This is a study of the McKubre paper (2009).
This is a study of the McKubre paper (2009).
“Peep” is the sound of Main Stream Media regarding Rossi v. Darden. The following is the first mention I’ve seen of the settlement, in Triangle Business News, in an article behind a paywall.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/08/03/dispute-between-inventor-and-raleigh-investor-over.html. I have a copy of this article, and provide here some excerpts. Much of the article will be familiar to anyone who has been following the case. Continue reading “Peep!”
On E-Catworld, Chapman wrote a post about the Quark-X, put up by Frank Acland, which looked at some of the same facts and ideas as I just covered on my consideration of the Gullstrom report, part of Rossi’s blog: Fact, Flabber, Flim-Flam, or Fun?
Chapman definitely lives on Planet Rossi, but here shows a willingness to recognize that something is missing. That is a cause for hope (when this happens on any “side.”) It’s worth looking at. So his report and my comments are below. I’d much rather respond here than there, though I will probably toss a nickel or two in that pond. Continue reading “Hope for Planet Rossi”
This recent Lewan interview and comments on it led me to look back at an older one:
Last week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000 square meter factory building for sale. The day after, assisted by his Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now ongoing.
This was before the IH Answer in Rossi v. Darden revealed that Rossi claimed to IH, in 2012, that he had created a fake test for Hydro Fusion to get out of his agreement with them. One wonders how Hydro Fusion reacted when they found out, assuming they did. Be that as it may, it seems clear that Lewan reports what Rossi tells him as fact, without verification. To be sure, perhaps he did verify, but … it seems unlikely. Then Lewan does not follow up. What happened to this deal? When an actual offer is made, normally there is a deposit put up. Or was this a real offer, or just an idea?
There are many “updates” reported in this interview. What else was there and how does it all look now, with far more having become public?
Even buying a factory building is no proof that production will start. Critics, accusing Rossi for being a fraudster, will assume that it could be a way to attract investors, but I honestly wouldn’t expect a fraudster to make use of such expensive schemes. Especially not since it would be quite fine just getting away with 11.5M without further trouble.
This is a classic argument on Planet Rossi. “I wouldn’t expect.” “Fraudster” is not well defined. Lewan’s expectation is an ungrounded fantasy. If a fraudster is someone who induces people to do what he wants by misleading them, there is plenty of evidence that Rossi has done that (including that Hydro Fusion affair, regarding which Lewan has direct knowledge of).
IH obviously didn’t expect Rossi to sue them, he’d have to be crazy. Yes. He would. However, maybe he gained something, he is now claiming that his goal from the beginning was to get the License back, though that does not match his actual behavior. However, once we accept the idea that someone might be literally insane, it is not necessary that anything make sense. What can be seen here is that Lewan is creating conclusions out of nothing.
I would take this as a strong indication that the modular Quark X, supposedly big as a pen, producing heat, light and direct electricity at variable proportions at a total power of about 100W, based on the E-Cat LENR technology with hydrogen, lithium, aluminium and nickel in the fuel, is real. Rossi, however, said that there’s still R&D to be done to get the Quark X ready for production. He also said that the ‘X’ had no other meaning than being a substitute for a final name.
And some other mystery ingredient, apparently, the most closely-guarded secret. Quark-X is now allegedly a 20 watt device, and direct electricity isn’t being claimed any more, if I’m correct. This is 14 months later. Sure, Rossi had an excuse, but … why does everything depend on Rossi alone? Doesn’t he have partners? Ah, well, questions, questions. What’s here.
After my meeting with Rossi (first time for me since September 2012), I have a few other updates.
Claiming that everything he said could be proven with documents (or that he otherwise would be lying),
Rossi lies, that’s not in question. That doesn’t show that any given statement is a lie, but what do we know about what is claimed here?
Rossi told me regarding the one-year 1MW test that:
All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.
Later email communications between Penon and Rossi (but before this interview) were not cc’d to Darden and were destroyed by Rossi, apparently. Rossi apparently removed monitoring equipment installed by IH, but what he has said here may be more or less correct. Rossi was, in fact, in full control of the “test.” IH never agreed that this was the Guaranteed Performance Test, and it was clear that Rossi knew that the opportunity for the GPT had expired, though IH was willing to negotiate for further payments.
The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements, for example at the lowest point in the system.
As soon as the “test” was completed, Rossi removed the pipes so this claim could not be verified.
The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible.
That would be the Plant. However, the full system was mostly hidden in the “customer area,” and there are various ways that what happened in that area could seriously affect measurements.
The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August 2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT Vaughn every day on the phone.
I’m not sure about “every day.” However, calling them “representatives” is a bit deceptive. Both were tasked with assisting Rossi. Fabiani was an old friend of Rossi’s wife, apparently, and when things broke down between IH and Rossi, Fabiani, he claimed, felt trapped in the middle. In the end, he did not turn over the raw data that did, in fact, belong to IH, thus possibly protecting Rossi. We know that he destroyed that data, by his admission, and he destroyed his emails.
Rossi always pointed to the “two men” IH had in Doral. They were utterly ineffective at monitoring what was going on, because West, in particular, was not allowed to challenge Rossi on anything. Fabiani apparently threatened to harm West if he did anything to harm the “test,” though it’s not clear that he was serious. Fabiani was definitely a Rossi man, not IH.
Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the test.
They were. Glossed over is the fact that Penon only visited the test maybe once every three months, and depended entirely, as far as we know, on Rossi for data. Many of these details, though, remain unclear because of the destruction of data and emails.
During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
If this actually happened, it is odd that IH would later accept the settlement, turning the License over for no compensation at all.
At this point, making this claim, Rossi was suing IH — and other defendants — for a lot of money. Later, Rossi says, now, in the new interview, that his whole purpose was to get the licence back. IH had put about $20 million into the affair, so $11.5 million would be short. But how about $10 million plus some residual rights? Not requiring all the things that Rossi didn’t want, only providing a conditional payment to IH if Rossi hit the market with real product?
This alleged offer, now, looks like much better than IH actually got. Because this would likely have been used as a basis for improving the IH settlement, I doubt that it ever happened like it’s being said here. Rossi does that, reframes events according to his own narrative and the impression he desires to create.
The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.
We now know that there was no customer other than Rossi wearing different hats, when he even bothered to change hats. This story, like all the others told before the truth came out, strongly implies an independent customer, not Rossi himself. His story changed once he was under penalty of perjury, with massive evidence that he’d been lying. Some of his testimony, still, pushed that legal edge.
The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7.
The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.
The “heat exchanger” mentioned here, with the function described, would not be the heat exchanger Rossi later claimed. This report directly contradicts the later story. The heat was, in the later story, blown out the front windows of the mezzanine, not through the roof.
The “equipment” was a collection of tubes in which other, smaller tubes were placed, to be heated. As this was actually operated, with only small amounts of “product” being involved — maybe a few grams! — this did not require anything remotely close to a megawatt. Rossi was here maintaining the fiction of a “customer” which was only Rossi, with full control by Rossi.
The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.
This was Rossi controlling the ERV report. An engineering evaluation would aim for accuracy, and if some margin is to be added to be “conservative,” this would be applied later, not just to one measure, or mathematically to all, based on estimated error. Rossi’s insistence caused the performance data to be, possibly, partially hidden. By the way, the metering pumps had a maximum operating temperature of 50˚C, another example of the equipment operating outside the rated range.
The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).
He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative. The ERV accepted.
To be sure, at this point, IH was following a policy of not confronting or criticizing anything that Rossi did.
IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.
Demonstrating that the ERV was, to use the technical term, a blithering idiot. Sure, if everything works perfectly, it should be possible to measure generated power with the “customer loop” being hidden.
However, there are possible error and fraud modes that would operate in the “customer area.”
Supposedly, the “customer,” JMP, was to independently measure the delivered power. Instead, Johnson, the President of JMP — and Rossi’s lawyer and President of Leonardo Corporation — was given draft reports by Rossi to send to IH for delivered power. Rossi later claimed, when it became apparent that his earlier descriptions were inadequate, that he had built a heat exchanger — an additional one — to dissipate the megawatt. The operating conditions of that heat exchanger, i.e., air flow rate and air temperature rise, would have been an additional measure of power, it would have been of high interest. But if it existed, it was hidden. Why?
Rossi’s description of what was said by the “expert” may not be accurate. This is the set of questions.
Nothing there about what Rossi says. We don’t know that, at this point, Rossi had seen those questions. We may suspect that Penon gave the document to Rossi, but the emails were destroyed, and Penon was unavailable to be served, apparently hiding in the Dominican Republic to avoid being sued.
In fact, Penon blew off the expert’s questions, refusing to answer them. This is not how an independent expert would behave. Questions were asked verbally, and the expert (Murray) wasn’t satisfied and put the questions in writing. No answers.
The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.
Data collection from a test like this would properly be as measured (actual flow meter readings), not some “average.” This is all part of what was weird about the Penon report. That’s covered in many other places.
At the end of the test, the ERV dismounted all the instruments by himself, in the presence of Rossi and IH, packed them and brought everything to DHL for transportation to the instrument manufacturers who would recalibrate the instruments and certify that they were not manipulated.
This is the kind of claim that sounds reasonable until it is examined closely. When a lawyer saw this claim (not an IH lawyer), he immediately said “spoliation.” That is, evidence was removed. To be sure, no evidence appeared in the case about the results of those recalibrations.
“Manipulation” — or error — need not be of the instrument itself, but how the instrument is installed or how it is read.
One of the mysteries of the Penon report is the rock-solid 0.0 bar pressure reported. Assuming that Penon actually meant “0.0 barg,” this is astonishing, given supposedly superheated output. With superheated output, it is very difficult to maintain temperature control (unlike saturated steam, that will be rock-solid at a given pressure.) Murray raised certain issues with Penon, but there are more. In any case, imagine that the pressure gauge was screwed into a blind hole. No pressure. Nothing wrong with the gauge. Then just a little steam could raise the pressure enough to explain the temperature readings; setting up such a system to operate at 0.0 bar, precisely, would be extremely difficult, and why would one go to the trouble?
After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were paid according to the license agreement.
The Plant clearly belonged to IH, which, by the Term Sheet, had the right to remove it. Rossi’s action was not legally sustainable, under normal conditions.
Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver—a person apparently connected to IH, but yet not clear in what way—that ‘IH decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting many disappointing actions and facts’).
Dewey was an investor in IH, involved from the beginning of the affair, and a contractor to them as well. His statement is not contradicted by what is said about attorneys on both sides. (Both can be true.) This is Lewan arguing with Weaver, but, of course, Lewan disallowed comment on this post.
It’s obvious why IH would want to padlock the container, it would be to prevent spoliation. It seems they did not contemplate that Rossi would remove all the piping. There is a story that Johnson asked IH about starting up the plant again (possibly an attempt to support the “customer” story), IH indicated that could be done, and then Johnson withdrew the request. After all, the piping had been removed (and, as well, if the later story is true, the heat exchanger as well. Both were necessary for operation of a megawatt plant!)
Rossi claimed that the Term Sheet prevented IH from having access to the “customer area,” which wasn’t true. That provision was in a draft, but was removed before that agreement was signed. Nevertheless, IH did not attempt to enter the “customer area.”
I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).
Jed Rothwell somehow obtained a copy of a preliminary report. Lewan is here reporting a complex judgment with no attribution covering the expertise of those judging, this was vague rumor. If the data in the report is taken as accurate — which appears unlikely from internal evidence — sure. High COP. Lewan is completely unspecific. Rothwell claims he got the preliminary data from someone who got it from Rossi. When the Murray questions to Penon came out, Rothwell said that he had nothing more to add (Rothwell had seen spreadsheet data, but Murray describes it.)
The Penon report was filed in the court documents. There is also data from Fabiani. It all looks odd, but I’m not going into more detail here.
As for hints on the ERV Penon being incompetent, based partly on the HotCat report from August 2012, I would like to point out:
Fabio Penon has a degree in Nuclear Engineering, from Bologna University, with rating 100 of 100 and honors.
Goes to show. (Nuclear engineering does not necessarily prepare one for low-temperature steam power measurement and possible artifacts.)
He worked for several years in the nuclear industry with thermo mechanics.
When the nuclear industry was put on hold in Italy, he turned to work as expert on product certification, collaborating with entities such as Bureau Veritas, Vertiquality and Det Norske Veritas.
The HotCat report from August 2012, signed by Penon, containing a few notable errors, was not written by Penon. Penon assisted at a test on August 7, 2012, repeating an experiment made on July 16, 2012. The report was written on the July test, and Penon was only confirming that similar results were obtained on the August test. Penon told me this in an interview in September, 2012. You could of course accuse Penon of not having studied the original report sufficiently before signing it, but the errors were not a result of Penon’s work.
Sure. That signature, however, demonstrates a level of professional incompetence. He signed a report without verifying it. I’d be happier if he simply made some mistakes! Here, Mats is finding excuses, and that’s what one does if one is attempting to create or support some picture, some overall impression.
Penon’s behavior as shown by the lawsuit wasn’t … inspiring.
Two further remarks regarding earlier E-Cat tests:[not copied]
I have contacted several experts to get a third party evaluation of the Lugano test report and the contesting papers by Thomas Clarke and Bob Higgins. Until I receive these evaluations I only note that the original result is contested, but that no conclusive result is agreed upon. The isotopic shifts remain unexplained, unless you assume fraud.
That is probably necessary, though the real point is that the samples were not obtain neutrally.
Mats never came up with the third party evaluations. That could have been an actual service.
There is more, confirming that Clarke and Higgens were correct, at least in round outlines. IH made the Lugano reactors, and claims that they were never able to confirm the Lugano results, in spite of extensive efforts. (It is possible that they had some original results later considered artifact, and the report of an accidental control experiment, mentioned in the recent interview, may have been a Lugano-type reactor with similar optical calorimetry. That kind of work must be fully calibrated (i.e., with control experiments at full input power, the basic and most obvious Lugano error.)
As to the isotopic shifts, Rossi, during this visit that Lewan is reporting on, provided another sample of ash to Bo Hoistad. This showed the same isotopic shifts. It was apparently from the Doral plant, though that’s not clear. The “same isotopic shifts” could indicate that this was from the same sample. If it was actually from Doral, Doral had operated for a year, whereas Lugano only operated for a month. One would expect more dramatic shifts from a year of operation, if this is an effect from whatever reaction is generating power.
Now, all this makes me conclude that the E-Cat is most probably valid and that the 1MW test was indeed successful.
It appears that the phase of the Moon led Lewan to conclude this. There was a major investor who devoted $20 million and years of effort to confirm Rossi technology. The investor failed to do so, and walked away with a complete loss. In the face of that, the vagueness Lewan asserts pales to insignificance.
What remains to be explained is why IH in that case didn’t pay Rossi the final $89M and continued to partner with him to develop and market such a disruptive, world changing technology.
Indeed. Something is wrong with this picture. To discover it, Lewan would need to set aside his own complex emotional reactions, and actually become familiar with fact.
After looking at it for some time, I tend to be skeptic about the conspiracy hypothesis, involving large financial and political interests being threatened by such a technology, even though I find it remarkable that IH has involved APCO Worldwide and Jones Day.
Sifferkoll really goes off the deep end.
APCO and Jones Day are not at all mysterious if one looks at who these people are. Darden is a professional investment manager, handling billions of dollars in investments. It’s surprising that they would hire professionals? Why?
I then ask myself if it’s really possible that it all comes down to money. That IH/Cherokee, as has been suggested, has a track record of putting up companies based on emerging technologies or remediation projects, collecting public and private funding (or also this link), making the funds disappear and then closing down the companies with reasonable explanations for unsuccessful development of the technology or of the project.
That is a cherry=picked story of what Cherokee does, often asserted by Sifferkoll and repeated among Rossi supporters as if it were established fact.
Cherokee takes on risky projects, setting up LLCs for each project. They put about $25 million of Cherokee funds in them. Each project is independent. Each project then solicits its own investors, generally from “qualified investors,” people who can take on major risk — and also people who may need tax deductions, another factor.
Money does not “disappear.” Rather, a few projects fail. When they fail, which isn’t often, — i.e., most projects make money, quite a lot — a project may be shut down. In some cases, liabilities may exceed assets, though that is not common, and then a project might go through bankruptcy. Like any corporation. Some of these projects obtain loans and governmental funding. As with any such loan or grant to a corporation (or individual!), there can be losses. All this has been exaggerated in the lists of alleged Cherokee misbehaviors. I’ve looked at each one I’ve come across, reading the sources, documenting fact. It’s classic mudslinging.
If Cherokee were ripping off investors, there would be investors complaining. If officers were absconding with funds, there would be prosecutions (and one of the stories does involve such a prosecution. An LLC hired someone who apparently wasn’t trustworthy. It happens. None of this has anything to do with Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat investors are not complaining about Darden. This was all FUD to support a Rossi narrative of these people being crooks, but the case documents simply don’t show that.
But Mats hasn’t read the case documents, he’d rather just see what is written on blogs and make knee-jerk judgments.
Admittedly, this could be a defendable strategy in some cases where results could be obtained. Still, if the E-Cat is really working as claimed, why wouldn’t they then take the chance to build it into a prospering money machine? Taking care of the magic hen that lays golden eggs instead of roasting it after having collected the first egg, as some would put it. I cannot figure it out.
The difficulty is arising because assumptions are being made that are contradictory. IH never collected any eggs, not even the first! Rossi claimed “unjust enrichment,” but they never sold Rossi technology. He claims that they “collected $50 million” based on the technology, but that was empty claim (sometimes supported on Planet Rossi by misquoting what Woodford wrote when they learned about the problems.) Woodford did not invest in Rossi technology, but in the general IH LENR activity, this is completely clear.
IH shows, at this point, a dead loss, IHHI still has funds, apparently, but much of the asset value carried may be the Rossi License, which will be completely written off.
In Mercato veritas. Will anyone else invest after seeing what happened to IH?
Clearly, such an endeavour would require investing a lot of money and work, spending large parts, if not all of the funding IH collected while boasting about the successful MW test, and also taking a market risk that it might not play out as expected.
Mats is telling the Rossi story, regurgitated. IH did not “collect funding while boasting about the successful MW test.” They didn’t boast about the MW test. They occasionally expressed some optimism, mixed with some concerns, but major new investment didn’t exist until Woodford invested, and that was committed before the alleged 1 MW test began. Woodford did visit, and Rossi said this and that about it, and some believe Rossi, including, apparently, Mats. There was no new major fundraising after the original $20 million stock offering in 2013, as far as I’ve been able to find.
But wouldn’t it be worth it? Becoming remembered for introducing a technology that could change and literally save the planet, from the climate crisis and from fossil fuel pollution? Rather than being forever remembered as those who only saw the money, and didn’t want to get involved in the technology project? I just cannot understand.
There are many internal IH communications, communications with investors, and the like, in the case documents. They obviously did not “see only the money.” Rossi made that up, and Rossi seems to have believed that they only cared about money (hence he imagined that they’d be happy that he chose them over Hydro Fusion, even though that affair reeked).
These people had concluded that LENR was probably real, and that it was possible Rossi had real devices, and they poured money and hope into that for years, tolerating Rossi’s “difficult behavior,” because if they didn’t, they knew what Rossi would do, and then then would not be nearly as certain as they did, later, come to be.
It’s actually not difficult to understand, if Mats would just take off the blinders and start looking at what he already knows, if he lets go of his attachments.
He doesn’t need to take it from me. He could see all of this for himself.
But, with this interview, he cut himself off from learning what was actually going on:
Finally—I will continue having the comments on this blog closed. The main reason is that few new facts have been presented, whereas unmanageable amounts of opinions have been posted.
That’s a characteristic of community discussions in general. However, Mats had no imagination. The problem on his blog was a linear comment model with no hierarchy. It created completely unmanageable discussions. Further, Lewan didn’t have time for this (and had no patience for those who did). What he could have done was to engage someone to manage the site for him. To develop useful crowd-sourced information requires structure and study and work. To let him know when there was something worth looking at.
What Lewan did isolated him from people who actually understood the case, perhaps only a few of those commenting. Lewan loosely followed E-Cat World, but not LENR Forum (far more neutral, with some regular participants being good writers and scientifically knowledgeable, still a huge mess).
If one doesn’t have the time to follow full discussions with all the trolls and nut cases, and if the topic is important, one needs help. Choose that help well!
I would like to apologise if I have hinted at Thomas Clarke’s having an agenda with his impressive number of comments. I want to assume that Clarke is perfectly honest in the significant work he has laid down on analysing the Lugano report and on commenting what, according to him, is probable or not. But I would also like to note that producing for some periods up to 34 posts per day hints at a position which I’m not sure if it should be called balanced. This, combined with obvious spin from a few people, apparently having an agenda in criticising some individuals, adds to my decision to keep the comments closed.
Thus suppressing genuine discussion of what is posted on the blog. This idea that there is something wrong with “34 posts per day” is a common one among shallow thinkers. That isn’t the Clarke norm, but that was a very hot discussion in a very hot time. I would have invited Clarke to write posts, not merely to comment, because his engagement in the routine cycles of insults common on blogs would be a waste. I would suggest to Clarke that he leave defending himself to others. That’s an old internet principle: don’t defend yourself, defend each other.
Mats doesn’t know enough about the case and case record to have informed opinions, he is entirely dependent on what Rossi tells him and what he’s seen on E-Cat world. He claims “there is no proof,” but he has not actually examined the evidence, it’s all vague. He only reports what Rossi Says, plus some shallow and uninformed conclusions of his own.
To do more would be too much work, my guess.
However, please share the post if you think t’s relevant, and feel free to email me if you have facts that you think I should be aware of.
I have posted a comment on his new interview post, still awaiting moderation approval, and, since he requested this, I’ll email him a link to this page.
This is a study of a post on Mats Lewan’s blog (linked under the date below), copied for purpose of analysis and critique. It included some good photos of Dr. Rossi, eliminated here because they are not necessary for this purpose. My comments are indented and italicized.
Corrections of errors and comment on arguments is welcome. Comment here is generally open; incivility in comment may result in comments being hidden or moved to an organizing page at the sole discretion of CFC administration (until a more open process is practical and available). If a comment is hidden, the content may be requested by the author. We do not generally delete content, at least not in the short-term.
Mats has not categorized his pages. It’s not an active blog, so it doesn’t matter.
In the settlement between Rossi and his US licensee IH, Rossi got the license back together with all E-Cat equipment and materials, while none of the parties will have to pay damages to the other.
Yes, if this is the settlement as agreed, and if there are not other agreements. IH is, in signing this, totally relinquishing all claims to Rossi’s IP. A fly in the ointment would be Ampenergo. AEG was a party to the IH/Rossi agreement, and modifications of that agreement without Ampenergo signature are not valid, and this new agreement modifies (basically revokes) that original agreement. Ampenergo is mentioned; Ampenergo rights (and responsibilities, if any) are not altered by this settlement agreement.
It was Ampenergo’s refusal to sign the Second Amendment that created a major legal problem for Rossi in claiming the $89 million payment was due. The provisions allowing this in the original agreement had, in fact, expired, so the Rossi claim depended on estoppel, the idea that IH had behaved as if bound by the Guaranteed Performance Test provisions; but Rossi was unable to find any clear evidence for this, in spite of extensive effort. The evidence that was found only showed that in a few internal communications, IH referred to a test in process according to an agreement, but the reference was vague and could have referred to the Term Sheet agreement and Penon’s involvement.
Getting the license back was his top priority all the time, Rossi explains in this interview.
Yes, he claims that. Mats does not seriously question it — or anything Rossi says. If that was his “top priority,” he went about it very strangely, creating an enormously complicated lawsuit at high expense. It has been claimed on the blogs that Rossi offered to settle with IH for a return of the License fee (probably $10 million); that is implausible and without evideniary support as far as anything I’ve been able to find. If that had been offered, it would be unlikely for IH to settle as they did with no refund of any kind. However, there are many strange features of this case’s history, so that isn’t proof of anything. Indeed, proof is elusive, but there is a great deal of evidence that Mats is ignoring.
Update. Frank Acland has pointed to a 2016 interview with Rossi. This is probably the source. This claim, unverified in part, has been repeated as if clear fact, on which various conclusions are then based.
During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
From many examples in the lawsuit, we know that Rossi’s reports of conversations are subject to extensive distortion, even if there may be a core of reality. IH did offer money to Rossi, not as “compensation for cancelling a test,” but apparently assuring Rossi that money was not the problem, the problem was them not having been successful in making devices that would pass fully-independent testing, which was absolutely necessary for them. So this first part is framing, how a fact is presented. The second part is not verified. This has later been called a “public offer.” Such a public offer would have been a violation of the License Agreement. Rather, it was a claim made to Lewan, which became public because Lewan published it. A sincere public (or private) settlement offer would normally remain on the table (possibly modified somewhat due to legal expenses). Rossi, in fact, did not request return of the License in the lawsuit, and there was certainly no public offer. Had there been, and assuming that this is what Rossi actually wanted, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case. It might have settled early, saving both sides substantial expense, and netting IH more than $10 million for other LENR research.
But Rossi hated “other LENR research.” More money for it would be the last thing he wanted.[Here’s the document defining the terms of the settlement (un-disclosed source)].
This copy is unsigned and undated. There is a copy that appeared on LENR-forum, without attribution, that shows Rossi’s signature and a date, July 14, 2017. The draft agreement does not require confidentiality as to itself, nor in general. What remains protected is the secret fuel formula and anything disclosed in Discovery and already covered by a Protective Order. Everything else is, on the fact, permitted.
“To us, the most important thing was to regain complete ownership of the IP and of all the rights that were conceded through the license. At this point, it had become very clear that a continued collaboration had become impossible because of the choices IH made and because of other reasons.
Collaboration actually broke down by July, 2015, when Rossi violated the Term Sheet, refusing entry to the Doral plant to the IH engineer, Murray. Rossi gives reasons in this interview that don’t make sense from a business perspective, but only from within his well-known paranoia.
The development, the finalization, and the distribution of the technology—any agreement regarding this would have been impossible,” Rossi told me during an interview via Skype on July 15.
The impossibility was entirely related to Rossi’s absolute intransigence about his ways of doing things. He made it impossible for IH to actually verify what was happening in Doral, made the “test” take total priority over showing IH how to make devices that would pass independent testing (small scale testing, the normal testing one would expect), and this made it impossible for IH to raise the $89 million payment. Even though the time for that had expired, IH indicated in communications that came out in the trial that they were willing to pay Rossi if they could make those working devices. One of their theories is that Rossi never disclosed what was needed, and that is quite consistent with his comments to Mats. He didn’t trust them, but the mistrust goes back further than he discloses.
IH had obtained a commitment for another $150 million from Woodford, so the plentiful Rossi claims that they objected because they couldn’t pay were simply more smokescreen. They could have paid if Rossi had shown what was needed.
The settlement was drafted on July 5, 2017, on the fourth day of the trial regarding a lawsuit that Rossi filed in Florida, mainly against his US based licensee Industrial Heat, IH, early in April 2016, for not having paid the final amount of USD 89M according to the license agreement, after one year of operation of a 1MW heat plant based on Rossi’s E-Cat technology, apparently successful according to a supposedly independent report made by nuclear engineer Fabio Penon.
We do not know when the settlement was drafted. What I saw in court was that the parties requested that the judge dismiss the suit with prejudice, with all parties bearing their own legal costs, with any details to be worked out with private agreement. The indications I had at the time was that this agreement did not yet exist. It is possible that some outline existed. The settlement agreement provides for a joint filing, which hasn’t happened yet.
The documents as they stood did not require that $89 million payment. Rossi used shaky legal theories to advance this. He would not have prevailed, my opinion, based on what I saw. I did not expect, however, that IH would relinquish all rights unless compensated; and a reason for doing that only occurred to me a few hours after seeing the agreement. Tax purposes. They had come to believe that the IP was worthless, but there would be a residual value due to a small probability of future value. If there is a formal release as binding legal settlement, they could then totally expense all the costs, being able to distribute this as a loss to their investors, which is part of how these risky LLCs operate. They create losses that are then fully deductible from income for their investors. Otherwise the investments might sit there for years, not deductible. So a more accurate description than “worthless” would be “not worth as much as the tax deductions.”
(IH would still have gathered a valuable intangible, “experience.” I was told that IH does not intend to abandon LENR, but a sane long-term approach would be to gather experience, learning to recognize what has true commercial potential and what does not. They would retrench and maintain “watchful waiting,” including readiness to act quickly when needed.)
The defense, on the other hand, accused Rossi of having produced false results in conspiracy with Penon and others.
According to whom? Mats is relying on Rossi’s account. This is a story about the lawsuit that doesn’t fairly present it. What IH did was to call the Doral test into question; this was actually a secondary defense, the primary one being that Doral simply was not a Guaranteed Performance Test, but rather a sale of power to a supposedly independent customer with an immediate and desperate need for steam, willing to pay for it, and the site serving as a demonstration for investors. No mention of “test.” Then, tacked onto this was measurement by Penon, but this was to be in addition to independent measurement by the “customer.” The customer was, we now now, entirely Rossi, and the invoice requests from the customer, signed by Johnson, were drafted by Rossi. There was no independent customer, this was all fraudulent inducement, and that all became totally clear in the evidence, and was emphasized in the opening statement. At trial, Rossi was going to lose, totally, on the $89 million claim.
The claims of fakery in the test results were secondary, not primary. It only became relevant if the GPT arguments were to fail. The underlying equity was that without the ability to reproduce results, IH could not possibly raise the $89 million; the Rossi counterargument in the case was that the Agreement did not require reproducibility. That is literally true and utterly misleading. Perhaps Mats should actually read some documents!
Eventually, however, none of these accusations could be confirmed by proof, which I will comment on below.
Mats is here stating as bald fact what is obviously a conclusion, his conclusion. He refers to “proof,” which is legally naive. The standard of factual judgment in a civil case, like this, is not “proof.” Proof is rare in the world. The standard is the “preponderance of evidence.” He has not actually specified the allegations but is already referring to them as if established. This is the kind of vagueness on which Rossi has long thrived. It is distressing to see in someone who was, at one time, a serious journalist.
Mats does not cover the evidence for fraudulent representation, he simply declares it out of existence. This is appalling.
“There were two clauses in the license agreement that were extremely dangerous to us—the right of first choice [if you plan to make any agreement outside of the licensee’s territory, you first have to offer the licensee the possibility to make an agreement for that new territory] and the rights also to all subsequent inventions. These clauses would have made any further development very complex.
Not really. This is simply Rossi paranoia and smokescreen. The term is “right of first refusal.” Before acting to make an extraterritorial agreement, Rossi would have had to offer the agreement on the same terms to IH. IH could then accept or refuse. This could not harm Rossi’s legitimate interests. However, Rossi often used alleged difficulties to excuse his refusals. He told IH that the presence of an independent engineering company experts at the Ferrara Validation Test in 2013 would “make problems” for him. What problems? One possibility is obvious. They might see through his friend Penon’s incompetence or collusion with Rossi. None of this is proof, but it all builds a coherent picture of how Rossi has operated.
“The perspective for the continued trial was that we could win or we could lose. You always have to examine these possibilities and investigate the consequences. A victory for us risked becoming a pyrrhic victory. Even though we were convinced of having a very strong case, eventually the jury would decide. And the problem was that in the case of a victory, the jury would probably say that it would be fair for Leonardo Corporation [Rossi’s company] to receive the claimed funds, but it would also be fair for IH to keep the license. For us to also get the license back was beyond the horizon.
Many people had pointed this out. Rossi did not actually ask for license cancellation in the Complaint nor in succeeding documents. If this was his primary goal, that’s rather odd. A license cancellation would probably be accompanied by a refund. It has been claimed that Rossi offered such a refund, but I’ve seen no confirmation of this. [see above, there is evidence, a Rossi comment to Mats Lewan in May, 2016, with no independent confirmation]. Refund for cancellation of license would have been an obvious settlement. It would have involved IH eating an additional $10 million or so of expenses, but surely better than a total loss of the entire $20 million investment.
“So my lawyers asked me before the trial which my priorities were if the trial would lead to any transactions—those indispensable and those negotiable. My answer was that the indispensable condition was to get the license back because I didn’t want to collaborate with IH anymore. As for the financial aspects, I told them which my expectations were, from a lower level to a higher one.”
“My lawyers” is a bit vague. The one who apparently negotiated the settlement was Lukacs. Notice that the primary goal is emotional: “I didn’t want.” I think he’s telling the simple truth here, this is what he thought. Why didn’t he want to collaborate? Where did that come from? It’s found below. It was crazy paranoia, the classic Rossi story. The paranoia led to the major breakdown, by July, 2015.
Were you aware of the danger of the two clauses in the license agreement when you signed it?
Unless Rossi was later lying, always possible, he didn’t consult attorneys before accepting the License Agreement, nor after. There was no danger in the clause he mentioned. It was more or less standard. There was no occasion where this caused him any actual loss, it was all fear. The second clause is misrepresented by Rossi, somewhat. It is not “all subsequent inventions,” it is only inventions that would compete with the original E-cat technology. Again, the reason for that clause is obvious. Inventor has product A, sells it to investors, then comes out with B, which destroys the market for A. Not great for investors, eh? Rossi consistently has shown, since before 2011, that he does not understand the needs of investors.
“Yes, I had understood the risk but I was convinced that I was collaborating with a partner that I would never separate from. Let’s say that I got married without taking into account the difficulties if there would be a divorce.”
Sure. However, most agreements for $100 million involve a bit more sophistication. The settlement agreement looks like something drafted by a lawyer, and includes contingencies dealing with various failures to agree. Marriages where significant property is involved often include separate property agreements that protect the parties. There is no way that IH was going to suggest these protections to cover Rossi (and they were not going to include them to protect themselves, and this was all seen as necessary to deal successfully with Rossi, given Rossi’s character. Bring up such a possibility, for example some attempt to verify his measurements, very possible he’d explode and walk out the door. He’d done it many times.)
What would have happened with your new reactor version, the E-Cat QX (formerly known as Quark X), if you hadn’t got the license back?
This was all obvious, I wrote about this many times, with Rossi supporters screaming that it was biased. Now Rossi acknowledges it.
“It would have been very complicated because it’s an E-Cat—the theory base is the same and the patent protection is basically the same, even though revolutionary inventions have been added, but the license agreement expressed very clearly that all inventions, also subsequent and future ones, would become IH’s property. Together with the clause of first choice it would have become very complex. So it was absolutely necessary to eliminate the license.“
Very complex = “absolutely necessary to eliminate.” Not actually very complex! Quite simple. If Rossi improves the invention, they get that technology. Rossi makes more money, certainly not less. Yes, he’d be sharing profits. At this point, status quo, IH had paid only $10 million for that full benefit. Of course Rossi didn’t like that, but he had many opportunities to be paid much, much more. He turned away from them. They would have required that he actually fulfill the intention and letter of the Agreement, and he didn’t trust them, that is the long-term Rossi position. Mistrust. Mats knows Rossi well enough to recognize this.
To obtain another $89 million, all he’d have had to do was to get the signature of his friends at Ampenergo on the Second Amendment. There was no time limit on that. Then he’d have needed to get all parties to agree to the start of a test date. If they unreasonably dragged their feet, that would have made for a simple specific-performance demand, and lawsuit if necessary, a much less complex lawsuit, with far more basis (and easily resolved by going ahead with a test with reasonable precautions).
Alternatively, it appears that IH offered to waive the GPT requirement. All Rossi had to do was teach them how to make devices that actually passed careful, independent testing. Rossi either could not do that (one possibility) or did not want to do that (the other major possibility, consistent with the story he now tells Lewan.) Annesser, Rossi’s early and very pugnacious attorney, pointed out another possibility: they were incompetent boobs who could not follow instructions. However, if they were truly incompetent, find them competent advisors. Pay them if you have to. Guide them through the process step by step. And an absolute no-no: if an error or possible error is found in your measurement methods, don’t storm out claiming the Russians Did It. Fix the problem, nail it.
According to the settlement, the defendants shall return or destroy all documentation, return all reactor vessels including the 1MW E-Cat plant, also promising not to disclose the E-Cat fuel formula to anyone. How will you be able to control this?
It’s in the Settlement Agreement. Rossi’s answer is also fairly obvious.
“With the information that I have provided you can make a replication, and if we see other companies producing something analogous, even partly analogous, this means that our technology has been transferred. And we will protect our IP.”
Yes, this is more or less correct. However, something like a secret formula, which is the only secret aspect, could be found by someone else doing what Rossi claimed to do, running a thousand tests. That’s not very many, actually. There are techniques for running millions of tests, simultaneously. It’s only money. So why hasn’t this already been done? Well it’s being done, but not focusing on “Rossi technology,” for the most part. Why not? Because nobody with the resources believes that Rossi technology is real, for all the obvious reasons, very obvious, if one studies the case documents (which is a significant project by itself, I will be working to make it easier; I’ve already done this to a limited degree. It, itself, is a significant project, and it is not funded beyond my expenses — which are crowd-funded).
An early theory, which I considered possible, was that Rossi deliberately created the appearance of being a con artist, in order to allow easy dismisssal of his work by others who might otherwise seriously investigate with the goal of competing with him. )Mats supports this idea in An Impossible Invention. It was this argument that led me to conclude that the appearances did not prove that Rossi was what he appeared to be. So … what if this is still happening? Mats is ignoring obvious appearances, as if they don’t exist, he is not confronting them and asking difficult questions. Why not?
That, again, is obvious. Ask Rossi difficult questions, there goes your access! (An alternate explanation is that Lewan is simply not smart. I doubt this. He could understand if he wanted to.)
Talking about replication. In his deposition, Tom Darden [President of IH and of Cherokee Investment Partners] claimed that with the information you provided, they ‘were never able to build devices that successfully produced energy.’ What is your comment to that?
That is a decent question. The problem here is that Lewan doesn’t go deeper. Darden said this in a deposition (though I don’t have the exact quote in mind and Lewan does not bother with sourcing like this.) That means under oath, under penalty of perjury. Rossi responds with misdirection.
“During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made public, where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process successfully.
Well, by being vague, Rossi maintains appearances. Darden was enthusiastic and had some early results that appeared positive. We have seen this many times with LENR! Some of that disappears when examined more closely, the “unable to build” comment is about a fuller, later judgment. In Rossi case arguments, positions that changed over time were often collapsed, as if a person would have one, fixed view, from beginning to end. This would not have impressed a jury, it’s easy to understand.
We also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at such replications. Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of those replications, after which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat, even before the [one-year 1MW] test started in Doral [Miami], at a time when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.”
This is radically misleading. Woodford did not “assist” at an “IH replication,” as far as we know. Rossi is vague, but may be referring to the Doral test as a “Rossi replication.” This was totally managed by Rossi, featuring a faux Director of Engineering for the “customer” who was literally a puppet for Rossi, saying what Rossi told him to say. Maybe Rossi is talking about some other test, but, if so, I haven’t seen evidence for it in the documents. Woodford committed to invest in 2014, up to $200 million. IH had suggested that this go into IPH, the Dutch BV, where it would be exposed to Rossi claims. Woodford insisted that it go instead into a new UK limited liability company, IHHI, which became the owner of IH, but not obligated to pay IH debts; it could voluntarily do so. The first tranche, $50 million, cleared in May, 2015, and this money went into other technologies, not Rossi, and that totally pissed him off, though this was simply Woodford doing what they wanted to do with their money.
Woodford did not invest in Rossi technology, but that IH had a hedge to cover the possibility of Rossi success was likely attractive. They were not impressed by the Doral plant, apparently. I wouldn’t have been, beyond, OMG, what a complicated piece of machinery for a fraud! Maybe it’s real! I would not be impressed by steam pipe going through a wall into an inaccessible “customer area,” with the only sign of a megawatt being the claims of Rossi (or the “customer engineer” who was clueless), from instrumental readings. It’s hard to hide a megawatt! That is the only reason I could think of for a megawatt test. It’s a terrible way to gather reliability data, the way it was done.
“We also have testimonials.” That appears to be a claim without evidence, very common. It’s meaningless without specifics. Lewan does not ask for specifics. Notice that underneath Rossi’s claim is an implied claim that Darden and Vaughn and others perjured themselves. If there was a successful “replication” — which is itself misleading, because replicating results is not yet independent confirmation if the test methods are flawed — Woodford would know it and would then be a possible witness in a perjury prosecution. This is all misleading, implausible, but Mats swallows it whole, apparently. (It isn’t obvious in the early parts of the interview, but shows up in what Lewan states as fact without attribution to Rossi.)
In his deposition, Darden also claimed that you had said that JM Products [the ‘customer’ that used the thermal power produced by the E-Cat plant in Doral—more comments on that below] was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, that Johnson Matthey would have operated the plant of JM Products, and that after [a] brief period of positive operation Johnson Matthey would have announced that they were the customer. What’s your comment?
Lewan attributes this to a Darden claim, instead of what the IH attorneys did, referring to the primary evidence, a series of Rossi emails, as well as evidence from James Bass, and the OFAC declaration of Johnson. That sets up Rossi’s basic answer, an implication that Darden was lying and that there was “no evidence.” But there was plenty of evidence, conclusive evidence, overwhelmingly so. The representation that the “customer” would come out like that is in a Rossi email that is quite clear on the topic, quite enough to convince a jury in a civil case, and possibly enough to convince a jury in a perjury prosecution. By not understanding this, Lewan simply provides a soapbox for Rossi.
“Mr. Darden hasn’t been able to prove what he said under oath. Basically, he has sworn on things of which he has no evidence. I have never said or written that Johnson Matthey was the owner of JM Products, while in contrast I always said and wrote that Johnson Matthey was the producer of materials that I had use for in my work with JM.”
First of all, the history of the draft of the Term Sheet shows that IH believed that the customer was Johnson Matthey. The customer was allegedly a chemical company with a need for steam. IH obviously got the name of Johnson Matthey from somewhere! Here, Rossi has created a cover story that might explain it, i.e., he told them of his plans and IH misunderstood. However, this is utterly inconsistent with Rossi’s subsequent behavior. Instead of telling IH that it was a mistake, he told them that he “wasn’t supposed to mention their name.” In many documents, he referred to the customer as a distinct and independent entity, not merely himself planning to work with JM materials. When IH suggested they might visit JM in the U.K., Rossi demanded that they not do this, it would spook them. If he was merely buying materials from them, what would be the problem? And this goes on and on. This isn’t just one piece of evidence and it isn’t just Darden’s word against Rossi’s. Rather, the reality is that there is no contrary evidence in the evidentiary record to what Darden claimed, and there is massive support. Rossi obviously led IH to believe that the “real customer” — that is, the hidden owner of JM Chemical Products — look at the name! — was Johnson Matthey. He was lying from start to finish, and he is still lying, to Mats.
More accurately, it’s likely that Rossi believes his lies, that is part of how he is able to convince people, his obvious sincerity. Technically, then, they are not “lies,” but intention to mislead, which is the core (not “false statements”) is obvious. It exists somewhere in Rossi’s psyche, he is creating his own “reality,” and transmitting it to others, but the patterns are consistent. Mats is refusing to recognize what really, by now, should be obvious to him. Rossi is, at best, insane. Nice wig, though. Nice smile. Cordial. And very persistent, hard-working, etc.
When one creates a misunderstanding, the best construction I can find, and there is a clear opportunity to clear it up, and, instead, one papers it over with appearances, it becomes clear that the “misunderstanding” was intentional. (Rossi said there was nothing wrong with dealing with a new company, which was true, except … he had claimed originally that this was an existing company, ready to go, and hurry, they need to go soon, don’t miss the opportunity, when, in fact, and this is simply not in doubt, there was no independent customer, no existing process requiring steam, and all the funding and control was purely Rossi. IH obviously decided, even though it was starting to look shaky, to give Rossi the chance, and that fell apart by July, 2015, when Rossi blatantly violated the Term Sheet by excluding the IH engineer, and even if we imagine that Doral was a GPT, this was a gross violation of the orginal GPT intention. I think Rossi is telling the truth that he had decided he didn’t want to work with IH any more. Consider what he claimed to have done with Hydro Fusion. This could have been, quite simply, a more elaborate version of the same behavior.
Some of Rossi’s supporters think all this is irrelevant, that what really matters is “did the Plant work?” The problem is that how Rossi set it all up makes conclusions about actual power generation depend entirely on trusting Rossi. The “independent ERV” was not quite so independent, and the actual management of operation and data collection was … Rossi. The test conditions were entirely controlled by Rossi, and then we find out about, say, other pumps in the system. One of the ways to fool a steam measurement system as existed in Doral would be through such hidden elements. And … the instruments were removed immediately at the end of the test, taken by Penon. All with excuses, of course, but an attorney saw that and immediately said, to me, “spoliation” (Not an IH attorney, and this was before IH claimed spoliation. This was before more examples of spoliation of the evidence appeared, the removal of the steam piping not allowing verification of the slope of that return pipe and the exact installation of the flow meter, which itself had multiple problems.)
The pressure gauge, critical to understanding the state of the alleged steam delivery, was being operated above the specified operating temperature, and the simplest explanation of the rock solid report of 0.0 bar pressure is that the gauge was broken (or simply blocked; removed from the system, it might operate perfectly), and it was removed by Penon. (0.0 bar in the Penon report was a blatant error, and this was generally translated to 0.0 barg, which is, at least possible! but then there are many other problems, all glossed over by Rossi’s facile explanations that don’t hold up under examination. In any given example, there may be an explanation, but this “test” was a mess. Penon was vastly overpaid.
Rossi often made the point that Penon, his friend, was a “nuclear engineer” as if that made a difference. Nuclear engineering is irrelevant to measuring steam, Jed Rothwell has often made the point: one needs an HVAC engineer who actually works with steam. While some nuclear plants use steam, the training of a nuclear engineer would not extensively prepare a person for this work, for there is no clear theory of operation for LENR devices, but measuring steam and generated heat are all well-known and with well-known possible errors, to steam engineers.
Darden also reported an episode when they provided a reactor that you operated successfully, after which they revealed that the reactor was empty, suggesting that there were systematic errors in the measurement method, also describing your violent reaction when they told you this. Can you comment?
This was, again, a good question. It’s a report, I think more than one person has referred to it, and, again, Rossi talks about “proof.” In court, Darden would testify, someone else would testify who may have been a witness, and Rossi would testify. The jury would consider how these match and how they differ. What does Rossi actually say here?
Mats actually makes the statement that Rossi operated the reactor. This is not a clear account matching what I recall. However, maybe. Mats does not attribute sources for his information, generally. He is, in effect, repeating rumors or creating them based on something he read somewhere, which may or many not have been accurate.
“Darden has said lots of things that he has never been able to prove. What he assures doesn’t exist. I always made experiments with reactors charged by me, or by me in collaboration with Darden. Never with reactors provided to me as a closed box, for obvious reasons.”
What obvious reasons? Rossi has diverted from the actual story, and talks about something else. I saw this many times in his pleadings. IH would assert an alleged fact, A. Rossi counsel would “dispute” the fact but then, for evidence, would provide irrelevancies that would all be about how A was to be interpreted, not the fact A itself. This managed to confuse the Judge, actually, which may have been the purpose. It is all clear from the record when one actually studies the pleadings and looks up the cited references. It’s not very visible if one just reads the pleadings themselves. To understand those documents actually takes a lot of work! Unless someone has organized them and analyzed them, making verification easy.
The actual story, at this point from my memory. IH was running tests of reactors, and had apparently created empty reactors. They had written a letter on the outside of the reactor, as I recall the story (eventually, I’ll look all this up). They were getting some strong results, high COP. Then they realized that they had been confused by an upside-down letter and what they thought was a fueled reactor was actually unfueled. Notice that Rossi’s answer completely avoids the actual reported situation, which involved a reactor that was unfueled, so even if Rossi was correct, and all the fueled reactors had been loaded by him (but Darden supposedly had the formula), IH may have made some unfueled versions and got one confused with the fueled ones.
So they called Rossi and demanded that he come to North Carolina immediately. He did, and they showed him the test. They then, together, cut open the unfueled reactor, and it was empty. The story I have in mind has Rossi getting angry, claiming “The Russians stole the fuel!” and storming out.
Was this story pure invention? It seems unlikely, but a jury would have decided, looking at the witnesses in testimony and under cross-examination, and possible corroboration. And, remember, all this was peripheral. The central issue, the contractual requirements, was actually very clear. Much of this would be relevant to the counterclaims, not the primary lawsuit.
What this shows to those interested in Rossi Reality would be how a lack of control experiments can be fatal to experimental studies. Rossi hated control experiments, had expressed his contempt for them in 2011. Lugano was most seriously damaged by the lack of a control experiment (a “dummy reactor”) at full input power, which would have immediately exposed, if it existed, error in temperature measurement. In fact, the IH mislabelling showed a naivete on their part as well. One would label controls either not at all (depending on later opening them up) or with a code unintelligible to the experimenters. Using a letter and knowing what the letter was supposed to mean would damage neutrality; ideally the difference is blind. (This is far, far from what Lugano did. The fueled and dummy experiments were treated differently and known. That’s relatively weak, but not uncommon in initial studies. Lugano was not designed to be conclusive.)
Let’s talk about JM, since how, why, and by whom the company was formed was one of the main topics to raise doubt about your motives with the one-year test. You already explained that you never said that Johnson Matthey was the owner. So who formed the company?
“I always said that the owner of JM was an [Italian] person who knew me since a very long time, and who was in contact with a British company and wanted to participate in the work with my technology.
He is still lying, here, that is, being deceptive. At best, Rossi isn’t at all careful. He “always said” this to whom? There is no sign that what he has said here is what he said to IH in 2014. “Italian” was supplied by Lewan?
Johnson, supporting the JM story, claimed that the owner was a “U.K entity.” Not Italian, and, in fact, the supposed owner (in name only, in fact, Rossi was entirely responsible for JM Products), Rossi may have indeed met again in Johnson’s office, he who became the sole beneficiary of Platinum America Trust, but that wasn’t a U.K. entity, it existed in a file cabinet in Johnson’s Florida office, only. That this was a long-time Rossi friend was concealed from IH, and covered up with the OFAC “U.K. entity” story. In his deposition, Johnson acknowledged that there wasn’t and had never been a “U.K. entity,” giving the excuse that they had planned to create one, but it was too expensive.
But why would they even bother; there is only one reason I can think of: to make it appear that it was Johnson Matthey. Once they had made that representation, and once IH had agreed to the Doral move, there was no longer any need to go to the trouble of creating a U.K. entity.
So I invented this proposal for him to be both a customer, buying the energy produced by the E-Cat plant, and collaborator, verifying the validity of my technology [both the E-Cat technology and the one used by JM Products]. This is what I always declared. And in my depositions, I also provided the name of the owner of JM. I also explained that the owner of JM didn’t achieve any agreement with the British society, and therefore went on by himself together with other partners.”
The depositions were, of course, after the lawsuit had been filed. Rossi did not lie about it then, except in one way: claiming that he had not told IH the customer was Johnson Matthey. He obviously led them (and others, such as James Bass), to believe that, then backed up and mixed up the story while maintaining the impression of an independent customer, still Johnson Matthey. What other partners? Rossi is continuing with his vagueness that is designed to confuse. Johnson presented the “U.K. entity” claim as a present fact, not some future possibility. But this is standard for Rossi: present a possibility as an already-realized fact. Johnson was a rubber-stamp for Rossi.
Rossi did invent the proposal. But look at how this was proposed to IH! The story he now tells is very, very different. Okay, the customer was to “buy the energy.” $1000 per day. Attractive proposal, to be sure, and he pointed out that the Plant only cost $200,000 to build. Amazing profit! Really, read that email. Here, I’m not spending much time looking up stuff, but compare this to what came out and what Rossi is now saying.
(Rossi also claimed that the test didn’t happen in North Carolina because of IH failures. In that email, we can see that Rossi declined an opportunity to run a test under close IH supervision in North Carolina. He claimed that an independent customer in Florida would be much better!)
How was JMC/JMP to pay that $1000 per day? It’s totally obvious: Rossi paid all operating expenses of JMP. JMP had no independent income, Rossi would have paid the $1000 per day, if IH had ever actually issued the invoices. (they were not confident; I think it was a mistake. they would have invoiced “per your report.”) Rossi developed a story to justify moving payments around on paper: JMP would process materials and Leonardo Corporation, Rossi’s company, would buy them.
Yes, as I recall, the first element of the scheme to appear, though it was not public until disclosure was required in the lawsuit, was the formation of Platinum America Trust. So Rossi planned all this, there was no independent customer: like turtles, it was Rossi All The Way Down. So all of Rossi’s claims about the independent customer, to IH and to his public, over the years, were deceptive.
Pace’s theme in his Opening Statement on Day 3 was “fake [this], fake [that], and fake [the other thing]. Easy story for the jury to remember and to use to mentally file the evidence that would then be presented in the next phase of the trial. While this or that might be shown to have some factual basis, or to be wrong, the overall story was easy to understand and the evidence for deception was massive and overwhelming, and not dependent on Darden Says. That was just support! (Sworn testimony is evidence.)
Rossi then explained that he had presented his attorney Henry Johnson, who would have the formal position as president for JM Products for administrative reasons, to Darden and JT Vaughn [vice president of IH], making clear that Johnson was his attorney.
Eventually, yes (though I don’t know that Rossi volunteered the information. IH claimed to have been surprised to find the Rossi attorney as the “JM” representative. However, the impression was carefully maintained that the Johnson and JMP were merely representing for public purpose a true owner, who would, Rossi claimed, be willing to reveal true identity after a few months of successful operation. By this time, the proposal stank, but …. IH apparently reasoned that surely an attorney would not participate in a fraud….
“I would then have directed JM’s operations from a technology perspective. I also sent an email in June 2014, provided as evidence, in which I informed Mr. Darden that I was going to be the director of JM’s plant.”
The language was there, but in context, did it mean what Rossi is now claiming?
One of the things I intend to do is create a chronological index to the documents. I haven’t checked, but Rossi may have said, I seem to recall, that he would be the director of the “Plant,” and in context, this could have meant the power Plant.
Rossi, in fact, entirely controlled JMP, making all decisions, and paying for everything. JMP did not have its own facility. The original name was JM Chemical Products, but they had trouble finding a rental, landlords being reluctant to rent to a “chemical company.” The response to that was typical of how some lawyers — and Rossi — think. Change the name, problem goes away! However, ultimately, Leonardo Corporation rented the warehouse, then subleased part of it to JMP.
So you invented the technology used by JM?
“Yes, I made all the technology, I invented their production plant, and I made the plant.”
It was all very obviously invented as an excuse. Rossi All The Way Down. Remember all the claims on JONP about an “independent customer”? That customer is now revealed as entirely the invention of Rossi. They were not, as claimed, an independent company with a process they needed steam for. The “independent company” was an idea in Rossi’s head, even though he used the third person for it. In mercato veritas, which to Rossi apparently means, create a dummy customer and create dummy sales, where you pay yourself, and hey, “the market has spoken.”
Can you describe the technology?
“We produced substances with a very high added value. To do this we had to achieve an extremely high pressure inside small reactors that were introduced in larger tubes. The concept was to provoke contractions in certain materials, using heat exchange with the hot steam [from the E-Cat plant] and a pressure of a few bars but concentrating the force from the pressure on a larger surface, a few cm2, on much, much smaller surfaces, increasing the pressure proportionally. And this process consumed heat.“
In mercato veritas. “High value” implies high sale value to arms-length customers. Did he actually sell any products? We don’t think so. Now, “this process consumed heat.” That’s not impossible. However, crucial: how much heat? A process does not “consume” heat, rather, some processes will store it as chemical energy, or possibly phase change. How much chemical? This would be the real question. What we know of the “product” was the raw material: Rossi originally asked for a bid on a kilogram of platinum sponge from Johnson Matthey. That was apparently the only actual contact with JM. The bid was a million dollars. (which is roughly reasonable.) Rossi apparently decided to buy some catalyzers and scavenge a few grams of platinum sponge from them. So we have a few grams of platinum sponge. If this was the most efficient energy storage process known, how much energy could be stored in a few grams? Later, Rossi claimed to buy some graphene. Again, how much energy? Let’s put it this way: these processes could have been run with less than a kilowatt of power. A megawatt was vast overkill.
“Very high value” is actually contradictory to the basic idea here, large amounts of product. Was Rossi producing a fabulous value of product every day? How much energy could a kilogram (a million dollars worth of palladium sponge, the original production material claim) “absorb”?
How much of the heat from the E-Cat did this process consume?
“On average it consumed between 20 and 40 percent of the heat produced by the E-Cat plant. I had to learn from the experiment how much heat was necessary, because there were not any precedent analogous experiments to get data from.“
Not before and probably not yet. His “customer process” could not make a measureable dent in a megawatt under the conditions at Doral.
This is completely unreasonable, preposterous. This was all examined at length on the blogs. There is no way that this much energy could be stored in product (Rossi’s “consumed” implies violation of the laws of thermodynamics, but translating it to “stored”). It would require massive deliveries and removals of product. Storing that much energy, the product would be very, very dangerous. Etc. A non-dangerous endothermic reaction could have been melting ice, requiring a constant flow of ice deliveries.
So since it didn’t consume all of the heat from the E-Cat plant, you had to get rid of the excess heat in some way?
When this was raised on JONP, Rossi eventually settled on some combination of endothermy and ventilation. He did not mention “heat exchanger.” That was only raised this year, and nobody who had seen the plant suspected a heat exchanger, which would have been quite visible and very noisy. Rossi’s idea was a kludge, almost certainly yet another fantasy. He would have had to create it so it would be hidden, which is not what one would do if this was simply getting rid of the heat. Such a heat exchanger, operating, generating measureable temperature rise in a measurable amount of air, at least as to round estimates, would have been a great confirmation of Plant energy generation. And this is standard engineering. Why hide it?
“Yes, I didn’t have any experience of the process in the JM plant, so obviously I over-dimensioned everything to be sure to achieve the intended physical transformations. I didn’t know how much the plant would have consumed, so therefore I introduced a heat exchanger after the plant that could dissipate the eventual excess thermal energy, condensing the steam to water that could be sent back to the E-Cat plant. I designed the heat exchanger so that it could dissipate all the heat from the E-Cat plant, in the case of malfunctioning of the JM plant, since I didn’t want to stop the E-Cat plant, because I needed to make the famous 350 days of operation within 400 days [according to the license agreement].“
This makes no business sense. A cooling tower (Smith shows one) could have been purchased and easily installed, and then, later, sold when no longer needed.
Problem is, this wasn’t made clear to IH, at all. Further, the GPT requirements did not actually require a continuous megawatt, they only required COP. All this would have been much more easily handled with a simple agreement with IH, and then if power wasn’t needed, shut down reactors (but leave at least one running at a COP of 6.0 minimum, or a few, if one wants to insist on that 350 day stuff)! If the plant cannot be controlled that way, it would surely be very dangerous! The heat exchanger and what it required was a system change, clearly not mentioned to IH at all. The only kind of process that could actually dissipate a major fraction of the power would be phase change (simple version: melt ice.) It was obvious ab initio that a major heat exchanger would be needed. This can be purchased off-the shelf, as rooftop cooling towers, cheaply. Why go to all the trouble to make one from scratch, and why put it in the mezzanine?
I think the answer is obvious: this heat exchanger only existed after-the-fact, in Rossi’s imagination. If it were in the obvious place, on the roof, it would have been visible, so it couldn’t be there! Perhaps there might have been some regulatory problem, but then this would reveal that Rossi, ah, fudges and hides. If he got fire department approval for his reactor assembly, it was based on power input, not actual (or expected) generated power. Deception. Don’t leave home without it!
In fact, the entire idea of a megawatt test was insane. But that is what Rossi wanted and had declared in 2011.
So how much thermal power could the heat exchanger dissipate?
This is controversial. Wong thought it could do the job. Others have said, no, but the idea of the heat exchanger was introduced late in the Discovery process, not early, so there was less consideration of it. Rossi could have put a standard cooling tower on the roof, no controversy. Or Rossi could have agreed with IH for a different GPT, IH was apparently quite amenable to that.
And you didn’t have any photos of the heat exchanger?
“No. I never take photos. I don’t need them. I never take pictures of my prototypes.”
Rossi always has reasons. This was not a “prototype,” it was allegedly a fully-functioning heat exchanger that had to be working every day of the test, and before the test, as soon as the reactor was in operation. It had to be there first. But nobody saw it or saw any sign of it. The jury would have loved this. Easy to understand. Murray, there at the end of the test, would have seen evidence. He was looking for evidence of how the warehouse was cooled. He didn’t see it, and then Rossi claims he dismantled it, after the “test,” making it impossible to actually start up the reactor again, if anyone wanted to do that. This was not a real chemical operation, and it had served its purpose, a faux “test” under full Rossi control, unlike the original GPT concept, which would have been under full IH control, at least full detailed observation.
This was the famous heat exchanger in the mezzanine of the premises in Doral where the one-year test was run. The heat exchanger was questioned by the defense in the lawsuit since there were no photos or other proof of its existence.
Not the only reason, and, again, “proof” is a strong word. There was actually no evidence at all of its existence other than Rossi Says. Okay, Engineer48 on E-Catworld.com claims that a photo of a tree outside the window showed heat damage. It sure would have damaged the tree! It would have killed it. I don’t see what E48 sees. Maybe if you squint, just right…. He also claims there were some scratches on the floor, that show …. what? Where did all the materials go? Rossi says he “repurposed them.” Where? This was a huge pile of stainless steel pipe. Did he have receipts? None were produced. Did he hire a crew to install and then remove them? Yes. Off the street, and no, no record, probably he paid them in cash.
You can always come up with some explanation…. But a jury will decide (and if we need it, we will decide) based, not on proof, which is rare outside of mathematics, but on the preponderance of the evidence, and to decide that, one needs to look at all the evidence, not just what one side or another claims.
That’s what we have now, a huge mass of evidence, that can’t be hidden. If someone wants to know, read the evidence, not merely me or Mats Lewan or Andrea Rossi or Engineer48 (who has a clear conflict of interest). Use all of us to consider arguments, but … you are the judge and jury for your own life decisions. If you are considering investing, and you depend on bloggers, ah, be really careful! If you are an inventor considering working with Industrial Heat, will you follow what Sifferkoll has written? Sanely, you will check it out yourself. Sifferkoll presents evidence, to be sure, but what does it mean? that’s up to you! Again, be careful, what Sifferkoll claims as proof of Cherokee (and thus IH) misbehavior is simply normal business practice that he doesn’t understand. So study it! Don’t just look at cherry-picked anecdotes, selected for ready — and misleading — appearances, by someone obviously convinced that Something is Terribly Wrong.
However, the plaintiffs’ expert witness Ph.D. Vincent Wong [Prof. of thermodynamics for engineers at the University of Florida] confirmed that Rossi’s description corresponded to a possible design for dissipating the necessary heat.
I agree, it might have worked. And it might not have. It’s marginal. Wong was shown a window being replaced, allegedly the window where the heat exchanger fans blew hot air out the front of the building. Only problem: this was about a year after the test ended and the heat exchanger was removed. So Rossi left the window out for a year? In Miami, with blowing rain being common? This would have caused interior damage. There are photographs from Google Street View in that period that appear to show reflections of the sky, i.e,. glass present. The noise from the heat exchanger would have been very, very noticeable. Nobody reported hearing or seeing it. These questions were not asked in most of the depositions, because they were taken too early. But they would have been asked at trial, you can bet on it.
Rossi was going to lose his primary case, that was obvious (and the case was obviously defective from the beginning, just from Rossi’s filings, and became far more clearly so as discovery proceeded). The question is what would have happened with the counterclaims. My sense is that IH would have prevailed on some counts, but monetary damages might have been relatively small. Recovering on the original payment of $10 million, very difficult, though they were certainly going to try. They could have ruined Johnson, but their own benefit from this might have been small. I do not know what considerations led them to accept the settlement we have seen. Nobody from IH is yet talking about it. I’m asking so eventually I may get some answers. Hopefully, I can get answers I can publish! I did just get the Day 4 transcript.
Rossi explained that it consisted of tubes and two fans blowing horizontally inside an isolated wooden construction attached to the windows where the heat was vented out. A large tube for the steam and a smaller tube for the returning water went through the small door to the mezzanine at the lower left corner.
Yes, that’s what he claimed. The door would have been open, I think. Those fans would have been quite noisy. This would all have been visible from outside the customer area. But because nobody suspected the existence of a heat exchanger (and when asked last year, Rossi did not mention it), searches were not more narrowly focused. Rossi confused this all and continues to confuse it.
Rossi explained a couple of things with regard to the heat exchanger.
A ‘circulator’ was used to stabilize the flow of steam and water through the whole system. Rossi wouldn’t comment on further data of the circulator since he said he was preparing a patent for this device.
This circulator had nothing to do with a pump of the model ‘Grundfos’ that was brought up by the defense’s expert witness Rick Smith who suggested that the Grundfos pump was used to make hot water flow through the system and that no steam was produced.
I advise against relying on Rossi for statements of what Smith claimed. What were raised were possibilities. I.e., “may have been used.” As an example, very strangely, the flow meter had a sending unit that would have allowed automated data collection. This wasn’t used. The basic unit was undersized, designed for higher flow than was used, not actually rated for accuracy at the relatively low flow in the system. However, the sender would have provided higher resolution, at least. There is a suggested fraud mode. (A “fraud mode” would involve deliberate deception, as distinct from error. The Defkalion flow meter artifact could have been error, maybe. A fraud mode, if it could be proven — which wasn’t claimed –, would prove fraudulent intent.) An obvious one: at night, run a pump that floods the system and winds up the flow meter. Indeed, if this is run at night, one could run it until the flow meter reads exactly what is desired, thus explaining the remarkably constant values, in spite of other operational variations in the system. “Explanations” are never proof — though sometimes they indicate the state of the explainer.
The real use for the Grundfos pump was instead to push the water through a by-pass with a filter about once a week to make it cleaner.
That’s plausible. However, this is all complexity added to the system that wasn’t covered by Penon.
Rossi also addressed the claim made by IH that producing one megawatt of heat inside the building where the test was run would have made it so hot that you couldn’t have stayed there. First, he noted that the sun on a sunny day radiates about 1 kW per m2 and that the building, having a roof of about 1,000 m2 normally would have received about 1 MW of heat from the sun, without making it too hot in the building, even though the roof was barely insulated.
That’s one of Rossi’s nutso arguments that can sound plausible if one is inclined to believe him. Solar irradiance does not generate much heat “inside the building.” The figure for Miami seems to run between 1000–2000 BTU per day. “Barely insulated” doesn’t cover the fact. Most heat will be reflected. The roof itself will get too hot to touch, and if the air in the building got that hot, it would be fatal, and a common example is an automobile, which, on a hot day, will quickly reach fatal temperatures. This doesn’t happen in an ordinary building, and why not? I created large protective structures in a desert, weather very hot, using nothing but one layer of paper. Very little “insulation,” but high reflectance. White newsprint paper, I got the rolls from a printer as roll ends. Shade. Really, this is obvious.
The figure of about 1 kW per square meter is about right; in fact, that is called “one sun.” However, the roof does not “receive” a kilowatt per square meter from the sun, because most of the energy is reflected. Insulation is only one factor, different from reflectance. What is absorbed will heat the roof, and then whatever insulation is there will slow heat transfer to the interior.
Furthermore, it had large openings with exhausts for venting air out of the building. Then the JM plant consumed on average 20 to 40 percent of the produced heat, and the rest was vented out with the heat exchanger.
The openings have been considered and modelled. Wong, in his deposition, acknowledged that without the heat exchanger, and a megawatt of power, the building would have become uninhabitable. Wong was evasive, encouraged to be so by Evans (a Rossi attorney at the time, later withdrew), but finally acknowledged the matter. See deposition pages 147-150.
(Wong starts out by asserting that the heat was probably being used to heat some industrial process, as if this would make a big difference. It would, if there was major product being moved. But such processes are normally not efficient, thus most of the heat is “waste heat,” and, indeed, large quantities of product would be required. Wong had no clue about this, as a practical reality. Wong was evasive, and why? He didn’t want to say something because it was what Murray had said. This shows that he was not simply providing expertise, but argument on a side. He knows the facility would become unbearably hot. He ends up acknowledging that the difference between his analysis and that of Murray is that Murray did not account for a heat exchanger, while Wong did. Obvious.
Rossi, with Mats, is beating a dead horse, he’s flat out wrong, but won’t admit it, because Rossi Never Gives Up. Mats knows Rossi’s character, but doesn’t confront or challenge it, knowing full well what would happen if he did.
I then wanted to hear Rossi’s view on the discussion about the 24 smaller pumps feeding water into the E-Cat modules, which had become one of the defense’s major arguments against Rossi, and also one that attorney Christopher Pace raised at the beginning of the trial.
This is not an argument “against Rossi.” It’s just about asserted fact. The thinking is primitive. It is not a “major argument,” other than being quite simple to present and understand. It was, in fact, raised in the IH Opening statement, that is correct.
“This is my favorite because now we’re going to have some fun. You need to see it from a ridiculous side because it’s so ridiculous that you can’t take it seriously.”
Rossi thinks he has a zinger here. And maybe he does. However, the matter is not so simple, and quite a few people have looked at this, and, in my mind, it’s not fully resolved. To fully resolve it someone needs to actually test one of these pumps; what is obvious is that the pump data sheets do not contemplate the conditions Rossi describes as actual usage.
[Update: there is now a project started by some LENR Forum people to actually measure the Prominent pump output. OMG! Actual experimental evidence! Will Lewan look at this? There are possible pitfalls, but … they can be avoided and, in fact, anyone could do this. Not even expensive. If any controversy remains, MFMP could do it, and MFMP does have a reputation for reporting their results, “exciting” or otherwise.]
Not mentioned by Rossi is that the pumps are metering pumps, not “workhorse pumps.” A metering pump is designed to deliver a controlled flow, with relative independence from pressure variations.
The argument, which was brought up in the Expert Report by engineer Rick A. Smith, was based on an observation that on the name plate of the pump it said ’32 l/h.’ In his report, Smith concluded that this was the maximum capacity of the pump, and multiplying 32×24 you get 768 l/h which, if evaporated, only consumes 482 kW—less than half of a megawatt.
It’s actually nominal capacity, not, technically, maximum. Or it is a “maximum setting,” again, not actually maximum flow. however, Rossi confuses this massively. If Smith erred, Smith erred, it happens all the time. Rossi commonly converts the alleged errors of others into proof of incredible stupidity. The basic argument as presented by Pace in the opening probably stands. We will find out. Then it’s further confused with the “recirculation pump,” which, of course, might be able to increase flow to what was claimed. It could make the flow whatever they want; problem is, it could also flood the system, possibly causing all the measurements to become meaningless.
The Expert Report. There are two expert reports by Smith. The second one was issued after inspecting the facility. Rossi is referring to the second, supplemental report. This is the cited page.
The issue is that just next to ’32 l/h’ it says ’02 bar’. The reason is that any pump’s capacity depends on the pressure it needs to overcome to pump the water, the same way as the flow of air you can blow out of your mouth depends on how open it is. Now, 2 bars correspond to the pressure under 20 meters of water, which is way beyond the pressure in the E-Cat plant, and the pumps’ capacity in the actual situation was therefore much larger because the pressure on the pumps was about 1/10 of bar.
Mats here loses attribution. Is this his own explanation, or is it Rossi’s? This is definitely Rossi’s argument, but is treated as fact by Lewan. If Lewan were retaining journalistic reserve, this would be very obvious to him, trained journalists simply don’t do this.
This is a misleading explanation. Mats is treating this pump as “any pump.” (Following Rossi; this is what has often happened, Rossi gives an explanation that seems plausible on first impression to some observer, and it is then presented by the observer to others as fact. Happened, very obviously, in the Lugano report.)
It is not just “any pump,” it is a metering pump, designed to deliver a measured “dose,” and it is correct that the rating on the label is not maximum flow, per se, but more likely maximum metering setting. Apparently at low pressure, these pumps may be inaccurate, probably due to leakage in the internal flow regulators. This leakage can even cause high variation from the “stated flow,” which is what the pump reads on its display. However, that high variation is probably not at maximum setting, but at much lower flow settings. It doesn’t seem plausible that at low pressure, as described, the flow error would be anywhere near as high as Rossi claims. However, the proof would be in experiment. It is possible that someone will obtain direct manufacturer information, the manuals are vague on the issue. Bottom line, these pumps were not intended to operate accurately at such low pressure.
[Great minds think alike. There is, as linked above, a project to measure the actual capacity of the pump.]
I have a beginning look at this in the post Pumped up or Stupid Mistake.
In a comment there, there is an estimate from published data on the pump of a possible 20% increase in rate at 0 bar. I do not consider any of this definitive, but the matter is, quite simply, not as Rossi presents it.
“Here comes the comic aspect. At the trial, you cannot bring documents that you haven’t produced during the discovery phase so I would have needed to explain to the jury, which was not composed of experts on the matter, that the capacity of a pump is a function of the pressure.
Technically correct but highly misleading in this example. Lots of Rossi “facts” are like that. Depending on design, and within operating specifications, metering pumps can be quite independent of pressure. Obviously, a pump is pressure-limited, but the limit would be the force that the pump can exert on the fluid, and below that limit, it could be quite insensitive. The general principle here, as applied to a metering pump, is just plain wrong, so Rossi is either ignorant or lying, and Mats seems to have accepted this deception as fact.
Again, experiment trumps theory, always. But Rossi was using theory here to explain, not actual experiment.
I would have had to explain that the flow rate of a pump is an integral, not a number, as any intelligent engineer knows. It would have been a little difficult, albeit possible.
If Rossi had been allowed by his attorneys to present this to the jury, IH attorneys would have torn him to shreds. The flow rate is an integral? That’s nuts! Total flow is the integral of the flow rate. Rate is the differential of the total flow. And anyone who knows the mathematics of physics knows this. In the jury pool there were members who had the math background. I know the strongest weren’t selected — for other reasons.
This is not all that complicated, if presented by attorneys or experts with skill. Smith, in fact, has high communication skills, this is obvious, reading his reports and deposition. And the little piece of supposed fact here is actually irrelevant, Rossi introducing techno-confusion. He has often done it on his blog. He is someone who thinks he’s smarter than he is, and adoring fans don’t help. None of this means he doesn’t have reactors that work, but it does mean that what Rossi Says is not reliable.
“But during his deposition, Smith, after having insulted me and Penon [the independent controller], several times, saying that we were fraudsters
I don’t recall Smith saying that. Maybe someone can point it out. This is the World According to Rossi. What the evidence in the case establishes is that Rossi presents information designed to mislead. That’s not possible to deny, reviewing the case documents. I recall no claim at all that Penon was a “fraudster.” The Penon data shows anomalies, something is off, apparently. Penon was fed data by Rossi. Rossi apparently destroyed the emails. Conclude what you like. The Penon report doesn’t present the raw flowmeter data, just daily difference (i.e., calculated), and very strangely constant, with a system facing many variations. The legal point is that the report cannot be trusted, not that it was fraud. Explaining the anomalies with clear evidence could be impossible because of the spoliation.
and how can you say that with 32 l/h and 24 pumps you produce a megawatt, and so on, then he said something like ‘now I will show you the brochure of the pump, 120 pages of technical data,’ as if he wanted to show how much of an expert he was.
This is all personal fluff, imagination of the motivation of another, a motivation not actually likely for Smith, who, from his comments, could care less, he DGAF what people thought of him. Rossi doesn’t give me enough evidence to find what he’s talking about, and it’s irrelevant. Mentioning the pump manual (not “brochure,”) would be completely normal if asked how he knew something.
Then you need to know that I have used these pumps for years and know the brochure by heart. I opened the brochure and looked at the page where I knew that the capacity was specified, and it said ‘minimum capacity at 2 bars pressure, 32 l/h.’ But in his report, Smith had written maximum capacity.
Smith did write “maximum capacity,” but he was also clear that he was translating “Dosierleistung.” When I look that up I find “dosing capacity.” Rossi is correct that this is not literally a maximum, though ‘capacity’ implies maximum. I read the specification as the maximum setting for the pump, the maximum “stated rate.” Remember, this is a dosing pump, not a workhorse where faster is better.
“When he said this I could have reacted, asking if he had read the brochure, open it and make him read. But we preferred to remain silent, letting them being convinced that it had passed as true, just like when you have an enemy and you let him run and get himself pierced by your bayonet. I showed it to my attorney who laughed under his mustache, and we would then have brought it out at the trial. We would have destroyed them.
Rossi also apparently deceived his attorneys. Or they knew and simply liked his money.
Actually, if this is the error he claims, this would very likely have been realized and IH simply would not have presented this in the evidentiary phase, it wasn’t a crucial part of their case, merely something very simple that could be shown and understood. However, at this point, it looks like it may not have been an error.
Because half of Smith’s report talks about this and the other half about things that are related. But the problem is—we would have won, but they would have kept the license. That’s why my lawyers told me ‘you need to tell us clearly which is your priority—getting the money or the license because listen, you won’t have both.’ And I said the license because the license has an enormous value not only in economic terms but also in technological, philosophical, and existential terms.”
And personal terms, to Rossi, who always wants to be in full control. He doesn’t really trust anyone else.
But, what do you think—didn’t they ever realize that they were wrong?
Lewan appears to be assuming Rossi is correct and a skilled engineer is wrong. It’s definitely possible, though not particularly likely. Experts make mistakes. That’s obvious. Will Lewan check these things out? This is not really difficult. I’m a blogger, not exactly a journalist, but … I might check it out further. I prefer, generally, to delegate these things to my readership — and then I will check what they find. That makes far better use of my time and l love to involve community, it’s far more fun than doing everything myself — my older habit.
I think… I’m extremely puzzled by the fact that two engineers, Murray and Smith, are so naive not to realize making errors of this kind. I cannot make conclusions because I cannot start imagining things. I can only say that they probably all thought we were fools. I think that their problem, from the beginning to the end of this affair, was just that—they underestimated the person they had in front of them enormously. I believe that they thought they could write such things without my noticing it. It’s impossible that two good engineers with excellent careers, like Murray and Smith, really can have thought that something like that was true, because if a student at the first year of engineering school takes the exam in thermodynamics and tells his professor that a pump, of which the specifications says that its minimum capacity at 2 bars is 32 l/h, has a maximum capacity of 32 l/h, he would have been sent home immediately.”
Rossi often argues like this, makes up a hypothetical situation involving something he thinks is really stupid, with a hypothetical professor, then the imaginary professor confirms his idea.
What is the 32 l/h figure? It is a dosing capacity. Can the meter dose at a rate less than that? Of course, that’s the maximum stated rate, it’s a setting, apparently, unless I’m way off here. Rossi has actually worked with these pumps, which would ordinarily create a level of respect. However, Rossi isn’t ordinary, and there are certain errors that he has made for years, in spite of them being pointed out. He takes all critique as enmity and “clownery.” He doesn’t actually consider how it might be right. He doesn’t look deeper than his own set ideas.
Continuing this, what is the maximum flow? As I read the evidence, it is the maximum set rate plus possible error under the conditions given. So, yes, it can be higher. But not much higher, as Rossi claims below. Does Rossi claim to have actually measured this? Under what conditions?
And maybe he’s right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. His arguments, however, are not convincing to those who are careful.
Mats saw Rossi arguing against experts in that Hydro Fusion test, obviously convinced that he was right, and he has more recently made statements that show he has never understood the power measurement issue. (This was the test where Rossi later claimed to Industrial Heat that he had deliberately made the reactor fail, but not mentioning the measurement issue. So either Rossi was stuck on his own completely incorrect ideas, as appeared to Mats, or he was putting on an elaborate show to deceive Hydro Fusion — and Mats.) However it’s sliced, Rossi is often some combination of wrong and deceptive, and the deceptive part is beyond a shadow of doubt.
By the way, since you know these pumps, what capacity do they have at the actual pressure in the plant—about 0.2 bars?
“About 75 l/h.”
So he has it as double, but this is simply Rossi Says at this point. There is no other evidence that I’ve seen supporting his position. There is a statement in a brochure that these dosing pumps can, at atmospheric pressure, deliver two to three times the “stated rate.” That is interpreted by a Rossi supporter as the specified rate on the label, but that isn’t what it actually says. The real meaning is, in my opinion, not clear, but easily it could simply mean that you might have a setting of 1 l/h on the display, and an actual delivery rate two or three times that. Not necessarily at the full allowed setting, which appears to be 32 l/h.
The brochure linked above has this at the very beginning:
The gamma/L is a diaphragm-type, solenoid-driven, microprocessor based metering pump with maximum capacities to 8.4 gph (32.0 L/h) and maximum backpressures to 253 psig (17.5 bar).
So perhaps we might cut a little slack for Smith saying that the maximum capacity is 32 l/h, since the brochure actually states that. The manual does have a specification for “minimum capacity,” as Rossi claims, at 2 bar pressure. It’s a chart, not a sentence as implied, but close enough. It has this as 32 l/h at 2 bar, and 36.2 l/h at 1 bar. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate this to 0 bar (though certainly not reliable). That leads to a figure of 40.4 l/hr. However, I’m quite unclear on what “minimum capacity” means for a metering pump, because the “capacity” can obviously be lower if the pump is set lower. This kind of unclarity breeds error. Bottom line, what will one of these pumps actually deliver under the stated conditions? This is not at all difficult to measure with a bucket and a stopwatch, which is how these things are normally tested. In order to meet the 1500 kg/hour that is claimed from the flow meter, with 24 pumps, 62.5 kg/hr would be needed. A kilogram of water is close enough to a liter for these purposes.
The issue here is not the system flow rate, per se, it is whether or not the reactor pumps could deliver that flow rate. By introducing other pumps, it all gets more complicated. Had this been done openly, not a problem. But it wasn’t.
Going back in time—when did you first understand that things were not going well between you and IH?
“When I discovered that IH was making agreements with our competitors. At that point, I understood that they were trying to fill up their portfolio of intellectual property in view of litigation with us pending the huge payment they were going to have to pay. It was instinct—I had no proof, but eventually, the facts confirmed this instinctive doubt.”
He doesn’t respond with when it happened. In the timeline Chaiken constructed, the point was to show an alleged change in attitude on the part of IH. Supposedly when they got the $50 million from Woodford, IH didn’t need Rossi any more. There was no sign that IH was considering litigation with Rossi, he’s made that up. They wanted him to teach them how to make devices that worked. But they allowed him to run the Doral power sale and demonstration plant, and cooperated. The Woodford sale closed in May, 2015, after the Doral “test” had been running for about three months. In July, IH decided they needed to take a closer look, with an expert, so scheduled a visit with Vaughn and Murray, whom they had hired to manage engineering. Rossi refused to allow it, violating the Term Sheet which explicitly allowed such visits. Later, in a pleading, Rossi remarkably explained this as being because he believed Murray was a “spy.” But hadn’t Rossi already disclosed his secrets to IH? (or if there were new ones, related to new developments, i.e., Quark-X, wasn’t he obligated to disclose them?)
There was nothing about the License Agreement that didn’t allow IH to diversify. They actually were permitted to sublicense the Rossi technology, though there is no evidence that they actually disclosed it. This was all Rossi paranoia, here confirmed. Does Mats realize that?
This story has often been told by Rossi as Woodford investing because they were so impressed with the Doral plant. However, they had committed before they had seen that plant. Above, Rossi mentions a prior test that Woodford participated in. This isn’t public information, as far as I know. It may be true or not. But Woodford very clearly didn’t actually invest in Rossi technology, but in all the other stuff. That obviously enraged Rossi. He had created this, though, by being unresponsive to IH requests for assistance — if we assume that he actually had a real technology. Otherwise this is all smokescreen, fluff.
And later, on January 8, 2016, there was a meeting in Miami between you, Darden and the lawyers. What can you say about that meeting?
“Nothing, because it was a meeting between lawyers and covered by NDA.”
Implausible, though not impossible. A party may disclose their meeting with lawyers. The lawyers may not disclose it. But there might have been special conditions. We do know what conflict existed at that point, there are documents. Contrary to common Rossi claims, it simply is not true that IH did not complain “until it was time to pay.” They informed Rossi long before “time to pay,” according to his demand, that they did not consider Doral was the GPT, nor had they consented to Penon as ERV for a GPT there. Rossi actually filed the lawsuit a day prematurely, the payment was not yet late. But he did know they wouldn’t pay.
Now, there’s much more to comment, but leaving all this behind, what are your plans now?
And Rossi goes on to give his plans for starting “industrialization” of products. I’m not commenting on that. I prefer to comment where I have knowledge.[…]
Finally—what happened to your hair?
Again, that’s Rossi’s private business. As I wrote in the blog about the trial, his wig looked normal and was attractive. It’s unfortunate that some have made light of it, making some remarks about “false hair” as if it means something about his character. That is aggressively and gratuitously rude, and it saddens me to see it.
When Rossi filed the lawsuit against IH I had to take a step back and look at all possible explanations. I was and have been open to the possibility that Rossi was involved in fraud and conspiracy. But during the discovery phase of the litigation, it became obvious that the defense couldn’t produce any convincing evidence for this hypothesis.
Mats, this is preposterous. What you have done is to set up a very narrow definition of “fraud.” Rossi engaged in fraudulent representation. The evidence is overwhelming, the situation is far from what you say, which is obviously not based on an actual examination of evidence, but on looking for something to leap out at you about fake data. There are problems with the data, none of which rise to the level of clear fraud. That’s not the core problem. The core is that what Rossi says cannot be trusted.
All technical arguments that were put forward were hollow and easily torn apart by people with engineering training.
You are focusing on technical arguments while you have a shallow knowledge of them. Your overall assessment is not based on your personal discussion with unbiased people who have no axe to grind, but on conversations in highly biased environments.
Yet, these arguments were continuously repeated by a number of people, possibly related to IH, at various forums.
There is only one person “related to IH” who has discussed this affair, and that is Dewey Weaver, who becomes a figure in the case, as an IH investor and contractor. Weaver is not among those with high engineering knowledge who have discussed the technical arguments. Weaver made highly personal arguments based on his personal and direct knowledge of Rossi and the people and the history of the relationship, not technical arguments.
Mats, it looks like you have swallowed Sifferkoll’s obviously paranoid conspiracy theory. Sifferkoll has claimed that various people have been paid to attack Rossi. There isn’t a shred of evidence of that; Sifferkooll puts together random shreds of connections, thinking, for example, that because Eric Walker was affiliated with the Baha’i faith, there is a “fundamentalist” religious conspiracy to suppress LENR (and he’s made the same argument about me, because I’m Muslim) and he’s also claimed that I’m paid to write against Rossi, when my limited funding, covering expenses, came from a source completely unrelated to Industrial Heat and Rossi, and came with no strings attached, it was actually granted for writing about Wikipedia process — and lately I’ve been crowd-funded, that’s how I went to Miami for the trial.
None of my sources have been related to Industrial Heat. This is all paranoia, very similar to Rossi himself.
Since there was no way to discuss them in a serious way I early decided to stay away from such discussions, also closing the comment feature on this blog, yet I admire a few individuals, mostly anonymous, who continued to fight for what they considered to be the truth in those discussions.
Foolish decision, allowing you to remain ignorant. Yes, the ordinary blogs can be a mess, but this one was created to set up coherent discussions, far deeper content. It takes little courage, Mats, to be an “anonymous fighter for truth,” because there is no responsibility.
You know that I’m a real and known person, we had personal history, and I’m responsible for what I write. I created Wikiversity resources years ago so that serious writing could be done, including serious discussions. What you are thinking of as “truth,” unfortunately, is mostly conspiracy theory. There are some anonymous writers who are dedicated to objective analysis, but …. you have not been paying attention, your activity has mostly — or entirely — been on E-Cat World, which is explicitly Planet Rossi, contrary opinion is often banned. I’ve been allowed to post there, to be sure, but that’s fairly unusual (Thanks, Frank!). The actual IH voice, even though he’s not official, at least the connection is real, Dewey Weaver, is apparently not free to comment there.
I am confident that if Rossi were really involved in fraud, evidence for that would have been found during the time—a year and a half—since IH claimed to have started to be suspicious about Rossi.
Mats, you have not considered most of the evidence of fraudulent representation. You have not done your own analyses, looking for the balance, the preponderance of evidence. You may be confident, but your confidence is rooted in ignorance, sorry to say. I’m truly disappointed, I did expect better of you.
Looking back and noting that no such evidence was found, while hollow arguments have been shouted out loud, I have very little doubt that the E-Cat technology is real and that the one-year test was a clear success of a world changing technology, producing 1 MW of heat without emissions, from small amounts of harmless fuel at a COP of about 80 for a whole year!
You have studied neither the evidence in the case — it is voluminous — nor the arguments, yet you dismiss them as hollow. Some arguments are, indeed, hollow. Which ones? You just presented some arguments from Rossi, some of which were hollow. You’ve lost it, Mats.
Noting this I have also started investigating the timing for relaunching the energy conference I proposed in 2016—the New Energy World Symposium, addressing the consequences of LENR based technologies for industry, society, and finance.
Now the fun can start!
Good luck. I won’t be there. LENR technology isn’t ready, we are still at the basic science level. That’s where I’ll be, in Texas, at Texas Tech where crucial heat/helium research is being done, and at ICCF-21, which was planned to be hosted by IH in North Carolina, but because of the lawsuit, they found it necessary to withdraw, and I’m in contact with possible organizers, I’m hoping that some support can be found.
Rossi is an enemy of LENR research, sucking the life out of it. His attitude about investment in alternatives betrays his real position, he is anti-science and anti-research, except for his own.
And you are helping promote this. If you decide to look deeper, start the conversation, you would be welcome.
Information I have, so far, indicates that this is not yet fully signed.
Note: All comments to this post will need to be confirmed by me.
So far, all fawning praise. If that’s what you like, you are welcome to it. You had some experts, people with actual knowledge, commenting before. You insulted them.
I have commented on the Lewan post, citing this page. The comment was made at July 20, 2017 at 18:33 and is awaiting moderator approval. (I draw no conclusions from the delay. No additional comments have been accepted since then.)
July 24, 2017: The comment is still awaiting moderation. This is how it appears to me now.
Abd ulRahman Lomax July 20, 2017 at 18:33
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
for an alternate point of view, this interview is studied at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/mats-lewan-interview/
There is a newer comment approved at July 23, 2017 at 06:06.
April 1, 2019.
The comment never appeared. I looked at this today because it came up in another comment. There have been a total of 24 comments approved. My comment was left, I infer from the time of this post, on July 18, 2017. There were nine fawning comments left that day. Most comments continued to be full of praise for the interview, except those I cover below, plus the most recent comments were not on that post, but on other issues.
truthseeking2015 July 19, 2017 at 03:44
I wish Mr. Rossi had not used the “failed to provide evidence” languaje, that is known to be the kind of languaje of people witholding truth.
I will agree, particularly that there were mountains of evidence provided under oath in discovery in this case, and other evidence (such as Rossi emails) attested as authentic with no challenge. “No evidence” is an obvious falsehood, and Lewan personally confirms this deception. Quoting him:
I am confident that if Rossi were really involved in fraud, evidence for that would have been found during the time—a year and a half—since IH claimed to have started to be suspicious about Rossi. Looking back and noting that no such evidence was found [. . . ]
To maintain that position requires ignoring a veritable mountain of evidence. Now, in a trial, it will all be presented to a jury, but if there was no evidence, the IH countersuit would have been dismissed. Lewan is ignorant of legal process and of the facts of the case, and does not appear to have read the evidence, he reacted from . . . I don’t know what? Rossi’s baby face?
I have to say that the whole process of the lawsuit left me with the impression Mr. Rossi was not an honest person, in spite that it also left me with the impression that the persons behind IH are also not honest.
A lack of honesty on the part of Rossi was obvious from many Rossi documents, he admitted in one to deceiving his prior associates at HydroFusion. The “independent customer” in Doral was nothing other than Rossi, hiding under a trust created by Rossi’s attorney and entirely managed and controlled by Rossi. That’s only part of it! This was not denied by Rossi and his attorneys.
Hence, the fact that they both preferred to settle than submit them to the proverbial fecal matter flinging show, confirms me they both preferred to hide things than putting all it to public light.
I don’t see that IH settled to hide things. They had never wanted the lawsuit, Rossi forced it. They then defended themselves. There were about nine attorneys in that courtroom, suppose we figure $1000 per day per attorney. (I think that is conservative. So $9000 per day. The trial was estimated to be five weeks. Plus it was taking up the time of the CEO of Cherokee Limited Partners, a $2.2 billion corporation. The costs of trial then may be estimated very conservatively at $225,000. IH damages would be technically limited, they could not prove, my guess, that there had been fraud in the Validation Test in Italy, though it all stank. They could not recover, then, the $11.5 million they had paid Rossi, even if the technology was worthless (as they appear to have concluded, or they would not have settled as they did). They could readily claim damages for the expenses of the move to Doral and other related expenses they paid. But recovering this could have been problematic. Nobody was paying them to “put it all to public light.” I’m not sure that I’d have chosen as they did, but what I saw in that courtroom was that everyone was happy, certainly the attorneys on both sides were happy! So they should fight it out in court so that “truthseeking2015“, anonymous, sees the shitstorm he wants? If TruthSeeking loves and seeks the truth, why does he or she (very unlikely “she’) hide behind anonymity?
In the direction of the choice they made, they may have believed that the world was now protected from Rossi claims, because of all the evidence that became public in that trial. I agree, it is all there to be seen by anyone who is considering investment in Rossi technology, how he treats his investors.
And if an investor wants to believe the various conspiracy theories, well, a fool and his money are soon parted, one way or another. Rossi did commit perjury, my opinion, but someone would have to convince prosecutors in Florida to spent their time investigating this. It’s not worth my time, and I have no desire to beat the old man with sticks. I actually like him (as have most who have met him.) But let’s put it this way. He is an inventor, an inventor of fantastic stories, that he embellishes in great detail, and about which he puts on shows that interest some, even many.
The only thing that I find interesting now about this settlement release is the accompanying notes of Rossi. No one would write such detailed notes if had no a real machine working. This opened for me a slight chance that, after all, Mr. Rossi does has something working as he says. I will not hold my breath, but at least this gives me a reason to keep an eye on whatever Mr. Rossi has on schedule.
“TruthSeeking” will not find the truth using the methods of inference employed. Rossi would have created extensive notes for his attorneys, already. Rossi did not have a “real machine working,” at least not, for sure, generating a megawatt. This was always a problem. Since 2011, when Rossi announced that his megawatt reactor was available for sale, many noted that a 20 kW reactor would be far more useful and far easier to test. The megawatt reactor was just a pile of 20 kW reactors. Why was it made so complicated? In any case, Rossi’s expert agreed with the IH expert, that if no heat exchanger were built that could dissipate that kind of power, the warehouse would have reached fatal temperature levels internally. The temperature of the warehouse is a rough calorimeter. Rossi gives completely bogus arguments on Lewan’s blog post. And if anyone doubts that, I suggest asking for clarification. This is not marginal. Had the case gone to trial, Rossi would have been exposed to a prosecution for perjury, a criminal offense. The evidence, far from being non-existent, as Lewan claimed, was abundant. Hiding a megawatt of power is very difficult!
Marijuana growers were busted, many times, because they tried to hide much less power, in the apartments and other places where they grew the plant under artificial lights, perhaps 20 – 30 kW. They would stand out like a sore thumb with infrared imaging devices.
(There is a rumor that IH had IR satellite data, but did not use it because of difficulties with chain-of-custody issues. I should ask, actually. The Settlement Agreement did not require them to not comment, and Rossi certainly commented!)
Peter Metz July 20, 2017 at 17:18
“The argument, which was brought up in the Expert Report by engineer Rick A. Smith, was based on an observation that on the name plate of the pump it said ’32 l/h.’ In his report, Smith concluded that this was the maximum capacity of the pump, and multiplying 32×24 you get 768 l/h which, if evaporated, only consumes 482 kW—less than half of a megawatt. ”
This has been very extensively discussed on Lenr-Forum, and a Rossi supporter actually tested a pump. However, this is typical for Lenr-Forum. There is no way to easily search for the final report.
This is all, however, a red herring. Yes, it was presented in the opening arguments by IH. It was one of the easiest arguments to understand, as presented. Was the engineer correct? Rossi’s story about this requires that he use the pumps to the limit of their capacity, to a level not guaranteed, at best. Apparently there were also only 18 units functioning by the end of the “test.” (So the full capacity would be much smaller). Further, Rossi claimed to be operating much or most of the time in “self-sustain mode,” with no power input. With no power input the only control would be pump rate. Would you operate a steam reactor, depending on cooling to prevent runaway, pushing the pumps to the limit? I’ll discuss this more if someone finds the report.
But, like the issue of the flow meter (crucial to Rossi’s measurements), equipment was used outside of prudent operating ranges, creating many opportunities for error or misinterpretation. Those were metering pumps. What were the settings? They were not free-run pumps that would pump whatever depending on power input and pressure. It’s been some time since I looked at the manual, but my sense is that 32 l/hr is the maximum setting!
Okay, I never checked this and I don’t recall anyone discussing this aspect. The pump manual specifications page is here. The pump is the gamma L 0232. That has a rated capacity per stroke (full length, I assume) of 2.96 ml at back pressure 2 bar, and 3.35 ml at 1 bar. 0 bar is unreasonable, but using that, I’d estimate single stroke capacity at 0 bar of 3.74 ml. The maximum stroke rate is 180 strokes per minute (see. p. 19.) That yields a maximum pump rate at 0 bar of 40 liters per hour. The label was 32 liters per hour, at 2 bar. Using the 2 bar figure, it works out to 32 liters per hour. Yes. That is the maximum setting!
The Rossi arguments on this are insane. The pump capacity will indeed vary with pressure, but only a little. It’s a metering pump! Modifying the argument to consider this small variation, 24 pumps could only cool by evaporation 600 kW. If the reactors were actually producing a megawatt as claimed, they would have failed from overheating (perhaps spectacularly!). Those pumps did not have enough capacity. 400 kW uncooled in a small space, it would heat very rapidly.
And if we consider the claims that the plant was still producing a megawatt with only 18 units operating, the capacity is even smaller, 450 kW.
I cannot seem to find this in the Smith Expert Report and elsewhere. It’s probably my mistake but I’ve looked now including the reports and depositions including Murray’s. I know this was discussed on the blogs but this specially says Expert Report by Rick A. Smith and Rossi seems think IH’s defense hinges entirely on this so it’s important to me that this gets verified including the context in which it was stated. A page number or other link would be helpful. Thanks.
I will remind readers that these are both attorney arguments. They are not testimony under oath, this is a framing the attorneys are allowed to give, a story that the jurors might use to place the evidence they will see in the trial itself. While that evidence has generally been disclosed, not all of it is public, only what was asserted in connection with various pleadings and motions was published. The pump issue is brought up on p. 141. It is given a few words, in a relatively long statement. This is far from the core of their defense. Rossi, however, is focusing on what he thinks he can attack, and perhaps he can.
Peter Metz July 20, 2017 at 17:38
OK. I found it. It’s in the Supplemental Report produced by Smith, report page 16.
Link: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf#page=16 [added the page link –Abd]
In the report the name plate says ‘DOSIERLEISTUNG 32l/h’ which Smith translates to ‘dosing capacity or maximum flow.’ This clearly differs from the pump guide which states minimum flow. Why Smith, presumably an expert on pumps, made this translation which conflicts with the manual we can only guess. It clearly invalidates this part of Smiths analysis if the pump guide is correct. I will also add that it seems to me Rossi is overstating his case here that the entire Smith Report depends on this analysis.
Sorry for the confusion.
The expert, Smith, did overlook the pressure specification. What the actual operating pressure was is unclear. If the reactor is producing steam, this will create pressure from resistance to flow in the system, up to the condenser. So 0 bar is unreasonable. But perhaps it was less than 2 bar, so perhaps Smith erred in figuring maximum capacity, but his calculation was based on the full complement of 24 pumps operating, when only pumps feeding the active reactors would be relevant with 18 pumps operating. The substance of this part of his report stands in spite of the possible error, not to mention the rest.
What I assume is that Smith had in mind that these were metering pumps, with the “maximum capacity” being full stroke at the maximum rate. The difference with pressure is small. So he was basically correct. And Metz is also correct that Rossi, even if we accept the error, was drastically overstating his case. And Lewan does not notice any of this, or if he does, keeps his mouth shut. I see no sign that Lewan has understood any of these issues.
Dan Peter August 9, 2017 at 22:52
DEar Mats, Why don’t you interview the other part
Mats Lewan August 9, 2017 at 23:03
Dan, Darden promised me an interview 2 years ago. I have asked him several times to do it, and I also asked JT Vaughn, but they never answered my emails or phone calls. Last time I asked was just a few weeks ago. No answer.
If I read what Mats had written, I’d decline an interview also. Mats rejected commentary from Dewey Weaver, an IH insider. Getting an interview with the officers of a multi-billion dollar corporation is not easy. He would have other ways of obtaining response. For example, I was at the trial, and was, before that, very familiar with the evidence, so I knew what I was seeing. I’ve been interviewed by Ruby Carat for her podcast series. And if I thought that IH should issue a statement, I could get the message to them., there are open channels. Generally, they have no interest in internet debates. Dewey shows up sometimes in them. He is generally representing himself, but, more privately, he sometimes speaks for IH.
Mats has never involved himself with the general CMNS community, it is all Rossi this and Rossi that. Indeed, that IH engaged with the full cold fusion community is what enraged Rossi. He thought of that whole community as his “competitors.” It’s obvious in the interview.
Rossi is not and has never been a scientist, and his interest is not benefit for humanity, but rather for his personal goals. Mats has seen plenty that would enable him to understand this, including the HydroFusion deception. Has he read what Rossi wrote about that? Here, a free gift, Rossi’s email, if he gets as far as reading this. Mats was at that test, it is covered in his book, pp 236-243. Either Rossi lied to Darden and Vaughn, or to Mats and HydroFusion, or both. Take your pick.
Rossi has granted an interview to Mats Lewan.[I have written an extensive review of the interview on a page here. I’m saddened to find it necessary to write this.]
The interview includes a link to a “settlement agreement” between all parties to Rossi v. Darden, stating “undisclosed source.” The agreement is unsigned and undated, it’s a draft, then. I have made inquiries to determine if this is legitimate and accurate. But here is the settlement-agreement-draft.[Update: I am informed privately that the Lewan draft is probably correct, and, as well, that it was eventually signed by all parties. There has been, to my knowledge, no joint announcement, only the eventual entry of a joint stipulation which included nothing about the agreement other than showing the joint request for dismissal with prejudice.]
In the Lewan interview, Rossi makes many statements that, from the clear evidence in the case, are, at the very least, misleading. Lewan’s summaries are, themselves, misleading. (Lewan has often shown that he didn’t understand the case, and is continuing that.) I will cover that interview in detail. There are two other documents hosted on the Lewan blog linked from the interview, they are Rossi handwritten notes, full of words like “stupidities” and “middle school math.” Classic Rossi. Continue reading “Settlement Agreement?”
Unfortunately. The flow of libelous posts on JONP had stopped but, sad to say, it seems to have started up again. Sifferkoll is echoed on JONP.
This is long and detailed. Unless a reader is interested in the massive flabber generated on Sifferkoll’s blog, and implications, including evidence that Sifferkoll is being directly deceptive, I suggest skipping this. Continue reading “The drama continues”
How about both?
The 2016 NRL briefing on LENR, written per Congressional request. There are some interesting possibilities here, if we proceed carefully and effectively.
I sent these first reactions to the private CMNS list: Continue reading “Warmed over bullshit or fertilizer?”
Working draft, for comment, not approved.
This is to be an Infusion Institute consensus document, a study of the briefing prepared in 2016 by the NRL for Congress. Comments are fully welcome and invited and facts and all arguments will be incorporated, directly or by reference. Correction of errors is especially welcome. Discussion here may be refactored for organizational purposes.
Comments by the editor, within the copied body of the report, are in indented italics. Some of these may not be appropriate in a final report. I have not copied all material, some that I considered heavily irrelevant I have left out. The original document pages may be read with the page links given.
The ultimate purpose is to write a cogent and focused briefing that could be used.
16-F-1333_ DOC_02_LENR_Briefing was our source document, we have removed the Black Vault inserted page 1, so that our page numbers correspond to those in the document. This is what we are working with:
I have categorized these pages based on relevance to the charge. Red is very low relevance, if any. Magenta is peripheral relevance, possibly worth a sentence in a cogent review, not a whole slide as was used.
1. Briefing on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Research
2. House Committee on Armed Services Briefing Request
3. Preparation of this Briefing
4. Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) executive summary
5. U.S. is Well Represented in LENR
6. Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment for Energy production
7. LENR proponents claim many potential military applications
8. Nuclear Physics and LENR
9. Physics of Nuclear Reactions
10. Types of Nuclear Reactions
11. Energy Production: Fission vs. Fusion
12. Challenge for Nuclear Fusion
13. Energy Required for Fusion
14. Quantum Mechanical Tunneling is Essential for Fusion
15. Muon-Catalyzed Fusion (MCF): Uncontroversial and Well Understood
16. MCF: Impractical for Energy Production
17. MCF: current research directions
18. Publications on MCF
19. Nations for MCF research
20. Electrolytic Cell: Early Experiments
21. Early Electrolysis Experiments Using Heavy Water Were Discredited
22. Lack Theoretical Foundation
23. SPAWAR Experiments Looked for Nuclear Products
24. Attempts to Address Reproducibility Yielded Erratic Results
26. Back up
27. Transmutation Involves the Electroweak Force and Is a Nuclear Reaction, But Not Fusion
28. In 2002 lwamura et al. Observed Transmutation and Excess Heat in a D2-Pd System
29. Ultra-Dense Deuterium: Origin in Rydberg Matter (RM)
30. Ultra-Dense Deuterium is Claimed to Have Remarkable Properties
31. Reanalysis of TOF Data Leads to Contradictory Results
32. Major caveat: Research on Ultra-dense Deuterium is Limited to One Small Group
33. Acoustic Cavitation Fusion
34. Acoustic Cavitation Fusion – Discredited Observations
35. Acoustic Cavitation Fusion Plausible
A scientific survey of the international literature in response to the FY16 NOAA (report on HR4909, 4 May 2016)
The committee is aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security implications. For example, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a “disruptive technology that could revolutionize energy production and storage.” The committee is also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) findings that other countries including China and India are moving forward with LENR programs of their own and that Japan has actually created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that Russia, China, Israel, and India are now devoting significant resources to LENR development. To better understand the national security implications of these
developments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016. This briefing should examine the current state of research in the United States, how that compares to work being done internationally, and an assessment of the type of military applications where this technology could potentially be useful.
The authors do not appear to have knowledgeably addressed the charge. What are the “recent developments” that the Committee mentioned? There is no clue in the briefing. Almost certainly, this would refer to the work of Industrial Heat, LLC, with Andrea Rossi’s technology.
Industrial Heat, in 2015, raised $50 million for LENR research (not for Rossi, for whom they invested about $20 million from a close group of investors, starting in 2012).
In 2014, a basic LENR research initiative at Texas Tech was funded with a $6 million private donation plus another $6 million in Texas state matching funds.
What is the current state of research in the U.S. and around the world?
This report is confused about what LENR is, and only looks at a few shards in the pile, with many irrelevancies and shallow, unbalanced assessments.
My opinion is that LENR is not close to ready for military or commercial applications; the authors here are correct on that, but … the point is to become ready or to be ready. That will require clear vision based on knowledge. The field is complex and the request deserved expert attention, which it did not receive.
• The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) was tasked by OSD to conduct a comprehensive survey on the current state of research on low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) in the US, and an assessment
of the type of military appliications for this technology.
• The United States is active in LENR research in universities, government labs, industry and private research
• The status of knowledge, evidence, and technology indicates that it is premature to increase investments in LENR research
• LENR research has been challenged by a lack of reproducibility of results, and many of the studies have not provided the necessary scientific and theoretical foundations
• Beyond the lack of reproducible positive results to date, scaling to meaningful energy production levels must still be addressed.
• If LENR research can successfully provide a reliable energy source, and the underlying science can be established, it could lead to a broad variety of military as well as commercial applications such as
a compact, efficient, room temperature, energy source.
[chart showing First Authors by Function and National Affiliation. Given below is the number of papers by nation]
USA  Japan  China  France  Russia  Italy  India  South Korea  UK  Ukraine  Australia  Finland  Germany  Malaysia  New Zealand  Switzerland 
That is 115 papers total. Standard for inclusion and period covered, not stated. This is far less useful than a proper study, which would state those things. It is possible that the period is since the 2004 DoE review. The conclusion (U.S. “well represented”) could be valid, but could also be invalid. One person or one small group might create that impression.
TRL 9 Production
TRL 8 Full scale development
TRL 6 Exploratory development
TRL2 Technology development
LENR research: [placed below TRL 1]
Most results have not been reproduced independently;
Lack scientific and theoretical foundations.
Waste of an entire page to make a short and confusing statement. “Most results.” Okay, there are lots of unconfirmed results, that is not controversial. However, some are confirmed to various degrees. There is no examination of the confirmed results in this study. This is all meaningless without a clear definition of “LENR.” Confirmed experimental results are a “scientific foundation” for a new and unexpected effect. Both U.S. DoE reviews recommended further research, which would not have been recommended if there were “no foundation” as claimed here. LENR is a mystery, and without basic research, is likely to remain so.
It seems clear that LENR would be in TRL Level 1. The collection of effects called “LENR” are controversial, and expert opinion has been divided, see the 2004 U.S. DoE review — and that was a flawed review, wherein blatant errors were made, leading to literal misreadings of the claims in the review document. Fundamental research has been poorly funded, generally, but is continuing. This review shows little or no awareness of that.
This betrays that the authors are considering this a political issue, with “proponents” and … what? “opponents”? In the following paragraph the authors claim what could be potential military applications. Are they “proponents”?
If LENR research can successfully provide a reliable energy source, and
the science can be established, the following could result:
• Abundant, clean energy
• Compact, portable power source
• Inert and nonhazardous
• Processing of radioactive waste
The key word here is “could.” Claims of the characteristics of LENR applications are premature. It seems likely from what we know about LENR that it might be nonhazardous, but as the mechanism is not understood, it might actually be hazardous, it is not yet possible to test the effect adequately to rule that out. This review ignores what is actually known about the effects.
“Processing of nuclear waste” possibilities have been reported but are generally unconfirmed. This report makes no distinction between what is confirmed and unconfirmed. Unconfirmed results, if plausible (i.e., based on properly-done measurements, on the face, etc., deserve confirmation effort, but probably not governmental-level efforts yet, unless the reported techniques appear easy and inexpensive to confirm
[link added. That is a 131 page pdf. What, exactly, is being cited? This is probably considered representative of what “LENR Proponents” write, but this is circular: if a researcher works on LENR, and reports positive results (i.e., indicating a nuclear effect) they will be considered, ipso facto, a proponent.]
Energy Density of Fuels
[chart showing mass of fuel for a city of one million people, as 250,000 tons of oil, 400,000 tons of coal, and 60 kg. of “fusion fuel.” That fuel is stated as deuterium and lithium. The fusion reaction considered is deuterium-tritium fusion, and the neutrons that generates (dangerous radiation) converts lithium to tritium. However, D-T fusion is not LENR, this is high-energy fusion. There may be various LENRs; the most-confirmed reaction converts deuterium to helium (totally harmless) with a higher energy yield, experimentally found and confirmed. This clumsiness shows that the report is more or less a quick cut-and-paste.]
• Physics of Nuclear Reactions
• Physical challenges for Nuclear Fusion
• Two LENR research areas:
– Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: Broadly accepted, based on well-understood physics
Yes, Muon-Catalyzed Fusion is well understood and accepted. But this is not what is referred to as LENR, even though it technically is “low-energy.” MCF is the same reaction as is found in high-energy fusion, but catalyzed by muons, so it happens at very low energies. It generates harmful radiation, but is not practical for reasons they cover. Adding all this MCF material, as they do below, simply confuses the report. Did they include MCF papers in their tally of “LENR” papers?
In the field, a more specific term is the Anomalous Heat Effect. MCF is not anomalous, it’s understood. The AHE is also called the “Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect.” (FPHE). However, AHE is a little more general, because gas-loaded palladium is not the FPHE, though the reaction appears to be similar in some ways. The FPHE is an electrolytic effect.
– Electrolytic Cell : Has not been reproduced independently and has
not provided the necessary technical information to provide a
scientific foundation for scalable research.
This (has not been reproduced independently) is utter nonsense, basically repeating a widespread rumor that became established in 1989-1990. The various reported experiments and confirmations have provided a level of scientific foundation, as to the nature of the effect, but not yet as to detailed mechanism. The material conditions are difficult to control, particularly in the electrochemical experiments that are most widely confirmed (in spite of this difficulty), and until the reaction is well under control, scaling up is dangerous and is generally not done.
These authors clearly are not familiar with the literature. It is not that they disagree with it, but that they flat-out don’t know it, so they make statements unlike what someone knowledgeable would make. How is it that this report, for which $50,000 was budgeted, does not involve at least one author with serious knowledge of the field, or at least some review process, with discussion and critique and then a report of the status (including varieties of opinion.) Instead, the Briefing is unattributed opinion, hardly better than rumor.
• Definition: a process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus of an atom and a subatomic particle (such ,as a proton, neutron, or high energy electron) from outside the atom, collide to produce one or more nuclides.
This is an example of a common kind of nuclear reaction, not the definition. Nuclear reactions may involve more than one nucleus, as a theoretical possibility. In plasma reactions, that would be very rare, but there is experimental evidence that, in the solid state, multibody reactions (more than two nuclei) actually occur. As well, this description does not include nuclear decay processes. This is a plasma physics approach, betraying the thinking of the authors. As well, there are nuclear reactions that don’t involve two nuclei.
If LENR, they think, therefore two-body reactions. This is very old thinking that denies a world of possibilities. Most “impossibility” arguments regarding LENR involve that assumption.
• A nuclear reaction must cause a transformation of at least one
nuclide to another.
That is better as one characteristic of “nuclear reactions.” It works if nuclear isomers are considered different nuclides. Better than saying “cause” would be “be.” However, nuclear isomers are normally considered the same nuclide at differing excitation levels. The delayed gamma decay of a neutron-activated nucleus is generally considered a nuclear reaction.
• In 1917, Ernest Rutherford demonstrated transmutation of
nitrogen into oxygen at the University of Manchester. This was
the first observation of an induced nuclear reaction, that is, a
reaction in which particles from one decay are used to transform
another atomic nucleus.
• The modern nuclear fission reaction was discovered in 1938 by
the German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann.
This is irrelevant to the topic.
Alpha Decay of a Uranlum-233 nucleus
This is an example. Some examples do not involve a second nucleus as does the U-233 example.
Shown is a very complex neutron-induced fission reaction (actually unreadable in the pdf I have). What is the value of this exposition wrt LENR?
Shown is D-T fusion, collision energy not shown, products 4He + 3.5 MeV and a neutron at 14.1 MeV. While there is a SPAWAR report of 14 MeV neutrons, the levels are so low that this could be a very rare branch or secondary reaction of a different main reaction. And this is unconfirmed.
This has very little or nothing to do with the main topic here, LENR. If LENR is real, it is, as Pons and Fleischmann claimed in 1989, an “unknown nuclear reaction.”
This page is a completely irrelevant collection of materials copied about hot fusion reactors and reactions, and fission reactors. I am not cleaning it up from the very messy OCR, it is more work than it’s worth.
Squeeze two positive charges together (against the Coulomb repulsion)
This is the standard skeptical description, that LENR must accomplish this “squeezing.” LENR is a mystery, we don’t know how it works. The best evidence, most widely confirmed, strongly indicates that the reaction is converting deuterium to helium, but how this is done is unknown. “Squeezing two positive charges together” indeed seems unlikely, for the obvious reasons that they cover, but we don’t know that this is what is happening. They cover cluster fusion later, but don’t seem to realize that this possibility (shown mathematically to occur — that is, predicted to occur from standard physics — from an initial starting condition that might be possible, vide Takahashi) is contrary to what they are assuming here as foundational for “fusion.”
Again, not cleaned up. This is all assuming that LENR is a two-body reaction the same as with plasma fusion. The physics of the solid state is far more complex. The core issue with LENR at this point is that there is very strong evidence for the reality of a nuclear effect, but it is not understood. There are conditions where it will relatively reliably occur (say, measurably, 50% of the time) but no theory (other than ad-hoc, operational theories that do not address mechanism) has been successfully tested to distinguish it from other theories, and all theories have defects, unexplained aspects, which will be covered below to some degree.
Again, this all is about standard hot fusion. It could be considered to rule out some LENR theories, but LENR is basically an experimental field, not a theoretical one. This exposition is all theory, reasons to consider that LENR violates existing theory, except that an unknown reaction cannot be considered to violate theory, because theory cannot analyze an unknown reaction to determine expected rate. A deep report on the state of LENR research would look at what is known and confirmed from experimental work. This report wanders and considers much that is irrelevant — and obvious. Yes. LENR wasn’t expected! Nobody argues that! Pons and Fleischmann expected to find nothing. But then found something. What did they find? Science advances through curiosity over discovered anomalies.
LENR is an incredibly complex field, overall. What I see here would be embarrassing in an undergraduate-level student paper on LENR. They obviously did not consult experts in the field, at all, or if they did, they ignored them. (But there is no sign of consulting experts in the emails released in the FOIA request).
Yes, probably. But this is all theoretical, and the reaction they show is p-p -> d fusion, with a probability of 0.001 at a collision energy of 10 Kev, and 10-1921 at room temperature. Yes, that is the claim, based on what calculation? I have seen a nuclear physicist claim that the rate predictions from hot plasma break down at lower temperatures, the actual rate is substantially higher. That ridiculously low rate is naive and not experimentally-based, obviously. There would be no way to measure a rate that low, so this is a pseudoscientific claim.
How is this remotely relevant? They give the probability of winning the Powerball lottery as 3 x 10^-10. True, but because this is irrelevant, this is deceptive polemic. Why is NRL creating deceptive polemic? How were these authors chosen?
There is a calculation in a cluster fusion model of tunnelling rate, showing, from a very low energy initial condition, tunneling at 100% within a femtosecond. They dismiss this basically because the theory is incomplete, not realizing that a counterexample to what they think necessary has been shown. This is a product of radical unfamiliarity with the field. My point is not that cluster fusion theory is necessarily a reflection of the reality, but that fusion is far less impossible than they think. This is a scientific mystery, and solving scientific mysteries does not begin with believing them impossible. They are, obviously, unexpected!
Again, not relevant to the topic they were asked to research. This is something someone totally naive would do, not realizing that words (“LENR”) have meaning in context. This is interesting, though, because some naive analyses claim that nuclear fusion at low temperatures is “impossible”. In fact, they just gave it a rate of 10-1921 at room temperature! MCF is a counterexample. Bring that up and the pseudoskeptic will say, “but MCF isn’t practical.” Right. But wasn’t it just said that low temperature fusion was “impossible”?
They don’t realize the possible relevance. MCF is catalyzed by muons. Is some other form of catalysis possible? Theory might address specific ideas, but cannot address the general concept. It is impossible to prove a negative. Stated more positively, something that we haven’t thought of might be operating. How would we know? Well, we would see experimental results that we don’t understand. If we depend heavily on theory, as these authors are doing, we may reject those results as Probably Wrong, with no evidence other than our prior expectations.
Indeed. (Unless a way is found to handle the sticking problem, or another way to generate muons.) And this is not what is called LENR.
So they are spending much of the report covering what they were not asked to cover. MCF is not reported as LENR in the literature. Did they include MCF papers in that total above?
All a complete waste.
• In 1989, Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have observed excess heat
from an experiment involving the electrolysis of heavy water using a
This is correct. It’s the original finding. It was prematurely reported — they were not ready — and they used the word “nuclear” based on artifact in neutron measurements, and their methods and actual findings were incompletely reported, leading to:
• Numerous attempts failed to replicate these results
This is highly misleading, appalling in this report. First of all, “replicate” can be used imprecisely. Few even attempted to “replicate” the FP experiment, for various reasons. The more general word is “confirm.” There was early work that failed to confirm. These were not generally exact replications, they were approximate and were based, often, on inadequate information. (They actually are part of the data set that establishes the conditions of the FP Heat Effect.) Later, there were many confirmations. I’ve seen analyses that, overall, there are more “positive” reports than negative, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen a thoroughly neutral analysis of this. It’s difficult to define the terms. But “failed to replicate” implies an isolated, unconfirmed result, which is preposterous, given the history of the field.
• No nuclear products were observed along with the excess heat
Again, simply not true. Pons and Fleischmann reported neutrons (which was error, later acknowledged), tritium, and helium. Those are nuclear products. (Technically, so is energy.) Helium was confirmed by Miles in 1991 and over the years, not merely as present (which would be a relatively weak report because it could be leakage) but as quantitatively correlated with anomalous heat, at levels consistent with the deuterium fusion value of 24 MeV/4He. That is, some of the helium is trapped and not released in the outgas, where it is measured, so less helium is found than would be expected from that ratio. Some later work took steps to release that helium and found values fully consistent with 24 MeV/4He. Helium is a nuclear product.
The briefing was requested to be about recent research. Did they review, say, the Current Science special section on LENR, published in February, 2015? I see no sign that they are aware of what is going on. Did they look at the collaboration, announced at ICCF-19 (2015), between Texas Tech and ENEA, to confirm the heat/helium ratio (and, as well, to study exploding wires, a technique thought to possibly aid in assessing materials for LENR activity). This work was funded by a charitable donation of $6 million plus Texas state matching funds, another $6 million, and is under way.
It is quite likely that the Congressional request had the work of Andrea Rossi in mind. Rossi was funded by U.S. companies, first Ampenergo, then Industrial Heat, at least $20 million total. By the time of the briefing request, the lawsuit Rossi v. Darden had been filed, so they could have covered it. Instead, they show no awareness that it exists.
Below, the authors will refer to SPAWAR work. SPAWAR has found substantial evidence for 14 MeV neutrons from a co-deposition cell. This has not been correlated with heat, however, and is not confirmed. A careful study will distinguish what is poorly reported, well-reported but not confirmed, and confirmed. This wasn’t a careful study at all.
As well, there are many reports of tritium, in particular, but the levels are such that tritium is probably a secondary reaction or otherwise rare product. The main product appears to be helium. This is extensively confirmed. Controversy still remains. However, there is a current effort in a joint project between Texas Tech and ENEA, the Italian alternative energy agency, to redo this work with increased precision and more extensive effort to recover all the helium.
• Measurement errors in calorimetry may have contributed to observation of excess heat.
Sure. In fact, that happens on occasion. However, Pons and Fleischmann were among the world’s top electrochemists, and measuring heat was a specialty. If their report was isolated, this might be passed off as something that might never be confirmed. But it was confirmed. There are skeptics, presented with extremely careful work by experts, who simply say, “they must be making some mistake.” There is one published skeptic remaining who claims that behind all the massive findings showing excess heat there is a different anomaly, something also not expected, but chemical in nature. This is an isolated opinion and has had difficulty finding publication lately. A thorough study would look at this, at serious reasons to think there might be “some mistake.” However, it gets very difficult to explain the heat/helium correlation with that hypothesis. This report is depending on a vague and unspecified error, in the face of massive contradiction by experts and strong evidence, confirmed by many labs.
is a shallow pop science piece that misreports what Pons and Fleischmann actually did and how they thought. Using this for a serious report is appalling.
They did not expect to see substantial heat. They had decided to test a reasonable hypothesis, that the approximations used to estimate fusion probability were causing error in the rate estimate. That is, in fact, practically certain, the issue would be *how much* error. They expected that the fusion rate would still be below anything they could detect. Then their experiment melted down, releasing energy that they could not explain by chemistry. So they scaled down, for safety, and continued exploring the effect. Five years later, they were still not ready to announce, but legal considerations led to it. It was a mess. They were actually wrong about some aspects of what they had found. They made this or that mistake. But their basic finding, anomalous heat, has not been impeached (by other than that isolated skeptic mentioned above, who, though previously published, has been reduced to ranting on the internet. I even think that’s unfair. But that’s what is happening.)
• Also in 1989, S. Jones of Brigham Young University using similar electrolytic cells observed neutrons, but no excess heat.
It was his work that caused the premature announcement. However, the Jones was not an electrochemist and his cells did not approach the high loading conditions that Pons and Fleischmann attained. He would not be expected to find heat, from what is now known about the reaction. As to neutrons, his levels were very low; in general, neutron findings have never been correlated with heat, so if those findings are real, they are not related to the primary reaction. Again, this is actually irrelevant to the major charge of the Committee.
The page doesn’t support the headline.
• 2004 Review of LENR research by Hagelstein et al. claimed Helium production correlated with excess heat measurements
They did. However, the Panel, from the report, did not understand the data in a supplement provided for the Case gas-loading work (actually a different experiment from the FP Heat Effect) and read a clear correlation as an anti-correlation. This is easy to see in the 2004 Review report. So then they easily dismissed this as possibly leakage (a generic objection to helium results, even though in that work the helium levels rose above ambient. So then it’s claimed that maybe there was a helium source in the lab. However, the value of the ratio, then, becomes mysterious. Almost all work in this area shows a ratio that is within an order of magnitude, usually substantially closer, to the theoretical deuterium fusion value.
• Review evaluated by Department of Energy in 2004, which recommended experiments to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils , but not focused federally funded program for LENR.
… isn’t being fairly presented here. The actual recommendation:
The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.
I agree. Notice “nearly unanimous opinion.” What is a “focused federally funded program?” There were hopes in 1989 and again in 2004 that some kind of major program might be funded. My opinion is that this would be premature. What is needed is, indeed, focused proposals designed to address basic issues. The DoE has never funded this, beyond massively unfocused work in 1989 and maybe 1990. Throwing money at LENR is a Bad Idea. A lot can be wasted.
However, the idea that the question is “D-D fusion reactions” or not is misleading. The real issue is what the cause is of the FP Heat Effect and other reported phenomena. My opinion is that straight-out “D-D fusion” is unlikely. Something else is happening. The confirmed effect shows a helium ratio to heat that is the same as “D-D fusion,” but that is simply a reflection of the laws of thermodynamics. Whatever converts deuterium to helium must show that energy. What is known is that the energy shows up entirely as heat, without high-energy radiation, which is very unexpected. Something mysterious is happening.
In general, the DoE reviewers did not understand what they were seeing, so their specific recommendations might be off. It reflects what those not familiar with the field might think, after a quite brief one-day review, with little interaction. Actual funding decisions would be worked out between researchers and funding agencies.
But the DoE review was better than this NRL report. Both have a similar shortcoming: they don’t actually establish or recommend any specific actions to improve the situation, to actually answer those basis scientific questions.
• Sufficient deuterium loading required for excessive heat, suggested as reason for early negative results [McKubre Proceedings of ICCF 2009]
This is weakly presented. It’s more than “suggested.” They do show a chart from the 2004 DoE review paper showing a substantial series of experiments, with many results at high loading, and few, declining to zero at loading of 80%. None of those early “negative results” had 80% loading. At the time, they did not know it was necessary — this had not been announced — and there is more: the Fleischmann-Pons work took many weeks of loading to begin showing the effect, and none of those early experiments waited long enough.
Is loading the issue? There are now some reasons to think that high loading is merely one of a number of conditions necessary to see the Heat Effect. High loading by itself isn’t enough. The critical factor, besides high loading at onset, is specific material conditions, and this is all well-known, and was even understood by the 2004 DoE review. The material shifts with time and repeated loading and deloading. Pons and Fleischmann believed that the effect was a bulk effect, happening inside the bulk. The helium evidence indicates otherwise. It’s a surface effect, from where the helium is found (released in the gas or in near-surface trapping). Instead of considering “conditions where the Heat Effect is found, this is often presented by some skeptics as some kind of an excuse, often with exaggeration of the unreliability.
• Even with large deuterium loading, negative results still observed [McKubre Proceedings of ICCF 2009]
That’s right. However, with some materials and high loading and other conditions that have been correlated with heat, a majority of experiments do show excess heat; the amount varies greatly. The heat/helium ratio cuts through this noise, and the variation in heat then becomes a control. If helium were leakage, it would be unlikely to vary with the heat (the “heat” in these experiments is small, it is not a large difference in temperature, and in some experiments the temperature is constant. It can be complicated.)
Reported Excess Heat vs Deuterium Loading Ratio
Hageistein et al. 2004 DOE Report
This was the chart I mentioned above. There are charts published elsewhere that show SRI and ENEA experiments with heat vs. loading ratio and some major early “negative replications” plotted on the same chart. Low loading equals no heat results, it’s that simple.
They show, again, a pop science presentation from a pop or high school level web site that misrepresents what Pons and Fleischmann thought they were doing.” As they have told the story (and who else would one get it from?), they were looking for possible deviations from the rate predictions of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This is actually expected, some deviation, however what they found was not expected. They expected that they would not be able to measure anything, that the error introduced by the approximation would be too small.
What they were looking for was actually irrelevant, in the end. However, this idea that they were scientifically clueless is common. As has happened many times in science, they found something unexpected by looking where nobody had looked before (in palladium deuteride, at very high loading ratio). Who predicted lots of neutrons? This was a prediction, not of Pons and Fleischmann, but of skeptics, who imagined that if they found something, it must be d-d fusion. They actually did not claim d-d fusion, if one reads their first paper, it was reported as an “unknown nuclear reaction,” precisely because levels of neutrons were very low (and, in fact, what they found was error, artifact, as to neutrons). This was truly a fiasco and one of the signs of “fiasco” is that what they did is still commonly misunderstood, because rumor, widely repeated, took the place of fact. This Briefing continues that.
They were also wrong about many things. They were not aware of how critical the material was, so, after announcing, they ran out of their first batch of palladium and ordered more. It didn’t work. This was totally embarrassing, but they then made a series of reactive errors. I won’t go into them all here, but this was a fiasco all around, assumptions made and actions taken on assumptions that led to more mess. The original meltdown in 1984: they didn’t photograph the damage and didn’t keep the material. They were afraid that the University Fire Department would shut them down. Fear leads to poor decisions. I would not expect a Briefing on cold fusion to cover all these historical details, but I would expect it to avoid those shallow “explanations.”
Shown from the the page is :
Hypothesis/theory -> expected results -> actual results
Lots of cold fusion is taking place in the palladium -> expect to see many neutrons released -> not many neutrons are released
This is not what happened. They did not start with that hypothesis. They started with an idea to explore. Exploratory research often does not proceed with the hypothesis/prediction/test process. They were looking where nobody had looked.
The mechanism of “cold fusion” is unknown: the prediction about neutrons would be valid for ordinary known hot fusion taking place, or even muon-catalyzed fusion, but not the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. The known product is helium, neutrons are absent or almost entirely absent. This is a common error: to take the word for a thing and then assume that this, then, creates predictability. With cold fusion, observation comes first. There are basic theories in place, verified and confirmed, but not a theory of mechanism. For example, the report here looks at an idea from some theories that deuterium is being converted to helium. That results in a prediction of 23.8 MeV (energy) produced for each helium atom. That is a confirmed observation, but was unknown until 1991, though predicted before then.
What they actually found was a lot of heat, that they could not explain with chemistry, and they were prominent chemists. From the context, they asked the question if it was fusion. They then pointed out (in tgheir 1989 paper) that there were not nearly enough neutrons for the known fusion reaction — and there actually were none or very few. The pop sci story is told as if they did not realize this.
As far as I know, the first anomaly was a meltdown with a lot of heat. Not just a little. Not some calorimetry error. It’s been claimed that this was deuterium/oxygen recombination. That chemistry would not have been adequate to explain what they saw, at least probably not. Remember, they didn’t keep their materials, the experiment had been destroyed. Obviously, this was not going to get the world excited about “cold fusion.” But they kept working and they found effects, and when they eventually announced, it took time — these experiments took time! — but others found a heat effect as well, and other related effects.
It is all still controversial, but a proper briefing would explore the controversy and explain why people still are working in the field, what results have they seen that keep them going?
• Spin-Boson Oscillator Theory1
the energy released in deuterium- deuterium fusion goes into large numbers of low energy phonons that heats the system
• Hydroton Theory2
formation of nuclear active environments in nano cracks resulting from electrolysis or gas loading
As above with what was falsely alleged to be “Pons theory,” these two is placed in apposition to a supposedly opposite result. A minor point: not enough is presented of Hydroton Theory to make the prediction, what is shown is only the theory of Nuclear Active Environment, the site of the reaction. The helium prediction, then, does not address what is presented of the theory.
Predicts excess heat should be 23.8 MeV/ He atom, which is not observed in experiments.
They are baldly and ignorantly denying the most widely-confirmed result in cold fusion research. The prediction must be understood in this way, if the main reaction taking place in PdD experiments is the conversion of deuterium to helium, and if the heat and the helium are measured, and there is no significant energy leakage through radiation, and as the precision of the measurements increases, the ratio will approach that value, it must, by the laws of thermodynamics. In most experiments, helium in electroytic outgas has been measured, and it is thought that about 40% of the helium is retained in the palladium, which is consistent with most experimental observations. In two experiments (as to what has been reported, there is more work under way), steps were taken to release all the helium, and results moved to within experimental precision of the theoretical value.
1 Hagelstein and Chaudhary Proceedings ICCF-14 (2008)
2 Storms J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. (2012)
• Cluster Fusion Theory – seeks to investigate multibody fusion for enhanced fusion rates.
Four deuterons arranged in a tetrahedral symmetric configuration yielding 4 He atoms.
is placed in apposition with:
No mechanism given to produce tetrahedral symmetric configuration
Takahashi J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. (2011)
While mechanisms have been proposed, Takahashi is not concerned with that level of analysis, his work is the application of quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics to the possibility of multibody fusion, and he has mathematically predicted fusion if the TSC conditions arise. He previously did experimental work that showed elevated rates of multibody fusion with ordinary hot fusion from deuteron bombardment of PdD targets, but Takahashi has not predicted TSC formation rate, so this is, again, off, merely a sign of an incomplete theory.
There is no accepted cold fusion theory of mechanism, though some have a level of support. Theoretical analysis of cold fusion is likely to require far more experimental data than exists. A basic report on cold fusion, at this time, will summarize the mechanism as a mystery and not belabor the theories, which are largely irrelevant to the foundation of cold fusion research, which is experimental observation, with only the most basic theories being involved. (One of these would be the “deuterium/helium conversion theory”, which is readily testable and which has been extensively confirmed.)
• Research effort at SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific began shortly after Pons and Fleischmann announcement and ended in 2012
• Used a palladium-deuterium co-deposition process to prepare the electrodes, seeking more reproducible results
• Experiments focused on finding the nuclear products from nuclear reactions occurring in electrolytic cells
• Used CR-39 solid state track detectors to look for tracks left by energetic particles
Mosier-Boss Final Report 2016
SPAWAR analysis ends at visual inspection, similarity to deuterium-tritium fusion
• Experiments were able to replicate CR-39 tracks, but noticed striking differences when compared to CR39 exposed to fast neutron sources
What “striking differences”? Experiments don’t notice something, people do. Who? The image compares tracks from LENR experiments with DT neutron tracks, i.e., fast neutrons. They certainly look similar to me. Triple tracks, in particular, are quite distinctive.
SPAWAR CR-39 neutron measurements leave many unanswered questions.
Indeed they do. This work is generally unconfirmed (though it ultimately deserves confirmation, and low-level neutrons from CF conditions have long been reported) and what is not mentioned is that the apparent fast neutrons are at very low levels. They probably have little or nothing to do with the main reaction. There is no balance in this briefing, no distinction made between isolated work and theories and the overall state of the field. For a briefing on this topic, isolated and unconfirmed reports would properly be given very little attention. To be sure, SPAWAR was a quasi-governmental effort. SRI was often funded by government agencies. There are experts on LENR working for various national labs. They were apparently not consulted in preparing this report. It’s appalling.
McKubre Proceedings of ICCF (2009)
Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Italian National agency for new technologies, energy and sustainable economic development (ENEA) experiments try to address reproducibility using identically prepared samples from the same lot.
• 50% of trials showed no excess heat, while others showed variability of 500%
The reviewers show no sign of understanding the issues. 50% success was positive. From very early on, it was realized that excess heat depended on material conditions, and that even the same sample could give different results at different times, depending on its history. The dependence on material lot, where clearly shown (statistically) is powerful evidence for the reality of the effect.
But any LENR research program must accept the reality of the effect as-it-is, not as someone might want it to be. To develop control over the reaction, to improve reliability so that the level of the effect becomes predictable, are obvious goals for research, not claimed to already exist.
• Observations of excessive heat were still erratic.
They just repeated themselves.
Summary of Electrolytic Cell reports from 1998-2004
Storms, Naturwissenschaften (2010)
Plot above was used by [Storms 201 O] to demonstrate successes of LENR experiments
Most striking feature is the large number of null results
That is “most striking” to someone who is looking at failure instead of at success. Storms was interested there in the long tail. By the way, some skeptics claim the “file drawer effect,” that only positive reports are published. Obviously, the “believer” Storms forget to exclude the negative reports.
There are researchers who claim increased reliability, sometimes 100%, but so far such work has not been confirmed. However, there is a replicable experiment, extensively confirmed, which defines reliability in a different way. Set up the FP Heat Effect and measure helium. Some of the work on this has seen over 50% of cells with excess heat, and the no-heat cells serve as controls (good ones, because they are generally identical to heat-producing cells — except for the heat. And except for the measured helium, which is well-correlated with heat.
Predictability and reproducibility are still outstanding issues with LENR
In some ways, yes. The helium results are predictable. The specific heat release in specific cells is not so predictable; however, statistically, correlations are known. That is, while heat may vary, it does correlate with, as an example, deuterium loading ratio.
What this briefing fails to do is to notice the progress that has been made.
• After almost 30 years, the same issues are still present with cold fusion or LENR claims
This is misleading. Issues have strongly shifted. Controversy remains, and some who claim that cold fusion is an illusion repeat the same claims. They are no longer publishable, the mainstream scientific literature, recently published, almost entirely assumes the reality of the effect. A “briefing,” I would think, would be an executive summary of a far deeper report that would establish the factual basis for what is in the briefing. There is no sign that these authors even did that deeper research.
• Interesting anomalous effects exist that are difficult to reproduce and control.
This is correct, but “difficult” is vague. The difficulty of reproduction and control has commonly been overstated, as if “easy” and “difficult” are clear and objective labels to apply. Plenty of science is “difficult to reproduce,” but can nevertheless by reproduced by those who follow basic replication protocols, and who have the same materials to work with. Substantial progress has been made with control.
• Lack of theoretical understanding for the underlying processes
In other words, it is an “anomaly.” But this is also misleading. There is theoretical understanding that is partial. The underlying mechanism, the actual “fusion” process — even the name is uncertain — has no widely-accepted theory, but various aspects are understood; for example, I can state with reasonable confidence that the FP Heat Effect is a surface reaction, not taking place deep within the palladium lattice. That can be tested, and has been tested and confirmed, from the helium evidence. (That is, by the way, quite good news if one is interested in eventual practical applications, because palladium is very expensive and usage for power generation would create high demand; if thin films can work as well as bulk, palladium LENR might be practical at far lower cost.)
• Lack of independent testing and substantiation
That’s a half-truth. There is a vast body of experimental work to “substantiate” the basic Pons and Fleischmann claim of anomalous heat. To distinguish this from the “file drawer effect,” substantial and fully-reported specific replications are needed. Those are rare, but are not “lacking.” Much SRI work was designed to replicate and confirm other reports.
• U.S. is involved in LENR research at universities, government
labs, industry, and the private sector.
It is. This is not documented to present a coherent picture to Congress.
• It is premature to invest heavily in LENA research due to the status of knowledge, reproducible evidence, and technology currently available.
I agree, with a major caveat that shows what is completely missing from this report. Both U.S. DoE reviews generated a similar recommendation, but both also recommended modest support through existing programs. What is “modest support”? It was not stated, and the huge failure of those reviews was in not generating specific recommendations and a specific process for monitoring progress. Instead, in fact, the research recommendation was widely ignored in favor of opinion that these reports “rejected” cold fusion.
So, how much funding should be allocated, and through what programs? What process would make these decisions? There has never been, to my knowledge, a coherent plan.
I developed one, which was to encourage specific confirmations of specific results, already confirmed, to increase precision and confidence. That is the work under way in Texas to confirm the heat/helium ratio. This is guaranteed to produce useful information; and if it turns out that a widely-confirmed result is nevertheless some kind of artifact, they would find out. It has been, as they say, almost thirty years. Isn’t it time to find out, instead of relying on lack of “proof” — a moving target, apparently — as if that were evidence for something?
• This slide is intentionally left blank.
The biggest problem with LENR: minds intentionally left blank.
Ah, Steve Krivit must love this! This is Widom-Larsen Theory propaganda, repeated, depending on, first, an untested and apparently preposterous theory — widely rejected within the field — and, then, a constricted definition of “fusion.” The conversion of deuterium to helium is widely confirmed, and W-L theory then comes up with an ad hoc “explanation” of this through a series of neutron captures and beta or alpha (helium) decays that then roughly explain the heat/helium ratio. Very roughly, outside the error bars, but … not far outside. In other words, there is a fusion fuel (deuterium converted to dineutrons) and a fusion product (helium). But, hey, it’s not fusion!!!
This is a semantic trick to allow W-L theory to be accepted as a “not fusion” theory. Do they take notice of the substantial published criticism of W-L theory? Of the lack of any experimental confirmation?
• Transmutation changes an atom from one element to another, which is accomplished by altering the number of protons
What distinguishes elements is the number of positive charges in the nucleus, which is equivalent to the “number of protons,” though this is a simplistic model. This entire discussion is off the legitimate point of the review.
Free Neutron Decay
n → p+ + e– + ve (electron neutrino)
Not shown: the energy release, 782 KeV. Wikipedia.
14C6 → 14N7 + e– + ve
It’s not explained here, but the beta decay shown is equivalent to a neutron in the nucleus decaying to a proton and an electron plus a neutrino, thus bumping the atomic number up while keeping the mass almost the same (the mass must decline a little to release the energy of the two forms of radiation). The energy: 156 KeV, for this particular decay, if I’m correct. Wikipedia on 14C. Wikipedia on beta decay.
Inverse Beta Decay/ Electron Capture
26Al13 + e– → 26Mg12 + ve
This is not “inverse beta decay” [Wikipedia article] but electron capture [Wikipedia article]. Wikipedia on 26Al. The reaction energy is carried off by the electron neutrino, but the transmuted nucleus recoils, it is not low momentum.
• For isotopes unstable to these reactions, they spontaneously occur and release energy
Right. The rate may be low, however. This is more or less the definition of “unstable.”
• Widom and Larsen posit that localized condensed matter electric fields in metallic hydride surfaces can create “heavy” electrons (- 20 × e– rest mass)
How large are such electric fields? How much energy is required to create these “heavy electrons,” and what does “heavy” mean here? What is the experimental evidence for such electrons? Setting that aside, a negatively charged heavy particle could catalyze fusion, an example is muon-catalyzed fusion.
• The “heavy” electrons are captured by the metal and the resulting neutron is ejected.
This is not what W-L theory claims. If it were so, however, the neutron created would have substantial momentum. What is claimed (for PdD experiments) is an interaction between deuterons and heavy electrons, not an interaction with the host metal.
This entire excursion into an unconfirmed and largely rejected theory does not belong in the kind of field overview requested.
• These low momentum neutrons catalyze chains of nuclear reactions, e.g.
6Li3 + n → 7Li3
7Li3 + n → 8Li3
8Li3 → 8Be4 + e– + ve [obvious error in description, corrected] 8Be4 → 4He2 + 4He2
Why one would start with 6LI is beyond me. 7LI is the more common isotope. W-L claim “ultra low momentum neutrons,” because these will have very high capture cross-sections, necessary to explain the general absence of slow neutrons, which are otherwise penetrating. ULM neutrons would be voracious fusors, likely fusing with the first nucleus that they encounter. 8Li has a half-life of under one second, beta-decaying to 8Be, which will then immediately (half life about 6 × 10-17 seconds) decay into the two helium nuclei as shown. However, the excitation energy of the 8Be would be about 48 MeV, which would normally be expected to show up in the kinetic energy of the alpha particles (24 MeV each). This massively energetic radiation does not occur in LENR experiments. (The “Hagelstein limit” is about 20 KeV, above that secondary effects would have been readily observed.)
Looking at the case of 6Li neutron capture, however, fast neutrons generate an immediate decay of the 7Li to helium and tritium. What about slow neutrons? I don’t know. 6Li has a nuclear mass of 6.0151223(5). A neutron has a mass of 1.008664 u, and 7Li has a nuclear mass of 7.0160040(5) u. The mass defect leads me to expect a nuclear excitation of 1.75 MeV. If this does not result in the normal fission to helium and tritium, it would lead to gamma emission; this is essentially neutron activation. (see the Wikipedia article).
The copious slow neutrons required by W-L theory would produce a host of effects that are generally not observed. (W-L proponents commonly assert transmutations that may have been reported, but omit that the reported levels are miniscule, and other expected transmutations are absent. Intermediate products would be expected to exist at higher levels than final products, normally, and that is not seen.) The absence of activation gamma radiation is explained away by another hand-wave: the heavy electron patches allegedly make a fantastically efficient gamma ray shield. Would they? Is there experimental evidence for this? Richard Garwin asked that question (because it would be easy to test the “gamma shield”) and Larsen’s answer was, ultimately, “proprietary.”
(… and what about edge effects? Wouldn’t some gammas escape? What about delayed gammas? How long do the “patches” last?)
This is not science, it is commercial promotion disguised as science. This is just as crazy as would be promoting Andrea Rossi’s results — secret, never independently confirmed — in this briefing. It would be worthy of a sentence, perhaps, simply noting the claim and what is known, which is mostly nothing. Unconfirmed.
Electric fields to create “heavy” electrons would require E ≈ 1011 V/m
(ICF lasers produce electric fields up to ≈ 1013 V/m).
Hey, only a hundredth of the ICF laser power is needed! For whom is this presentation intended? If you want to snow people, inundate them with irrelevant facts, and for bonus points, make each fact, by itself, verifiable. Then slip in a few “unfacts” — or unwarranted conclusions. Few will notice unless they already understand the topic.
• Deuterium gas is permeated through a multilayer substrate of palladium and
calcium oxide at 343 K for a week
• A thin film of cesium was added to the substrate, and lwamura et al. report that the cesium layer decreased commensurate with an increase in praseodymium, along with x-rays from 10 to 100 keV, and excess heat
I’m looking at the 2002 paper, and there is no claim of heat — there was no provision for measuring it — nor any claim of X-rays.
• lwamura et al. propose an electron capture theory to create a di-neutron D + e- → 2n0 + ve
The 2002 paper refers to an earlier paper (1998) for an “EINR model” as a “working hypothesis.” Sure enough, the 1998 paper is for different work, and that is where the heat and X-ray claims come from. This is common in sloppy cold fusion review: results from different experiments are amalgamated as if there is one very specific effect being studied. There is an available copy of the 1998 conference paper with the same title.
• The di-neutron can then create an element unstable to beta decay via neutron capture
AXZ + 2n0 → A+2XZ → A+2XZ+1 + e–
• Via a chain of four of these reactions cesium could be converted to praseodymium
• No reported observations of the other elements in the chain
Chained reactions involving two relatively rare events with no intermediate products are radically implausible (this is also a basic problem with the similar W-L theory).
• No rigorous development of this theory to check if these reactions are energetically favorable
It is common for shallow reviews to focus on theories, and often the theories are misrepresented. There is no “developed theory” here, and the 2002 transmutation results show, with various target elements, +8 amu, not +2 (hence the idea of a chain). This could indicate a possible involvement of a cluster-fusion intermediate, perhaps formed by the Bose-Einstein collapse of four deuterons (per Takahashi theory). A BEC, which includes the electrons, would be very small and charge-neutral, and might be able to easily fuse with nuclei. That would produce the observed transmutations in a single step, explaining why there are no intermediate products. Di-neutron fusion is way unlikely, di-neutrons are very weakly bound. My opinion. And my basic point here is that cold fusion theory is way premature, so why inflict it on Congress?
• NRL was unable to independently reproduce these results (2009)
• [Hioki et al. 2013] was able to reproduce these results of transmuted praseodymium after 250 hours of permeation treatments.
What is important, if anything, about the Iwamura work, is experimental evidence, not theory that they may have had in mind, and this work differs from the rest of the field enough that, absent clear confirmation (it is presently murky, NRL put serious effort into replication and failed, but then there is Hioki, so … maybe), the importance is not high; what is relatively urgent is the confirmation of basic results already supported, or basic results relatively easy to confirm. The field needs a solid foundation, and I’d assume Congress would want to know what is solid — or at least partially confirmed.
Hioki et al. measured 10-10 g/cm of transmuted praseodymium after 250 hours of permeation treatments.
Is that a little or a lot? Were I a high school physics teacher reading a student’s paper, and this were included, I’d critique it for collecting random facts without explaining how and why they are significant. Absent much more information, that quantity is meaningless.
I have not undertaken the effort to gain a deeper understanding of Rydberg matter because almost all experimental work and theoretical analysis on it is from one person, Holmlid, and his work has not been confirmed. His claims and results don’t seem to match LENR results. There is some low level of theoretical consideration of Rydberg matter by some researchers, but much theoretical analysis without confirmed experimental foundation is a prescription for wasted time.
This flat-out doesn’t belong in the report, it is pure confusion here. (That is not a claim of error on the part of Holmlid, not at all. There is, however, no integration of his work with classic LENR work, so this is all highly speculative.)
• Rydberg atom – valence shell electrons are in highly excited state
• Cluster of Rydberg atoms can condense to form Rydberg matter
• In Rydberg matter, highly excited electrons become delocalized and act as a collective neutralizing
• Rydberg matter is sparse, largest observed cluster had 91 atoms
• Bond distance d is given by: d = 2.9 n2 a0 where n is principal quantum number and a0 = 5.2 × 10-11 m is the Bohr radius
They expect a Congressperson to understand this? If this were important, it would be thoroughly explained, and if that made the report too long, it would be sourced so that a reader could readily find explanations. This briefing is incompetent.
Winterberg J. Fusion ENergy (2010)
The J Fusion Energy paper. There is an arXiv paper, late 2009. It is a purely theoretical paper, suggesting Bose-Einstein condensation of deuterium in “vortices,” and speculating that this might facilitate the “ignition” of “thermonuclear fusion.” Hot fusion, in other words. This is useless here. Physicists have been ruminating on cold fusion for almost thirty years, with no clear theory of mechanism having been successfully tested.
There is an image showing:
Rydberg Matter schematic electron distribution
The point is? That illustration is found in the Wikipedia article on Rydberg matter. As well, the following sentence is from that article:
• Rydberg matter has been formed from H, N, K, and Cs
The Wikipedia article is currently tagged for problems. It was apparently heavily edited by Holmlid, who did not understand Wikipedia editorial process (which is common for academics). This is all beside the point here. Why was this included? There was no charge to explore the state of research on Rydberg matter. It is not impossible that a connection will ultimately be shown, but this is one among thousands of possibilities. Why is it pointed out here?
• Exotic form of Rydberg matter where nuclei act as the delocalized electrons
• Bond distance d = 2.3 × 10-12 m
• Density – 130,000 g/cm3 (compare to density of lead – 11.34 g/cm3)
• Room temperature super conductor*
•Predicted by theory [Berezhiani et al. 2010], not experimentally verified
• Nuclei of comets covered in RM
• Stable exospheres on Moon and Mercury explained by heavy RM
• RM is part of dark matter
• RM could explain Faraday rotation in intergalactic space
Remarkable claims, indeed. The world is full of remarkable claims. Which ones would belong in a report to Congress?[Badiei et al. Physica Scripta (2010)]
Is given as a source for a TOF experiment illustration. This is the paper.
Presented evidence for existence of ultra-dense deuterium is time-of-flight mass spectrometry, claims do not match available evidence
That is a judgment, by whom? Based on what? However, this is clear: UDD is a claim being made by a very small group of people, as can easily be seen in the sources for that Wikipedia article, or by a Google Scholar search for those authors. Few papers have been written outside this very small group. To the extent I have looked at this, the papers, with time, go deeper and deeper, assuming that prior work is completely correct. Nothing has been, from my point of view, nailed.
Unless the charge were quite different, I’d not mention UDD at all in a briefing on LENR. At this point, with no UDD experimental evidence linking it to LENR evidence (heat and helium, no radiation), it’s confusing.
This is the Hansen paper. Received 18 November 2015, Accepted 20 January 2016, Available online 2 February 2016. This is an author preprint. This is the original paper critiqued. Received 10 June 2013, Revised 30 July 2013, Accepted 6 August 2013, Available online 16 August 2013.
*Holmlid’s comment on Hansen’s comment was rejected by the journal
Which means what? Hansen’s comment was quite brief and focused on a narrow aspect of the Holmlid paper. His response was longer.
Critique of Holmlid is rare, and as a result, he has built a huge collection of published papers over the years. That lack of critique does indicate a lack of interest, but it is not evidence for or against his work. That can happen for many reasons. Holmlid does not seem to be interested in engaging with critics, nor in building a community working on his line of research. His response indicates that there was no communication with him prior to the publication of the Hansen comment. That indicates a lack of professional courtesy.
None of this means that Hansen is right and his criticism of Holmlid seems thin to me. That is, Holmlid does answer the objection as to why the believed he was looking at deuterium, not protium. Could Holmlid be wrong? Of course. Anyone can make mistakes. But how likely is it?
None of this is particularly relevant to LENR, other than being fringe and possibly nuclear.
• Hansen reanalyzed TOF data using Holmlid data
Uh, the copy editor here says “Hansen reanalyzed Holmlid TOF data.”
• Laser ionizes RM, leading to Coulomb explosion
• Conservation of energy gives mv2 /2q = Ub + Ek/q
This is supposed to mean something? I’m sure it does, in context, but I’m not reading the paper to find the context, because this is all off point. If there is a relationship to LENR in the Holmlid work, they are not showing it and presenting a clear and cogent story, just snow.
• Holmlid assumes energy goes into rotational excitation, such that Ek = 630 eV
• Hansen analysis indicates data is more consistent with Hydrogen molecules being involved in Coulomb explosions, not Deuterium
Has that been definitively shown? According to whom? This work is not yet at the level where there would be serious overall review and balanced analysis. I’m not going to attempt it. It would be a major task, and it’s not important to my mission, supporting and encouraging LENR research, along the lines of what the DoE reviews actually recommended, but never implemented.
Hansen analysis casts doubts on validity of Holmlid interpretation
So could any criticism of any interpretation. I would expect a serious review to provide balance, and the basic problem here is the inclusion of the relatively unconfirmed work, with three pages, no less. They cover the objections in the third page, next. So why did they include this?
• Work is published in mainstream, reputable journals
• ∼ 94% of the 84 articles were written by 4 authors in the same group headed by Leif Holmlid
• ∼ 88% of citations are self-citations
• No other group has reproduced the results
• No other experimental group has published a paper on ultra dense deuterium
Measurements has not be independently reproduced.
Apparently they ran out of funding and could not afford a copy editor.
This is another complete red herring. Often called bubble fusion, or sonofusion, this, if confirmed, would be hot fusion, not cold fusion.
• Cavitation is the process of boiling a liquid as a result of pressure reduction
• When the bubbles that form collapse, a shock wave can form capable of causing damage, e.g.
pitting on a propeller
No DoD report on LENR would be complete without an image of a damaged boat propellor. They even thoughtfully provide a Wikipedia link, just in case a reader doesn’t know what a propellor is. To be sure, that damaged propellor image is still on that page, but that’s not reliable for sourcing, they should have sourced the Creative Commons page for the image, which would give licensing information.
• Sonoluminescence is the generation of light from cavitation due to sound waves
• Acoustic cavitation fusion seeks to use these shock waves to locally heat the liquid to produce a plasma and stimulate fusion reactions
In other words, fusion through creating a very hot plasma. Not cold fusion at all. However, the description isn’t accurate. The shock waves don’t heat “the liquid,” but the contents of the bubble as it collapses. The sonoluminescence article is more informative.
I am not cleaning up the OCR on this, it’s not worth it. But this:
• Taleyarkhan et al. claim to have observed neutrons coincident with sonoluminescence indicative of fusion
• Internal attempts at reproduction failed to produce detectable neutrons
• External efforts by Putterman at UCLA also failed to reproduce Taleyarkhan’s results
• [Naranjo 2006] demonstrates that neutron spectra reported by Taleyarkhan not consistent with D-D
fusion, but with 252Cf source.
• An “independent confirmation” [Xu and Butt 2005], which was later determined that Taleyarkhan was deeply involved and led to findings of falsification and research misconduct
Discredited observations notwithstanding, extreme conditions do exist in collapsing bubbles
So? There are many approaches to classical hot fusion. Why is this relevant? (I have not cleaned up the OCR text).
Popular Science, May 13, 2016 Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion
Original request: R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 4909 pdf page 123.
On my bus trip home from Washington, DC (where I went from Miami), I had plenty of time to read and write comments on E-cat World, where there are many claiming the settlement of the case means that Rossi technology is real. On the other side, here and elsewhere, some are complaining that it is tragic that Rossi v. Darden did not go to trial, because then Rossi would be prevented from “fleecing more sheep,” or the like. Yet all a verdict in that case would have established, almost certainly, was some kind of fraud, on someone’s part, and fraud may have nothing to do with underlying reality. It shows that a judge and/or jury was convinced, which can be a matter of truth, or a matter or skill or lack of skill on the part of attorneys. And then arguments may continue forever.
This is an ECW post that refers to Stanley Meyer. Analogies prove nothing, but provide indications, and there are analogies between Meyer and Rossi. There are also massive signs of pseudoskepticism in the critique of Meyer, and pseudoskepticism is belief, often masquerading as science. Genuine skepticism is essential to science, pseudoskepticism avoids the scientific method. Continue reading “Science, pseudoscience, and legal decisions”
Because it was linked from LENR Forum, I wrote some posts on Fogbow recently, and the experience reminds me of why I avoid such fora. This is not a particular problem of Fogbow, it is generic to open fora without disciplined moderation or clear and efficient decision-making structure.
I wrote this before noticing some comments that may shift my view. So what will be read here, first, is how this all occurred to me, is not some sort of final conclusion or definite and overall judgment.
The topic there is Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial
The motto of Fogbow is: “Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.”
However, what is “challenged”? If someone writes, “The moon is made of green cheese,” is the falsehood challenged by someone writing “You are an idiot”? That comment would be a violation of Fogbox rules, as an insult. However, what if the person had asked “why do I think that the Moon is made of green cheese,” would “Because you are an idiot” be an insult?Yeah, probably. But if you say, “That’s an idiotic idea, like the other ideas you have advocated,” is that an insult? Apparently not, though the actual effect is almost identical. The direct insult to the person, however, is easily recognized, and sanctioned, it’s blatant, whereas insult to idea or an assumed general stand or an entire class of people is allowed, even if clearly and deliberately provocative.
Trolls, defined by the goal of enraging or outraging others, then become skilled at making statements that will provoke as insults, but not be immediately recognizable as such. Such a person may appear to those who don’t know the circumstances as merely opinionated or even correct. They may become skilled at making plausible allegations. Yet the goal is to enrage. That goal will not necessarily be visible in an immediate interaction, it could show as a pattern of behavior over time.
There is no clear dividing line between pseudoskeptics and “debunkers,” and trolls. The effect can be the same. Discussion sites like Fogbow and tend to become infested with trolls and pseudoskeptics. Sometimes “believers” can also troll, as to provoking the others.
Bottom line, understanding of truth is not spread by merely “challenging” falsehoods. That idea is common, and it fails. Falsehoods can be asserted with brief statements that convey complex ideas, to actually answer them better than a mere challenge (“Lies!”) takes lots of words, or sometimes it can be done relatively briefly with references. On discussion sites, though, the routine practice becomes sound bites, considered entertaining, and some people who are not trolls themselves enjoy the fray.
I concluded quite a while ago that there was mostly insufficient benefit in “confronting someone who is wrong on the internet.” It’s endless, and discussions where that is the norm commonly go nowhere, failing to create genuine corrective analysis and structure, efficiently accessible.
The topic of the Fogbow discussion that I posted in was the lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden, and LENR in general. LENR in general, when brought up anew in a forum, generates a host of very predictable comments, too often stated confidently by users with one of two positions: “this is the truth, and is how mainstream science views this topic,” or “here is my original idea, aren’t I brilliant and aren’t they stupid for not thinking of this.” The discussion format encourages this, and useful content is not built.
I am considered by many to be highly informed on LENR, familiar with the arguments. However, LENR is a fringe topic, or, possibly more reasonably, an emerging science, still considered fringe by many. I hope to be able to show, within the next year, some far stronger experimental evidence on something that was already strong, as, I hope, was shown in my Current Science paper (2015). However, that’s not what I want to focus on now. Last year, I began writing on Rossi v. Darden (mostly on LENR Forum). I recognized that there was no archive making the case documents readily available. (“Pacermonitor” was often represented as a place to get “the docket”, which was quite misleading. Various documents had been downloaded and were hosted in many different places, erratically. So I created an archive, originally in the filespace for the newvortex mailing list. Then I moved it to this blog, and it is recognized by many as the best such resource available. (There is also Eric Walker’s googledrive, but it is not indexed and organized for rapid access, and there are files on thenewfire, also not well-organized (but some of those documents are OCR’d which makes for easier quotation.)
But that is not all I did. I also studied the pleadings and created analytical pages where, say, all the cited documents were linked and page-referenced for fast access; to do this, with the Motions to Dismiss that I studied, required reading or at least literally seeing all those documents, and often rereading them. As a result of this, it is possible that I know more about this case than anyone else on the planet (possibly even including the lawyers and parties). I mentioned this on Fogbow. As could be expected, on a site like Fogbow, this attracted derision. The possibility that it might be true, or true in some ways, was totally disregarded.
There was an apparent lawyer commenting there. His comments were generally correct, in my view, about law, but were not well-informed about the particulars of the case. And that attracted support, and his comments were considered to be “correcting” me. I will look at that one narrow issue, but my decision to restrict my posting to Fogbow is much more about an issue of the allocation of time than about any specific offensive comment there. But here was that commentary (and Startibartfast may be one of the better writers there):[better than I thought, see below for another post by Starti)
I don’t – despite Slarti’s attempt to make my head swell – consider myself to be one of the “real lawyers.”
Sorry to embarrass you, but what you wrote essentially proves everything I said about you, so you kind of torpedoed your own modesty. In any case you once again demonstrated that you have some small understanding of what you are talking about.
I’m licensed, but I’m not a practitioner and have no immediate plans of becoming one. What I am is an early-career legal scholar
Even a baby legal scholar is still a legal scholar and I thought Abd needed to understand that. Thanks for showing him! :thumbs:
Um… what was shown to me? I responded to Mikedunford, assuming that he had knowledge of law, but not necessarily the particulars of this case, which is unlikely in anyone without extensive study, no matter how much they know about law. Yet we are seeing confident expression of opinion without that study. I will return to this.
(who really should be working on a 20K-word dissertation instead of procrastinating here),
And Abd really should be getting ready to travel to Miami to cover the case (and for reasons that are fairly obvious from what has routinely happened, “cover the case” seems to have been interpreted in some very weird ways, such as “testify as a witness” or “have some interest” — i.e., as an involved party.)
What is the value of writing on Fogbow? It is not building content that can be efficiently accessed. Right now the RvD discussion there is 120 comments, the RvD Developments discussion on LENR Forum is at over 8900 comments. The same claims are made over and over. Sometimes those who might correct them burn out, and stop. It cannot be assumed that the latest comments are the most cogent, it can merely indicate that the “survivor” was the most fanatic, the most stubborn. It’s a structural problem. Fogbow software is even worse than LENR Forum software. Quotations do not refer back to the original comment, so context cannot be checked, tracking the flow of a discussion becomes difficult. There is no method of creating a content hierarchy, of tagging individual posts with meaningful categories. (But threads can be categorized, but only so vaguely as to be nearly useless.) The flaws of Fogbow include most of the flaws of LENR Forum, but cutting a bit deeper.
Right there with you. For me it’s writing my father’s eulogy and preparing a brief for a meeting next week.
Sorry about the father.
with relevant degrees from a couple of places, a solid foundation in US law, and (hopefully) a better-than-the-average-lawyer understanding of global intellectual property law.
Do you have any idea how hot you look right now? :lovestruck:
In other words, MikeDunford may be an ordinary lawyer with some specialization (“better than average”) in intellectual property law. I have no difficulty accepting that. The only problem here is that IP law is not at all the core of the case.
Law360 got it wrong. This is not a licensing dispute, even though it involves a licence. There were some licensing claims in the original Complaint, they were dismissed, and what remains relating to them is very weak and mostly irrelevant.
I would suggest that if Rossi and HI et al. had a lawyer or two who understood global IP law when they were writing their deal they might not have needed to spend a combined $15 million on lawyers for a contract dispute.
This obviously assumes that the problem was an ignorance of “global IP law,” and that Andrea Rossi would be interested in and follow legal advice when writing that Agreement; on the other side, it assumes that it would have been practical for IH to modify what Rossi was suggesting according to their own legal advice. It is highly likely that IH had significant access to legal expertise. They were faced with a problem that is not even on the radar screen of this “just sayin'” writer. They knew full well that the investment was risky. IH accomplished what they set out to do, as one possible result. I’m not going to explain what I’ve seen as their strategy in detail, beyond mentioning that Dewey Weaver, one of their investors and the only one discussing the case in public, has affirmed it, and it matches what is in the IH depositions.
That Rossi would sue as he did was not something easily anticipated. He had no history of initiating legal action. He was paranoid. A choice apparently had to be made: allow him what he wants, or no deal, nothing discovered. The Agreement is obviously flawed six ways till Sunday, but the legal costs cannot be traced to flaws in that Agreement, since, as written, the Agreement protected IH adequately; Rossi basically ignored the Agreement and fact to sue. Putting in stronger protections, such as a provision for binding arbitration or something that would have weakened the decisive role of the ERV, would probably have led Rossi to bail. IH needed to know if Rossi had a functional secret, if his technology worked, because it would threaten any other LENR technology. So they bought it.
They found out, not as an absolute proof, but as a clear demonstration that nothing Rossi said could be trusted, that he would shamelessly cheat and lie, and that he also was able to fool scientists and others — there is a major trail of wreckage, where scientists (such as the “Swedish professors”) blackened their records with serious errors, and that is all still working out. And IH still has a hedge, the License, just in case Rossi pulls a Wabbit out of a hat.
IH really looked like they had screwed up, to me, when I started studying this case. However, as I went deeper, I came to see their plan as absolutely brilliant, even though I still do not agree with every detail of how it was executed. There is a proof: Woodford. The initial Rossi investment and followup was about $20 million. The IH goal was not profit, as such, their original interest was environmental, they are what is sometimes called “socially responsible investors.” Their goal was to support the possibility of LENR. They hope to make a profit with their investments, on average, and they commonly make risky investments in pursuit of their goals, and they are patient, willing to follow the long term. Woodford is similar, apparently, and invested $50 million in what became the parent company of IH, IH Holdings International. This was obviously set up to protect the Woodford investment from Rossi predation. Woodford also committed an additional $150 million if needed.
So Darden and Vaughn amplified their own $20 million, and that they took the risk with Rossi made the world safe for further investment, not in Rossi, but in other LENR research and technology. They are still cash ahead, even considering the legal costs, and they may be able to recover those, from two defendants: Rossi, who may own on the order of $10 million in Florida real estate, though that is probably being mortgaged, my guess, to pay his own legal bills, and Johnson, Rossi’s real estate lawyer, who supported the fraudulent representation that is quite obvious from case evidence. In addition, there are aspects of this case that call attention to possible lawyer misbehavior.
There is a pattern shown in the Rossi pleadings. He has accused Jones Day of legal misconduct, while his own lawyers may be more in line for sanctions for that, he accused Darden of perjury, whereas he has, himself, almost certainly committed perjury, demonstrable by comparing his depositions and attestations with clear evidence, his own emails, and, of course, there was the basic case filing itself, claiming fraudulent inducement, when there is no evidence of that on the IH side, and plenty on the Rossi side.
So, what did MikeDunford show me? His posts. Search for Rossi v Darden to see the seven posts (at this point)
I haven’t weighed in on the legal issues yet, and won’t unless/until I get a chance to read the papers in some detail. (Which is very unlikely to happen in the next several weeks.) I’ll also freely admit that my patent law knowledge could be getting blurred because it’s not my primary area, but it is one where I’ve done the basic-level class for multiple jurisdictions. That said…
My recollection is that the validity of a patent is generally relevant in a patent licensing dispute, because if there is no valid patent, there is nothing to license. Whether or not the invention actually does what it says on the tin is generally relevant to validity, because a patent for thing that can’t possibly do what it claims may be invalid for lack of utility.
So I do think that the science may be relevant. But this sounds like a strange arrangement of contracts, so I’d have to take a good long look to be sure.
Sounds like a smart lawyer, actually. What I would point out is that the validity of the patent has not been legally challenged. The idea that this was a patent dispute appears to be common. It isn’t. It is, indeed, a contract dispute, with a few odd claims relating to IP tossed in. IH is claiming that if Rossi knows how to make working devices, he didn’t show them, so he’d be in prior breach. The only relevance I know of patent law is application to some of the dismissed claims in the Complaint. Rossi claimed that by adding a co-inventor to a patent application, they had somehow infringed on Rossi’s patents, which, is, ah, cloud cuckoo land. I’m confident that Mike would agree.
IH is not asking for the patent to be invalidated.
Having skimmed a couple of the summary judgment motions, I feel very sorry for the judge and her law clerks. And that’s all I’m gonna have to say about that.
I responded to this with general agreement, but then some details. Mike came back with:
This is complicated, but in summary, I had argued that the Judge erred in dismissing the Motions for Summary Judgment without looking at any fact and legal argument. What Mike asserted about Summary Judgment was all general truth, but Mike did not address my specific claim. He merely gave a conclusory comment, an opinion based admittedly on a shallow review. here were his notes:
The result is a complex trial expected now to take a month. Some of this might have been unavoidable. She apparently is pushing for settlement. If she had dismissed what was dismissable, based on uncontradicted evidence and arguments (and particularly on the original complaint issues, thus the standard should have been easier, this was IH as a defendant), settlement might have become more possible.
This got convoluted. I pointed out that the term “absolutely” was a “bit strong,” he wrote “not a bit strong,” but we actually agreed on the substance, and his restatement did not use “absolutely,” nor any equivalent.
As I said above, technically speaking the defendant doesn’t need to produce any evidence in opposition. It’s a good idea for the defendant to try to produce evidence, of course, but the defendant can – through argument – convince the finder of fact that the presented evidence is simply insufficient to meet the burden of persuasion.
In the most significant and clearest of the issues covered by the IH MSJ, IH was the defendant. I did not claim that all the IH MSJ issues were worthy of much attention, and Mike’s argument, apparently thinking of IH as plaintiff, focuses on plaintiff arguments, but I still am concerned about what the Judge did. This was a complex case, with two initial plaintiffs (and confusion over the identity of one of the plaintiffs), four initial defendants, and then counterclaim plaintiffs and originally about eight counterclaim defendants, reduced by one when Penon could not be found for service. The Judge wanted all elements included in a single motion, of restricted size. She also created a much earlier trial schedule than what the parties had agreed upon, and refused to allow consensual postponement of deadlines. That all raised my eyebrows. Other than not allowing the parties to have what they agreed upon, however, her prior rulings all seemed within reason.
At a point where I agree with Mike (saying “that is correct,’) he wrote:
I’m relieved to learn that my years of legal education have not been entirely in vain.
Not a good sign….
Nothing shown to me here that I did not already know. I was thinking I’d write more detail, because Mike went on to present speculations as if they were facts …. but I’m losing interest rapidly. Mike is clearly knowledgeable about law, but then made hosts of assumptions about the specific facts. He did ask me for an example of what MSJ might have been granted, but I’m not convinced the question was sincere. I’ve covered that extensively here. Someone else can answer him.
So … ONE person (though not an attorney) who knows BOTH the law AND the technology? My vote’s for Abd.
Abd’s knowledge of the law is clearly substantially weaker than Abd thinks it is.
Apparently his vote is for himself. Surprise? I am not a legal expert, I merely have more knowledge of law than many lay writers. Mike imagines he knows what I think. He did come up with a stronger statement of what he thinks are my errors.
It’s tempting to respond to him, but …. no. I will lay out what I will do, but what I will not do is to engage in these bar conversations. His comment above is an insult, a comment made either as trolling or in reckless disregard of normal responses. His subsequent comment actually addressed issues, but … context matters. If anyone has questions regarding any of what I wrote or what he wrote there, ask me here. Comments are open; only the first comment from a user requires approval. There are some loose ends to tie up. First of all, thanks to tjh for the kind comment. However, we are not running for office and there is no job on offer, nobody is to be established as The Authority. I merely know more than the usual about some things, but I make mistakes and that is one reason why I generally provide sources and links. I don’t always do that, so if anyone disagrees with what I’ve written and it was not sources, please ask. If you have the question someone else might, as well.
So, tjh. I had not seen his post.
Sterngard Friegen wrote: [quoting Abd, adding a highlight]
“I don’t need this forum for anything in particular, I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere.”
Regarding the highlight – an ego is a terrible thing to waste.
I’m the one who created this topic, and referenced it on https://www.lenr-forum.com — which might be why Abd came here.
But I will endorse his comment “I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet”.
Let me put it this way: I’ve spent a year studying the suit, and then creating the resources on coldfusioncommunity.net, I read the documents again and again. There are some people who know things that are not public, and sometimes people notice things about the documents I have missed, but … when I read the comments of those who have not studied the documents, I notice the many errors that are common, and I know how I know what I know, because I’ve been over and over those documents, reading what others write about them, and my comment was an opinion that might be fact in some ways. And the reception was chilling, overall. People mostly go away when treated that way, sane people do (women will almost always not tolerate it)
One commenter imagined I didn’t know what a troll was. I’ve been dealing with on-line community since the 1980s on the W.E.L.L. People confuse their own ignorance or differences of opinion with the ignorance of others. “Troll” is a word. What it means is up to us. We use language, or we let it use us. I prefer the former.
Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys may know more about the law …
They certainly do. Some abuse it. My knowledge will also be spotty, incomplete. I often comment from a common-law perspective, more or less equivalent in some ways to “common sense,” though common sense is not necessarily common.
but they know (and care) little or nothing about the technology. Read the depositions.
Right. Jones Day has a real blooper in one of their pleadings. This is what I know about professionals in my life: they know more in general, almost always, but they don’t know my situation as well as I do. So I use professionals without making them into gods. I’m responsible for my choices, not the professionals I might consult. They are responsible for sharing their experience and knowledge with me, but they are advisors, not governors.
(From the technology end I would love to cross-examine ALL of the “technical experts”. How to do it legally … no idea. I do know that major cases can hinge on ONE question, eg “Is there any possibility you MIGHT have seen the microcode?”)
One of the nutty things that was tossed at me was the idea that I was trying to intervene in the case, to get the Judge to read my work. Basically, people make up what fits their preconceptions, so what I wrote was read that way. In fact, what I had suggested was that a clerk might use certain documents here that had links added; the clerk would not trust the document, but would verify that the links were what they purported to be, that the copies were true, etc. That would be much faster than creating it from scratch. Maybe ten times as fast. I spent many days creating some of those documents. With such a document, hypertext, reading the MSJs would be far easier.
(I never completed those documents, they would still be useful to someone who wanted to make it easy for the Judge to review. Frankly, my opinion, attorneys should be required to present documents like that, instead of what they have been doing for way too long. It should be possible to verify a claim in a pleading as to what is in evidence, in seconds, not several minutes per claim.
Lots of people (with whom I have corresponded on forae and by email) know lots about the technology. (eg Rothwell, Storms) …
[Edit]: but little or nothing about the law.
That’s what they tell me, they are honest about it.
Abd has an excellent technical reputation in this the technical area (I met him first online on vortex, but he got thrown off for rationally defending a religious attack).
Given Fogbow, it’s ironic. The fellow was a birther and that was a major part of what I confronted. That is, in fact, where I learned about that flabber.
So … ONE person (though not an attorney) who knows BOTH the law AND the technology? My vote’s for Abd.
(He sure ain’t modest, he sure ain’t polite — he’s dinged me for posting some hignorant stuff. )
Sorry. Not about not being modest (though simply saying that I may know more than the vast majority of people on some topic is not immodest, if it’s factually based), but about any hurt feelings. I have learned what I learned by writing and, on occasion, being corrected by those knowledgeable enough to accomplish that. Some have been polite and some not, but the opportunity is there for me. I would probably learn much on Fogbow, but it ain’t gonna happen. Most of those conversations were far too boring, on matters where I discussed the stuff to death years ago.
AND I’m still not going to defend Cold Fusion / LENR here.
It doesn’t need defense, or, at least not on Fogbow, which will make zero difference in what happens with LENR. In fact, I’m strongly suggesting that people without high knowledge stop arguing about LENR, and people with high knowledge usually have something better to do.
And then Startibartfast. Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:05 am[I am creating links for his footnotes, and backlinks just for fun]
I find it fascinating how quickly bad blood can arise from a failure to understand each other’s position (and grumpiness too, also1). In an effort to get an interesting thread back on track and prevent someone who seems to me to be making a worthwhile contribution from getting turned off, let me see if I can help explain… or at least make things worse.
Since I was a moderator on the W.E.L.L., I have been noticing social pathologies in on-line discussion, probably related to the lack of direct visual and auditory cues, and the depersonalization related to the low bandwidth of text. It’s an issue I have worked on since then, because there are also vast possibilities from there being a clear and accessible written record of conversations. However, what I saw, then, and continue to see, is that this possibility is largely missed because it is overwhelmed by social phenomena and how people routinely form opinions. To review the record to find the original of conflicts was, in practice, almost useless, because people mostly will not read the record, and will assume that references to the record are “cherry-picked” or otherwise simply reflecting the political position of the one making the references. This is an aspect of general dysfunction in how we form our identities and beliefs. To move beyond it generally takes training, and that training is not routinely supplied or expected.
Those who might be expected to see beyond these reactive patterns often don’t. I saw a professor of linguistics argue with one of the most skilled trainers on the planet, that he was using words wrongly. If anyone should know that language is a tool, not truth, it would be such a professor. He walked out, because he could not tolerate “wrong.”
I don’t think Abd is trying to peddle woo, I believe he is just someone who, based on his own informed opinion, believes that cold fusion is real4 and hopes that, one day, it will result in commercially viable energy production.
Thanks. To be clear, I am informed more than most, and less than a few. I am sufficiently informed to be able to participate usefully in conversations with experts, and to be able to write a review paper and see it pass an initially negative peer review and have it be published, and cited by the person I most respect of all the experts. However, I do not “believe” that cold fusion is “real.” To be sure, the word “believe” carries many possible meanings. A more neutral statement of how I think is that I have concluded through a preponderance of the evidence, pending the availability of better evidence, that at least some of the reported effects sloppily called “cold fusion” are real, not merely artifact, and that it is nuclear in nature. This view is probably consistent with the view of the majority of informed experts. Cold fusion, like some other fields, is afflicted with experts who do not know the evidence, so “informed experts” would mean those who are somehow tasked with a review and study. People like McKubre and Robert Duncan. I just noticed that a Rossi voir dire asked if jurors had seen the CBS special on Cold Fusion, where we saw Duncan investigating cold fusion.
I use the term “cold fusion” for political purposes. That is, the evidence shows that the reaction is likely the conversion of deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of mechanism, would routinely be called “fusion” as to effect. Steve Krivit has never understood this and argues at great length that most in the field are promoting a wrong idea, fusion. But then he means by fusion “d-d fusion,” which is easily understood as either impossible or in any case not what is happening with the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect and the production of gammas. Huizenga point it out long ago when he noticed the heat/helium evidence, considered this an amazing report (it was!), that it would explain a major mystery of cold fusion (the ash!), but that it would probably not be confirmed (because no gammas!). That opinion was obviously based on an assumption that if heat and helium were correlated, the reaction must be d-d fusion. That is only an assumption. There are other possible pathways.
An information cascade formed in 1989-1990, where a “scientific consensus” arose, meaning broad and common opinion among scientists, that was never based on completed or conclusive scientific study and findings. Gary Taubes wrote the best skeptical book on Cold Fusion, Bad Science. Even though he finished the book after the Miles announcement of heat/helium correlation, he never looked at it, and the reason is obvious: his simple story of bad science, a long-term theme of his, became really complicated, and he needed to finish the damn book! Later, he investigated some other information cascades and wrote compellingly about them. These cascades are still in place, but falling apart as real research is done. Taubes, indeed, founded NuSci to facilitate that research. I like Taubes, a lot, even though some of my LENR friends hate his guts. He worked his butt off. For some understanding of how information cascades work, google “Taubes Tiernan information cascade”. Here:
Information cascades are not “bad.” They are a mechanism by which society creates more efficiency, but they can fail to recognize anything that is outside normal thinking or what is easily accessible. Overcoming them can be quite difficult. I’ve been looking recently at the history of the recognition that h. pylori infections case gastritis, ulcers, and stomach cancer. The creation of review bypasses could have saved many lives and improved the quality of many more. The cost of the rejection cascade was in the billions of dollars. My guess is that the collective cost of such phenomena is in the trillions of dollars per year. That does not mean that people should be so open-minded that their brains fall out. Rather, it only takes a few to review and spread the news, if structures are in place.
Creating those structures is my goal, long term. Cold fusion is merely one example of an information cascade where what became insanely strong rejection, if it delays the commercial application of LENR, costs about a trillion dollars per year in lost opportunity cost. Even if the probability of such applications is low, this would be worth many millions of dollars in review costs, including, of course, definitive experimentation.
In discussions of LENR, N-rays and polywater are often mentioned as prior examples of “pathological science,” tossing cold fusion in that basket. However, N-rays were shown to be artifact by a conclusive experiment. That experiment did not “prove” that N-rays were not real, but that the evidence for them was not based on objective observation, but was a product of observer expectation and interpretations that “seeing is believing,” even if the seeing is … at the edge of clear. Polywater was shown to be artifact by an experiment that conclusively provided a prosaic (though remarkable in itself!) explanation, contamination of the water by condensed sweat from the researchers.
The core findings of LENR were never shown to be artifact, i.e., the heat. The early neutron radiation report was, indeed, artifact, retracted. That was often considered proof that the heat effect could not be real, because d-d fusion would always generate copious neutrons, but the interpretive error is obvious. As well, the conclusion that the heat was nuclear in nature was premature. Pons and Fleischmann actually had, when they initially announced, three evidences of “nuclear.” First, the level of heat was beyond chemistry, in their judgment, and chemistry was their expertise. Second, they saw evidence for neutrons. Third, they found tritium. The neutrons and the tritium, however, were far below the levels expected from d-d fusion. The neutron evidence was artifact. However, that was never shown for the heat, nor for tritium, and both of those effects were widely reported, confirmed. A few neutrons have even been shown, but those findings are not confirmed.
Yeah. It was doubly interesting, because it is a convergence of two significant interests. It might be a good place to ask legal questions, for reasons that Starti makes clear. However, it’s also a public comment forum, with very loose administration, with all the down sides of that. I broke a rule. No administrative warning, just some blame from a troll and friends. Yes, some explained the rule I had violated. Yet from the common severe disrespect and contempt shown, the initial offense, the kind that seriously damages discussions and tends, for example, to drive away women or others not interested in bulls butting heads, and endless waste of time in discussions that never go anywhere, that rarely accomplish any measurable benefit, was tolerated, and it was repeated. I.e., the judgment of “insult” was superficial. This is a product of the limitations of narrow administration without decent structure. That is a discussion forum default because it’s easy and familiar and can be controlled by the owner. There are far more powerful options. Hybrids, essentially, and few have experience with them.
You might find cold fusion to be nonsense, but Abd doesn’t and seems willing to discuss LENR on the merits.
Yes. If you look around this blog, you will find serious discussions with serious skeptics. I don’t expect a knowledgeable skeptic to lay down and play dead. My stand is for all to express what they know. Emphasis on know. As part of the process, there is the expression of opinion, which is reactive, not exactly knowledge (though necessary in human process).
More precisely, the opinion that “cold fusion is nonsense” is obviously an unsupported judgment as apparently held. It would depend on a definition of “cold fusion,” wouldn’t it? I’ve had this argument with some atheists. Speaking at a university on Islam, a young man stood up, proud to express his opinion. “I don’t believe in God.” Great. I asked him, “in what God do you not believe?” It appeared that nobody had ever asked him that question, he was dumbfounded. I then said, “The God that you do not believe in, I don’t believe in either.” Now, I’ve had this discussion with serious atheists, who were not naive college students. Their ultimate objection: I capitalize God, and I capitalize Reality, and I define God as Reality. Period. No ideas attached, not as belief. There are some explorations and possibilities, that’s all.
The “cold fusion” that is nonsense is an idea in the mind of the pseudoskeptic, typically unquestioned, almost invisible, because it is assumed that we know what is being talked about, i.e., say, the claims of Pons and Fleischmann. However, they did not actually claim fusion. Their paper claimed an “unknown nuclear reaction.” In the title, as I recall, they had Fusion? at the end. The editors lost the question mark.
The history of cold fusion is an extensive comedy of errors, a demonstration of how very smart people can make very stupid mistakes. All of us can. In my ontology, “mistakes” are the fastest way to learn, if we pay attention and are not attached to being right.
Which is perfectly reasonable from a scientific point of view3.
Thanks. To echo Mike, I’m grateful that my fifty years of observation and study and training have not been wasted. (But I actually do thank you, I am not being sarcastic.)
Anyway, I think Abd is adding value to the discussion (and certainly a lot of knowledge about the particulars of the case) and, at the very least, isn’t doing any harm.
I doubt that whats-his-face, the user I set to ignore, will leave because of my “insult.” The insult was actually calling him a troll, as I recall, which was very obviously reasonable, i.e., if someone trolls, they are, in that interaction, a troll. No action exclusively creates identity. I was not claiming and would not claim that the only thing the fellow does is troll, that he is a “pure troll,” only that he was obviously trolling, and I drew a conclusion from that, which was personal, that I was not going to continue interaction. If he wants to communicate with me, this blog is open for comments. I have no assumption that he has nothing of value to contribute; such an assumption would violate my basic ontology and stand. Mike is merely opinionated and quick to judge, I didn’t see trolling there. Mike has actually raised an issue worth exploring, which I intend to do here, but not today, I need to get ready to travel to Miami.
In any case, I don’t think he really deserves all of the scorn you’ve leveled at him. Certainly not because he chose not to answer a hostile comment on Saturday afternoon by Sunday morning7. Just my opinion.
Indeed. That was trolling, highly offensive, provocative, and … obviously tolerated, and, my guess, much from him is tolerated, probably because he is seen as a “valuable contributor.” That is an error very common in site administration. It is possible to create and enforce civility without losing truly valuable contributors; that this is thought not possible is a result of failure to respect the capacity of users to cooperate, when that is tested. Most will cooperate with civility rules, if they are clear, and clearly and reliably enforced, but it takes some administrative work, and admins are typically overworked and definitely underpaid.
p.s. I didn’t know the story about your avatar, so, if nothing else, I’m grateful to Abd for getting you to share that.
You’re welcome. My comment about his avatar was not a claim — as he represented — that he had created the avatar to insult me, which would have been stupid and egotistical — more or less his point in making the claim. Rather it appeared to be a symbol of his interactions, not just with me, but with many. It’s not just grumpy, it is in-your-face grumpy. It is or has become his identity.
Please correct me if any of my suppositions above are untrue. You seem very forthright and write long, detailed comments (see below :towel: ) and you’re arguing the counter-orthodoxy5 without, in my opinion, crossing the line, all of which gets my sympathy, but I think you’ve made some (very understandable) blunders due to circumstances you aren’t aware of.
That’s life. I don’t think they are “blunders,” however. When I toss a pebble in a pond and its splashes, it would not be a blunder unless it creates damage to some goal important to me. In fact, the splash tells me far more about the pond than a more cautious approach would. I assess actions based on outcomes, not on presumed freedom from “error” as if that were an intrinsic characteristic of the actions, which the language of “blunder” incorporates. If my goal were not to break rules, it would be a blunder, or, in my training, that is called a “breakdown.” But it is also said that “from breakdowns come breakthroughs.”
I became, as a result of the comment, very quickly aware of many aspects of the situation that I might not have learned for a long time. Not only has no harm been done, I saved myself a great deal of wasted work. Writing details responses takes much time. Mark Twain said, about a long letter, “I would have written less but I didn’t have time.” That is, writing effective polemic, if it is to be deeper than “you’re an idiot,” takes time. Providing sources takes time (and this is part of how I learn when writing sourced material. To provide a link, I have to look at the source again. So I end up seeing sources over and over. Basic method of learning: exposure to material. It can actually be superior to what we call “understanding,” which is often an illusion (meaning that we have some conclusion that fits into our world-view).
This forum, while having long ago branched out, started as an anti-birther forum. Conspiracy theorists in general6 are still a major focus.
What I see as the Fogbow condition correlates with that. Moletrap was started by Steorn debunkers. RationalWiki was started by Conservapedia debunkers. These become insular, self-reinforcing social structures. RationalWiki does build content, but it is heavily biased in a particular direction. Moletrap doesn’t, generally.
It is not that the debunkers are “wrong.” It is that contrary views are buried in mud. On Moletrap it was quite obvious. That community effectively denied the existence of pseudoskepticism, which is an extreme view, with no distinction being made between pseudoskepticism (which fails to be self-skeptical) and genuine skepticism (which does not require brains falling out, it does not require accepting and believing “woo,” and the very term “woo” is pseudoskeptical, it has no clear definition other than “stuff we think is loony.”
As such, two things are true: first, some of the people, especially those who have been here for a long time, have a very quick trigger when they think people are supporting frivolous arguments or woo, and, secondly, while the membership here is very diverse, it is still skewed heavily towards lawyers.
This could be both a strength and a weakness. Lawyers are skilled in argument, at inventing arguments to support any position whatever, including attacking and discrediting the views of others. Some lawyers are skilled at dispute resolution and mediation. Some are fight-to-the-bitter-end-never-give-up hired guns. And then they follow those same principles with their own opinions, a busman’s holiday.
Unfortunately, you happened to run afoul of one of the most well-respected8 and grumpy of those lawyers, who seems to have thought that your comments implied beliefs that were frivolous or unscientific and, as you pointed out, he trolled you about them. Now, you’re certainly right that he showed contempt for your ideas, and while the motivation for your insult was certainly understandable, you are the one who broke the rules.
The rule I broke was calling him what he obviously was, i.e., the name of one who engages in his behavior. That was from one incident, and would not, in itself, an identity define, but what I saw was clear enough to make the call, and what is being said here confirms that the call was not just my own opinion, but matches the community opinion. But he is “one of us,” and I wasn’t. One of the claims made as a result of my comment (besides a call to effectively ban me — sorry, not allowing comment on the topic of interest, but only in the Cesspool or the Dungeon or whatever it is called may not be “censorship,” but neither is total ban, because the banned person is not prevented from expressing their opinions except in one place. It would still be a ban) was that I didn’t know what a troll was. Which would, of course, be inviting argument, since I have thirty years of experience with on-line conferencing. I was not claiming that the fellow was an “actual troll,” which would require showing that he lives under a bridge, but rather was behaving like a troll, showing signs of habitual trolling, and that claim is confirmed here. But apparently accurate description of behavior is not allowed on Fogbow, if it gores the valuable contributor. This is very common, and boring.
Now that’s certainly not a cardinal sin and, even if you do get thrown in the FEMA camp (and I don’t believe you should or will), you probably wouldn’t even notice the difference (except that people would be free to insult you and vice versa),
FEMA Camp is a user group. From Fogbow Forum information:
FEMA Campers is a closed group. Birthers, SovCits, trolls, and anyone else who joins the forum in order to hassle us are put in this group. Then they can only post in FEMA Camp 7½, a hidden forum.
The FEMA Staff & Visitors group can see the FEMA camp. If you don’t join, you don’t see us dealing with the troublemakers.
Sterngard Friegen is in a group of his own, for reasons that will become apparent when you get to know him. He is the Super Grumpy Geezer.
Why in the world would I write for FEMA camp? I can write on Quora, say, and have 2.6 million page views, I can write on my blog and create useful pages and discussions (and blog posts, i.e., opinions, though some pages express opinions), and have many appreciative readers and why should I care about the others — they don’t care about me. (If they do, they will comment and I respect them and generally reply, even if they are telling me what I’ve heard for as long as I’ve been writing, I write too much. To that comment I say, “Don’t read it, then. Or ask for a summary. Or wait until someone comments and reply to that. Your choice.”
I would surely notice that I was not allowed to post in a topic of interest. Or if somehow that post is there (not rejected by the software), I would notice that I couldn’t see it when not logged in. I don’t know how Fogbow implements this ban that it pretends isn’t a ban.
Fogbow administration obviously has decided that Stern is an exception and may insult others (perhaps as long as he avoids the direct insults that are easily seen without having any idea of the topic). So he can troll others, those people who come to Fogbow to “hassel us, ” because that serves a useful function: when the person, generally a noob, responds like an ordinary human, returning insult for insult, that person can be FEMA camped for breaking the rules. I saw this strategy used to great effect on Wikipedia, there were users who freely broke the rules, in order to tempt “POV-pushers” to violate the rules, to, then, provide easy cover for administrators, their friends, to ban those people. The administrators had points of view that they pushed, but often had difficulty with what they called “civil POV pushers.” Those who followed the rules to push a POV. Wikipedia fell into some internally contradictory tropes, such as the idea that neutrality can be found by excluding people with strong points of view. It often excludes, then, experts, from participating in the discussions.
In this case, if I were to tendentiously argue that this was all unfair, that Stern was truly a troll, i.e., had been trolling — there is no other objective definition — the community, with established habits, would pile on and I could be actually FEMA camped. I won’t do that on Fogbow, and, in fact, I’m not going to argue on Fogbow at all. What I will do will not be argument, itself. Mostly, though, I won’t be reading or following Fogbow, but may look at discussions there pointed out to me. Whatever, it depends somewhat on how much free time I have and what I have to do with that time. I wrote that I posted on Fogbow “Just Because.” I.e., no particular good reason, and I’d chalk it up to testing the waters.
but, if you’re going to hang around here9, I would suggest that a sincere apology to Stern for the insult would probably go a long way towards getting people to take the time to look at who you are instead of who they think you are.
What would a “sincere apology” look like? My opinion, now strengthened, is that Stern trolls users, at least he was trolling me. I don’t see any sign that he was harmed, other than possibly being, himself, trolled into making some stupid comments. But his friends think he is brilliant. Personally, I think that the community is enabling him and harming him. I’m also an “old geezer” (73), and think that when people conspire with my stupidity, they are truly harming me.
So how could I apologize “sincerely”? I know how to influence public opinion in situations like this. But do I want to? Is Fogbow my target audience? (No. Not lawyers, for the most part. Scientists and decision-makers in funding agencies. My blogging is to create a channel for meeting possible supporters for the long-term work, to recruit leaders and empower them and “leaders” can include genuine skeptics who will actually study a topic, seeking deeper understanding.)
I am not willing to lie or deceive in order to generate popularity. I will shut up about some things, not every truth or opinion must be stated. I’m not going to break the rules, though what I’ve found is that if someone is considered an outsider, the rules may be interpreted to ban them, it’s common. What I will do on Fogbow may indeed create some deeper tests. Anyone watching will be able to learn from this.
It’s a small matter and everyone knows you didn’t violate the rules intentionally (and that Stern is a expert at walking the line without crossing it — not to mention really grumpy), but it would be a show of respect for the community and probably enough to let the matter die and return the discussion to the case (or cold fusion in general), which I believe is what you would like.
I am not maintaining the discussion on Fogbow. If that community wants to beat a dead horse, they can continue the conversation. Communities like Fogbow typically prefer to discuss personalities rather than principles and objective fact. What happened on Fogbow is quite common.
I am not a “real lawyer,” for sure, but I’m in regular consultation on these issues with one, and others are chiming in.
Which was simply true.
You clearly want the respect that you think you are due for your knowledge and expertise,
I actually DGAF. However, I understand that if I have knowledge, I have an obligation to share it. It is up to others if they take advantage of this or not. Those who do, learn, those who don’t — I am not responsible for them. They make their choices. I do not “hide my light,” under some idea of pious humility. I don’t consider that kind of humility to be a virtue, at all. Genuine humility, to which I aspire: I know I make mistakes and will consider what is pointed out to me as error.
However… trolling never brings this out, not directly, though I can still take advantage of the opportunity.
but, in trying to convince us that you deserve respect you unknowingly disrespected the knowledge and expertise of this community. Roughly half of the people that are engaging with you are real lawyers (and good ones).
If I tried to convince people of that, the effort would be self-contradictory and doomed. Human beings deserve respect, even from lawyers. (Cue a series of Bad Lawyer Jokes.)
Most people (including friends who don’t know me face-to-face) will not correctly assess my goals and motivations. That’s just the way it is.
In particular, in your exchanges with Mike Dunford it is very clear that you don’t understand that, even in a group of outstanding attorneys, Mike is special. When he gives his opinions, everyone listens carefully, because after over 7,000 posts demonstrating his knowledge and insight he’s earned enormous respect. When he says, “I’m relieved to learn that my years of legal education have not been entirely in vain.”, everyone here is quite aware of just how erudite a legal scholar Mike is.
I don’t doubt it. However, he was making assumptions about the case based on shallow knowledge of it. The greatest expert in the world who does that is out on a limb. The number of posts on a discussion Forum like Fogbow is not a particularly impressive credential, by the way, I place more credence in your own opinion.
Which is not to say that your knowledge and insight into this case isn’t welcome, but it is generally a good idea for IANAL types to be careful about asserting themselves as legal authorities, especially when in discussions with actual lawyers (which is pretty much every thread here).
I have a habit of assertive writing. I will describe things as I see them. IANAL (I am not a lawyer, folks) will cover that there will be things that I misunderstand or miss, but in real-life conversations with real-life lawyers, these are easily fixed. Real-life lawyers, in my experience, listen to my comments, because I’m coming from outside the box and I might see something that, out of habit, they might have missed. Or not. I might be seriously mistaken, so they say so, directly, and if they are true experts instead of stuffed shirts, they can and will tell me why, ordinarily.
If you do a little listening and then ask some questions, I’ll bet you will learn some new things about the law yourself. I certainly have11
I may ask questions, though I do have a lawyer I can call for that.
I posted here Just Because I know more about the topic (that lawsuit) than almost anyone else on the planet, and this discussion was mentioned elsewhere. I’ve been funded to cover the trial, and I have multiple places to publish that coverage.
Okay, so you’ve been trolled and scolded and talked about and you’re probably thinking, “why should I bother to stick around?” What you just said is why. I don’t believe you can find a more discerning audience to which to publish your coverage or a more knowledgeable group with which to discuss the merits of the case.
The Fogbow software sucks and is not designed to handle the kind of writing I would want to do. I will publish here (or maybe in Infinite Energy, it’s been suggested, but I have no agreement with them.)
Another place to publish with a wide audience is Quora, where I have many followers, and where there are deep experts on just about everything.
There’s a long standing tradition on the Fogbow of having BOTG (Boots On The Ground) for trials of interest. Members (both lawyers and non-lawyers) post their notes and then the ask questions and start speculating on the meaning and significance of what happened. There is much popcorn and good times all around.
I’m on a low-carb diet. However, I have nothing against good times. If Fogbow sends a Boot, we might have some good times if we meet. I’m big on real-life meetings, it is far more fun than pounding on a keyboard. Or Fogbow could consider me a Boot. It will be up to the users and how they use the opportunities that I present.
So here’s my challenge to you: stick around long enough to post some coverage from the trial and answer the questions you get from Stern and the other lawyers and then see if the analysis they give is correct. I bet it will be. And I bet you will find it a worthwhile experience too. also. What have you got to lose?
Everything and nothing. I stand for the nothing part. I’m not LANCB. I call that “binding the future,” and it is generally a stupid thing to do. People do it because they don’t trust themselves, which is a generally disempowering position.
Questions, I haz some. You say you are being funded to cover this trial, by whom and what is their (and your) interest?
I don’t ask them. Some donors may be seen publically on the GoFundMe site. Some donations have come from a lawyer who saw what I was doing and offered to cover Pacer costs. He wants to be anonymous. But I can say that he has no connection with the parties in the case. Indeed, so far, no donor has any known connection with the parties. What has been said is that they are supporting my reporting, the Rossi v Darden resources on this blog, and they trust my honesty. Most would be called, perhaps, “believers,” i.e. they think LENR is real.
However, that does not bias my reporting, at least I hope not!
My interest is in the outcome of the first major investment by a commercial entity in LENR in a long time. My interest in going to Miami is to see the parties and witnesses myself, personally, instead of just what is written. We can’t see the video depositions, which might convey something. I also may meet with some of the involved people. That is likely, though not arranged yet. I am, as part of this trip, visiting Washington, D.C. and will meet with at least one scientist there. Maybe two.
Mostly, though, I’m interested because It’s There. I like fact and evidence, much more than opinion and conclusions.
What are your relevant credentials and experience? I assume from your name that you are (or were) a graduate student, is that correct, and if so, what did you study?
No. I never completed college, nor was I a graduate student. Abd is not “All but degree.” It is the first noun in my Muslim name, I accepted Islam in about 1970, and have written more about Islam, overall, than about any other topic, over the years. The name is Abd ul-Rahman, “servant of the merciful.” (“Abdul” is not actually a Muslim name, but a fragment of a phrase taken as if it were a word.)
I attended Cal Tech, sitting in the Feynman lectures in 1961-63. I dropped out, became a musician and became involved with “spiritual communities,” and was recognized as a teacher. I created a career as a kind of electronics engineer, and still have some income from the design service I started. I retired on social security, but then went through extensive training from Landmark Worldwide, perhaps specializing in community projects (not “Landmark community,” the training actually prohibits projects involving Landmark graduates specifically, but must be “outside community,” with measureable results. I was a Wikipedia editor, known as standing for community rights vs the “administrative cabal,” which was a Jimbo Wales term. Later, if you called them a “cabal,” you were labelled as a conspiracy theorist, but … no conspiracies are needed. Cabal behavior functions through shared watchlists and interests, cabal members defend each other and attack “enemies.” Sometimes very effectively, if there are members who are administrators. Wikipedia is largely helpless to deal with it.
You referred to later work (after P & F) verifying LENR. Could you give us a layman’s summary of that work and the strength of those results? It might help if you could give us a clear statement about what you think is established science and what you believe that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
I do not agree with everything in the video. But nobody is perfect.
On an unrelated note, do you know anything about Steven Jones, former colleague of Pons and Fleischmann? I’m curious as to the quality of his earlier work given what he did later13.
I’ve met Jones, at ICCF-18 in 2013. Jones is far from popular in the LENR community. His work was entirely different from the FP Heat Effect. He was reporting very low levels of neutrons, and a reaction rate far below what could generate major heat. I shook his hand, congratulating him for being the only skeptic to actually critique the published work of Melvin Miles on the heat/helium ratio, in a peer-reviewed journal. What is unfortunate, though, is that though he pointed to possible heat measurement errors (probably not real, but this is a very ordinary objection) and possible helium measurement errors (the standard one is leakage from ambient, though some results are above ambient, just not the Miles results), he did not address the correlation, which is very difficult to explain with a theory of artifact. It is the correlation, not the separate results, that was significant about Miles.
As to his later ideas, well, sometimes people go off the rails. It does not tell us much about his earlier work. There are mysteries in the 9-11 evidence and there is common thinking that goes “if it isn’t explained, it must be …. [fill in theory].” When someone actually creates a theory that fills in a few blanks, they can become quite enthusiastic about it.
I concluded years ago that there are mysteries that will never be resolved. That is more or less meaningless. What a mystery shows is that for someone, something is not explained, they don’t know enough. So if one wants to know, investigation is in order, but most people are looking for quick answers, real investigation is far too much work. Or might even be impossible. I’ve looked at the videos. There are people who believe that the radio tower vaporized, and that one is obviously an appearance, unsupported by the videos if one looks carefully (this is an element in a directed-energy-beam theory).
Anyway, sorry your welcome to the Fogbow has been a little rough, but know that your comments have been appreciated and I hope that you will persevere and discover the quality of this group. I may be a wee bit biased, but I think the Fogbow is quite simply the best community on the internet.
Not in my book, though, to be sure, I don’t know Fogbow other than only one set of interactions. I was threatened with FEMA camp, but not warned by any administrator, nor did any administrator suggest to me that either I was safe, or in danger, or warn me.
However, Quora is fantastic, with a community of some of the most skilled writers on the planet. It has problems, mostly due to naive administration (Facebook people!). But, still, there are writers there who are, routinely, a joy to read. The format more or less discourages the kind of endless argument that is common on some blogs and sites like Fogbow.
It has been bugging me for a while now and I gots to know… WTF is “1 Cranch 137, 177”?
1 Cranch 137, 177 is a device used by a lawyer who wants to display his insider knowledge, his familiarity with esoterica. To others it would Marbury v. Madison.
From Wikipedia, “while serving as a Circuit judge, Cranch also served as the second reporter of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1815. At the time, the reporter was an unofficial post and he used his own funds to produce the reports. Cranch took on the responsibility because of his respect for precedent. He was slow in producing his reports of cases and their accuracy was questioned.
So what might be cited as 5 US is instead cited as 1 Cranch, the reporter. “5 US” would be a later name, 1 Cranch is the original publication. Volume 1, I imagine. 137 may be a page number or docket number, I didn’t find that. Someone who actually looks at the book may find this. Someone familiar may simply know. Remarkably, Googlebooks does not seem to have it.
Thanks for starting this topic! I’m really enjoying it.
I personally find the topic fascinating, a drama, a comedy of errors, one ridiculousness after another, stranger than fiction in many ways. Shallow, knee-jerk reactions appear common in all directions.
1. To Abd: “Too also” is a common Fogbowism, not some kind of speech impediment. (back)
When in Rome, too, also.
2. To Abd: a collective noun used to refer to the membership of the Fogbow. I believe it is the name for a group of weasels or some such. (back)
Something like that. I was put in that group.
3. So long as a hypothesis isn’t falsified (and no one has proven LENR can’t happen), a scientist is always free to argue for it on the merits. (back)
In fact, scientists, like everyone, are free to argue for anything forever, regardless of flabber like “proof.” By the way, it is generally considered impossible to prove that “LENR cannot happen.” That was in the first U.S. DoE review. Rather, it could happen that evidence appears to discredit reasons to think it exists. Unfortunately for the knee-jerk “impossible” debunkers, cold fusion is known and accepted to exist, as muon-catalyzed fusion. (Steve Jones’ specialty, by the way, but this is not controversial). So the question is whether or not there are any other possible catalytic or other processes. I consider the heat/helium evidence very strong, and widely confirmed, with no substantial negative evidence, but … many people remain skeptical because blah, blah, hence the effort to increase precision. That is a classic test of fringe or pathological science: does the effect disappear when precision increases? (Researchers in the field already know that in some cases, it doesn’t, but skeptics can always claim “file drawer effect,” which is a genuine hazard but does not apply to the best research.
4. Which is to say that it will be scientifically demonstrated one day. (back)
My hope is always in the revelation of reality, I trust reality, not my ideas about it or anyone’s ideas.
5. Which I know is hard. (back)
Only if one is attached to convincing someone. My training is not to convince, but to offer opportunities. I have had little trouble, though, finding skeptics who agree that testing heat/helium is a great idea. Pseudoskeptics keep repeating “bogus,” or “even if it’s real, it could never be practical,” or “you are just a stupid believer,” or they say it more politely on occasion. I really only care about encouraging scientists to do genuine, careful research and encouraging those who want to see that happen to support and fund them. So Andrea Rossi can be seen as a huge distraction, someone who wasted millions of dollars in his own fantasies.
I was thinking about this on the way home. In some ways, some of the evidence indicates that he believed his effect was real. There are other ways where he clearly lied, but sometimes fanatic believers will lie, thinking it is justified by necessity. In any case, that’s basically over. Anyone who invests in Rossi or anything like his claims will likely be far more careful in the future. No more pandering to paranoia.
6. Such as sovereign citizens. (back)
We are sovereign, but idiots have appropriated the concepts and live in cloud cuckoo land, or that probably is a nicer concept than the cobwebs filling some minds.
7. I’ve certainly done much, much worse myself… :towel: (back)
Basic discussion rule: nobody is ever obligated to answer anything if it doesn’t come by service of process or at least registered mail. If someone is asked a relevant question, and that is confirmed by others, and keeps on posting repetitive nonsense where that question’s answer may be significan, this might shift as to what is socially acceptable, but trolls imagine that they make the rules for everyone to follow. Except for them, of course.
8. For good reason. (back)
9. And I sincerely hope that you do. (back)
Thanks. Not going to happen. You are welcome here, and I am likely to occasionally ask questions on Fogbow, as long as that generates value, and I may post occasional comments there, but only as links to this blog. I’m not going to write the kind of explanatory posts that are obviously disliked by some, the expression is pearls before swine, which is not a claim that my comments are pearls of wisdom or that Fogbowers are swine, but that my writing appeals to some and not to others, and writing for Fogbow, the little I did, is not fun, too much work for too little value. I can write for Quora and get millions of page views, if readership is what I want. But at this point, I’m not writing much for Quora, and am almost entirely writing here. And people who like my writing can cite it and link to it, and those who don’t like it can ignore it.
12. Which is now, of course, totally irrelevant. :crying: (back)
There, there. Remember that it was fun while it lasted.
13. He completely abandoned his scientific integrity to become a 9/11 truther. (back)
I’d rather not sit in judgment of the scientific integrity of a man just because, on some topic, he goes off the rails. If I had time or interest, I’d look more closely at his claims. But I don’t.
There are millions of stories in the Big City. I choose stories that create inspiration. That one doesn’t. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but … the stories we follow create the lives we lead. What does that one create?
Ah, one more point before I publish this. Mike brought up a question that is worth answering. What elements in the Industrial Heat Motion for Summary Judgment were worthy of acceptance? I was vague about that, and focused on the failure of the Judge to cover the facts and arguments. Mike has an impression that the Motion was not well-argued. Is that true?
This is not a question to be answered off-the-cuff, and I won’t get to it, until, at least, I’m on the bus to Miami or even later. I would expect to take at least a full day to write something like that, even though I created some study documents that will make it easier.
Learn something every day. Yesterday, I encountered Miles Mathis, from a post on LENR Forum.
I think Mathis is way cool, for the same reason my daughter, at 14, thought Donald Trump was way cool, or something like that. (And then she actually met Bernie face-to-face). Mathis is definitely thinking and investigating out-of-the-box. This is actually the evolved task of many or most teenagers, and some of us never grow up. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is considered a developmental disorder. It can also be seen as a genetic variation, an adaptation more successful in hunter-gatherer conditions than for a settled, agricultural and centrally structured society. From the post of Eli on LF:
The world desperately needs a new source of energy. (Governments, banks and energy companies, ARE AGAINST).
I already know where this is going from the first sentence. Desperation creates very poor thinking, where the associative power of the cerebral cortex is reduced to supporting the immediate demands of the amygdala, which routinely will confine that vast power to figuring out how to justify the emotional reaction, in this case, a sense of desperation and the wrongness and animosity of “governments, banks, and energy companies.” In other words, the collective; yet there is a paradox here, a different collective that is not organized, it’s fuzzy. Elisha wrote:
We need to unite us, share what we have, and open business opportunities to all!, United we are Strong!
Obviously. We would be strong if united. However, we are already united in some ways, and this unity is manifest through governments and other organizations, but the writer here doesn’t see that; rather he sees and is talking about something else, an unorganized unity. Unity of what? Well, all right-thinking people, of course! People who think like us!
When such a unity does manifest, with sufficient motivation, it can and has created vast social tragedy. I immediately think of China and the Communist revolution there, which replaced the “bad people” — landlords — with “good people,” right-thinking, the “vanguard of the proletariat.” and then which purged all defective elements within itself, and on and on until the society finally vomited and began to actually create synthesis, i.e., what Marx would have predicted, instead of fixing itself in opposition. Or I think of Adolf Hitler, who appealed to the sense of some terrible conspiracy behind every perceived disaster, or, say, Donald Trump. And I am not comparing Trump to Hitler, except to note that both were populists, appealing to what was called the “silent majority.”
On the internet, it becomes easy to find others with whom we will agree, and thus the “social test of reality” becomes possible, putting off the “ultimate test,” allowing us to believe in a reality without substance, merely created by what is called “conspiracy,” in my training. Example of conspiracy: “My wife doesn’t understand me.” Conspiracy: “Yeah, women are like that!”
If science is simple, common, and accessible to all, that they can not suppress it. That is the advantage for the world, but the disadvantage for manufacturers, since anyone can copy it.
Again, I notice the polarization that does not characterize true inspiration with genuine transformative power. This is not Mathis writing, this is Elisha, who has apparently attached himself to Mathis-as-authority, which is ironic. The teenage me didn’t and doesn’t attach to anyone as authority, but … I did actually meet and spend substantial time with Feynman, and what Feynman inspired in me was not belief in his conclusions, but excitement over his approach, and his writing still does that for me.
Mathis is approaching physics, in some ways, like Feynman, but with something else that contaminates his work. It shows in his “polemic.” Feynman loved people, you can see this in, for example, his imitation of Italian, and many other stories. At the same time as he recognized and confronted “institutional stupidity,” he loved the people and maintained a high sense of humor.
The SECRET of LENR is this.
Nickel with monohydrogen, excited with Electrical current in one direction and Magnetic stimulation at Larmor frequency at or below 90 deg.
Aw, hogwash. Sure, there could be some effect, but the conditions described do not apply to the most basic and most confirmed LENR phenomena. First of all, there is, in gas-loaded work, no “electrical current in one direction” and how one would get “magnetic” Larmor frequency stimulation in a conductor (nickel and hydrogen) without induced AC current is beyond me. Larmor frequency stimulation is apparently used in the Letts dual-laser work, involving a teraherz beat frequency, but Letts dual-laser has not been confirmed and is clearly not related to the basic confirmed LENR results — and IH did apparently attempt to confirm Letts, and the Murray deposition implies that they had no success — except that they may have considered low XP findings “only low level,” which is scientifically irrelevant, if the XP correlates with a much lower laser power (as I think it does in Letts’ reports)
Elisha is not standing on science, but wants us to unite in science? What is wrong with this picture?
(Mathis is not responsible for the fawning extension of his idea into LENR.)
The polarization of nuclear spin axes with static magnetic field does not affect nuclear beta “decay” rates, but the addition of a perpendicular high frequency alternating field at the Larmor frequency, does. With maximum stimulation, does not occur exactly at 90deg nuclear spin precession, but at some angles a little below and a little above 90deg ….
This is the source: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf
This does not establish any connection with cold fusion. That’s Elisha’s idea. The source is Mathis’ praise of himself, reflecting his assessment of his communications with genuine scientists. Any genuine scientist is likely to appreciate and benefit from out-of-the-box thinking, it can be hard to find. However, that does not translate to “Mathis is right,” though Mathis himself seems to be promoting that idea. And what does he seek?
My new solutions to old problems are being talked about and seriously considered by working physicists. Do you know any other “internet crank” that can say that? I don’t.
Mathis’ ignorance of the range of human experience and behavior is not a proof of anything, it is hardly even evidence. Mathis is obviously an internet crank, which does not mean he is wrong on any particular idea.
If you want the real numbers applied to specific experiments, I guess you will have to hire me.
And someone might, and that will not prove anything other than possible curiosity and willingness to invest some resources in investigation (money or time). However, seeing this has the effect on me of suppressing interest in his ideas about physics. Caring about being paid is not what I’m accustomed to seeing from the real vanguard; rather, that arises with frauds and a certain kind of self-obsessed crank.
Our own joshg (Josh Guetzkow) wrote an article on “Mathisian physics.”
What will the advent of cold fusion mean for establishment physicists? Will they be able to bend over backwards with ad hoc band-aids to patch up the same theories that keep telling us cold fusion is “impossible?” Or will it require a massive overhaul of our understanding of the physical universe? In that case, we will need a new paradigm and new theories to rebuild it from the ground up. As it happens, someone already has rebuilt physics from the ground up. His name is Miles Mathis, an independent, self-taught polymath. I believe his revolutionary theories hold the key to a comprehensive explanation of all LENR processes, and I am writing this to explain why.
In the “believer community,” which overlaps the “cold fusion community” and the “CMNS community,” there is a concept that is shared with the “skeptical community,” they actually agree on it — and it is, rather obviously, false, and has been known to be false, by the best scientists, since 1989. This idea is that “known theory” somehow proves that “cold fusion” — what’s that? — is “impossible.” We see this idea over and over in Huizenga (1992 and 1993), and it is clearest in his second edition. Huizenga clear has a concept of what process must be occurring if “cold fusion is real.” Yet the actual claim, from the first FP paper, is of an “unknown nuclear reaction.” The analysis that Huizenga applies is to, not an unknown reaction, but a known reaction, or some alternative known reactions, such as d+d -> 4He, the direct and simple fusion by overcoming the Coulomb barrier between two deuterons.
Looking at the Miles results on the heat/helium correlation, he says, in the second edition that this result is amazing, and, if confirmed, would solve a major mystery of cold fusion (i.e., the ash, which was unknown until then, with only a few speculations that it might be helium). Then he says that he expects it will not be confirmed, “because no gammas.” The conversion of deuterium to helium almost certainly requires a high-energy gamma, known to be produced when this conversion occurs as a rare branch of normal hot fusion. The gamma appears to be required by conservation of momentum; but that is only true under two conditions: first, that this is the specific reaction, for if some unexpected catalysis allows, as an example, the fusion of four deuterium atoms to form one 8Be atom, this would generate no high energy gamma (which is what Huizenga expects, low energy photons, if nuclear in origin, are called “gammas” but those are not known to be missing, and would be difficult to detect, leading us to the second condition: that there are no halo states capable of storing the energy for what may only require something in the femtosecond range.
The point is not that multibody fusion is the explanation, but that the impossibility argument fails, as it must, and as was well-known in 1989, being well expressed by Schwinger and others.
What we call “cold fusion” is an “unknown reaction,” now known by a preponderance of the evidence, with very little contrary evidence, to be the conversion of deuterium to helium with no other major persistent products other than heat. (So tritium and transmutation evidence, which may relate to rare branches and secondary effects, can confuse).
There is no violation of “existing physics,” in this, other than the general idea, easily in error — and in error many times in the history of science — that if an “unknown reaction” possibility existed, it would have been observed. In fact, such phenomena are observed, often, but the observations can be missed because they are unexpected. There is a great example of this in Mizuno’s book, a major PdD heat event, before the Pons and Fleischmann announcement, that he passed over as one of those unexplained things that will never be understood.
Was that LENR? From his description, probably.
To examine the vast body of work by Mathis would be tedious. I watched two videos of his on the “Pi = 4” trope. He is crazy, that’s really obvious. That isn’t coming from a belief that pi is not 4, but rather from his redefinition of pi. Pi is used in certain calculations, and may then generate some incorrect results if the calculations do not take into account all relevant conditions. Mathis’ demonstration is blatantly flawed, which is covered over with poor explanation; essentially he assumes that two ball bearings with the same initial velocity, rolling in two tubes on a flat surface, will continue to move with the same velocity, when one tube is straight while the other is curved into a circle. What he finds, summed up, is that the ball bearing in the circular path takes longer than that in the straight path. This is utterly unsurprising and the unstated assumption underneath his argument is obvious: that the ball bearings will move with the same velocity in each case. What he does is only to show that the circular motion slows the ball bearing, as it must, from some simple physical arguments. But he assumes constant velocity to “measure” distance travelled. This is so obvious that I wonder about Mathis’ sincerity.
His explanation of the circularity of a rainbow is more interesting, and less easily punctured. His presentation of rainbows as being images of the Sun is interesting and supported by photographs. It is entirely possible to find long-standing explanations of things that are unreal. If anyone might do this, it could be Mathis. He’s smart, he actually is a polymath, but his conclusions, his personal attachments to being right, if he has them, as appears, are no more likely to generate wisdom than what he’s rejecting.
Feynman did what he did, often, by examining problems ab initio, not looking first for explanations from others. Doing so, he invented new approaches, he found things that had been overlooked. But he did not fix on himself always being right, and warned about attachment to being right. Mathis, if he could recognize his personal psychology as being rooted in a developmental “disorder,” — a misleading characterization for a possibly genetic variation that is called a developmental disorder because it can be disabling in some ways, but that also creates an ability to do things that “normies” don’t seem to be able to do — might be able to make far more progress, and might be far more useful for the development of science as a social phenomenon.
Ratwiki — as it is affectionately known — has an article on Mathis.
Ratwiki is dominated by adolescent psychology, polemic, and the kind of pseudoskepticism, “scientism,” found among, say, “modern atheists” and those who came to dominate CSICOP, the “debunkers,” highly sarcastic and supremely sure of self. One will not find articles there that are overall, “objective,” and “rational.” They are having fun, ridiculing others. That’s the goal, not objectively and neutrality, which they strongly dislike.
I have admin privileges there, which is completely useless except it will allow me to read deleted content. They grant those privileges to almost anyone that any administrator likes in any way, and any admin can grant or remove admin privileges. It’s a formula for vast waste of time, if anyone is interested in confronting the “community point of view.” Been there, done that! Mostly, what I found useful there was in seeing how certain prominent Wikipedians actually thought, what they actually believed, which was much more visible there than on Wikipedia, where they would pretend to be neutral.
I just checked, I still have the sysop privilege, I could still waste my time at great length. Once in a while, I make an edit there. I haven’t in three years.
In any case, joshg ignores the Pi fiasco. His idea is that Miles may make some mistakes, but that his “physics” may contain the clues to LENR reality that the world needs. Joshg is free to discuss this here, but …. this isn’t what the CMNS community needs, to be associated with the radical fringe. It needs the opposite: it needs synthesis, integration, genuine and effective communication. If you believe that an entire community is wrong, you will be, almost certainly, unable to communicate with them. Effective communication requires understanding and sympathy, and that is why this blog welcomes genuine skeptics. Skepticism is rational, to a point. As is pointed out on Ratwiki, “Rational wiki is not rational.” It is almost a parody of itself (that’s the best thing about it.)
I just now went to Mathis’ mathematical “proof” that Pi=4. Proofs like this are familiar to anyone with substantial math experience, I was looking at these before I was a teenager. If anyone is tempted to accept this argument, comment and I’ll look at it and explain it in more detail, but the flaw is completely obvious, and that Mathis still defends it speaks worlds about his psychology, if he isn’t just pulling our chain.
Mathis assumes that a zig-zag path, with an obvious and stable path length, independent of step size, equal to the sum of the two directions, will approach the path length along the circle. In fact, the nifty videos linked below avoid something obvious: if you lay out the circular tubing along the straight tubing, it will not extend to four diameters, but to pi diameters. That is the ordinary meaning of path length along a circle. How much tubing is needed to create a circle with diameter D? Not 4 D, for sure.
This is pure confusion and fog, and Elisha apparently believes it. Zephir_AWT pointed to the Pi confusion, with photos he believed to be Mathis. He wrote:
The first source is a video by DraftScience, who is implied to be Mathis. (In fact, DraftScience is a critic of Mathis.) The second source does not explain “macromaniac inventory delusions,” whatever they are, but is simply the RatWiki article. The third link is to an article by Miles Mathis on Stephen Hawking being an imposter, fake, (and the original deeper source would be on milesmathis.com.) The last link is to Mathis’ art from google images, and that points to a mathis art page where one can find, for example, a bio of Mathis with photos.
First, What is your contribution ?, since emotional critiques serve to entertain us, but they do not serve to advance in science.
There are relatively objective critiques on or linked from the RatWiki page.
Second, this man in not miles mathis. He is a follower of him.
Miles Mathis can be seen at the RatWiki article, taken from a book cover. This image is claimed to be roughly 17 years old. The image on LF is recent. Mathis writes this about the “man”:
ANNOUNCEMENT, added 8/25/16, some of my readers have been confused by a guy on youtube with a channel called DraftScience. They think that is me. It isn’t. He links to me and discusses my stuff a lot, apparently, although I haven’t watched more than a couple of minutes. I don’t know him, have never talked to him, and have no links to him. Although there is some resemblance, since he is about my age and blond, that is about it. His hair is much longer and less curly, he doesn’t sport a goatee, and he smokes. I don’t.
Here is Mathis’ “extended biography,” and it includes more photos of him. Unless these are fake — hey, if Stephen Hawing is fake, why not Miles Mathis? — Mathis is right, and so is Elisha, on this point. However, being right on one point doesn’t rub off on other points, even though the opposite, being spectacularly wrong on a point, and persistently so, does color everything.
Third, there is a experiment that confirm that pi is 3.14 and 4 this depend of the use case.
Now, first of all, we see these sweaty claims, frequently, and often from people whose English is extremely poor. What does the command of English have to do with one’s cogency? In theory, not at all, but in practice, poor English is associated with lack of care and caution, lack of concern for accuracy, lack of clear thinking, all that. When it is combined with arrogance, it’s ugly.
Elisha points to a video of the “experiment,” which does not do what it purports to do; rather it gives a result that will confuse those who make a basic unstated — and incorrect — assumption, that if a ball rolls with a particular velocity in a level straight path, it will roll with the same velocity in a circular path. That assumption would not, by itself, generate “pi = 4,” but no analysis is given of how linear momentum is converted to angular momentum, but it’s quite clear that converting the motion to circular would slow the ball, yet for the video to make any sense at all, the ball velocity must remain the same, since distance is being measured (marked off) by time.
This is not “skepticism,” it is straightforward and clear analysis, easily done by a careful child. The discussions on that video are appalling.
DraftScience comments on the proof video, imagining that the difference in velocity is due to friction. At least he understands that the velocity is different, but I doubt that the difference is from friction, even though friction would also slow the ball. His argument is incorrect, so if one understands it, that’s a clue one is confused. Joshg shows up commenting there.
Listening further, DraftScience does recognize that the friction argument is missing something: bottom line, he’s “explaining” off the top of his head, a video blogger, and in this is like many bloggers who just blabber on without developing coherence. Further, DraftScience is not a “follower” of Mathis. Quite the opposite. So this whole conversation was bonkers. Rather, DraftScience realizes, at least in some ways, the error. However, he does not address the math, AFAIK.
The original math summary, again. RatWiki points to an allegedly clear exposition. It’s not wrong. The writer’s frustration is apparent. This is not coming from “belief in the mainstream” or any other such nonsense. It is coming from grounded common sense, easily verified experimentally. Mathis redefines words to confuse himself and/or readers. Instead of the “circumference of a circle” being a distance — representing, in practical terms, how much material one would need to build the circle, how much ink it would take to draw it using a compass, etc., like ordinary distance, it becomes a vastly complicated entity. Reality, ordinary reality, is much less complex than Mathis’ world, and that is why children can understand it. I derived most of this stuff as a child, I disliked memorizing formulae and wanted to understand directly.
Mathis creates a fractal, as pointed out, and then assumes that the length of a fractal is the same as the length of a curve that it seems to approach. However, fractals are imaginary structures that can have unlimited length in a confined space, and it would not be difficult to show this, by defining a structure (line) that zig-zags within that space which can be as small as one likes (i.e, as close as one likes to a defined curve).
This is diagnostic of Mathis’ delusions, and shows how dangerous belief in one’s own superior rightness can be. Again, that doesn’t mean that one is wrong, and I would never recommend that people give up what they think is correct, just because others disagree. Rather, what I recommend is an attempt to understand why they disagree, what’s the basis? For a nice little study of a kid who didn’t give up when ridiculed, I posted this early on: The Mpemba effect and cold fusion
Okay, I kept looking a little before publishing this, and found an actual child who demolished Mathis. Well, is an apparent high-school girl a “child”? Maybe not. Nevertheless, here it is: accurate, simple, easy to understand, and devastating.
Another video from her. Now, this young woman is going to change the planet. Or at least will continue to have fun, which, in the end, may be far more useful than being a sweaty, convinced he is right, “polymath.”
And another about Pythagoras. I’m in awe. There is hope for the planet, because she is the future.
Ah, Shahanan, obsessed with proof, lost science somewhere back. Science is about evidence, and testing evidence, not proof, and when our personal reactions colour how we weigh evidence, we can find ourselves way out on a limb. I’m interested in evidence supporting funding for research, and it is not necessary that anything be “proven,” but we do look at game theory and probabilities, etc.
I agree with Lomax’s second statement here. Science is exactly about weighing evidence. And I understand the explicitly acknowledged bias: Lomax wants more research in this area. I disagree with the statement that “Shanahan is obsessed with proof”. It would be accurate to say that Shanahan, both implicitly and explicitly, is looking for a much higher standard of evidence than Lomax. There is no proof in science but when evidence reaches an amount that overwhelms prior probabilities we think something is probably true. 99.99% and we call it proof. The numbers are arbitrary – some would set the bar to 99.9999% but this does not matter much because of the exponential way that probabilities combine.
Let us see in detail how this works. Continue reading “Minds open brains not falling out?”
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”
KShanahan. What’s that story about the time you were trying to dispute some ‘cold fusion’ findings by showing a non-correlation between two factors, but ballsed up the analysis, and ended up unknowingly proving it? Or something. Abd used to write about it. Never heard your side of it. Maybe something about a horizontal line on a graph?
In my 2010 J. Env. Monitoring paper, there is a slight error in my discussion
of a specific figure. Abd has tried to use that to discredit everything I write
in a ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ style. I replied to him here on
lenr-forum, but in brief… Continue reading “It was an itsy-bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot error”
Well, that headline is perhaps a bit dramatic. But, I’ll confess, I was shocked by seeing the following from someone whom I had treated as a friend, long into the past (back in my Wikipedia days), and with whom I had positive correspondence.
I had been considering writing a post about a Lewan blog entry that was mentioned in a comment here.
Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ (November 25, 2015)
After an interesting interview, which reveals that Fabiani clearly believes that Rossi’s work is real — and that he has seen amazing things — Lewan gives this:
Since mid-February 2015, Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat are running a one-year commercial trial on a customer’s site with a heat plant producing 1 MW. The plant is made up of four 250kW modules, each based on E-Cat technology. Unless something unexpected happens, the trial, which is controlled by a major independent third party certification institute, should be concluded by February or March 2016, and the results should then be presented.
In the comments, Lewan explains a bit:
November 25, 2015 at 11:25
Everyone I have talked to confirm that a major independent third party certification institute is involved in the control of the 1-year test and that this institute will also be able to confirm the results when they are presented. I have no further proof though.
Mats does not tell us — at all — who “everyone I have talked to” is, but we know he talked with Fabiani, who would know of the involvement of a “major independent third party certification institute,” and we know he talked to Levi, who might have known of such. And did he talk with Rossi?
Since there was no such institute involved, only Penon, we know that Lewan relied on unreliable sources. He does acknowledge having no “further proof,” but that’s weak. It implies that the evidence for what he wrote was strong. That’s not the only problem.
IH allowed the installation, but as a sale of power, and only secondarily as a trial, with the idea that if Rossi clearly demonstrated to IH that there was substantial power generated, they might voluntarily pay him $89 million on that basis. The Doral demonstration was not the “Guaranteed Performance Test” of the IH-Rossi-Ampenergo Agreement, because Ampenergo explicitly refused to sign the Second Amendment allowing the GPT to be postponed. Rossi covered up this fact in his Complaint, though it was obvious from the start that the Ampenergo signature was missing. The Rossi attempts, in his pleadings, to convert some kind of vague consent to a test into the specifics of a GPT, even though there were obvious elements of a GPT missing; and not only signatures, but matters of substance, such as the ability of IH to actually observe the “test” in detail. Rossi excluded IH experts, twice (in July and in December).
The whole thing stunk, from lies about the customer at the start, to what appears now to be a hastily-invented “heat exchanger” that nobody saw, and that would have been very visible. Yet Mats is still stuck in his glorious past, where he was the world’s foremost confidant of Andrea Rossi. He wonders about conflict of interest, but has a huge one, a subtle one. When people criticize Rossi, or threaten his interests and plan in some way, he cuts them off, and he had done this over and over, and Mats knows this behavior. If any of the Lugano team had questioned what Levi and Rossi were doing (and Rossi was apparently there the whole time, and the Swedish team, not, not what the Lugano Report implied), they’d have been history.
Mats has never cleaned up that mess. Believe me, if I find a major error here, even years later, I will at least annotate it. That is what a responsible journalist will do, if he or she can.
So then we have this sequence on E-Cat World:
Mats Lewan • Sunday, April 9, 2017 9:54 AM [post time extracted from HTML]
I think there’s a list of advisors to IH somewhere. Anyone remember where it is?
Andreas Moraitis Mats Lewan • a day ago
214-23, p. 7.
That is here. It was actually a list of potential places for investment, and then included a list of advisors. None of this was a description of actual payments. Jed Rothwell is on the list of advisors, and has continually maintained that he has received no payments from IH, but this was used to, once again, accuse him of being paid by IH. He is known to have visited them in North Carolina, and that was then misinterpreted to indicate that he had visited the Plant in Florida (which he has always denied, and which would then make a certain IH response to interrogatories into perjury — unless Rossi arranged the visit, which seems a tad unlikely, given that Rossi excluded Rothwell from visiting him in Italy years before — and in spite of that, behind the scenes, Rothwell was a supporter of Rossi, arguing that people he trusted had seen the technology and it was real). Rothwell later reassessed that opinion, apparently after seeing data from Penon, which had all the obvious defects that have become public now, with the court filings.
Lewan is clearly not using the Rossi v. Darden resources here. They may be searched. The core page is the Docket page. Yes, it’s a huge amount of information. So resources are being created for analysis. That takes time. We just had a huge amount of data dumped on us. Much of it is redundant, but then, much is not.
The best organization is probably found in the Motions for Summary Judgment, where each party puts its best and strongest case forward. I was going to start with an analysis of the Rossi MSJ, but the exhibit references were such a mess (almost all incorrect), and it depended so strongly on a legal claim that has failed, the attempt to exclude all IPH claims based on an allegedly defective corporate deposition, that my opinion became that making it the core of a study would be a waste of time, so I started with RvD: Study of 203:IH Motion for Summary Judgment
This document also includes all the support paragraphs from DE 207. This is the case as it appears from the IH Motion. Anyone who actually wants to understand Rossi v. Darden would do well to study this. But it’s huge, still. I will be going through it, point by point and the first analysis will be looking for what is clearly established as fact, and what is not, what might remain legitimately controversial. At first impression, some of the IH claims are that, not as clear as required for Summary Judgment, they might require determination of fact by a fact-finder, i.e., a jury. However, there are many layers to this IH strategy, and the strongest aspects are likely to blow the Rossi case out of the water, leaving only the counterclaims active. At that point, settlement becomes far more likely.
Now, to come to what astounded me, though I’d certainly seen signs a year ago, that Mats was falling for a conspiracy theory, in spite of his warning to Sifferkoll.
Mats Lewan • a day ago
Anyone knows what the rules are for presenting evidence that hasn’t been brought up earlier, when the case goes up in court in June?
Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago
Go ask Abd. Double dare you. (-;
Mats Lewan Josh G • a day ago
BTW do we know if Abd works for IH or not?
Once upon a time, Mats was a reporter and would have asked me that question directly. Now he asks with a “we” that is a narrow group of people. IH would obviously know if I work for them, and so would I, so, for starters, I’d be excluded from “we” or the question would be meaningless. This question was brought up many times, and Rossi himself accused me of being a paid puppet.
At one time, Mats was officially staff at LENR Forum. That disappeared. This blog is open for anyone to comment, and author privileges will be granted to real people, and Mats is real. Even if a bit deluded. This went on.
Josh G Mats Lewan • a day ago
Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.
SG Mats Lewan • 19 hours ago
I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.
I am attempting to respond there, the editor keeps locking up. But this would be it:
I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.
I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)
One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.
Mats would be most welcome as a participant, but he lost his status as a neutral analyst some time ago. He could recover, if he chooses to. It would take some work, and his excuse has been that he is too busy. It would be fun to guide him through the maze of documents in the case. One step at a time, which is rarely done. Mostly people start with conclusions (on more than one side — I hope that readers realize there are more than two “sides” here).
As to Mats’ question, others have answered reasonably, but not necessarily addressing the point clearly, and Mats himself summarizes it incorrectly:
Mats Lewan GiveADogABone • a day ago
In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.
It’s somewhat shocking that Mats will guess, but he declared previously that he did not have time to do actual research, the kind expected for a journalist.
The reality is that witnesses will be on the stand, and either side may ask them questions, and they may answer outside of what they said before. However, if what they say is new, an attorney may object. To introduce new evidence will require the permission of the Judge. It is not exactly a “blanket ban,” but failure to disclose evidence to the other parties can result in sanctions, all the way up to total dismissal of a party’s case.
“Contradiction” is not a characteristic of evidence, but of the assessment of evidence. Evidence could not be excluded based on contradiction. Rather, if there is contradiction in admissible evidence, there can be a question for a jury to resolve.
However, what may not be realized here is that the Motions for Summary Judgment do not necessarily disclose all the evidence. Rather, there is a huge volume of evidence — truly enormous — that was disclosed in discovery. As long as it was disclosed, it may be introduced at trial. What is disclosed in discovery is generally attested under penalty of perjury.
IH has adduced enough evidence, my present opinion — remember, I am in process of studying the materials — to obtain summary judgment on the core claim of Rossi, breach of contract re the $89 million, and if that claim is gone, so is the rest of his lawsuit. Because, then, there would be no trial on that claim, we can expect Rossi to go all-out in his Reply. We do have that Reply at this point, but I have not studied it. I will, comparing each point with the evidence we have.
Drama ensued. See the comments below. Someone apparently spoofed Mats Lewan, using his name and, most importantly, his real email address, so that the avatar displayed would be picked up from Gravatar, which we have enabled. The second post of this user started out more or less innocuously, but then the user edited it to add a gross sexual reference. Mats complained on LENR Forum, which is a bit odd, since I’m banned there and don’t necessarily see everything. However, THHuxleynew pointed out that post here. There are some aspects of possible interest in what ensued.
On LENR Forum, Mats Lewan wrote (creating a new topic)
Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ndo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports.
Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.
These comments are NOT made by me.
They are false and fraudulent, made up in short, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this, I expect him to delete those comments immediately.
Apparently I read the second remark before it was edited to add the truly offensive remark. The rest of the material in those posts matched, at least to a degree, what Mats had posted elsewhere. Impersonation is still a major public offense, not to be tolerated. I might have some view that I might express in one context, but may not want to express it in other contexts, and that should be my right. But trolls may disagree.
Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site. It will immediately let you do this – I think. Then he would certainly get it, and also he could check IP etc… Furthermore the correction gets seen faster than if you wait for Abd.
THH was completely correct. Mats’ response was relatively unskillful. The basic harm — someone thinking that was him — could be most quickly addressed by Mats himself posting a comment exposing the impersonation, and confirming this by email from his known email address. Because Mats has not posted, his first comment would need to be approved, though it might be approved simply by using that same email address. (It was on his personal domain, and he obviously uses it wherever the gravatar shows up.)
Posting on LENR forum then drew more attention, exactly what trolls often want, and the obscene comment was then repeated there, and obviously was read by moderators who didn’t care.
Alan Smith wrote:
Mats – perhaps you could post this on Abd’s site.
I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.
Classic Alan Smith, useless snark. Why not? I used to have direct email communication with Mats. Has Mats fallen into a Krivit hole? I will agree in one way, it is odd that Mats did not communicate directly with me. Maybe the fumes on Planet Rossi finally created too much mind-rot. It would also have been somewhat effective if Mats had responded to my comment on E-Cat World, in reply to his question there, since I get notification of responses.
Alan Smith wrote:
I don’t expect that to happen in a hurry.
I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.
And indeed THH did post here, something actually useful. Alan Smith continues to emit smoke:
Able but unwilling I expect. I would be too.
Yes, Alan would be. Why? For the same reason that Alan Smith banned me from LF: he can’t stand my presence, he knows I can see what he does. So all this does come up:
Abd answered and leaked the IP of the fraudster
[This link is a bit better, juicier. –Abd]
If there is disagreement with Abd, I estimate it is more about Doxxing/Transparency/Shaming vs Privacy than about tolerance to fraud.
Thanks, Alain. Zero tolerance here for fraudulent posting (which is not about disagreements, nor would it be about ordinary socking. Socking that impersonates another is generally illegal, and Mats had good reason to expect me to correct the situation. He wanted me to delete it. Because there were responses, I elected to not delete, but changed the user name to “(spoofed) Mats Lewan,” and used strike-out for the text, only actually deleting the obscenity. I think it is of interest that someone would spoof Lewan, and I think that it could be useful to find out who that would be.
And that is why I revealed the IP. I also have more data, obtained from the server logs. True administration at LENR Forum would very likely be able to identify the fraudster, at least with other accounts. However, what I found was that not only do moderators there not have access to IP information, neither do administrators; someone has server access, and that is probably Barty and the Owner. So if Barty wants to address this, he could. I’d happily correspond with him. I have also provided the information directly to Mats.
This is all standard stuff for WikiMedia Foundation administrators, and I was one. Privacy is respected, but the right to privacy is lost when one commits certain offenses. (Access to normally private IP information is confined to Checkusers and others with that level of privilege on WMF wikis, but any stand-alone blog owner, running on their own domain, has access to that information, it is in the raw server logs.)
I’ve done it for him. Though why he should not be able to do it himself is beyond me.
Abd wouldn’t be able to tell which user is the real one. Mats here has been verified.
Oh, I was able to tell. I already had been suspicious about the IP, but Lewan accessing the internet from student housing wasn’t impossible, so I didn’t reject the post on that basis. Yes. The LF Lewan account is long-standing, thus verified, which I immediately knew; however, at the first plausible allegation of spoofing, I’d have quarantined that post so that it could do no harm, pending resolution. I also have had direct email communication with Lewan, and verification would be trivial.
There is no rush, but perhaps, out of this, Lewan will start to help clean up the mess that he helped to create. I’d be happy to assist. One easy step at a time.
Emphasis on myths, or, even simpler, just plain nonsense. The video.
Bill Nye is asked about cold fusion. What does he come up with? It’s fairly obvious that Nye has no fact checker. The blurb on this video:
In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported that their apparatus could produce anomalous heat by fusing neutrons at room temperature. Essentially, this was a demonstration of cold fusion. Though hyped by the press, the experiment proved faulty because of bad measurement, but to this day cold fusion excites our imagination. In a Big Think production, science communicator Bill Nye explained what’s the deal with ‘cold fusion’ and whether or not it could be possible to reach the same kind of nuclear reactions seen in the core of stars in a device that works at room temperature.
“Neutrons.” No. They did not report fusing neutrons. They actually did not report fusion, but rather anomalous heat, and speculated that it might be an “unknown nuclear reaction.” Fusion was simply a candidate.
“Proved faulty.” No. That never happened as to their heat measurements. Generally, their calorimetry was sound. It should be realized that hundreds of scientists have confirmed the basic finding. In 2004, there was a panel to consider the phenomenon, and the panel was evenly split, half of the 18 experts considering that the evidence for a heat anomaly was was “conclusive,” and the other half, not conclusive. Yet a general and very common opinion is like that of Nye: that this was all a mistake.
With N-rays and polywater, the artifacts were identified through replication in controlled experiment. With cold fusion, replication failure — this was actually a very difficult experiment — combined with speculation, was thought by some to be conclusive, but that was not a scientific conclusion, just a guess. There never was a replication with controls that demonstrated artifact in the original work.
Later work identified the ash, the fusion product, helium, and many experiments, done by many research groups, have correlated the anomalous heat with helium production, see my 2015 paper in Current Science. Cold fusion itself is a mystery. There is no theory of mechanism that can, as yet, claim success. However, the phenomenon is real. Let’s look at Nye’s video. Continue reading “Is cold fusion possible? Myths and facts with Bill Nye”
Among many other things, I was a folksinger, and strong in my repertoire was The Times They Are A-Changin’. The words are worth reviewing.
Yesterday, I published Age, the New Age, Believers, and Peter Gluck. It was a series of observations about LENR-Forum and the interaction there of Dewey Weaver and Peter Gluck. Dewey was frank with Peter, and Peter didn’t like it one bit. I was also frank with Peter, here, and ditto.
We are both aging, as are others, and there are some who hate being reminded of it, especially as age begins to affect how we relate to others. None of this should be any surprise. None of us get out of this place alive.
The aging of LENR scientists, and the effects of that, is a no-touch issue, and because of that, nothing is done, it being believed, apparently, that aging is like race, nothing can be done about it, so bringing it up is terminally rude. But plenty can be done, often. I have not been willing to give up. Not surprisingly, this post stirred up a shitstorm on LF. All of this reveals community dysfunction (and a few hints of function). Instead of starting a new post, I will document the response on LF: Get out of the new road. The original post, so far unedited:
(The video may also be viewed with CC translation on YouTube, cursor at the bottom of the screen, press the CC button.)
My comments are indented.
The following Transcription and Translation of “TEDxBologna – Sergio Focardi – L’E-cat e la fusione nucleare con il Nichel e l’Idrogeno “ is released under Public Domain by its author Mirco Romanato its author.
Anything wrong in the transcription and in the translation is my fault.
I have often pointed out that there is work that can be done to support investigation of LENR, and that deep knowledge is not required, only some level of effort and attention — and it can be fun. Translating a video can seem like work, but, in fact, one who does translations will learn a great deal. Ask Jed Rothwell. Or me, for that matter: I don’t do translations, but I often reformat and copy-edit documents. Seeing the text, even if I don’t “study” it, creates exposure and exposure creates familiarity, and familiarity develops understanding. Those who are interested in following this path through the wilderness, ask me! There are millions of entry points, you can find your own, but having some guidance can help you get started. My thanks to Mirco, and as to any errors, we wisely never let the possibility of error stop us, trusting that our friends will point them out. In fact, our enemies also will, so, if we frame this usefully, our enemies can also be our friends, provided we pay attention.
00:24 The talk I want to do, I’m starting from the origin, is about what today is called Cold Fusion.
The term can lead to confusion. Martin Fleischmann regretted mentioning it. It was premature, and in some ways it is still premature, until the reaction is clearly understood based on verified confirmation and strong evidence, and it is not. We may be close to clear and unmistakable confirmation of what the reaction discovered by Pons and Fleischmann does, but not how it does it. With NiH reactions, Focardi’s primary subject here, we don’t know the ash, what he states was an error, possibly a result of deceptive diversion, but no longer claimed even by Rossi.
00:30 It started around 22 years ago when an American researcher, an American chemist, stated to have produced energy using a nuclear fusion process obtained using Palladium, a metal, and Deuterium, a heavy Hydrogen.
The “statement” was an error, in that it was premature. Fleischmann was not an American chemist, but was working with one, Stanley Pons, and the work was done at the University of Utah, which is, of course, an American university. Martin was British. In fact, the first paper did not claim fusion, though the title was misprinted; Martin claimed. In the rush to publish, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium? dropped the question mark. However, that may have been a later rationalization, because the second document published, 29 June 1989, had a title claiming cold fusion. Fleischmann, M., et al., Measurements of gamma-rays from cold fusion. Nature (London), 1989. 339(622): p. 667.
The gamma ray findings were blatant error, and Petrasso, in that issue, apparently demolished the argument. What Pons and Fleischmann actually found was anomalous heat, which, as chemists, they considered implied too high an energy density to be chemical in nature. The first paper actually claimed, in the text, after some speculation about known fusion reactions — all an error, unwarranted (in hindsight) — “an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably again due to deuterons).” The “presumably” was probably misleading as well, certainly it was premature. Using circumstantial evidence when exploring something totally new is … weak, useful only for speculation and creating questions to be addressed experimentally. What seems likely to me — we still do not know for sure — is that molecular deuterium is involved, the electrons are crucial to the process, but “deuterons” implies the ions and the reaction being located inside the palladium lattice, which, AFAIK, Fleischmann continued to believe, another probable error.
01:00 After this, many started to work on his path, and after 22 years they have not obtained big results.
“Big” in the sense of high power. However, most experimental work has not been aimed at high power, it is aimed at studying the conditions of the reaction and how to control it. Until the reaction is controlled, high power is dangerous and can be counterproductive. Big, though, is impressive. If one is reacting to skepticism, one may want “impressive.” Much cold fusion research was diverted and damaged by this goal, which is essentially unscientific, it is a polemic purpose requiring motivation toward some particular conclusion. This has affected some otherwise excellent scientists, and the motivation can be visible, which then feeds pseudoskeptics grist for their mill. They can smell it.
01:11 For what regard me, with a friend of the Siena University, decided to work in the same way but using Hydrogen and Nickel and obtained a number of results: production of energy by interactions between Hydrogen and Nickel.
NiH is sometimes called “Piantelli-Focardi.” From lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, with some corrections:
1993 F. Piantelli, Atti Accad. Fis., Serie XV, Tomo XII, pag. 89-96 (1993)
1994 Focardi, S., R. Habel, and F. Piantelli, “Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems.” Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1994. 107A: p. 163.
1996 S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, [title unknown], Atti Accad. Fisioc, Serie XV, XV 109 (1996)
1998 Focardi, S., et al., Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 111A: p. 1233.
1999 Focardi, S., et al. On the Ni-H System. in Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals. 1999. Bologna.
1999 A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi, Nuovo Cimento A 112, 921 (1999).
2000 E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, [title unknown], ICCF8, Conference Proceedings 70, F. Scaramuzzi editor, (2000) 69E.
2002 E. G. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, Atti [sic] TESMI Workshop, Lecce, december 6-7 2002, A. Lorusso and V. Nassisi editors, 35-42 (2004).
2004 Focardi, S., et al. Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France.
2004 E. Campari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, “Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup,” 5th Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen- / Deuterium-Loaded Metals, Asti, Italy, (2004)
2004 Focardi, S. and Piantelli, F., “Produzione Di Energia E Reazioni Nucleari In Sistemi Ni-H A 400 C,” XIX Congresso Nazionale UIT, 2004 (PPT)
2010 Focardi, S. and A. Rossi, A new energy source from nuclear fusion. www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com, 2010.01:30
What I immediately notice is the dramatic shift. In 2010, now with Rossi as co-author, Focardi is making a fusion claim, but has no strong fusion evidence, only anomalous heat, “too high for any chemical process.” Before that, he followed scientific prudence in his article titles, at least, only the 2004 slide presentation refers to “nuclear reactions”. I have not reviewed the articles themselves, yet.
Following this I restarted the work with the Engineer Rossi and we started to work on the same path: building system able to produce energy using hydrogen and nickel
01:54 Now, what we can see are the results of this work.
02:07 There are, this is the first picture, this is one of the first experiments done with Engineer Rossi
02:20 And you can see, at right, there is a small red bucket, containing water and some materials and left the hydrogen canister used to put hydrogen inside this capsule where we had put the nickel.
02:50 Heating together nickel and hydrogen we obtained energy and, as result the heating of the water.
02:58 The experiment is, obviously, very crude, because it was not worth, for this experiment to build more refined objects.
03:10 This is the next experiment. This time, instead of the bucket of water, there is that donut-like object to the right where some water circulated and there was the capsule containing nickel and hydrogen.
03:35 The tube you see at the lower right is to bring hydrogen, at the center there is a canister of hydrogen, and in this way we obtained a confirmation about the previous experiment with a cleaner system than the previous.
03:53 The third picture, it is another, third, method to measure. This time there is a closed circuit. You are able to see well, in the background at the right, the tube, where is inserted the cylinder, again at the right. In the tube some water was circulated. In this cylinder happen this heating process and it is a nuclear reaction between nickel and hydrogen
04:30 and what we observed experimentally was the difference of temperature between the two extremes of the cylinder
04:37 So, the three experiments confirmed that the system was really able to produce energy under the form of heat. We obtained the heating of the water.
05:00 This it was one of the latter objects built by the Engineer Rossi, that take the name of e-cat, where “cat” is a shorthand for catalyzer, that is used usually and currently, to experiment with the reaction between nickel and hydrogen and produce heat. And the heat produced is demonstrated heating water with various devices and this is one example.
None of this is going to be strongly convincing in itself, because there are many ways in which demonstrations can be faked, and some where the illusion can fool even the inventor. However, Focardi was no dummy, and it would be unexpected that major error would escape his notice. However, major fraud might. Scientists are not trained to recognize fraud, generally.
Science is heavily based on trusting experimental reports; a scientist who fakes data loses all credibility and may have demolished his or her career. Errors are made, yes, lots of them. But Focardi might not be looking thoroughly and carefully for failure modes. We saw Sven Kullander miss the obvious, that a humidity meter cannot measure steam quality, and, then, that there could be overflow water, not evaporated, under the observed conditions. We saw the “independent professors,” with the Lugano test, overlook what was clearly visible, apparent color temperature showing that their temperature calculations were far off, indicating a need for a strong calibration, which they did not do, believing a story that made no sense. Scientists, in general, are not trained to deal with skilled deception. As well, some forms of insanity are “high-functioning” and such people can be extraordinarily convincing.
It is totally understandable why anyone seeing this talk could become highly interested and even convinced that the Rossi Effect must be real. From ordinary considerations, regarding scientific testimony, the burden of evidence shifted. I still do not consider the matter closed entirely. From evidence not available in 2011, however, the burden has shifted back.
However, even then there was cause for caution. That Focardi published with Rossi in a faux journal, created and controlled by Rossi, was a red flag. That, without clear evidence, he shifted from careful scientific presentation to a dramatic claim was a red flag. His behavior with Steve Krivit was a red flag. His avoidance of true independent testing was a red flag. All of these had possible “explanations,” as long as direct evidence was missing.
05:50 Now, this is the next product built by Engineer Rossi, again based to the same process, similar to a train wagon (NdR a shipping container) but smaller. Inside we see some boxes and everyone is a generator producing the same effects I described before.
That was the idea, yes. However, the project was crazy, part of a plan to create something dramatic. It made no real business sense. The idea would be that a megawatt plant would demonstrate reliability, and that it would be difficult to fake a megawatt. Nice big round number. but suppose COP were 6 — as actually claimed. That would then require 160 KW power input. With electrical power, ordinary service is perhaps 20 KW. I think 40 KW or so is available. The thing could not be powered to produce an actual megawatt, at that COP. So … when Rossi demonstrated this, he needed a 500 KW or so genset on site. And what power did he measure? About 500 KW. Focardi was not, in his TedX talk, claiming that the megawatt plant had actually been tested.
A sensible plan would have been to test individual reactors more thoroughly, generating reliability data. Much easier to handle, and much easier to measure the output heat, and if that measurement is done independently, which could have been arranged, even with a “black box” reactor, data actually needed to confidently design and manufacture a megawatt plant, or a plant of any capacity, would have been developed.
Something else was happening than ordinary business sense. This was all visible by the end of 2011. I do not know how much of this became known to Focardi before he died, June 22, 2013, not quite 80 years old. At that point, the Validation Test was about to be performed under Rossi supervision, by Fabio Penon. IH had, the previous year, bought that megawatt plant, apparently. (Skeptics generally assume there was only one plant. I do not know the fact.) Focardi would have been happy to see the recognition, knowing that the truth would come out. At my age (72), I find that kind of impression comforting. I don’t have to know the truth, I only need to trust it.
06:31 making work together all these elements, we would have 1 MW of power produced
06:45 This was not already started with all the generators together; it will be before the end of this month. At this time we can say there is a change in the sizes we are talking about. But every box we can see is like the old generators we used to react hydrogen and nickel to obtain heat.
07:17 This is clearly a nuclear reaction as in the experiments we did – we are doing them by two years, two years and half, I don’t remember the exact date we started. At the end of the experiment, when we analyze the materials used, the material put in the capsule, that originally was nickel and hydrogen we find again nickel but also copper.
Unfortunately, “clearly” was subjective and personal. The copper finding, he considers important evidence here, was abandoned and may have been deliberate deception, I am not documenting that here, only that this claim did not persist, and that this idea shows Focardi jumping to conclusions, losing his objectivity. To come to a scientific conclusion about this alleged transmutation, one would need many samples, and for something so remarkable, independent confirmation. Yet Forcardi talks about this being “proof.”
07:57 Now, the copper is the element following nickel on the periodic scale. It is at its side and the nucleus of copper differ from the nucleus of nickel only because it have a single proton more. Proton that was introduced, captured, by the nickel in a process of nuclear reaction. So when we affirm this is a nuclear reaction between nickel and hydrogen, this is another proof it is not a fantastic statement. We have the proofs, because as result in the end copper is formed.
That would be a great reason for dropping some copper in, wouldn’t it? Focardi befriended Rossi or did Rossi select Focardi as someone easy to fool? Once again, listening to the talk, not knowing the later fact of the claim being abandoned or acknowledged as error, this is very convincing!
08:43 Now, one of the problems when we talk about these topics is the problem of safety. And, in this case the danger for the safety is the radioactivity, because being a nuclear reaction people foresee radioactivity emitted in the reaction. This is real, but we are lucky this process produce only gamma rays and not neutrons.
Does it produce gammas? If confirmed, that would be “nuclear evidence.” It could be faked, by the way. In the original Rossi-Focardi paper, “no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background.” This is somewhat in contradiction with what Focardi claims in the talk about Bondeno; this, then, reveals a certain lack of precision and clarity. No careful testing, using control experiments, is described. He saw some elevation above background, so the claim in the paper was incomplete, at least. It looks like he never followed up. Gammas from neutron activation, if that is what was happening, have characteristic energies, which can be measured. Rossi prevented Celani, was it?, from using a portable instrument at the first 2011 test that could have measured gamma energies.
I must say I pointed to the danger of neutrons from the start with the collaboration with Rossi; and Rossi, obviously, took the measures needed because, if there would be neutrons, the things would be difficult, because neutrons can be shielded but it is not a simple problem. Luckily there are not neutrons. But there are gamma rays. The presence of gamma ray I have experienced directly, in the first experiments in the laboratory Rossi had in Bondeno, because often I did the measures when Rossi was occupied doing his bidding. I, in the first measures used an instrument detecting radioactivity and measured the gamma rays. Not very dangerous, not big compared to the normal background, but anyway present. And it is obvious there was no reason to raise the natural radioactivity level.
So from a single observation, Focardi makes a definitive claim, “there are gamma rays,” instead of merely noting that there was one measurement, with no details given, that indicated the presence of gamma radiation.
10:40 But we never detected neutrons as this was my main fear because neutron are difficult to shield. But hey never showed. The problem of the gamma rays was solved simply adding, around the generators, small sheet of lead that are able to shield the gamma ray. So we can say, there is no risk of radioactivity when we work in this way. This is good not only for us but for when there will be commercial applications.
In a more careful study, a gamma detector would be designed together with the reactor, so that it could measure the unshielded gammas. As a precaution, researchers do often have neutron detectors around, but the evidence for neutron radiation in LENR experiments, aside from muon-catalyzed fusion, a different animal that resembles hot fusion in its behavior, is that if it exists, or when it exists, it is at extremely low levels, not harmful.