18/2017 at 5:10 PM. So today I see another post from ele on the same topic. 5/18/2017 12:41 PM. Continue reading “Takes a licking and keeps on ticking”

She’s underpaid or understaffed

The judge. Faced with three motions to dismiss, and not having the time to review all the claimed “undisputed facts,” she punted.

It took me months of study on this case to come to the point where I might be able to see through the fog. I never finished the study pages, though I may still work on them for historical value, but at this point it is moot. An appeal of a dismissed MSJ is not likely, and that it might even be possible is controversial.

The judge wrote,

The parties’ voluminous, competing briefing and submissions plainly show the record is brimming over with disputed issues of material fact. Indeed, the Court is hard-pressed to locate any material facts on which the parties agree. Disputed factual issues are for the jury to determine.

In reviewing the MSJs, Oppositions, and Replies, what I found, way too commonly, was fact, clear from the record, that was nevertheless “disputed,” ending up as a matter to be adjudicated, when the asserted fact in the Motion was not at all in dispute, but rather possible implications.

Continue reading “She’s underpaid or understaffed”

Lying liars redux

I’m compiling the arguments and creating a study pages for the Rossi Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and came across this gem:

61. As early as October 2013, Defendants did not have any intention of making their requisite $89 million payment to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Composite Ex. 9 at 117-121.

That is the Darden deposition. It struck me as odd, and so even though I hadn’t arrived to that point in the analysis (I need to do this systematically or it will take far too long), I looked it up. Rossi has contradicted his own basic argument about estoppel on the Guaranteed Performance Test, by citing this deposition this way.
Continue reading “Lying liars redux”

Ele mental my dear

Well, I’ve been reviewing Planet Rossi tropes, minding my own business in my “little blog,” — actually it’s a community blog, we get there one step at a time — and apparently I attracted the attention of ele, possible Rossi sock or likely Rossi insider (taking the place of randombit0), on LENR forum. It’s not quite the honor of being noticed on Rossi’s own blog, JONP, but there he did not use my name. Here he did. a poco a poco andiamo lontano.

Summary: to avoid facing his own lies, ele asserts that Cherokee is Bad, but, of course, attributes this opinion to a probably anonymous (fake name) poster on his blog, er, Rossi’s blog, which he just happened to notice. Purely coincidental, mind you. My ass. Continue reading “Ele mental my dear”

The macaw is the official bird of Planet Rossi

I found the raw bird image first at Pet Yak.com. With apologies to Randi Jones. The modified image with Dottore Rossi peeking around the corner, and the bird-speech, was created by “Renzee,” according to Dewey Weaver, the infamous IH Fanatic. Rends? No, Stephenrenzz, May 17. 2016.

Endless eye candy, what a find! The mostly red birds appear to be red and green macaws. The bird in the middle is a Zen parrot, also known as a Hyacinth macaw.

The macaw is now the official bird of Planet Rossi. Be proud! The two species shown are endangered, as is Dottore Rossi.

Let’s not forget H. Ross Parrot, complete with American flag. And then there is the “ex-parrot scam.”

As well, any resemblance between Planet Rossi and the dead parrot sketch is purely coincidental. Purely. No resemblance, no.  Move along now, continue reading below. Continue reading “The macaw is the official bird of Planet Rossi”

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

ele wrote:

… Some facts to remember: Rossi was innocent. He has been cleared by all charges.

Petroldragon failed and was closed because he was unjustly jailed for about four years . Rossi was redounded by Italy.

Rossienglish. “Redounded” — to contribute greatly to, a person’s credit or honor. I’ve never seen the word used this way, though. “Innocent” is not a fact, it is a judgment. Nor is “cleared of all charges” a fact, it appears to be false. However, on Planet Rossi words take on special meanings that make RossiSays sort-of-true, if you squint and look sideways.

Perhaps doing the time for the crime clears the charges….

sigmoidal wrote:

Some commenters here claim that Dott. Rossi was fully acquitted and exhonerated [sic] of all charges related to PetrolDragon, despite being convicted in Italian court and serving jail time there.

I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that Dott. Rossi was ‘cleared’ of all charges, and it contradicts Mats Lewan’s account.

ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote: [Some commenters here claim…]

In fact that is fully true. He was cleared and refunded .

sigmoidal wrote: [I have never seen any evidence … ]

Just ask the Italian Lawyer (another day another troll…. probably) to ask all the documents of the trials from Rossi’s lawyers .

So, great, want evidence? Ask an anonymous troll (if that’s what he is).

The Version of Rossi can be found here: http://ingandrearossi.net/

So the evidence supplied is RossiSays. However, even then, it doesn’t support what ele claimed, and, like Mats Lewan, actually contradicts it. From this page:

Of the 56 prosecutions, all those which led to his incarceration ended with sentences of acquittal. Only 5 indictments (for income tax evasion, as a consequence of the bankruptcy brought about by the closure of Omar and Petroldragon) ended with convictions, which were used to justify the lengthy period of preventive imprisonment linked to the accusations that had led to his arrests. All other judicial processes ended in acquittals.

Knowing how Rossi uses English in imprecise ways, and also because I remember something a little different, I checked Lewan (An Impossible Invention, pp. 62-63).

The details of the sentences against Rossi are difficult to verify, but my information is that he was sentenced to four years in prison, mostly for accounting fraud in connection with bankruptcies. He was also sentenced three times for environmental crimes….

In contrast, Rossi was never convicted of fraud. According to his lawyer, Andrea Ambiveri, four processes concerning criminal fraud were initiated but they all ended up being acquitted or that charges were dropped.

Of the 56 processes, five led to a conviction, according to Rossi, while in the other 51, he was finally acquitted or the case was time-barred. Time already served was deducted from the prison sentence. 

Someone is not “cleared of charges,” in the meaning of being found “innocent,” with reputation restored, if a case is dismissed because of a statute of limitations, one is “cleared” only in the sense of criminal prosecution and conviction becoming impossible. On appeal of certain cases, Rossi did win acquittal and reversal of fines, which may be what is talked about by “refunded,” but he did, in fact, spend time in jail for “accounting fraud,” which in a bankruptcy can be serious.

Rossi’s story is that all this was massively unfair, and perhaps it was, but Rossi also set himself up for this by how he conducted his business, rejecting the corporate support that could have allowed him to overcome hostile forces.

Steve Krivit has compiled references from Italian newspaper articles. I do not consider Krivit a reliable source, but there are many hints in the newspaper article titles or brief summaries that remind me of events and incidents coming out in Rossi v. Darden. Rossi plays business fast and loose.

ele wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:

I would not be surprised at all if the QuarkX technology, if it turns out to be a thing, is considered sufficiently derivative to be included. In that case if IH hold onto their license of Rossi’s IP, the QuarkX IP would presumably be theirs to make use of as well.

Probably yes.

But IH never prepared any Industrial Plan to exploit the technology.

Don’t you have to really exploit [and] industrially develop a technology to maintain the IP ?

In many agreements that is true.

IH did have a plan, perhaps ele should read those Ampenergo notes. Essentially, the plan was to confirm the technology transfer, showing that there was something practical, independent of Rossi’s presence, and then engage the big guys, the companies with billions to invest, in commercial roll-out. Because of Rossi’s inability or unwillingness to cooperate in creating that independent replication, of course, they never went further. But they did make devices per Rossi’s instructions, with some apparent success, and then found that, when tested more thoroughly than Rossi ever allowed, they didn’t work. Among Rossi’s inventions were test protocols and procedures that didn’t work.

Ele might claim that IH is lying, that is about the only refuge left. As pointed out by another on LF, faced with a choice to decide who is lying, someone who is shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been lying, strongly and clearly, on many occasions, and someone where the only accusations of deliberate falsehood are vague and unclear, and where there are many examples of fulfilling on agreements (such as IH ending up paying Penon in spite of high doubt as to the probity of his report), a jury will almost certainly conclude that the habits continued in each case.

As to ele, above he lied about Rossi’s Italian history.

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them


Amped up on Ampenergo

This post has anchors on pages of the written memoranda by Cassarino. The form of the anchor is “p[n]”, i.e. [post URL]#p1 refers to page 1.

Ampenergo is often neglected in recent Planet Rossi ideation. Ampenergo was the original U.S. Licensee for Rossi technology; these people had worked with Rossi before, and I have recent information that they still “like” Rossi. After all, they invested in him, that investment was respected, and they may even have made a profit, because of IH payments to them pursuant to the License Agreement and side-agreements.

They are also investors in Industrial Heat, holding shares issued in lieu of cash payments (but they were also paid mostly in cash). All IH share holdings were converted to equity in IHHI (or repurchased). Continue reading “Amped up on Ampenergo”

How to handle a shitstorm

From Maryanne Macy, in 2016, on the filing of Rossi v. Darden:

The situation of an $89 million dollar lawsuit between the field’s highest profile, highest paid inventor and his environmentally-inclined investors wasn’t akin to the adage of having an elephant in the room. It was like having an elephant with projectile diarrhea who had snorted a kilo of cocaine after mating with Donald Trump in the room. This was a worst case scenario, a four star sriracha-saturated shit storm that could distinctly prove unhelpful to the LENR world’s public profile at the time of its greatest collective acceleration.

For myself, the perpetual struggle for objective reporting was competing with shock. I’d hoped for the success of Rossi’s technology for so long and been so glad that someone like Darden had come along to support it.

The storm continues on LENR Forum, where personal attack has become so common, with even some moderators, or at least one, engaging in it — or tolerating it — that the normal and sane defense against the flood of flabbergas is to stop reading (and some realize that danger).

The basic problem is that users are allowed to derail topic discussions by introducing inflammatory comments, or, at best, irrelevancies to the topic. To handle this well would require multiple moderators, ideally in different time zones and with defined duty periods, to swiftly move irrelevant posts to the Playground or other appropriate threads, or, sometimes, to delete them if they are utterly beyond the pale, and to ban (permanently or temporarily) uncooperative users.

However, LF has never developed clear policy and procedure, and all we see are sporadic and often ineffectual interventions, then bursts of more drastic enforcement. There is no TOS (Terms of Service), and no developed policy, just Whatever a Mod thinks. And some Mods don’t think much, they just react. Continue reading “How to handle a shitstorm”