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…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

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?

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.”

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 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:

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

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).

Ampenergo deliberately refused to sign the proposed Second Amendment that would have allowed the Guaranteed Performance Test to proceed at a later date than set in the License Agreement. The effect of this was legally clear: beyond the original deadline, any extension would be voluntary, and not binding unless clearly agreed upon; for $89 million, one would imagine that sane partners would insure that all of this was in writing; at that level of importance, relying on vague assurances, easily subject to misinterpretation, would be something that no lawyer would encourage. Unless he wants to earn huge fees later.

Some are puzzled by Ampenergo’s refusal (And Rossi claimed to not understand it either. I don’t find it difficult to understand. They appear to have trusted Industrial Heat. A real Rossi Technology would be worth, easily, billions or even trillions of dollars. No sane investor would piss off Rossi by relying on some technicality, if working with him has the possibility of creating that value.

A single test, evaluated by a single “ERV”? A single test can fail for many reasons, and Ampenergo did not want to risk that. They were not blinded by Rossi fanaticism. A real technology, as demonstrated by an ability of an independent organization to make practical devices, would be unstoppable. And nobody sane would risk losing that by creating possible causes of action, unless they had become convinced that the technology either didn’t work, or had not been transferred.

I had (tentatively) concluded much about the history behind Rossi v. Darden before studying document 243-1, Greg Cassarino’s notes, which have generally verified these impressions.

On LENR Forum, Argon wrote:

Ahlfors wrote:

The amount of ale you rock …

Thank you Ahlfors pointing this out. That 247-01 is interesting read indeed. There are some other details also. Recommend others to dig it, since it is straight from horses mouth without someone says and that copy adds on perspective how things went.

Who is the horse? This is Cassarino’s handwritten notes of conversations with Industrial Heat. It is “someone says,” but dated and backed with depositions. It shows what was being said by IH in 2014 and 2015, recorded by someone who was (and maybe still is) a strong but sane supporter of Rossi. (I know that some think this an oxymoron, but Ampenergo did have successful prior business relationships with Rossi, perhaps in addition to some failures). I join with Argon (who is generally “Planet Rossi”) in recommending careful reading of 247-01. Here, I will transcribe it, as best I can. I will also, because this is a blog, comment on it; but I distinguish comments from fact. Some comments may point to fact, some may be opinion, and that’s the way the world works.

Corrections and additional comments are welcome. Comments are in indented italics. Bold indicates apparent emphasis in notes.

page 1
IH 3 Oct 2014
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873

There is no area code 890, but I have not tested dialing it. Someone may be able to decode this, I’m moving on…

Joe Pike > big investor in IH

Pike is definitely an IH insider. Was this call from Pike? That’s how it could look to me, given the placement at the beginning. Pike had a scandal in his past (long ago), that could militate against full trust in him, but, here, it appears to be his money at stake. However, see page 7. Cassarino notes “IH/JT)” with the same numbers. I.e. Vaughn.

Former Invesco person.
Woodford > first deal / public deal
$25-50 M (up to $200 M) (or more if they need to buy out Rossi)
Dutch entity > will become parent
Dutch entity > currently a subsidiary of IH. IH’s IP has been transferred to Dutch entity
IH will likely
Dewey Weaver > IP attorney
2-50 yrs away?
Test report > as early as the 10th October
Tom and Andrea are recharging reactors.
Swedish report. 16 Oct. 2014

page 2
IH (877) 877-868-6863 17 October 2014
(890) 948-7873#
Provisional patent application needed prior to test publication but lithium and other things may have been divulged in the past.

This is why that patent app, with Dameron as co-inventor, was thrown together and filed. Without it, the Lugano report would have invalidated all succeeding applications. Ross went ballistic over something harmless (and possibly protecting his IP). If Dameron contributed anything new (even if minor), patent law would require he be listed on the application). 

Dewey / IP
David Perry and T. Barker > 4 weeks away to completion of 1 MW
Attorney Johnson – Rossi’s lawyer in Miami; real estate attorney; owner of entity in Miami; may have connection to a chemical company (not verified).
Device sent to Boeing > Rossi does not know.

page 3
IH 31 October 2014
Securing initial funding
$50 million > maybe tranched
Netherlands Co. > parent Co.
IH, LLC Shareholder agreement for new entity.

See below, presumably McKubre. Possible non-Rossi consultations.

Post [?} funding > additional testing
2015 > better understanding of theory
Hagelstien [sic] & Storms

Hagelstein acknowledged funding (about theory, it is unclear about relationship with Swartz, Hagelstein’s friend and commercial claimant.). Storms not. May never have come to agreement with IH. (No specific relationship with McKubre is known, as well, but IH is generally tight with the entire CMNS community.)

IH > not involved in test; did not know that fuel and spent fuel would be tested; may be Rossi’s play to get Nobel; he knows he has to reveal this; but still protect the catalyst and other proprietary info.
T. Barker, Barry Wes 7 or 8 guys

Dameron and, presumably, West, people working with the devices. Number of Lugano authors? Reference is unclear.

page 4
31 Oct. 2014
magnetic field
Strength of magnetic field
magnetic field of electricity flowing in wire
coils arand iron core T3

[sic], around

1000 x stronger than coils only

page 5
9 Jan 2015
Installation of 1 MW > light industrial plant; [using?] steam
Rossi removed gauges to show water level; said it wasn’t part of original specs; (this is a safety issue!) Startup first week of Feb.
Dewey > Russian scientist did not duplicate But [or ? not] credible; duplicated without knowing key details
30 – 60 days to close on additional funding; may require additional structural changes

page 6
AEG 16 Jan 2015
1% IH equity not recorded on AEG books (ref AEG GL 2013 p. 3)

GL= General Ledger

K-1 to AEG from IH notes AEG capital contribution of $500,050, but this is not on AEG books

LLCs pass on profit and loss to investors, per IRS form K-1. That sum was probably a payment of stock in lieu of cash and could represent taxable income; then this could come back as loss as spent. This gets complicated.

How should 1% be recorded by AEG?

27 Jan 2015
Christian Burney and Jim Padden
$505,050 [sic] 721 tax free contribution
707a cash taxable
1% equity IH > 0 cost basis on AEG books

This seems reasonable. It is conditional income. Stock becoming worthless will not represent a deductible loss, but the initial receipt will not be taxable. A bird in the hand, two in the bush. The Devil is in the details, there may be technical details to watch out for. If IH stock is ever worth anything, then a realization of any value will be taxable income. 

Planet Rossi seems to consider any investment in IHHI as being into the pockets of Darden and Vaughn. Quick summary: not. If they treat it that way, they could be screwed.

page 7
IH/JT 13 Feb 2015
(877) 868-6863 890-948-7873
Woodford Group UK > seeking investment
Wants entity moved from Netherlands to UK
$50M round from Woodford
Woodford (Paul M.) Visited Rossi; Rossi seemed like a crazy inventor.
Provision[al] patents filed on Lugano Report.
Tested One Device > Boeing / No success.
Want to do another test.
IH wants to start their own testing in NC now that Rossi is gone
JTNI [?] looking @ other LENR technologies

Ahlfors, on LENR Forum, pointed to a possible meaning for this. James Truchard, National Instruments. Maybe.

page 8
20 April 2015

This is printed text, not handwritten.

JT & Karl
Hoping to make other acquisitions in sector
Today, IH, LLC restructuring
4.7% $50M UK investor
Total capital spent to date: low $20’s M
1 Billion valuation
Investor new capital Prev??? can make additional investment [?] $2 B Valuation
JT end game: just crazy enough; just capable enough to make something; then neg. with big players $100B – $150B 

page 9
IH/JT 26 June 2015
2 more positions in LNER
UK deal closed
Smart [?] / Shawn Spears [?]
Remote R&D
Albuquerque [/] Urbana Champagne Miley > new investments
New Facility in Triangle
Rossi > Hernia?
Paul Amercraft [Lamacraft] manager at Woodford Invest Fund with JT [visit] to Rossi and saw Rossi’s “caginess”
1 MW = 4 x 250 KW
Part of units are working; only ones made in Italy; but refueled ones made by IH are not working.
IH never agreed that Penon could do the audit

page 10
Real audit must be done > IH must be able to replicate Rossi
What’s behind the wall?
If IH feels good about things, they may not push him on the 1 MW test. IH does not want to piss him off.

page 11
IH/JT (877) 868-6863 # 890-948-7873 7 Aug. 2015
6 – 12 weeks
IH trying to support his efforts.
IH goal is for him to be successful.
IH does not have what they need > no more confidence than last time.
IH wants to avoid a confrontation.
UK Investing visiting on 17th.

We also have the depositions. From the deposition for Ampenergo by Cassarino (and some from another copy including page 214 ):
p. 208:

Share is the attorney for Ampenergo, Bell for IH, and Chaiken for Rossi. The exhibits referred to are the notes above, plus some emails I have not found shown to the public.

2 Q. So let me repeat the question again: These are
3 notes of a telephone conversation between J.T.
4 Vaughan and — at least Mr. Engleman at AEG — on
5 June 26, 2015; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you remember participating in this call
8 specifically?
9 A. Let me just look. I — I’m — we had a lot,
10 but…
11 (Witness reviews document.) Yes, I see
12 that.
13 Q. Okay. So on June 3rd you had asked Mr. Vaughan by
14 email if Industrial Heat was satisfied with Penon
15 doing the verification, as we just saw; correct?
16 A. Uh-huh.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And on June 26, did Mr. Vaughan tell you that
20 Industrial Heat never agreed that Penon could do
21 the audit?
22 A. That’s what it says in the notes.
23 Q. If you turn the page, did Mr. Vaughan tell you
1 that a “real” — underscore — “real” audit must
2 be done?
3 A. I guess he did.
4 Q. And so in June of 2015, did AEG understand that
5 Industrial Heat did not agree to accept any report
6 by Penon?
7 A. Well, that says here — what — we were confused
8 after this was why they didn’t do anything to stop
9 the — what was going on.
10 I mean, this was verbal, but we didn’t
11 see any written or — you know, these were
12 conversations that we had, and we were — I mean,
13 we were confused, because I know J.T. —
14 (Phone sounds.)
15 A. We knew that J.T. did not have confidence in
16 Penon; and that was part of this conversation.
17 Q. So putting aside what was said or not said to Mr.
18 Rossi about that, you understood that Industrial
19 Heat did not agree to Penon.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Now, in the notes — the handwritten
22 notes of the conversation, it goes on to say “IH
23 cannot replicate. IH must –” underscore “– must
1 be able… replicate.”
2 Do you see that?
3 A. On which page?
4 Q. AEG — AE 5.010. The next page.
5 A. (Witness reviews document.) Yes.
6 Q. Uh-huh. So in June of 2015 it was your
7 understanding that Industrial Heat did not believe
8 that it had been able to replicate the — the
9 Rossi effect; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did AEG at that time understand that Industrial
12 Heat did not intend to pay Rossi or AEG if
13 Industrial Heat could not replicate?
14 A. I — that was always assumed.
15 Q. Now, there’s — there’s a notation in these notes
16 that says “What’s behind the wall.”
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Whereabouts?
19 Q. Just one line down — two lines down from what we
20 just read.
21 A. That’s — I guess that would have been J.T. making
22 comment.
23 Q. Uh-huh. And now — and the next line says “If IH
1 feels good about things, they may not push him on
2 the 1-megawatt test.”
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. What does that mean to you?
6 A. That if he’s — if they feel he was having
7 success, that — I don’t — again, I —
8 conversations we always had with Tom and
9 Industrial Heat was, they were always feeling that
10 the 1 megawatt wasn’t necessary either. I think
11 Andrea felt that he wanted to show that he could
12 commercialize this, and that Industrial Heat felt
13 that, you know, if they — if things were going
14 well, then — then maybe that wasn’t necessary to
15 do the big test.
16 Q. And the last line there says “IH does not want to
17 piss him off.”
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Do you see that?
20 What does that mean to you?
21 A. It means that Tom always was trying to be
22 sensitive to Andrea and let him develop his — the
23 project. It was — we always had this expression:
1 It was, like, let — you know, Andrea — I mean,
2 Tom would always, like, give — you know, Let
3 Andrea play in his sandbox. Let him do what he
4 wants to do; be — be himself and the inventor.
5 And Tom didn’t want any conflict going on that
6 would upset Andrea so that Andrea would get
7 distracted from his mission of doing 1 megawatt or
8 for finding the…
9 Q. Why do you think he did that?
10 A. Why did Tom do that? ‘Cause —
11 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
12 A. — I think he just wanted to make all this work.
13 MR. BELL: I’m going to have marked as
14 the exhibit next in order an email dated June 29,
15 2015, stamped AE 345.001.
16 (Exhibit 28, AE 000345.001-002.)
17 A. (Witness reviews document.)
18 Q. Have you had a chance to review that?
19 A. Doing that right now. (Witness reviews document.)
20 Q. Now, on June 29th you wrote an email to Andrea
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in that email you asked him whether Industrial
1 Heat had agreed to using Penon for the
2 certification for the test; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, you knew, based on the exhibits that we just
5 reviewed, that Industrial Heat did not agree to
6 using Penon for the certification.
7 So why did you ask Mr. Rossi that
8 question?
9 A. ‘Cause we didn’t get an answer from Industrial
10 Heat as to whether there was any agreement or not.
11 This was just a verbal conversation that I didn’t
12 know whether or not Industrial Heat had
13 communicated with Andrea Rossi.
14 Q. Well, those seem — two separate things to me.
15 They — they had clearly — Industrial Heat had
16 clearly communicated it to you —
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. — correct?
19 And you just told me that Mr. Darden
20 went out of his way not to — not to aggravate Mr.
21 Rossi; correct?
22 A. Yeah. Yeah.
23 Q. And you had a concern that they had not —
1 Industrial Heat had not conveyed information to
2 Mr. Rossi —
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. — is that — is that fair?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you trying to influence Mr. Rossi to consider
7 a — a different party to validate Mr. Rossi’s
8 work in Florida?
9 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
10 A. Well, I don’t know if I was trying to convince him
11 to use someone — I — we just wanted to make sure
12 that a third-party evaluation was accepted by both
13 parties.
14 Q. Why not be more direct with Mr. Rossi?
15 MR. SHARE: Objection. Form.
16 A. I’m — I can’t answer that. I’m not sure.
17 Q. Well, in other words, J.T. Vaughan had told you
18 that Industrial Heat doesn’t accept Penon;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. And you could have said to Mr. Rossi, Hey, I was
22 just talking to J.T. Vaughan on the phone. They
23 don’t accept Penon.
1 A. Well, I assumed that they had that conversation
2 with him.
3 Q. Well, if they had that conversation, why — why
4 would you send an email —
5 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
6 A. I — I just — I suppose I should have had that
7 conversation with Andrea.
8 Q. In the — on the second page of the document in
9 your email, you ask at the — at the last sentence
10 of the first paragraph, “Do you –” Andrea Rossi
11 “– have any certification or letter from the –”
12 quote/unquote “‘– client’ and invoices for sale
13 of energy?”
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why did you ask for that?
17 A. Again, we wanted to make sure that everybody was
18 making — living up to their ends of the
19 agreement.
20 Q. What did that have to do with the agreement?
21 MR. SHARE: Objection to form.
22 A. That the invoices from the sale of energy would
23 show that they were producing energy.
1 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you to look at Mr. Rossi’s
2 reply to your email.
3 Now, you had asked him a direct question
4 as to whether Industrial Heat agreed with Rossi 5 about Penon doing the certification, as we just
6 saw; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And Mr. Rossi did not answer that — did he — in
9 his email?
10 MR. CHAIKEN: Object to form.
11 A. Yes, he did not.
12 Q. Now, with — what did he say with respect to your
13 request for certifications or letters from the,
14 quote, “client,” close quote and invoices for sale
15 of energy?
16 A. Did not have the documents.
17 (Witness reviews document.) Did not
18 have the documents.
19 Q. Related to the commercial agreement between
20 Industrial Heat and their customer?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. And he goes — he goes on to say he spoke — that
23 he, Rossi, spoke with the director of the factory
1 and the customer, and they are very positive so
2 far; is that right?
3 A. That’s what it says.
4 Q. What did you understand that to mean?
5 A. That everything was going okay.
6 Q. When — on either of your two visits, did you meet
7 with a director of the factory and the customer?
8 A. No.

See July 3, 2014 emails between Cassarino and IH, re Rossi’s request that AEG sign the 2nd Amendment.

See a more extensive exhibit which includes the emails shown above, plus an IH/IPH business plan (which reports the “customer” as Johnson Matthey) and gives many details about IH involvements — and cautions potential investors about high risk. This was dated July, 2014.

April 2014 correspondence between Cassarino and Rossi. (Rossi knows that the Second Amendment has been “cancelled.”)

I suspected that the attorney questioning Cassarino is Chaiken, for Rossi, there are various hints to Rossi legal theories, however, there is also an indication that it is not Chaiken, but presumably Bell, the IH attorney present.

I was originally inspired to write this by reading the Planet Rossi comments on E-Cat World, noticing how many of them seem thoroughly uninformed. Some of that appears on LENR Forum as well.

On ECW, there is complaint about how “confusing” the Rossi v. Darden documents are. People want to be spoon-fed. They come across a word they don’t understand, and conclude that the material is confusing; in fact, they are confused, not the material. Legal language is explicit. I commonly find legal terms that I realize I don’t understand, not being trained as a lawyer, but, instead of falling over, I look them up until I sense that I understand them. I discuss the material with others, including lawyers. It’s work to understand something like Rossi v. Darden.

Any of this material can be explained; I may understand more than most because, involved in business, and having occasion to appear in court (on personal matters or cases involving a close friend), I studied common law and some statutory law years ago. I also have been putting in crazy hours reading and organizing case documents.

There is nothing here that someone of reasonable intelligence, genius not required, cannot understand with patience. What interferes more than anything with understanding is preconception inconsistent with fact, or premature demand for “meaning.” We can see in Rossi v. Darden examples where a fact is asserted by one party, that is clearly a fact, but because it may be thought to “mean something” that a party doesn’t like, they dispute it, thus complicating the case, increasing (greatly!) the issues to be decided by the court and jury.

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”

At last! The opportunity you’ve been waiting for!

I.e., to send Infusion Institute funding to keep this work going. I started a GoFundMe campaign:

Cold fusion journalism

I intend to go to Miami for the trial in Rossi v. Darden — if it happens, which is seeming likely, though the scope of the trial remains unclear at this point. Getting there is relatively cheap (I’ll probably take the bus), but a hotel would be expensive, I expect, unless I share a room — which is how I managed to afford ICCF-18.

This blog isn’t expensive, though it is beginning to push resource limits and I may need to start paying more for hosting.

Misc Mash appears to be dysfunctional. While the Rossi v. Darden docket page claims to have been updated, it hasn’t. It ends at this point with DE 281 (May 3), while Eric Walker and I have documents up to 289 (May 6). Pacermonitor ordinarily updates at midnight, but it looks like their PACER login might be failing, and their automated access may treat a login failure as if there were no new documents.

(I contacted pacermonitor and they fixed the problem. At least for now!) is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.

The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.

The posts are typically images, very little text if any. The images are copies of documents with supposed Great Significance, I’d guess. All posts but appear to have been made within a three-hour period. In time order, latest first, as of this writing:

 Document about a calorimetric device. Being used for Quark-X? No clue, but that’s what I’d guess. It uses thermocouples.

Photos allegedly JT Vaughn in Zürich. JT Vaughn went to Zurich. Big whoop?

Replied to the thread Rossi vs. Darden developments – Part 2.

Intern 2

Position notice for ‘startup technology company,” Chemistry lab manager. Involves hydrogen storage materials. However, the listing then is about a “Graduate Research Assistant,” Solid State Materials, North Carolina State University, Professor Paul Maggard’s lab. This is the lab. Connection with Rossi v. Darden practically invisible. However, the lab is in Raleigh, at North Carolina State University there. Maggard has published in the field of solar electric energy conversion, which would then make connections with the people behind Industrial Heat quite plausible. However, I found no evidence so far. People who spend more time and are more diligent may find something.

This appears to be a LinkedIn page for someone working at HMRI, since August 2016. This led me to the profile for Nicholas A. Renck, who worked at HMRI R&D, Inc., from December, 2015, to June, 2016.

Responsible for investigation of chemistry related aspects in development of a proprietary energy source as well as the preparation of a chemistry lab and related processes at a small start-up.

Successfully calibrated the spectral profiles of metals of interest for a SEM/EDS system without training from Brüker.

The imaged information is from this page: Josh Dickerson. The only information of interest (for any possible relationship to RvD) is the name of the employer: HMRI, Inc. The work was “characterization of materials.”

From these sources, HMRI, Inc. is involved with a “proprietary energy source.” That’s about it.

V = 2,33kV
P = 244,9W
I = 0,105A
d = 0,015m
λ = 0,53nm


 The arXiv paper is the paper by Carl-Oscar Gullström and Andrea Rossi. The significance to Rossi v. Darden is? It is common on Planet Rossi to think that anything that might be successful by Rossi would be killer evidence in the trial, which is a gross delusion. Not that Quark-X is successful. We have no reliable information about it.
Jack Finney / Don Siegel
The image was here, for the thread Symposium Francophone RNBE-2016
The significance of “Jack Finney / Don Siegel” is obscure. Unless this is about body snatchers and nuclear war.
Three documents are shown:
a listing of the noncompetition agreement between IH and Murray (taken from joint stipulation supplement Rossi exhibits line 191) (I have not yet cross referenced these, I do not know if we have a copy of that document).
a list of LLCs that Joseph A. Murray is registered agent for. Ahlfors missed one.
A microgrid patent. Darden has been known to have an interest in microgrids. The filing is shown here. 
This is all meaningless with respect to Rossi v. Darden. People in business do business. People who live in basements or under bridges think this is sinister.
Two images: a well-known image of an early Rossi reactor, apparently in his dining room, and an image of the JMP black box
There is a mental state or syndrome where the mind makes connections where normal people would see nothing related. Such people often think that if they simply show the “evidences,” others will immediately recognize the connections — or they are blind, or, worse, hostile conspirators.


Sapphire crucibles for work at the temperatures up to 2000°C, chemically resistant. Presumably could be used for Quark-X. 


Another Linked-In profile image with no member information. I could not find the original profile. If this is a real profile, job with HMRI R&D in Cary, NC, terminated because “proprietary process being moved overseas.”
This may be inconsistent with other profiles already seen. People sometimes make false statements (knowingly or unknowingly) in LinkedIn profiles. Profiles may easily be out-of-date, as well.


 This is the official U.K. corporate information, for IHHI, the parent company of Industrial Heat. This is very well-known. The point is?
Two images: line 111 of the Rossi exhibits in the joint pretrial stipulation, referring to an SEC document, a little of which is shown in the next image. This is quite old news, it was discussed extensively last year. It’s meaningless. A $2.2 billion, very active, corporation, when regulations change, can make mistakes. Cherokee made an accounting error. The SEC dinged them. Cherokee made a settlement offer, which the SEC accepted, November 15, 2015. Should klaxons be sounding? As agreed, they paid a civil penalty of $100,000. That is about 0.0005% of the assets under management. That would be like me paying a nickel.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden. Apparently, though, Rossi asked Dewey Weaver a question about it, this being listed in the joint stipulation as Exhibit 8 in the Weaver deposition. That page is not included in the Rossi submission of this deposition. If this has any meaning, it is certainly obscure.
This is three images. The first is the known photo of Rossi with a wig in front of a whiteboard. The second is what could be a blurry photo of Rossi’s sleeve and a bottle of water. The third is a clear photo of the same brand of bottled water, Zephyrhills.
The point is obvious: Rossi drinks water, proving he is not a demon.
Of course, we don’t actually see him drinking. Inquiring minds want to know.

This is a Google cache of a staff page for Fabio Fabiani at Upsalla University. Fabiani is called a “researcher,” and this is in the Department of Chemistry. There is no evidence that this is the same Fabio Fabiani as was Rossi’s helper, though it would be somewhat remarkable as a coincidence if he is not. Rossi has friends at Upsalla. 

The Google cache comments are in Italian, and the page was captured 20 March, 2017. The cache copy calls him a “visiting researcher.” 

This has nothing to do with Rossi v. Darden Developments.

This user is wasting the time of many readers. There was a complaint.


Personally, I’d like to see you make some coherent points or arguments rather than just spamming the forum with disconnected screenshots and pictures.


I notice the people who upvote things like this….

IH Fanboy wrote:

Looks like Ahlfors has been digging. You might recall that AlainCo discovered that JT Vaughn might be behind HRMI R&D, Inc.

Antonio LaGatta and John T Vaughn have incorporated HMRI R&D Inc in North Carolina

This is where I came in. Looking at this thread brought it all back. The breathless gossip, basically rumor. Dead sources. But, wait, Vessela Nikolova! never mind!

It was there that David Nygren valued IHHI at over $1 billion, by multiplying 23 million shares by $45. Nobody corrected Nygren’s error until I posted about three months later. The ordinary stock is penny stock, worth $0.01 per share par value. $45 was the approximate price per share of preferred stock, issued to the two Woodford trusts. The total value of that preferred stock was $50 million, quite precisely.

Since I started writing this, there are a few more posts:

Ahlfors wrote:

[two images: line 210 of the Rossi evidences re “Proprietary Information Agreement – PIA No. 2011-2011 between The Boeing Company and Leonardo Corporation”, dated 4/13/2011 (before the IH/Rossi agreement, but this has IH Bates document numbers? Perhaps Boeing gave these documents to IH?), and then an excerpt of a handwritten note provided by Ampenergo, saying “Device sent to Boeing, Rossi does not know.” Which we already knew. Rossi was upset about this, as I recall, expressing it on JONP. How could anyone possibly test the device without authentic Rossi Grease?

(Well, if the IP has been transferred, they could! If not, then, of course, failure would be expected. The magic incantations would be missing.)

Ahlfors wrote:

Friends and IP protection …

Quote: “AR is a convicted fraudster”

At least now Ahlfors gives URLs as sources, not just screenshots. Andrea Rossi was convicted, and served time in prison; what later happened is unclear to me and I’ve never seen a thorough examination of it. Mats Lewan is unclear, etc. This thread is supposedly about Rossi v. Darden developments, but Darden doesn’t make that “convicted fraudster” claim and it is irrelevant. What is this stuff doing here?


60 page paper about RU-486. No page number or clue of relevance. The image, however, shows a page, but the page number is obscured. So, searching for a name visible in the image, I find that it is page 37. Unfortunately, I cannot directly link to that because of how this paper is hosted, and it’s not worth uploading the whole thing here.

This is about Joseph Pike. See our page examining this and connecting it with present concerns.

snap 5: https://beta.companieshouse.go…ent?format=pdf&download=0

68 page Articles of Association of IHHI. No page number or clue of relevance. However, the image shows a list of investors, and JPIH Holdings LLC is an investor in IHHI.


And this shows the Florida registration of JPIH Holdings LLC as a foreign corporation, from Delaware. The Delaware incorporation was in May, 2013, about the time IH was raising their initial cash, that allowed them to make the $10 million payment, and to begin working seriously with LENR.

The purpose here is to smear Pike and thus IH, by claiming that if Rossi might have been a criminal, so was Pike. But Pike’s offense was thirty years ago, was relatively minor, apparently, and he is not a principal in IH, not an officer, and, for the most part, an investor. His involvement with the RU-486 affair was shady, but it appears to have been fully resolved, nobody was left screaming “Fraud!”

Ahlfors’ agenda is now clear. Slimy.


Ahlfors left in a huff after Allan pointed out he’d been warned and one post was deleted. (As is SOP with him, — and some other newcomers — he doesn’t link to what he is responding to.) Then, encouraged by some support, he put up a new mish-mosh:

Ahlfors wrote:


Link to profile but not the post. It was probably this. The lack of understanding or caring about general intelligibility is quite noticeable here.

Complex systems must be shattered a bit to collect REAL data on corresponding phase spaces.

This is extremely unlikely to be Andrea Rossi. It is quite possible someone has recognized Ahlfors. So then he puts up three images, again with no sources. Hmmphh. I wrote one of them, and there is no credit. Maybe I should create a license page. It’s rude to quote people without credit. It also can be a violation of copyright law, that depends on details.

The first is from Dewey Weaver. There are links in it, but as an image, they cannot be followed, and certainly the sources can be found, but it’s tedious. Given that he could have added links in a few seconds, again, this shows his lack of care for other people, characteristic of the probably-involved developmental disorder. He is not stupid and could learn if he recognized what is missing.

The source is the member activity display for Dewey, but that may change. So the original posts are at here (May 9, 2017), and here (March 27, 2017). Ahlfors habit of posting edited screenshots conceals context, and this then makes it easier to promote some interpretation of the “data.” It’s data, all right, but cherry-picked and filtered for some appearance or other.

The second image is some text that might be an LF private message, but it could also be from many other sources. It says “8 hours ago,” then the message is:

Hej Ahlfors. Jag undrar om du skulle vilja ta kontakt direkt med mig på [blacked out].

This, then, appears to be a message to Ahlfors — at the LF account — from someone who speaks Swedish, likely, and expects if from him, maybe. It gives no clue as to Ahlfors actual identity or nationalilty or language. There is another indication, from a Google cache display, that his preferred language is Italian. Of course, perhaps Ahlfors got that image from someone like that. None of this, in isolation, is strong evidence.

And then there is a shot from here. This page, in fact, above, near the top. is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

Googling Ahlfors comes up with many references to Lars Ahlfors. There are other Ahlfors, but none appeared, as far as I looked, to be interested in LENR or Rossi, The probability that Ahlfors is female is very low — though not zero.

The posts are in Rossi v. Darden Developments, but are mostly off-topic there, having the most peripheral significance possible without being entirely irrelevant. One post led me to notice a filing in the supplement to the joint stipulation, a piece of evidence that Rossi has listed. That is itself entirely off-topic for the lawsuit, it would be like a criminal case that notes the alleged offender was once cited for jaywalking. Obviously, if someone could jaywalk, he could rob a bank. I’ll cover this elsewhere.

What is the connection between the three images? What is the point, or is this pointless? My guess. Dewey claims Ahlfors is ele. That is a kind of critique. Ahlfors quotes someone addressing him, though this could merely be a copy of an LF PM, which would, of course, use his LF username. He might imagine that this somehow establishes his independence from ele, maybe that it’s in Swedish is imagined to amplify that. And then I have noticed Ahfors (actually, from timing, before Dewey posted that comment, his first in a long time). Aha!

Isn’t it obvious?!?!

This is how Sifferkoll thought and worked. Whatever connection could be found was taken as proof of … of … what? Large companies sometimes hire the largest law firm in the U.S. Therefore they are all controlled by a single interest! (If Cherokee were not a defendant, would IH have hired Jones Day? Maybe. They have those habits.)

Meanwhile, the flood of flabber continues. In this case, it might seem to be from the “other side.” or from the side of Haven’t a Clue. From my point of view, there are no sides and one can be terminally obtuse in favor of any position.

joshg wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:

I don’t think there’s enough information to be forced into a negative interpretation yet. One possibility: Perlman Bajandas are just cleaning up loose ends after Annesser left, and “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”.

Well somebody at LENR-forum apparently doesn’t agree with you. Here is the (spam) e-mail I received:

Hello {username},

today new court documents were released, where especially document 292 “Motion to withdraw” seems to indicate significant negative developments in Rossi’s camp.

In document 292 most of Rossi’s lawyers ask the court for permission to “withdraw from this case and from further representation of Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi”.

I got the same email. Including “{username}”. There was a little more:

For more information see the forum discussion thread:

Rossi vs. Darden developments

Your LENR Forum Team

joshg goes on:

Spamming a premature, tendentious, and likely inaccurate interpretation of this Motion just confirms that LENR-forum is biased against Rossi in favor of IH. There have been plenty of motions that could be viewed as a setback for IH, yet I was never spammed about that.

And yes, it is spam, since LENR-forum does not provide users with a way to opt-out of receiving such unsolicited notifications.

LENR-Forum is run by amateurs without wide experience in such activity. I think of the interpretation as merely clueless. LF process is quite unclear. My suspicion is that while this is signed “Your LENR Forum Team,” it is really a message from a single moderator or administrator, struck by his own imagination that the Motion to Withdraw is some sort of major “sign.”

First of all, this was obviously happening. The first sign I saw was Bernstein appearing with Annesser at a hearing, April 21. I wrote about it here. Bernstein was an associate at Silver Law Group. Annesser had moved to PBY&A, Rossi gained all those attorneys (August 16, 2016), and then Annesser, for Rossi, requested Silver Law Group be relieved (September 21). I think Ms. Silver died in October.

April 27, Annesser and Chaiken issue a notice of new address. They have clearly formed a new firm, Annesser and Chaiken. There was no mention of PBY&A in that notice, and that firm’s lawyers were not on the service list.

May 9, Bernstein appeared for Rossi, and later that day, Turner and Evans, of PBY&A, requested to be relieved. There are Forum moderators who are legally naive, and who interpreted the motion to allow withdrawal as having some accusatory edge. That is extremely unlikely. The move itself may raise eyebrows, but attorneys would never accuse former associated attorneys of misbehavior during an action, absent extremely unusual situations. I think the mod was confused by this:

2. Pursuant to Rule 4-1.16(b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, grounds exist for this Court to allow Undersigned Counsel’s withdraw from representing Plaintiffs.

“Grounds exist.” So a reader goes to Rule 4-1.16(b) and finds this:

(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.

Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:

(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;

(2) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;

(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;

(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;

(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or

(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

To understand this, one must notice that the list of causes comes after a general permission to withdraw if it “can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:” — and then the list follows. The additional causes as listed would never be announced like this, because it could harm the client. If it were necessary to assert them, this would be done privately with the Judge.

Rather, Turner and Evans then give cause:

3. Lead counsel for the Plaintiffs have resigned from the office for Undersigned Counsel and Plaintiffs have moved with them.
4. Plaintiffs’ counsel is John Annesser, Esq., Annesser & Chaiken, PLLC, located at 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 625, Coral Gables, Florida 33134.

§ 3 gives cause (which might satisfy Rule 4-1.16(a), that they must withdraw if discharged). § 4 assures the Court that Rossi will continue to have representation.

While this is food for flabber, DE 292 was one of the least significant documents to come out recently.

What this reveals is that LF allows moderators to email all members. I’m a bit uncomfortable calling this spam, but this is one example of unprofessional conduct — not surprising for a group of amateurs. Moderators are not given special privileges to give them special access to eyeballs, except with the performance of duties. The importance of this document was a moderator opinion, and it was offensive to joshg, never mind that he lives mostly on Planet Rossi. There are other examples. On the home page for the Forum, we have a banner:

LENR Forum
The Independent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Community

Is LENR forum a community project? It displays advertising. Who decides to do that? There is a LENR community, but the vast majority of those involved with LENR do not read or participate in LENR Forum. The Forum users are a kind of community, but the Staff may include or exclude people without showing any cause, and Staff discussions are private, not disclosed, though occasionally they are mentioned.

And then at the bottom of the screen, there is a pair of buttons. [What is LENR?] and [Forum]. The “What is LENR” button goes to an article. When Barty upgraded the site in January, my guess is he decided the site needed an introductory article, so he wrote it, and featured it. Without going into details, it is a poor article, he simply isn’t well grounded in the relevant subjects. I suspect that Barty is also the one who can “spam” the members. But it might be any admin or any moderator.

That “spam” wasn’t signed, but was represented as coming from all staff.

Moderation decisions on LF are ad hoc. It is not clear that there are any restraining rules. There do not appear to be logs showing deletions or other moderator actions. (That’s also a problem with WordPress). If it’s like WordPress, there are deletions that merely hide, and there are deletions that erase the material so it is not recoverable unless there is some off-site backup. (Actually, I just checked. I could install WP Security Audit Log. What this would do is to allow monitoring administrative activity. The WMF wikis would be practically impossible without that.


All but the latest of Ahlfors’ posts have been deleted on LF. See his profile. It shows 12 posts, but only 3 remain. He has 15 likes, but only 5 show.

One user suggested an Ahlfors thread, so he could continue to compile his “evidence.” (evidence of what? Stuff happens?). Ahlfors is clearly supporting Planet Rossi, perhaps trolling (I called him a troll above, and a troll may want to create exactly what LF admin then cooperated with), but channeling this so that it does not derail more constructive conversations would be what skilled moderation would do. Skilled moderation was offered to LF, it was rejected (with no reasons given, a blank wall was presented, with the suggesting staff member somewhat in despair). It only takes one skilled moderator and some sane discussion process to infect the whole staff with sanity. And that is exactly why someone might want to stop it. The fact that a moderator who abused the privilege could be immediately suspended by any admin with rights assignment privileges is ignored. People will protest!

Yes, they will. And if everything runs on preventing squeaky wheels, the best way to prevent them is to stop moving.

Ahlfors is not banned, but deleting the content of an author is stronger — more offensive — than a ban. Moving it to the Playground, say, was the older, less dysfunctional response. There is no supervisory process visible for LF. I suspect the “rule” that (Alan?) had in mind was flooding, but response to that should be totally predictable and should cause no harm. Alan, however, follows the Absolute Truth principle. If Alan thinks it, it is Absolute Truth and everything else is stupid or vicious. Full stop.

Loopy devices?

On LENR Forum, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Zephir_AWT wrote:

OK, I can reformulate it like “if you believe you have an overunity, just construct self-looped selfrunner”.

That would be complicated and expensive.

That depends on unstated conditions.

Zephir AWT’s original comment was better:

Accurate measurements are necessary only, when you’re pursuing effects important from theoretical perspective. Once you want to heat your house with it, then the effect observed must be evident without doubts even under crude measurement.

What is happening, rather obviously, is that general principles are being claimed, when, in fact, there are no clear general principles and the principles are being advanced to support specific arguments in specific situations. Some of these general principles are, perhaps, “reasonable,” which means that “reasonable people,” (i.e., people like me, isn’t that the real meaning?) don’t fall over from the sheer weight of flabber.

Let’s see what I find here.

  1. Science may develop with relatively imprecise measurements; in real work, by real scientists, measurement precision is reported. If an effect is being reported, then, how is the magnitude of the effect, as inferred from measurements, related to the reported precision? Is that precision itself clear or unclear? To give an example, McKubre has estimated his experimental heat/helium ratio for M4 as 23 MeV/4He +/- 10%. See Lomax (2015) and references there, and this is complicated. “10%” is obviously an estimate. It is not likely calculated from the assemblage of individual measurement precisions.  Nor is it developed from variation in a series of measurements (which is not possible with M4, it’s essentially a single result).
  2. Based on a collection of relatively imprecise results, under some conditions, reasonable conclusions may be developed, estimating (or even calculating) probabilities that an effect is real and not an artifact of measurement error.
  3. Systematic error can trump measurement error, easily. That is, a measurement may be accurate and real, but an accurate measurement of something being created by some unidentified artifact can lead to erroneous conclusions.
  4. “Unidentified artifact” is certainly a possibility, always. By definition. However, it is less likely that a large error will be created by such, and it is here that imprecision, combined with relatively low-level effects, can loom larger. There is a fuzzy zone, which cannot be precisely defined, as far as I know, where measurements reasonably create an impression that may deserve further investigation, but are not adequate to create specific certainty.
  5. There is a vast body of cold fusion research, creating a vast body of evidences. Approaching this is difficult, and to take the necessary time requires, for most, that the investigator consider the probability that the alleged effects are real be above some value. A few may investigate out of simple curiousity, even if the probability is low, and some are interested in the process of science, and may be especially interested in unscientific beliefs (i.e., not rooted in rigorous experimental confirmation and analysis), whether these be on the side of “bogosity” or the side of “belief.”
  6. For a commercial or practical application, heat cannot be merely in the realm of confirmed by measurements — or claimed to be confirmed –, showing “overunity,” but must be generated massively in excess of input power (or expensive fuel input, whether chemical or nuclear in nature).
  7. Demands for proof or conclusive evidence are commonly made without identifying the context, the need for proof or evidence. For different purposes, different standards may apply. To give an example, if a donor is considering a gift of millions of dollars for research, it may not be necessary that the research be based on proven, clear, unmistakeable evidence. It might simply be anecdotal, with the donor trusting the reporter(s). However, I was advising, before 2015, that the first research to be so funded would be heat/helium confirmation, because this was already confirmed adequately to establish the existence of the correlation, such that the research could be expected to either confirm the correlation, perhaps with increased precision as to the ratio, or, less likely, identify the artifact behind these prior results. Both outcomes could be worth the expense. To justify a billion-dollar investment in developing commercial applications, based simply on that evidence, could be quite premature, with some expected loss (for lots of possible causes).
  8. Overunity must be defined as output power not arising from chemical causes or prior energy storage, or it would be trivial. A match is an overunity device, generating far more energy than is involved in igniting it.
  9. What is actually being discussed is what would be, the idea seems to be, convincing in demonstrations. Demonstrations, however, in the presence of massive contrary expectations, are utterly inadequate. Papp demonstrated an over-unity engine, it would seem. Just how convincing was that? It was enough to create some interest, but in the absence of fully-independent confirmation of some “Papp effect,” it has gone nowhere.
  10. Overunity, self-powered, has been seen many times, for periods of time. In fewer cases, this has been claimed to be in excess of all input energy, historically. Jed is correct that “unidentified artifact” is not a “scientific argument, but so is “unknown material conditions usually causing replication failure.” Neither of these can be falsified. However, social process — and real-world scientific process is social — uses “impressions” routinely.
  11. “Self-powered”, if the expression of power is obvious, and if it is sufficient power to be useful, would indeed create convincing demonstrations. If a product is available that can be purchased and tested by anyone (with the necessary resources), that would presumably be convincing to all but the silliest die-hard skeptics.
  12. “Self-powered” is theoretically possible with some claims. The alleged Rossi effect is one. There are levels of “self-powered.”
  13. First of all, there tend to be fuzzy concepts of “input power.” Constant environmental temperature is not input power, at least not normally. Yet in studies of the “Rossi effect,” input power generally includes power used to maintain an elevated temperature. If it includes power that is varied, modulated, to cause some effect, that could be input power, but if it is DC, constant, there is no input power and it is theoretically possible to create “self-sustained” from even reasonably low levels of heat generation. All that is needed is to control cooling, to reduce the steady-state cooling to a low level, so that the temperature is maintained without input power. Because no insulation is perfect, there must still be heating power to create constant temperature, but … if this necessary input power is low enough, it may be supplied by internally generated power. If there is any.
  14. In a Rossi device, the reaction is controlled, it’s been common to think, by controlling the fuel temperature. Because the nature of the devices appears to have the fuel temperature be far in excess of the coolant temperature — there must be poor heat conduction from fuel to coolant — an alternate path to reaction control would be controlled cooling. Over a limited range, coolant flow would control temperature. Beyond that, other measures are possible.
  15. A standard method of calorimetry is to maintain an elevated temperature under controlled conditions, such that the input power necessary for that purpose can be accurately measured, and then measure the effect of the presence of the fuel on that required power. If it can be reduced significantly, that would indicate significant heat. Because we expect chemical processes in an NiH fuel, one of the signs of good calorimetry would be that this effect is quantifiable.
  16. If the goal is convincing investors, then the primary necessity (outside of fraud) is independence of those who can control the demonstration or experiment.
  17. Jed is correct that creating a self-powered demonstration, i.e., one that generates heat could be “complicated and expensive.” For standard cold fusion experiments, it would be outside of what they need to generate useful results. However, with some approaches, it could be cheap and easy, if there are robust results. Without robust results (even if the results are scientifically significant), it could be practically impossible.
  18. Yet consider an “Energy Amplifier.” It requires input power, but generates excess heat at some significant COP. If the COP is high enough, if the heat is in a useful form, then various devices could be used to generate the input power, and only start-up power would be needed, and that could be supplied by, say, capacitative storage that would clearly limit the total energy available. The big problem is that COP 2.0 would not be enough for this, given conversion efficiencies. Yet a COP 2.0 Energy Amplifier, if it were cheap enough, and if the total sustained power were adequate, could be used to reduce energy costs.
  19. For most cold fusion experiments, what it would take to be self-running would be a fish bicycle or worse.
  20. For some, particularly efforts claimed to generate commercial levels of power at COP of 2.0 or higher, achieving self-power should be relatively simple and might be worth doing. Key in demonstrations that could legitimately convince investors would be independence, with robust measurement methods. An inventor who places secrecy first may not be willing to do this.
  21. For this reason, I’d suggest avoiding such inventors. A secretive inventor who allows black-box testing, where independent experts measure power in and power out, showing energy generation far above storage possibilities, might allow an exception. The Lugano report shows the remaining hazards. Basically, the Lugano authors were not experts with regard to the needed skills, they were naive.