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.

Alan Smith wrote:

I think that is quite enough bickering -it appears you are all losing the plot. IMHO Ganging up on Peter Gluck, who has been a loyal servant of science since before the old king died is not a very edifying use of this space.

I’ve been seeing many old posts by Alan. I haven’t collected them yet, so this is not carefully considered, but my impression is that he’s unreliable. He is, on LENR-Forum, a moderator, but contributed to the distraction on this thread, Rossi v. Darden Developments, and obstructed efforts to focus thread topics, even as he made unworkable attempts to create focus (by deleting off-topic comments, instead of moving them to a more appropriate thread). Most of the discussion in the topic is off the “plot,” if the plot has to do with the title. Peter shows up and says something stupid, or deluded, or demonstrating that he is clueless, and so people respond to that, which is then called “ganging up” on him. This actually confirms Peter’s paranoia, his idea that there is a conspiracy to denigrate Rossi, or NiH, or him. What had Peter written? Let’s start with this:

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Monty,

On my Blog, I have answered to the Planet Rossi mass

manipulation manoevers— yesterday:

see:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…enr-opposed-to-rossi.html

If you have no real proofs you have to use surreal (word 0f 2016) tricks as demonization of Rossi see below

the Trial is about ENERGY -Y/N excess energy

This is ironic. Peter addresses his post to “Monty,” a recent appearance from Planet Rossi. Yet he doesn’t use the Forum quotation facility, nor anything that would specially call the attention of Monty to his post. Peter gives his opinions, commonly, with no evidence. This was Monty’s post.

Basically fluff. All off topic (and nearly everyone does the same).

Peter doesn’t understand what the “trial” is about. While excess energy could, in some scenarios, become an issue, the literal issue, the legal issue, is whether or not IH owes Rossi $89 million, on the one hand, or, on the other, Rossi gained improper benefit from IH based on fraudulent representation. For the first issue, the energy is almost irrelevant; rather the problem for Rossi is that he did not follow the terms of the Agreement, and that’s become obvious. For the second issue, there are severe problems with the Rossi claims. People discuss them, leading Peter to accuse them of demonizing Rossi. That image he posted is very strange, but it shows how Peter is thinking.

Peter’s theme is highly abrasive and insulting, and I think it went in this direction after Rossi filed the lawsuit. There would be only one reason for treating Peter with kid gloves: his age and some kind of alleged fragility. Peter has alienated and attacked people who tried to help him. Who is that like? My idea has been to face his attacks with evidenced fact. He doesn’t read and understand the facts. Could he? Has he gone beyond hope? I hope not!

I will look at the blog post. It attacks me, Dewey Weaver, and Jed, by name. But first, what happened on LENR Forum?

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Dewey,

the list of sins is old before and not after the IH cooperation with Rossi.

Do you know the short novel “Mario and the Magician” by Thomsas Man? Was IH a victim like Mario?

If the E-Cats work, the second vedict- not that of this Court- will be tragic for IH- the people who take decision.

You are sereene you KNOW it does not work at all.

It is typical for Peter to talk of “sins.” The reference here is unclear. The book, by Thomas Mann, is covered here. I don’t yet know how Dewey answers this question, but, no. IH was never that kind of victim of Rossi. They went in with eyes wide open, not somnambulistic. This is part of Peter’s theme that the enemies of Rossi accuse him of vast magical and hypnotic powers. Rather, what’s the reality of Rossi? It’s quite obvious, and has been for years, that scientists have made stupid mistakes in his presence. I can imagine the psychology behind this, but I’ve never met the man. What Peter utterly forgets or deprecates is that Dewey has met Rossi, has personally seen him in action, and his close friends worked intensely with Rossi for at least a year.

If the E-Cats work, IH becomes fabulously wealthy, most likely. Peter simply has no clue of the overall dynamics and issues. What Peter has done is what many did, for too long: believe what Rossi Says. Part of what Rossi Says is that the IH License has been cancelled for nonpayment. However, there is no such clause in the agreement, and it would be inequitable under the terms of the Agreement. The remedy for nonpayment would be to assert a debt, and the first step in that is not filing a lawsuit!

Dewey is serene (is he? I don’t know, but he’s definitely confident that IH will prevail. What else would we expect?

What decision is Peter talking about? If we want to communicate with people, and Peter is at least pretending to communicate with Dewey, we don’t start by claiming they are lying. IH is claiming, and Dewey claims with them, that IH was unable to confirm the Rossi claims of excess heat, with independent testing. Whatever Doral was, it was not “independent testing.” Without that independent confirmation, there was no way that IH could raise the funds to pay what Rossi was demanding. The “decision” to “not pay” Rossi was easy! Only by deceiving investors could they have raised the money.

Peter imagines that the Plant worked, actually generated a megawatt for a year, and then IH “decided” to weasel out of the Agreement. Suppose, arguendo, that the Plant did generate that megawatt. But IH didn’t know how to make such Plants, because the technology transfer failed (and, if so, given Rossi’s history, that would be deliberate on Rossi’s part). There is no way they could have paid. The GPT and the $89 million payment were part of an agreement that assumed effective technology transfer, or the arrangement would fail.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed,

OBVIOUS? OK, but then it was already obvious when the first set of these data was given to the beneficiary and accepted/paid.

The data are fake not now only, they were fake from the start.

OMG, why has IH not consulted you in time?

Jed’s post.

Peter is living in a fog. What seems to him like clear thinking and argument is actually a common Planet Rossi meme. Why only protests now? Why not in 2015? Why didn’t IH refuse to pay Penon for his work?

Peter has never understood, apparently, the narrative developed that explains IH behavior (Dewey has confirmed it, and it fits the facts, but it is still a “narrative,” only possibly rooted in fact). IH had decided to give Rossi whatever he wanted, “within reason,” Darden added in the Macy interview. I do not think that they ever “believed in” Rossi’s work — they were not naive and they knew all the skeptical objections — but their intention was to give Rossi every opportunity to prove his work, and especially by teaching them how to make devices. By 2014, they knew it wasn’t working, but maybe Rossi was withholding a secret and would reveal it at some point. So they agreed to the Doral power sale and demonstration plant. Why not? They agreed to using Penon to validate power measurements. They did not agree to a GPT, and that is now reasonably clear to me from an analysis of Rossi’s legal actions.

There was no problem with continuing the game, until July, 2015. At that point, perhaps having questions about the first preliminary report (by the way, Rossi just claimed that there were no preliminary reports, but he might simply have been confused), IH informed Rossi of a visit with Vaughn and Murray, their engineer. Rossi refused, and in his Answer to the Countercomplaint, claimed his belief that Murray was a spy for “a competitor.” We now have information that IH then brought in Pace, their current lead attorney, to study and help handle the developing situation, probably that they had become aware that Rossi was going to claim “GPT.’

Basically, they did object, while Peter assumes they did not object, probably because Rossi has said that over and over, “They only objected when it was time to pay, the snakes!”

Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed, Oldguy,

If it was obvious…why has nobody seen it in 2015?

He’s repeating himself. How does he know what was seen in 2015?

And take care to the nasty thing called elemenatry logic

Does Peter have spellcheck? Elementary logic: garbage in, garbage out.

FAKE DATA has to be explained for all the paraameters.

Nonsense. This isn’t logic, for sure.

Say flow was fake, but was then a real flow? Not 1500kg/h

The claim is not exactly “fake.” Peter does this, over and over, he restates what others have claimed, exaggerating it. Or if someone uses some hyperbole, he then ignores the substance and goes after the hyperbole as if it were central. There are strong reasons, from the data we have now seen, for suspecting serious problems. And at that point, unless these problems were truly minor, the whole report comes into question. Once we know that the flow meter may have been incorrectly installed, we simply cannot trust those flow measurements. Flow meters can obviously fail in two directions: if it is operating below the specified minimum flow, it may under-report flow. If the pipe is not full, it can over-report flow. The first condition is known, the meter was not the proper meter for the task, the flow was too low for it. The second condition is speculative, but the arguments Peter has given against the possibility have depended on his imagination of the system diagram, and he has misrepresented what others have told him. In a context of ignorance, he claims confidence that others are wrong.

but say 10kg/, or not flow at all? The pipes according to Jed were half full, what was the non-fake flow then?

Jed has not affirmed that the pipes were half-full, he has stated it as a possibility that might explain a serious problem. Let’s keep this simple: while Peter may believe his lies, they are lies nevertheless, he is misrepresenting what exists as verifable text, and he is not careful to quote accurately, but misstates the arguments made. At some point, he becomes responsible for that. When is that point?

(Jed does have a habit of making hyperbolic statements, of asserting some possible conclusion as fact. Challenged on this, he will generally backtrack to what is accurate. As others have pointed out, Jed is trustworthy in that he will not deliberately mislead. But he has made mistakes, as any outspoken writer is likely to do, at least occasionally. So it’s possible that somewhere Jed said, “with half-full pipes” or something like that. But insisting on the specifics of a speculation is offensive.)

Temperature was not 103 c but how much? ) and all the other ptemperatures fake on paper but measurable in the plant.

Measurable by whom and with what instruments?

pressure means not over atmospheric presure that is pattial vacuum due to condensation of steam at JMP. You do not agree, but was it some pressure at all? Parameters have values, that is why they are measurable.

Peter simply does not understand the issues. First of all, the Final Report data says “0.0 bar” for every day, no exceptions. That is an obvious error, so it is interpreted as “0.0 barG,” i.e., gauge pressure. Peter’s expression here is confused, there could not be partial vacuum at the position of the pressure sensor (which was in the steam outlet for the Plant.) the question is whether or not vacuum from condensation could drive the steam at the necessary rate claimed. Sure, pressure is measurable, but the pressure gauge specified was not rated for operation at 100 C, it was over-temperature, creating the possibility that the 0.0 readings represented a broken pressure gauge. Then there is the issue of who recorded the data. Penon wasn’t there except for four visits or so.

Anyone who says that there was no XP in Doral is reporting, as far as I know, not fact, but surmise. What we can say is that the evidence for XP there is weak and largely unverifiable. Crucial evidence was removed, etc.

It is no problem this FAKE theory incorrect, data can be erroneous but they ARE. Please tell how the parameters were faake and how this demonstrates zero excess heta as Jed says.

Wasthe plant actually working or was this simulated.

Excuse me but please put a limit on your negative anti-technical mis-creativity. WTF is fake data in this case?

If Jed says “zero excess heat” he is using hyperbole. Peter’s posts are largely fact-free. Mostly he is complaining and demanding explanations. “Fake data” could mean deliberately false data, or it could mean sloppily recorded or copied data. Example of fake data: Parkhomov’s “fill-in.” It was copied. It probably was not fraudulent, i.e, it probably represented roughly what temperatures actually had been, but … it was fake. Parkhomov did not go to that trouble except for a reason. What was the reason? I find it obvious, and he has explained the cause of the missing data, but … that does not explain why he faked it.

Jed answers. Peter’s assumption that Jed was not consulted is exposed as that: an assumption with no fact behind it. This is, again, a Planet Rossi meme. “Why didn’t they complain in 2015?” We now know, for sure, that they did, from court documents. Jed, in another answer, does say “there was no excess heat.” What this actually means is that his estimates of flow rate indicate the possibility of no excess heat. Jed tends to use the term “proof” when a more sober statement would be “evidence.”

The strongest evidence is the apparent lack of facilities for cooling the warehouse. That places an upper limit on the generated power, far below a megawatt. So something is off, and that is the point. Data showing a megawatt, under these conditions, can’t be trusted, so people look for possible errors.

Peter Gluck wrote:

with yur imagined data have you demonstrated or can you COP<1 that is zero excess heat. Show me please the calculations, OK?

Peter would, we might think from his long experience, know better than to write a question like this. COP is never less than 1 unless there is measurement error or endothermic chemistry. Zero excess heat is generally impossible to demonstrate from a single experiment, because of measurement error. All this we might expect Peter to know, but it seems to have been lost in the haze. The question is off-topic in the thread, but Peter is flooding the thread with it. A peep from a moderator? No, of course not.

Jed answered, however, directly. His answer shows reasonable surmise, that explains known information. It is not proof, and proof is probably impossible. If the plaintiff can show how a megawatt of heat might have been dissipated, more than hand-waving (which Rossi has done), it would then be reasonable to put effort into estimating actual power generation.

Alan Smith made a cogent comment. Credit where credit is due. Topic, however, was irrelevant to thread. The Forum software does not allow subthreads, which then can suppress display of irrelevancy; it would take moderator movement of off-topic posts to another thread, it would take actual work, and most moderators won’t put in that work, but some demand discipline from others.

Peter Gluck wrote:

IH Fanboy has observed the scarry Rothwellism here

Scary. This was not about Rothwell, but Dewey Weaver. To Peter, though, as we will see, it is all the same, he is calling it DeJA Vu, his riposte to Planet Rossi. Dewey, Jed, and Abd, obviously co-conspirators in his world. Planet Gluck. We all have world-views, and if we are not careful, they color all our judgments, strongly. We will be unable to see contrary evidence. We will quickly and uncritically accept evidence that seems to support our world-view. Science is a continual struggle against this, seeking underlying reality, which we will never find, but the quest is the meaning of life. At some point I’ll tell the Nasruddin story, the punchline of which is “Donkeys.”

JedRothwell wrote:

Observers told me the flow meter was off by about a factor of 4, because it was the wrong kind of flow meter and it was sitting in a half-empty pipe. (They probably measured the flow themselves, but I did not hear the details.)

I nderstand that Jed MUST kill the ERV data and he must show certainty of NO EXCESS HEAT; for this he transforms steam in warm water, puts the flowmeter where it cannot work, and uses reverse and perverse logic and calculation for this ignoring that he is uninformed re. the Diagram of the plant. This is is self-assumed role, OK.

Peter completely sets aside Jed’s history, of claiming, in spite of Rossi’s refusal to allow him to make any measurements (Rossi did not allow independent measurements except under careful control), that private sources told him the technology was real, and instead, because now the preponderance of the evidence that Rossi lies and creates misleading evidence has become overwhelming, and so Jed now thinks, I assume, that those private sources were deceived by Rossi’s setups, and Jed points that out, he “must kill the ERV data.” There is no requirement for Jed to “show certainty of NO EXCESS HEAT,” Jed, in fact, is simply an independent commentator, trusted by many in the LENR field, and what Jed thinks at this point is completely irrelevant to the actual court process. Dewey Weaver is not, apparently, acting on behalf of IH, though he has inside information, and the reputation of IH (and Rossi) on the blogs is irrelevant to the case. Jed has direct, independent information about the plant layout, it appears that Peter has nothing but his own surmise, which is so radically off that it seems he cannot hold in his mind what others are saying, so as to have a coherent conversation that might find common ground.

Peter’s comments are froth, foam, reaction, not factual except rarely. Funny: that’s what he imagines of others. He does not investigate the substance claimed, but asserts an ad-hominem argument.

But confirming the calculated flow with the testimony of imaginary observers is an unpardonable offense to the intelligence of the readers of LF- with a few exceptions. It illustrates the Romanian proverb Prostul nu-i prost destul daca nu-i si fudul” meaning that without arrogance you cannot be genuinely indeed deeply stupid. It is a provocation, mutilation of elementary logic and common sense.

This is essentially an accusation that Jed is lying about his informants. Now, informants can lie or can be misunderstood, but Jed either has a specific person or persons in mind, or he is lying. (He could be lost in senile delusion, but Jed shows no sign of that, other than a certain hardness of expression, which is so common without senility that it doesn’t indicate it.) Peter is, in fact, arrogant, and the proverb is cogent.

Jed, do you want us to believe that your friends Rhett Butler,
Ashley Wilkes, and Charles Hamilton hve visited the Plant
looked at the closed circuits and astutely observed the half-full pipes and also even more clair-voyantly that if/when the flwmeters show 1600kg/hr actually only 402.36 kg/hr are flowing?
Should we envy you for having such genius informers?

Peter is contemptuous and if we did not know him from a long history of communication, he would appear to be trolling. He is not trolling. He is arrogant, and that is a reaction to and a cover for painful confusion. People are telling him, laying out fact and analysis, things that don’t fit his world-view, which quite normally creates discomfort. Instead of accepting our existential condition (which becomes confusion when combined with expectations of understanding), and then checking facts, verifying them, exploring them, he rejects the work of others as hostile, FUD, designed to confuse. After all, it’s confusing him it obviously is confusing and must be intentionally so.

Our visual systems are designed and operate to suppress a great deal of data. There are techniques for bypassing this, making entoptic phenomena visible. If I could routinely see these phenomena, I would see how the structure of the eye is visible, but there would be a great deal of “clutter.” Some of this clutter can be a sign of pathology, there is one person who could make his cataracts visible, and he watched them spreading, knowing what it would lead to. I see phenomena that are quite different, from my left eye to my right. What’s going on? I don’t know, all I know is what I see. I do have cataracts developing, according to an optometrist. I also have dispersed pigment syndrome. I experience scintillating scotomas, which I don’t think are exactly entoptic unless by “entoptic” we include the whole visual system, through the optical lobes. I can see the central scotoma, that was the first entoptic phenomenon I clearly identified. Most recently, I have seen the blue field entoptic phenomenon, and realized that I’ve always seen it but didn’t know what it was. And I see, any time I set up the conditions — which are quite easy to set up — detailed structure, probably a shadow of it on the retina.

This is what’s both cool and a bit frightening: all (or most of) this has always been there, but not noticed. I can see my pulse in the sky, and the movement of white blood corpuscles through the capillaries, with red blood cells jammed up behind them. Anyone can see this if they know how and where to look. Yet talk about this to people, most have never seen it and have never even heard about it. The first time I encountered that social/psychological phenomenon, it was with sound and partialtones. If we can discriminate between vowels in speech, we can hear partialtones, but hearing does not mean that we consciously hear; what we “hear” and cognize is an overall judgment that we have been making since we were infants. We all know it but we don’t know how we know it.

When we let go of reactivity and start observing life as it is, it opens up into a world of limitless possibilities. Even if we are dying. It is that freedom and joy that I’m wishing for Peter. He sees, apparently from his blog, only an attempt to insult and confuse.

A bit of respect for the forumists, please- or alternatively show the e-mail from Rhett Butler, June 24, 2015 where he tells you about the real data as opposed to the fake ones
Peter
P.S. You have repeatedly told that you are not lying so I am really worried for you.

What is painfully visible here is that Peter does not see and understand what has been written, but reacts to his own imagination about it. Jed never claimed such a mail. Rather, Jed inferred flow rate from various evidences. That is not “data.” The “half full pipe” idea came from a comment from Murray, who observed rust markings from what must have been open, at least momentarily, on “inspection day” — which was actually two days. This is merely an observation which does not itself prove that, in operation, the pipe was “half full,” but that at some point, there was such a water level, it may have been at any time, but it raises an obvious question: what was the operating level of water in that pipe? How would we know? No answers were forthcoming.

The main evidence we know that Jed received, he claimed came from Rossi himself, a copy of the preliminary data, and when the Murray queries of Penon were published, Jed recognize the data, and it was this data that showed that something was off. Peter has never addressed the actual issues, so worked up is he over the alleged FUD.

Rossi himself has ridiculed the questions about, say, the data being the same every day — highly suspicious — or the Penon and Fabiani reports of input power being exactly the same, always. What the latter shows is that it’s quite likely that one was copied from the other, not that they were necessarily false. (Rossi’s argument can seem cogent to one who hasn’t considered all the aspects of data collection. Planet Rossi memes often depend on this kind of missing information and understanding. He argues that two experts with the same instruments and measuring the same phenomenon will record the same data. That would be true and cogent if they were looking at the exact same instrument at the same time. How many were there? Further, if the data resolution were poor, they might be close. However, in this case, the reported data is energy usage, which is never fixed, and would only be the same if measured at the same time. Penon wasn’t even there! So what is likely, from what we see, is that there was one system measuring input (power? energy? if energy, accumulated over what time? At what time is it recorded? Is this data reduced from a continuous record?) and Penon and Fabiani got their data from that single system. There are two glitches, only, in the year, drastic differences, and these could simply be transcription errors.

Peter does not understand that the absolute power is not really an issue in Rossi v. Darden, he has always proclaimed disinterest in the legal issues, probably because he finds them confusing. Yet what is the thread he is filling with his comments? “Rossi v. Darden Developments.” It’s about the case.

The case is developing fact that is, increasingly, creating a strong appearance of fraud on the part of Rossi. That does not specifically impeach any individual factual claim, it is about other matters that, nevertheless, create extensive and reasonable suspicion that anything from Rossi or managed by Rossi is unreliable. Peter refers to this rather obvious conclusion as “demonizing Rossi,” but what is demonizing Rossi — language I don’t accept — is not Rossi but what Rossi created, through obvious long-term habits, all covered by Lewan in his book.

Peter is struggling to maintain his world-view in the fact of inconvenient fact. He is being warned that this leads to personal disaster. In favor of maintaining his world-view, he is trashing old friendships, and there are people encouraging him. Those people, pretend friends, are his real enemies, not those who criticize him: such may be this or that, but they cannot harm us, normally.

There is other evidence that something is incorrect about that data collection. None of this is proof that there was no excess heat, nor could it be, and Peter, we would expect, knowing the history of LENR, would know that such proofs are generally impossible. Classic dictum: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is what I call an “indication.” It raises reasonable suspicion. Never proof. This is intimately connected with the history of LENR!

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dewey said:

One thing you have to admire about Planet Rossi is that they never give up (que flesh wound, fight like a man, etc..) There is another great thing about that as well – it is the gift that keeps on giving, almost without exception
On a separate note, Peter may want to think a little harder about getting any deeper into this story. While I have no idea what he’s talking about, he’s clearly posting at the direction of Rossi and pointing to what may be confidential discovery. Makes you wonder about the “please make it stop” Planet Rossi post of Peter’s as well.

That “direction of Rossi” comment might be unfortunate, it appears unlikely. However, the reference to confidential discovery could indicate that something has been fed to Peter privately — or Dewey thinks that. Peter is confused enough in his expression that this is probably unclear, and for Dewey to claim this, assuming Peter knows he’s not being “directed,” only would harden Peter’s beliefs. Dewey does seem to see Rossi underneath all confusion in the forums, and I have long recommended he back off on that. It is an apparent fact that Rossi does use sock puppets, and there is some evidence of private Rossi communications being passed on as fact by others, but…. if it’s not clear, it may be much better to avoid speculation stated as if it were fact. If one has fact that must be concealed to establish what is being said, maybe it’s better to avoid stating it. But much of the value of Dewey’s writing is in glimpses that will only become clear in meaning later. None of this should ever be considered proof.

Rossi better have turned over ALL video by now or he has yet another torpedo heading his way.
Oh and Peter – you’re going to love the flowmeter surprise

Dewey would presumably know what he’s talking about. From my in-process review of Dewey’s writing, he doesn’t lie. He may err in interpretation, as can all of us.

Dear Dewey,
First, te DEJAvu Enclave- you being its Duce, is also very stubborn, for example insisting heroically about half full pipes, 40mm steam pipe.

Peter gathers this and that from various places and mashes it all together. I haven’t seen anyone “insisting” that the pipe was 40 mm. Rather, Murray stated that, in a comment directed to Penon (but written in anticipation of a lawsuit, my opinion) the pipe was DN40. We have no evidence of other measurement, but it’s quite likely a known fact, i.e., what size the pipe was that led from the customer area back to the reactor. Peter has often seemed to think that this was the overhead pipe. It wasn’t, that’s not in controversy. DEJAvu is Peter’s trope from his blog. (Dewey-Jed-Abd).

Unfortunatelly what Jed has told about his informer friends is much worse.
The main paragraph is in preachers style and writing/telling good preachers is not easy, my good friend Gigi Cosman is one of the best here and we have discussed a lot about good preaching.

All of which is irrelevant fluff here. Good preaching effectively reminds people of verifiable fact. It may be “experiential fact,” i.e., try on this idea and see what happens. The idea in that case is not fact, it’s an interpretation or stand, the fact is the experience that results from observing reality from a particular perspective.

I still say Rossi Planet is a weak metaphor and unsmart. But you are free to tell about Rossi what you imagine you have to tell. And you still lack info about Andrea’s kindergarten years.

I’ve never seen anything about his kindergarten years. It might be quite interesting, if any information is available. Usually, it isn’t, or it’s unreliable. “Planet Rossi” is an obvious piece of language, referring to an obvious phenomenon, a cluster of memes and ideas and people, ordered around Rossi Says and what is derived from that. It is not, as Peter commonly claims, inherently pejorative. Obviously, it may be used pejoratively or sarcastically. If some idea or alleged fact is dismissed merely because it was “Planet Rossi,” that would not be a logical argument, it would simply be an observation or inference, mostly that the idea would be coming from Rossi or from the cloud of thinking that surrounds Rossi, that is not fully independent. However, it’s always possible for someone to independently come up with one of the memes, and there is usually some factual basis for them, starting with “Rossi said,” (which is a factual basis of a kind), and proceeding into various other facts and inferences.

But the phenomenon is obvious to anyone who has studied the sources of Rossi Thought, i.e., JONP, E-Cat World, and, to some degree, Lewan’s blog and LENR Forum. And Ego Out, Peter’s blog, and thenewfire, is that Rends’ blog? Or Sifferkoll’s blog.

Remarkably, Rossi himself has accepted the idea that LENR Forum is “bought and paid for” by Industrial Heat. That kind of thinking is Planet Rossi, from the man himself.

I waiting the flowmeter surprise- late surprise anyway- my guess it was a squirrel or a surikata driving it- but I am waiting Are there thermometer surprises as well?

“Late surprise”? Late for what? By definition, we don’t know what this surprise is, Dewey knows what he’s talking about, we don’t. As Jed has pointed out, there is no particular reason to doubt the steam temperature readings, though error there is a possibility (exact placement matters, and do we trust that Rossi and Penon would handle this well?). The readings most in doubt are pressure and flow. Something doesn’t match between that two sets, and if there was complete evaporation of water, which Penon seems to assume from the pressure and temperature, the pressure, with that flow, would be much higher, and with the higher pressure that would be expected, that would not be steam temperature, it would be water temperature.

This is what Jed has been writing about. No matter how we slice it, something is radically off about the megawatt claims. That does not translate to “no heat,” it translates to “unreliable results.”

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Dewey,

I am focused on technology not on biographies. Except 6 letter bios c.v.’s in contests.. BTW Rossi has never asked me anything.

Nor was it claimed that he did. Rather, the claim was of direction coming from Rossi to Peter, which could be indirect. As we will see over and over, Peter does not carefully consider what is being written to and for him — and about him. He reacts to his own imaginations of it, commonly to an interpretation that makes it wrong. This is a heuristic for failing to understand.

Why you have not said anything during the test that you say now is fruadulent. If you do not suffer of recurrent amnesia perhaps you will remember who has sued whom.

Assumption. First of all, “you.” Dewey was under NDA and it is very clear that Industrial Heat did not want to publicly attack Rossi, and they didn’t, not even when Rossi sued them. However, Peter is inferring from that, and ignoring massive contrary evidence that has been explained to him, I’m sure, that IH either asked about problems in Doral, or sent an engineer to observe directly. As well, major problems with the whole “GPT” idea were raised no later than early December, 2015. The watershed was the July rejection of Murray by Rossi as a “spy.” Before that, IH strategy would suggest that they simply accept what Rossi is doing, because they had time to investigate themselves, directly. When Rossi shut that down, we know that within a month, by August, 2015, Pace of Jones Day was working for IH. One does not hire an attorney like Pace for nothing.

When IH got uppity and started questioning, this hardened Rossi’s stand, and he began using Annesser, probably also in August, 2015. Peter has a whole model of what happened that is not based in fact, but in Rossi says.

Jed Rothwell has explicitly claimed that IH consulted with him during that period. They were, indeed, questioning the Rossi/Penon claims, long before the “test” ended.

The arrogant assassination of the ERV core report smells of fraud, too. Invoking friends who measured the flow with something alternative to a flowmeter (spoons probably) is not smart and honest. As it was not measuring the diameter of a pipe with a screwdriver as your exiled from here- other apprentice- said 

Where are the surprises and how deadly they are- to whom?

Peter, again, doesn’t link to what he is responding to. This would be here.

A cobra in the bathroom?

Dewey did not mention anything deadly. Peter’s idea that he did comes from his paranoia, that will interpet anything he doesn’t understand that way. As a great example:

As regarding the funny pages, I think this means you want see my necrolog/obituary- OK, be my guest I will take care to send it to you. But please think it over, after the verdict I acn convince Rossi that you was actually on his side, even if in your paradoxical, convoluted and subtlissimo way.

“See you in the funny pages” is not in the least a reference to an obituary, the “funny pages” is a reference to comics printed by many newspapers. When Peter doesn’t understand a reference clearly, he would do well to look it up, but I suspect that research has become difficult for him. In that context, if the difficulty remains, it would be essential for him to allow others to research for him, others he can trust. Funny pages. See Wikipedia, and Comic strips. Every one of these comments on Peter’s writing could be an opportunity to learn something about the world, and about himself, or it could be an attack on his identity and being. He chooses what to look for, and normally, we find what we seek.

Flowmeter surprise???

Yes. Unexplained. By definition, something we — or most of us, anyway — don’t expect.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Peter – I only wish you the best Peter and have been trying to help you realize that you’re helping attempt to bail water on a sinking ship.

The only real data in the entire picture is from FPL. Rossi drained AND flushed the lines / tanks before the fluid mass in the system could be measured. Do you think there is video of that on the 24/7 security system? You don’t do that if your intent is to prove that a system worked and you want collect an additional $89M dollars. What do you think he was thinking?

By funny pages – I meant that lightheartedly as this is getting more comedic as it goes.

There are 20 surprises coming in a truth tsunami.

OK, Dewey your proofs and surprises- if coming- will be welcome. Including the truth tsunami. Without proofs you can convince only those already convinced. Mass manipulation is not easy except with those scared.

 Congratulations to Peter for including the link to Dewey’s comment. Peter does not respond to anything that might be conciliatory or not as threatening as he interpreted it. He doesn’t recover from his blunders, and it seems to me that he holds them in memory as if they were fact, to be pulled out at another time. That is classic paranoid thinking. It can happen even if the person, at the time, acknowledges the error or unclarity of an argument. Peter has “many reasons” for believing as he does, and if there is a problem with one of them, well, there are all the others. In the paranoid mind, “many” stays as “many” and is not reduced when problems are identified.

Anyone who seeks to move into transformative thinking and work must recognize these phenomena, or they will torpedo the efforts.

(And then Alan Smith interjected his disapproval of “ganging up on Peter Gluck.”)

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear THH,
You seem to be scientifically- technically educated and knowledgeable so it is nice to discuss with you

I may hope that you do not swallow absolute crazy things as half full pipes and 40mm diameter steam pipe- it is a well calculated pipe, believe me.

Peter has no information on that pipe from any primary source, other than Murray, whose comments he rejects. Murray may have erred, it is certainly possible, though it would be a surprising error. Again, “half full” is based on an observation of a rust line, not on inference and speculation. Again, the evidence could be misleading, but Peter is not presenting any contrary evidence, certainly not here, but elsewhere his argument is that the pipe size is obviously too small. And about “half full” he has presented arguments that don’t understand the conditions and assume something apparently different,.

Where is your fatal error here: The ERV data ae not invented they are based on recorded, verifiable at the time when obtained INSTRUMENT READINGS and Jed et Co have put the set of logically consistent data in doubt.

Peter is stating as fact what is contrary to arguments presented in Court by IH, as if the fact were obvious and clear. He has not based this on any evidence, the ERV report is not attested by Penon (where is the signature?), the data is not logically consistent as he claims, and he has no evidence on this, only declarations repeated over and over. The instrument readings are not actually presented with the recording time. The flow meter is rotary dial that will be accumulating. What is in the Report is not the meter readings, but something abstracted from them. By whom and how? The uniformity of readings is probably an artifact of the abstraction process. Any scientist or engineer would recognize this, and Peter was indeed a chemical engineer, so why doesn’t he recognize it? I find the answer rather obvious. Attachment.

He denied the [1500kg/h-103 C steam] data and replaced them with [600 kg/h 103C water] It is the same as going with a policeman in your car, the speedometer shows the legal 80 km/hr but the policeman says actually you went with135 km/hr and you hve to pay a fine. Or your bathroom scale shows 80 km but your wife says you are 140 kg obese guy and divorces (Arthur C Clarke had a saying with honesty and zero on bathroom scale)

The problem Peter ignores: Visiting the plant, unless certain conditions were present — and they were not present — there is no way to see “how fast the car is travelling,” for the “policeman” to observe. There is only the speedometer, and if that’s incorrect, the only way to find out is to independently measure the speed. Which I’ve done many times (with speedometers.) The difference between 80 kph and 135 kph, however, is blatantly obvious to any driver. The difference between 20 KW and 1 MW reactor output might not be obvious. Except for the factors that Peter is ignoring. A MW in the warehouse will heat the place, unless there is special equipment to remove the heat (in which case it will show up in infrared surveys, from a helicopter, satellite photo, or perhaps a rooftop observation). The amount of steam supposedly travelling through those pipes would make a lot of noise. Was that heard? Peter is not basing any of his repeated comments on fact, actual evidence, or quantitative analysis. It is all sarcastic attack.

The IH people have seen the readings for a long year.

No they didn’t, unless the “IH people” means Barry West and Fabiani. We don’t know what West reported, but he almost certainly had no authority to take things apart, which is what it would have taken. It was not his job to report the power consumption, for example. He was good with a soldering iron, a technician. He may have reported on JMP activity, or not. As to Fabiani, IH has claimed he was a party to the fraud.

And this is essentially meaningless. IH was not going to blow the whistle until it was absolutely necessary. Blowing the whistle would have meant giving up any possibility that Rossi would reveal his secret. So they waited, and only when Rossi excluded Murray as a “spy,” did they start to take other action. Of course he was a spy! A spy for Industrial Heat!

How can you convince a pretty standard flowmeter to read all the time 4 times more kg/h than real?

Doesn’t Peter know answers to this question? It’s all well-known, as Jed has pointed out. You introduce air or steam so that the rotation of the meter, which is a volumetric measurement, is based on a partially empty metering volume, rather than the full designed volume, requiring that the meter be full of liquid. This could happen from a partially filled pipe or from what amounts to the same, a pocket of air. This is why the meters are supposed to be installed at the bottom of a U, to ensure that they are below the water line if there is any flow at all. Even this could be defeated with forced air, possibly. So, as an example, pumping air into the line in the “customer area” could do the trick. Basically, it can be done, and to rule it out requires examining the whole system, not just the parts the inventor/entrepreneur has presented for the creation of appearances.

Then Jed makes he childish blunder to invoke testimony of visitors in the plant who were able to see that the readings are quadrupled he told but only now about more witnesses.

Jed did not claim what Peter states. Peter conflates different statements to create individually preposterous ones, convincing himself that others are wrong.

About tempeatures- water goes through the ECats- do you know how high was the temperature of the core?

Perhaps he has ESP or something. That information would be available to whoever is running the Plant and is irrelevant to the legal situation, and to the issue of actual power. As an example of how irrelevant this could be, suppose that an incandescent light bulb is being used to heat water. Is the bulb operating temperature relevant to anything of interest? It could be very high!

Peter Gluck wrote:

THH: admit please that with no Diagram piping of the Plant known these problems are not solvable.

And where would such a diagram come from? Jed claims to have seen a system diagram, and I think some have been published, but I don’t have references handy. Peter is making assumptions about the system that assume it was designed to generate accurate measurements, when it might have been designed for the opposite, to create known errors. Peter is generally misstating what others have said, and he doesn’t back his comments with quotations or attributions. Rather, he has explicitly asked us to “believe” him, but he doesn’t tell us how he knows what he claims to know. Rothwell does tell us, sometimes, that what he is saying is based on information revealed to him from a confidential source. Such sources can be biased or misleading, we all know that, so we factor for it. It’s not a matter of “belief,” though some of us may be inclined to believe what makes sense to us, and not what doesn’t.

If it were true that nothing could be resolved without such a diagram, why doesn’t Peter, who supposedly has good communication with Rossi, ask for it, or ask Rossi to confirm an existing diagram. There is no guarantee, however, that any diagram shows that system as actually built. The Penon protocol specified a pressure gauge which was probably not the gauge actually used, as an example.

This is the bottom line: there are many, many factors that are unknown, so no definitive conclusion can be drawn about the “test results.” However, the Rossi claim in Rossi v. Darden depends on a specific conclusion. Without all those facts, this conclusion is in doubt. And that’s the point, that until the questions raised by Murray are answered, IH could not reasonably be expected to pay, so they are not in violation of the Agreement, by equity. Peter’s response is to ridicule Murray. I don’t know which is worse, Rossi’s claim that Murray was a spy, or Peter’s claim that he was utterly incompetent.

Peter misses the elephant in the living room: what was Rossi hiding? If Murray were a spy for some other competitor, then (1) it would be Rossi’s normal duty to inform IH of this, giving his evidence, not to give some bogus reason for refusal, as he did. (2) We may think that Rossi had Quark-X stuff lying about and didn’t want it to be seen. However, that would be a development of the E-cat technology, and Rossi would be obligated to disclose that (it would “compete” with the E-Cat technology, for sure, and that was the contractual trigger for disclosure). In any case, Rossi could conceal that stuff, he had plenty of warning.

However long term spofing f the poor flowmeter and watrnot steam are not credible with a rational scheme.

Not credible to whom? And Rossi schemes are not necessarily rational.

Who will put a flowmeter above te reservoir, its place is down under after the pump.

“Above the reservoir” is not a sane description and is not what was claimed. The idea was to measure the flow of steam by measuring the flow of condensate. We don’t know if the reservoir was open to air or not. Placing the meter in the return line, before it enters the reservoir, makes sense. All that would be needed is to install a U, such that the flow meter was lower than the return pipe run. So even if the return pipe is not full, the meter section will be full. Apparently this was not done. For easy system inspection and maintenance, the reservoir would be open to the air, I’d think. You can monitor the level there and add water if needed from any leaks, or evaporation from the reservoir. This, however, then requires substantial pressure at the other end, maybe a barG or more. With a sealed system, if the system could be sealed (there is some doubt about that!), the pressure at the reservoir end could be negative barG, but it appears that the differential pressure needed for the claimed flow would be more than 1 bar, people have done the calculations. Yes, pipe size matters for that. I think calculations have been done for DN40 and DN80, but I haven’t reviewed and compiled this.

Something is off, there is likely at least one error, maybe more. The pressure error that seems likely is enough to vastly reduce the claimed COP and power output. A flow meter error then makes it possible that there was no major COP above 1.0. Peter doesn’t crack down and really examine these conditions, he mostly makes ad hominem arguments.

What do you think why the IH supporters here do not want the diagram shown as they do not wanted the ERV report shown? Why they like info-chaos?

I have not seen one participant who “did not want” the ERV report shown. Nor have I seen any who do not want “the diagram” shown. The only participant here with relatively strong knowledge is Dewey Weaver, who, as far as we know, has not visited Doral and would only have indirect knowledge. Someone might point to the alleged places where such a diagram might exist, but it won’t necessarily help, because on whose authority was it created? Apparently Rossi revealed a diagram, if I read Rothwell correctly. At this point, Rossi is not going to reveal anything substantial, unless it suits him, and similar reasons, as far as they might be legitimate, apply to Industrial Heat. Neither of them exists to satisfy the peanut gallery. What is offensive here is that Peter is talking about what he used to call his “discussion partners.” Not Rossi and IH. He is imputing and implying motives of FUD and deception. And then others cheer him on. Who would do that to an old man, encourage him in his paranoia?

(Not necessarily obvious: I am almost as old as Peter, and so is Alan Smith, the avatar Alan uses is apparently an old photo of his father.)

Peter is imagining the state of mind of others. He would do best to carefully understand his own first.

I do not want/wait the smallest reward from Rossi but I do not like when engineering is humiliated by people who discoveed bad things about Rossi and the plant only when Rossi asked for his money on the basis of a valid contract.

Again, Planet Rossi meme. False on multiple counts.

I have real experience with similar thngs when you see the partner not OK, you start the ‘divorce’ with no delay.

And perhaps this is why Industrial Heat has close to $200 million on tap, and Peter has bupkis. IH has patience and gravitas, and demonstrated it “under fire.”

Peter Gluck wrote:

Malcolm Lear wrote:

I can assure you Peter from practical experience the empellor type flow meter most certainly can be fooled into overstating flow by 4 times, indeed I’ve seen nearly 10 times with one badly placed device. All in takes is placement where air can occupy the pipe such as an outflow or where a syphon effect can occur. Please just accept this as fact.

I have worked with flowmeters some 40 years, gas and liquid. So please send me technical details to peter.gluck@gmail.com

Has no vistor remarked the meter is in bad place? Do you have the real diagram? (Y/N)

I think we must be responsible and accountable for what we say here too. It exists a Goddess of Technology

Peter is calling for accountability. Great. He’s being called to account. How does he respond? The Goddess is watching.

Here, an apparent expert reports his experience. Peter opposes his own experience, but it would be entirely possible to have 40 years of experience in certain kinds of flow situations and never see this problem arise. It is a well-known problem, however, and is obvious as to how it would work. This has all been discussed at great length and if Peter seriously is seeking understanding, he can comment here and ask and I’ll do the digging.

As to visitors, the vast number of them had no engineering experience, as far as we know, or if they did, they were not going to say anything. (i.e., Woodford knew the reality of the Rossi/IH relationship, very likely, and would not be about to upset the apple cart by questioning the work of Saint Rossi.

IH claims that if Rossi had allowed Murray to visit in July, he would have pointed out the obvious flaws. My guess is that he would not have done this immediately, but I don’t know that. Rather, from what I’d expect, he’d consult. IH was, at that point, not necessarily worried about “$89 million,” since there had been no required formal agreement to the “GPT.” We don’t know when IH realized that particular problem. They might even have anticipated it, but elected to go with “wait and see.” Rossi is attempting to obtain confidential communications between Mazzarino and the IH attorneys. That’s what he would most likely be looking for. To him, smoking gun. But to reality, simply IH being careful and following plan. Now, if they intended to actually cheat him, that’s another story. So far, I see no evidence of that. What they did, at worst, was allow him to believe what he wanted to believe. This is why the Rossi claim that they were obligated to inform him of problems (“fiduciary responsibility”) was so important. That claim was rejected by the Judge.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Malcolm Lear wrote:

Peter also ask yourself how Penon reported more electrical energy going into the reactor than was being supplied from the utility company FPL?

The crab is a little red fish that goes bckwards- it was Fabiani not Penon, he reported less not more (normal energy is used for other actions too) and this issue is in Court already.

Peter has only noticed part of the data. First of all, IH published the FPL daily power consumption for JMP, along with Fabiani and Penon data. The Fabiani data plot matches the Penon plot except for two data points.

The issue is not in Court. Peter doesn’t understand what is happening in Court. This matter was resolved by the Judge. It is no longer being considered, though it might come up again if the case goes to trial. Rather, what the data showed was that something was off about the Fabiani data. IH is claiming breach of contract for Fabiani, whom they were paying more than $10,000 per month to support Rossi and to provide them with information. That glitch with mysterious data, that exactly matches the same with Penon, indicates that the two data sets are of a common origin. Peter is focused on COP, instead of allowing himself to understand the myriad other issues.

WTF should he report a greater denominator of COP ratio?

Peter imagines that there must be nefarious motives. How about laziness? I find it most likely, though, that there was one process going on to record plant power, which was not the JMP power, there were other instruments measuring … what? Input power or input energy? (i.e., voltage and current, or a watt-hour meter?) It makes a difference! A watt-hour meter (much more reliable than calculating power from voltage and current) would provide an incremental recording, not “daily usage.” That would be calculated from the actual readings. If there was separate recording, the recording would have been made at different times, likely. The values would have varied. A similar point has been made about flow meter readings. Something is off.

re you searching for vulnerabilities of the Plant?

Peter is looking for an ad hominem argument. It’s actually quite a rude question, implying that there is something wrong with looking for possible error or artifact, and demonstrating how far Peter has strayed from science.

Peter Gluck wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

That is incorrect. As I have said several times, I have a diagram of the plant, from Rossi. It shows the flow meter was installed in the gravity return pipe. You do not believe that so you should ask Rossi for a copy of the diagram.

Jed,
Yesterday you made a blunder oversized even for you-
claiming that your friends have established that the flowmeter multiplies real flow 4 times and obviously you cannot prove this incredible story. Unprovable, how do you define a lie?

Peter provides no link. This is not what I remember Jed as saying. Commonly, Peter’s memory is faulty and he then criticizes his faulty memory as being an “oversized blunder.” Now, what did Jed actually say?

Jed wrote: (not yesterday from when Peter wrote, but Tuesday.)

Observers told me the flow meter was off by about a factor of 4, because it was the wrong kind of flow meter and it was sitting in a half-empty pipe. (They probably measured the flow themselves, but I did not hear the details.)

Okay, so assuming there was no excess heat, and working backwards, 20 kW is 4762 calories per second. The temperature rose 43°C, meaning the flow must have been 4762/43 = 111 g/s which is ~400 kg/hour. That’s about 3.8 times less than the pretend flow rate numbers in the log. Those numbers could not possibly be right — because they show a giant flow rate on days when the machine was turned off, and because the pumps could not produce that much flow. As I said, observers estimate the flow rate was wrong by roughly a factor of 4.

That adds up nicely.

Remember, this conversation, now, is about Peter’s report of what Jed wrote, that “oversized blunder.” Peter’s words in bold:

claiming that your friends — he did not say it was “friends.” He said, “observers.” I’m somewhat suspicious that Jed might have multiplied the number. People do that. But it is possible that there were more than one. That’s a small difference merely showing how reactivity alters speech, creating polemic.

have established – someone drew a conclusion, but we know not how. Jed speculated that the observer(s) actually measured the flow, but I consider that unlikely, it would be quite difficult. If there was, however, a pipe emptying into the reservoir, and someone used a container to catch the water, timing it, it could be possible. Barry West could probably have done this, if there was access. We don’t know if there was access. (A test designed for transparency would allow this.)

that the flowmeter multiplies real flow 4 times — this was somone’s estimate, as reported, not “established.” We do not know the basis for the estimate, Jed did not state it. He only reported, in that, what he was told, and implies that this is an observer who actually saw the Plant. There are quite a few possibilities we know about and some that we might not know about.

Peter suggests that Jed cannot prove this “incredible story.” It’s actually one of the more plausible explanations for some the data we have. The story could be proven, if the observer is willing to allow his or her identity to be disclosed. The “story” is not about flow rate, but about an estimate by an observer. That happened or it didn’t, and Jed knows. Peter has been calling Jed a liar for quite some time, and then some protect and excuse this “old man” because of his age. Bad Idea. The old man himself is calling for accountability, and my hope is that he’ll realize what he’s been doing. It is easily forgivable, but not if maintained over and over and over again.

I’ve made mistakes with my kids. Absolutely, the most powerful way to handle it is to promptly admit them. Denial and excuses are a very bad idea, even if “plausible.”

You claimed Rossi gave you the ERV report, then once told it was from IH (Mendacem esse oported memoriam)

Does Peter imagine that an insult is not a problem if it’s in Latin? He probably means mendacem memorem esse oportere, “a liar should have a good memory.”

Also from Quintilian: damnent quae non intellegunt, they condemn what they do not understand.”

Peter does not cite the alleged Rothwell statement “it was from IH.” It is possible to harmonize the two (a document can have a mixed provenance), but the story as I remember it, Jed always emphasized that the document did not come directly from Rossi, but from someone who received it from Rossi. That could possibly have been someone with IH, but I’d find that somewhat surprising. I’ve been given information in confidence, but I always verified it independently before saying a word about it. I do sometimes write from some general background, where private information will not be traceable. Anyone who wants to write in this field with anything approaching journalistic integrity or practice and skill knows to respect confidentiality. At least one might think so, there is a prominent counterexample.

Peter is presenting this example as if it would be a killer proof, whereas it only makes him look stupid. Unless he brings proof, and that so and so said such and such is commonly amenable to strong evidence (the closest we get to proof outside of mathematics).

Now you come with the diagram also donated by your admirer Rossi to you.

He wrote that it came from Rossi, not that Rossi personally gave it to him. Peter is grossly negligent in how he writes. Does he want an incompetence pass?

Some people still believe you here, you are not responsible for what you say.

Who believes that? My strong stand is that people are responsible for what they say, and, as well, for the effects.

You prove nothing because you have no proofs
I will not ask Rossi about the diagram,he is busy with the real litigation; this ghost game here is just an imitation of the real thing.
I simply cannot understand why you do these kitschy tricks.
Any game has some rules. Are you rewarded as an entropy generator, chaos source?

The implication that Rothwell is rewarded for creating chaos is standard-issue Planet Rossi, I’ve been accused of being paid to lie and confuse, by Rossi himself. It’s not the most endearing of his practices! Anyone who knows Rothwell should know how preposterous this is, and, definitely, Peter should know. So … he’s lost it, and it’s tragic.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Sigmoidal,

I regret mking you ngry, but tell me what do YOU think about ths story with visitors in the Plant and finding that terrible thing about the flowmeter. Finding out- can you explain

Peter really doesn’t get it. He thinks he “made Sigmoidal angry,” when Sigmoidal was giving him advice for Peter’s benefit. Advice that has been given to Peter for a long time now, by many, which Peter keeps ignoring.

how? In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factotry I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

However I thought i would be healthy to not contribute to this thread more

Peter has bailed like this many times, when it becomes obvious that nobody with knowledge is confirming his claims. He isn’t contributing much of value, he raises old questions that have been addressed many times, then pays no attention if someone explains it to him yet again. Peter also believed in Defkalion, and has never accepted the problem with the Defkalion flow meter. Maybe it is time that he actually read some of the evidence that has been posted, instead of assuming that his years of experience are everything under the sun. It is almost certain that the “regular constant readings” aren’t actual readings, but we don’t know exactly what happened. A flow meter will note read 36,000 kg/day, day after day, because it reads accumulated kilograms. Was someone resetting it every day? If so, then variation in the reset time would produce errors. It’s not how it would actually be done. First of all, one would simply not use a flow meter that reads in units of 1,000 kg to measure 1,500 kg/hour. That rate was below the minimum flow specification for that meter.

That flow meter error is possible is not seriously controversial. Nobody with any knowledge has confirmed Peter’s claim that it doesn’t happen.

Now, Peter had written on his blog.
FEB 13, 2017 LENR OPPOSED TO ROSSI PLANET IS THE DeJAvu ENCLAVE
I was going to study this, but other more interesting topics beckon!

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

8 thoughts on “Attracting flies with vinegar”

  1. Hi Abd
    I posted this comment on Ego Out blog and thought it was
    fitting for this post.

    Peter
    I follow the group think Lenr discussions
    debates and mud slinging on the Lenr blogs.
    I think we gain from it but sometimes I wish
    a respected American-style boss from the
    40s or 50s would show up.
    And say everybody shut up.This is how it is
    and this is how it’s going to be.Now everyone get to work

    Regards
    Sam

    1. Welcome, Sam. Now, STFU!

      (Seriously, I’ve been reading over Mats’ blog from last April, and will be covering E-Cat World and LENR Forum in that period. It’s amazing how much idiotic comment there is, and there is never any clean-up or organization. On a site like Quora.com, anyone may write Answers, but there there is AI operating to prioritize the presentation of Answers based on a number of possible metrics. Some Answers are collapsed, unregistered users cannot even read them, if I’m correct. Writers have veto authority over Comments on their Answers. Some Answers and Comments are actually deleted because of policy violations. This is key: there are two values for a forum: one is just social, like bar conversations. The other is content creation and presentation, and generally Forum software is not conducive to that, nor are Administrators working for that end. It’s mostly fluff. So … instead of complaining about it, let’s actually do something “worth wasting bullets on.”)

  2. Dear Abd,

    It is polite to thank you for your attention and care- you are a good historian. Just one who cannot change the past , who is confused by the present and (my prediction) would be very disappointed by the future.
    I want a sincere qanswer to only one and a half questions:
    what do you think about the story of the quadrupling flowmeter, do you indeed believe it?

    Please read the DeJAvu document, I am asking you to change the name of your Blog because you are NOT the Cold Fusion Community, megalomania is a serious problem.

    I can imagine how peacefully we will discuss after the Verdict. If we survive till then, obviously.
    Peter

    1. Thanks, Peter.

      I don’t feel confused, and confusion is a feeling. My training is to create the future, but if I get technically precise, what I actually create is how the future occurs to me, and, while I’m human, i.e., I can be reactive, I’m also trained and generally recognize it quickly, which is called “velocity” in the training. I am not creating a disappointing future. Every day, I practice the creation of the day, and every day I learn and develop power and results. I have seven children, Peter, and six grandchildren so far. I came close to dying in October, so I know how solid my training is. It was a fantastic experience! It’s really funny: the hospital food was amazingly good. Now, was it really good? Or was that just something I made up?

      It’s all made up, Peter. Anyone can do this, under any conditions, and, yes, even if dying. Except I wasn’t actually dying, obviously, I was simply impaired, by conditions that can easily be fatal. I knew exactly what to do, and did it.

      Now, what you said. I am not attached to outcome, so I have no clue what disappointment you predict. If I could survive the election of Donald Trump, I could survive any outcome in Rossi v. Darden. The extinction of humanity would be an imperceptible glitch in the function of the universe, that’s where I stand. Now, we are here. What can we do with this?

      You ask me if I believe a story. I believe no stories, not in any other way than accidental and unconscious (we all do that no matter how ontologically sophisticated we are), or as deliberate myth that creates the future, i.e., the natural function of language. I stand on possibility, and trust reality without knowing it. It is possible that a flowmeter can be installed such as to misread flow. That does not mean that it actually happened, it is merely a possibility, and one who wants to be careful about studying a demonstration will look at, and test, as many possibilities as appear to be within reason. From all these conversations, I now have a fairly good idea of how to fake a megawatt, if I needed to do that, and if the “test” only relies on instrument readings, i.e., steam pressure and temperature, and coolant flow rate. Trivial actually, and actually controllable. I haven’t seen anyone so far describe the method that has come to mind, though there are hints. It might be the surprise that Dewey is talking about, it involves a simple piece of simple equipment in the “customer area.” With this method, the flow meter could be installed correctly; incorrect installation is a way that could accidentally create error. And, yes, any rate is possible, in theory. Practically no flow could be made to appear as high flow.

      If you cannot imagine how to do that, Peter, that is information about your imagination, not about reality, because almost anything can be imagined with a little patience and the dissolution of artificial restrictions.

      I read the DeJAvu post, Peter. Several times. Are you asking me to review it?

      As to coldfusioncommunity, who are you, Peter, to exclude me from the “cold fusion community”? I have not excluded you, nor anyone. In my conception, CFC is a Free Association, and such will have many meetings, and I’d declare that “any two or more persons gathered for the purpose of increasing understanding of cold fusion may call themselves a Cold Fusion Community.” There may be some practical restrictions, but that is the basic principle. I have high experience with these matters, in communities where there was a radically diverse membership, but unity to maintain, with raw survival at stake.

      Right now, I’m the only active administrator and blogger, but others are sought. There is backup support with the domain and everything about it, so this is a “meeting” that is held in a specific place, with one person, currently, waiting for others to show up. They are showing up, in comments and pingbacks and incoming links. The site is relied on for information and analysis of Rossi v. Darden. Nobody else is doing anything like it (though Eric’s archive is helpful).

      Years ago, my basic study and work was the creation of consensus organizations, and I know what can be done if the actual community (the collection of all interested) and I part ways, though that is unlikely. Basically, I turn it over. I would love to see that happen. What I saw was that there was no community, no structure capable of facilitating consensus, communication, coordination, and cooperation. So, my training: see something missing, create it. It’s a version of “Field of Dreams.”

  3. 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.

    Countered to that is the soft evidence that there doesn’t seem to have been any product from J-M Products that would have paid for the power bill, and there seems to have been no transport of raw materials or finished product in and out of the site, and that there were no employees or contractors of J-M Products in the locked room overseeing such a process – JMP seems to have just one part-time employee and one MD who also functioned as CEO, Treasurer, etc.. There is also Jed’s claim (not yet in evidence at court) that an IR survey of the site was done by IH which did not see a heat-plume consistent with 1MW, and that there seems to have been no attempt by Rossi to deal with getting rid of that 1MW by other means such as down the drains as cooling water. There was at some point a reference (I can’t remember by whom) that the locked room was not uncomfortably hot. Though these points are not hard evidence yet, I find them convincing enough that it seems certain that the ERV report is bad data, and that the output power cannot have been substantially greater than the input power, and that this was known by Rossi before he started the Doral test. The metering was thus designed from the start to inflate the measurement of the output power, though whether the ERV was cognisant of that remains moot.

    Peter is concentrating on the wrong things, in my opinion. Instead of looking at what effects all that heat should have, and seeing that those effects were not there, he’s looking at trying to prove that the metering was correct in the hope that Rossi will Save The World by producing cheap and non-polluting power. He’s told me that Rossi will have a good explanation for where that heat disappeared to without any evidence of it passing, but until now Rossi has remained silent on that, and has instead stated that the independent customer J-M Products had to deal with the heat and it wasn’t his concern. Peter’s experience as an industrial chemist should have indicated that that amount of steam heat will need to be dissipated after use and won’t just disappear, and also that J-M Products would need to make a profit on their energy costs if they wanted to stay in business – there has to be a valuable product from that much investment. It would be surprising if IH hadn’t got some way of monitoring the Doral site, with so much money at stake, so deliveries and people on site should have been noted. That’s not in evidence at the moment, but it’s a logical thing to do.

    The court-case will probably go on for a while yet. It seems to me the prospects of Rossi succeeding are pretty slim, and rest on some technical point of law being found that lets him escape. Lawyers are after all pretty good at twisting the meanings of language. On the technical side, though, I can’t see any other conclusion other than that the Doral test failed to produce much excess energy, if any at all. Rossi’s technology does not work as claimed, and may not work at all.

    1. Dear Abd,

      I am not excluding you from the CF Community
      but you are NOT that community. You could chosse any decent name as CFsupporter, CF partisan, fighter warrior but not community. A bit of decency is welcome.
      peter

      1. Peter, those would be names that might describe me, though they don’t (supporter is closest, but I’m also skeptical, as much as possible given what I know). Infusion Institute was started to support LENR research, so-called “cold fusion,” and the domain was purchased to be a journal for the cold fusion community. All of it, not just me. However, look around and see what happens when a forum is started with no responsible adults. Structure is needed. So this has structure. However, that structure is flexible, not fixed, and the goal is consensus. If the cold fusion community comes to me and tells me “you cannot use this name,” I will respond as needed. (I might ask them to reimburse me!) Until then, Peter, who are you to tell me that this blog is not the CF community? The CF community may and must have many organs and structures, not just one. Now, for the future, please don’t reply to someone else when you intend your message for me. It’s messy. Instead, hit the reply button for my message, not for Simon’s.

        This is funny. The tagline for LENR Forum is “The independent low energy nuclear reaction community.” You haven’t objected to that, only to this. LENR Forum bans people, without notice or cause, and does so without any individual taking responsibility, only a faceless star chamber (and not with unanimity, apparently). We don’t and won’t. We may need to regulate behavior, all communities do that, but exclusion without necessity, no.

        If any forum claims to serve the LENR community, we will list it. That listing might be with a review (or set of reviews as we have more participants) but we won’t pretend it does not exist, and especially we won’t attempt to prevent incoming links (the opposite of pretending it doesn’t exist: actively attempting to sabotage discussion).

Leave a Reply

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