Lowdown on Lie-bull

I mentioned the other day that Ascoli65 was banned on LF for two weeks, by Alan Smith. Ensuing discussion has brought up some issues worthy of attention. So, first of all, this is the post for which Ascoli65 was banned:

Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

The post — and the subsequent discussion of the censorship — were all off-topic.

Tuesday, 11:30 pm

@ Alan Smith,

my long and documented comment has been substituted by this words of yours.

Ascoli65 wrote:

The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

This comment, apparently by Alan Smith, was argumentative, and, as well, was off-topic. A procedure had been established to move off-topic posts to the Playground — or to create a topic for them — and offensive posts to Clearance Items, though I think grossly offensive material was still being deleted, at least I’d expect so. My own practice is not to actually delete anything, but to possibly “trash” a clearly offensive post; it’s still in the database and can easily be recovered by me or anyone with admin privileges. Mildly offensive or irrelevant material may be moved to an appropriate topic or to a catch-all. Personally, I’d want to add notes where appropriate to maintain transparency. These considerations seem to have long been completely beyond the ken of Smith.

If the post was “long and documented” as claimed, deleting it was quite offensive, unless a procedure exists for the user to recover it. (On Discus blogs, like ECW, when a post is deleted, it appears that it is still accessible through the user’s profile, at least by the user.)

I’m very surprised of your decision to completely cancel my comment. Not greened, not moved in the Playground or Clearance Items threads, but immediately deleted. I think, it’s the first time this happen in this abrupt way, and I don’t see any reason for such a reaction. I didn’t used offensive words, and I only reported documented facts.

It was probably quite unexpected. Ascoli may have done more than present “documented facts,” but … the offense in this post was quite mild, compared to what is routinely tolerated when it is not Levi or Unibo being “attacked.” Alan is personally offended, apparently. Darden can be attacked, Dewey Weaver can be attacked, and often nothing is done.

My comment was not a “thinly veiled attack”, it was just a “open plain evaluation” of the apparent behavior of a public researcher at a public university which publicly claimed on many public media of having measured 12 kW of alleged excess heat generated by a table top device during the public demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. This conclusion of him was based on a couple of presumed data that I can’t explain otherwise, except for an intentional misrepresentation of experimental data. If you have any other explanation, why don’t you provide it?

Smith greened this paragraph as offensive. “Intentional misrepresentation of experimental data” is, in fact, a serious charge, albeit consistent with Ascoli65’s long-term claim that there was some sort of falsification of data in those early reports. I never found his claims plausible, but, like many who write on LENR Forum, he was quite sure of his evidence.

I’m going to agree with Smith that this was inappropriate, but it was merely a failure of ability to imagine alternate explanations, and was far short of ban-worthy (though any offense can be ban-worthy if it persists after warning). Much more direct claims of false statements have been made about many others involved in Rossi v. Darden, and commonly. Drawing the line here, while not covering more egregious possible libels, is bizarre and unskillful. The effect is chilling.

Apparently one may strongly criticize or even insult, depending on whom it offends.

I think Ascoli65 genuinely did not understand, and because that paragraph was greened and not deleted, it was not a repeat of the allegedly deletion-worthy offense, so blocking him because he questioned the censorship was offensive and a violation of civilized norms — i.e., what Smith below accuses.

My comment was in theme. THH had just accused Levi of practicing “bad science” following a mistake in the emissivity used in the Lugano report. This aspect seems to be quite controversial and has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments in recent years.

Ascoli is making a false parallel. I would not like THH using “bad science,” if he did. The mistake was a mistake. The failure to require a full control was worse. Allowing the work to be so strongly guided by Rossi was worse. It gets pretty bad, all right, but I have never seen evidence of actual data falsification on the part of Levi and the other professors. Ascoli did not quite accuse Levi of that, but of “intentional misrepresentation.” That’s close enough to be considered falsification. It’s an offensive claim, and, indeed, in some contexts, could even be criminal libel.

On the contrary, the inconsistency between the pump capacity and the flow rate reported in the UniBo document issued on January 2011 is much more apparent and incontestable. In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated the pump for 2 weeks, but on the front panel of that pump was clearly indicated a max output of 12 L/h, a value much lower than that one he claimed in his report (equivalent to 17.6 L/h).

That statement is not libelous. By the way, the “label” is, as Rossi correctly pointed out, not a maximum capacity, but a minimum guaranteed capacity at the specific pressure, and under some conditions actual flow could exceed that. This is Rossi’s argument on Lewan’s blog and it is not exactly wrong, except that he then proceeds to use this fact as a justification for making probably false claims.

The word “capacity” implies a maximum!

From 12 l/h guaranteed to 17.6 l/h actual might well be possible for a real pump under some conditions. The current testing being done by Alan Fletcher is showing a pump rated at 32 l/h at 2 bar, actually pumping maybe 40 l/h at low pressure. That is 125% of rated flow. The Levi claim is 147%. Maybe. Different model pump.

I would never accuse a professional scientist of data falsification based on evidence this thin. But, again, libel is fairly common on LF.

I can’t understand why these considerations are not allowed in this forum. Which specific rules do they break?

Smith then adds his comment in bold:

Your comment above breaks the rules of civilised behaviour just for a start.

That is an offensive comment. An experienced moderator will never argue with a person they are sanctioning, it inflames sensibilities. The issue is civility, and Smith’s comment is outrageously uncivil, much more so than Ascoli65’s.

As -despite your denial- so did almost every line in your deleted post which actually contained a criminal liable (in some jurisdictions). Accusing somebody who is not a member here of (effectively) deliberate scientific fraud from behind your avatar is certainly worthy of a 2 week ban. And you just got it. Alan.

I find Smith’s claim likely exaggerated. Levi is a “public figure” in the Rossi v. Darden case. Others not members have been accused of fraud, lying, data falsification, etc. I agree that this could be libel, though generally truth is a defense. There are other defenses as well.

That Smith enforces a rule against libel could actually create risk for the blog owner, if it is enforced selectively. There are also issues around anonymity.

So some discussion ensued:

Alan Smith wrote:

Hi Jed. My interaction with the now banned (for 2 weeks) ‘Ascoli’ had nothing to do with a debate on scientific ethics. The deleted post contained what could be considered – in almost any jurisdiction outside the USA – to be a criminal libel, repeated twice in the thin disguise of a question. If you had been the target of it- or indeed MY or Kirk I would have taken precisely the same action. Since Ascoli hides behind a screen-name libelling somebody on the web takes zero courage on the part of the poster, but does carry risks for other parties involved in publishing this forum.

The question asked by Ascoli was actually what it was about his question that was bannable. He apparently repeated the question in order to ask. He could very simply have been told. Instead he was, himself, insulted, though not libelled. “Hides behind” is uncivil, to be sure. Alan Smith is commonly terse, avoiding clear and complete answers to questions. It was easier to accuse Ascoli65 than to tell him where the border not to cross lies. That might actually take some thought, and, problem is, the border Ascoli crossed — in my opinion — is crossed by many so then the next question would be why was this enforced strictly and rather abruptly with Ascoli — who was being polite — and not with so many others? My answer is “Alan Smith.”

Jed Rothwell wrote:

Libel is never criminal in the U.S. as far as I know. It is always a civil matter. I do not think it is a good idea to have the police involved. This web site is based in the U.S., so U.S. laws apply, and you don’t need to worry about criminal libel.

Alan Fletcher wrote: (in response to Jed)

According to wiki 17 states have Criminal Defamation Laws. In Florida it’s a misdemeanor Florida Statutes Chapter 836

Lots of legal foo, but admins, note : 

836.03 Owner or editor of the paper also guilty.—Any owner, manager, publisher or editor of any newspaper or other publication who permits any anonymous communication or communications such as is signed otherwise than with the true name of the writer, and such name published therewith to appear in the columns of the publication in which said communication any person is attacked in his or her good name, or it is attempted to bring disgrace or ridicule upon any person, such owner, manager, publisher or editor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree

Kudos to Fletcher for providing links. The Wikipedia article includes this:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally immunizes from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of precluding all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.

That is, the web site owner is not liable. (The author of the libel would be liable.) The owner could become liable under some circumstances. The decision to “publish” on LENR Forum is not made by moderators or administrators. However, this may shift if there is a protest. The Communications Decency Act supersedes state laws.

Alan Smith replied:

The server you see may be in the US Jed, but the publisher is in the EU. That’s what counts I beleive.

Alan is sliding down a slippery slope by considering David Nygren the “publisher.” Nygren lives in Sweden, apparently. Sweden apparently has criminal libel laws; this was,. I think, pointed out to Sifferkoll. Sifferkoll’s main protection has been inertia, because he’s written a lot that is clearly libel. But Nygren has not libelled Levi. He simply owns a blog where someone may have done this. I think Ascoli65 is Italian. I doubt there is any risk to Nygren, unless he refuses to cooperate with a libel investigation. I also doubt that any action would be initiated against Ascoli65 for his level of offense.

In any case, there are what may be complex issues of jurisdiction. Nobody commenting so far is an attorney, and neither am I, though I know some.

Being a blogger, I need to be better informed. So: Online Defamation Law.

That’s about U.S. law. There is a source on English libel law, London being “a town called Sue.”

The author of that was asked: Could I be liable if someone uses my blog to post a defamatory message? He replied:

Potentially, yes

As the publisher of a blog, you could in theory be held liable in respect of defamatory material posted by others on the blog.

There are two main approaches to dealing with this risk:

• first, you can review all material before it is published, and refrain from publishing anything risky;
• second, you can seek to take advantage of the provisions of Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 and Regs 17-19 of the Ecommerce Regulations.

This second approach is the usual one, and typically involves a publisher doing the following sorts of things:

• prohibiting the posting of defamatory and other unlawful content in the blog T&Cs;
• providing an effective abuse notification procedure;
• not systematically reviewing or editing content posted on the site; and
• removing risky content promptly following notification of a problem.

 “Not systematically reviewing or editing content” would be a reference to the idea I mentioned above, that deleting some libels and not others could create risk that might otherwise be absent. Ideally, there would be a TOS to which users agree, and then clear procedures for dealing with violations of the TOS. LENR Forum never created this, or, more accurately, there was a feeble and naive attempt that proceeded to be ignored.

Very few users like to see their content deleted. If a blog wants to encourage users to write substantial contributions, deleting it without notice or opportunity for recovery is a huge insult to any writer. LENR Forum uses idiosyncratic software, I don’t know what tools are available. This is a WordPress blog, and I can easily and quickly hide any content, without deleting it. That is, if the author wants a copy, I could (and would) send it to him or her. This avoids the worst admin abuses. Others still exist, but, bottom line, the owner owns the site and may delegate authority. But others can also point to abuses or moderator incivility!

When a site comes to enjoy wide public participation, users may come to expect fair treatment, and when it doesn’t seem fair, sometimes they develop a grudge, and Wikipedia administrators created highly offended users that proceeded to engage in sock puppetry that lasted for years, with thousands of accounts created, wasting countless hours of admin time. Some of that was necessary, perhaps, but it was also clear, when I investigated cases, that there had been abuse of users, and it was very difficult to address. The abusers were highly privileged.

I have seen no case of such revenge posting on LF. However, there are some blatant trolls. Activities like that, tolerated, will drive away many otherwise productive participants, eventually. Ever wonder why few real-name users are women? Why actual scientists rarely post on LENR-Forum?

Beyond pointing to that British site, I’m not summarizing libel law for bloggers, though I’ll be happy to discuss it. This is an area of law which is shifting, as one can tell from the EFF coverage.


I found this Pennsylvania site interesting. Pennsylvania Newspaper Handbook – Libel.

Newspapers are held to a stricter standard, in some cases, but libel is libel and this and the pages I have linked above cover the definition and give advice about avoiding libel that any blog, if it is to develop a reputation for utility and reliability, should understand.

Looking at it again, and reviewing all this, the comment of Alan Smith implying that David Nygren was the “publisher” who might be held responsible for libel, was a stretch, particularly since the particular incident he was discussing did not involve a publication decision. As well, deletion is a form of retraction, and does not defend against a libel claim for something published, it may merely mitigate damages.

Rossi, in many posts and filings, and in my opinion, did libel others. However, there are specific exceptions in libel laws for court filings, and for obvious reasons. Nevertheless others, repeating the claims in those primary sources, presenting them as fact (instead of as allegations), also libelled, and may not have had that necessity defense. Is Frank Acland responsible for libels posted to ECW? Not unless he specifically approves of them. Thus by moderating some users, he is creating a (low) risk of a prosecution for libel. He has less risk if the user decides to publish or not.

The internet is still a frontier, and frontiers can be lawless, or, more accurately, law may not be settled. Some risks might exist in theory, but in practice, there is no risk. Until there is a crazy plaintiff! — or one who decides, “enough is enough!” and goes ahead, damn the expense!

The blogger most at risk in what I’ve seen is Sifferkoll. And maybe Rossi, for JONP. (I have not reviewed his JONP posts from this point of view. Many “insults” are not libel. Context matters. Rossi does not seem to have an open blog, I believe all posts must be approved. That can create liability for what those users post, i.e., approval is publication.

Many libel targets will not sue, because it can look very, very bad. Consider Levi. Suppose I call Levi a “blithering idiot.” First of all, not libel, legally, if one studies the sources I’ve given. Just an insult, one which might enrage Levi or his friends. However, suppose I claim that he altered or faked data. And then he sues me. A defense is truth, and truth may be decided by a jury. As well, my state of mind is an issue. I’m media, and Levi is, in this field, a public figure. That’s a defense. I might be able to show truth or, given “public figure” and “influence,” at least reasonable cause to present information. “Proof” in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, it need not be absolute. I think any sane lawyer would advise Levi to let sleeping dogs lie, and maybe to tolerate some level of barking.

There is a list of “red flag” words on the Pennsylvania site. These words are relatively common on LENR Forum. Alan Smith was not wrong to identify the Ascoli65 post as libelous, but, in context, he had singled out a mild case to enforce a rule that was vague and probably not understood by the user, instead of doing what the user asked, to explain it to him. It is as if the real rule was “if you have to ask, you’re banned!”

Dewey Weaver’s comment about LF moderation was “amateur hour.” Technically, of course, LF moderators are amateurs, but some amateurs become experts. Some don’t. Some refuse to learn, and simply blame others. LF had been doing a better job, with moving comments instead of deletion. I never liked green ink, it’s ugly. However, it is far better than raw deletion. I boycotted LF when Smith deleted *many* comments that he considered off-topic, and I said “until this is addressed,” which could mean that the Staff community restrained Alan (with removal of privileges being the extreme sanction, if the moderator refuses to cooperate). LF Staff does not discuss issues publically, which can make it a star chamber. I was banned, by Alan, apparently — banned users cannot read their own private messages — as retaliation for declaring a boycott, surely a juvenile and amateurish response. But the entire Staff is responsible, it is not just Alan. We are responsible for what we tolerate and allow. I have friends on that Staff. I was basically told that the situation was hopeless.

This incident demonstrates that it’s still a mess. Alan Smith has a high personal conflict of interest. He runs Looking for Heat, a generally laudable exercise, with a problem: it is almost entirely about nickel hydride exploration, which depended for its appeal heavily on Rossi, and, as well, on Levi. There are plenty of attempts to “replicate” Rossi, which is, scientifically, a problem, because a replication is not possible without full information about the original experiment. So at best, independent “replications” without that information, are a kind of “confirmation,” i.e., that something happens. A genuine replication would also be quantitatively confirming. What is often an “indication,” can be the file-drawer effect. Many people try, a few make calorimetric errors…. and often only positive results are published, the rest remain in the “file drawer,” hence the name of the effect.

So Smith, in defending Levi, is promoting his own interests. And he did so in a quite uncivil way, while pretending to be disallowing incivility. Smith does not know or understand recusal, apparently. And in that, he has been, as far as we can tell, unrestrained by the administrative staff (at least one member of which, probably more than one, has the power to assign and remove moderator privileges.) In the end, the highest responsibility is with David Nygren, the owner.

Nygren sells advertising. “Vigorous discussion” — which can be an alternate description of libel and flame wars — can improve traffic, possibly improving revenue. Or that motive is not applicable to him. I really don’t know, because Nygren is mostly silent.

Taken from the list of red flag words, ones that I’ve seen (or close equivalents), on LENR Forum, E-Cat Word, JONP, or Sifferkoll (on his own blog or on LENR Forum) — or here on CFC, for which I am, at present, responsible:

altered records
bad moral character
bribery [or corrupt influence]
gambling den
mental illness
moral delinquency
pockets public funds
smooth and tricky
sold out
unsound mind
unworthy of credit

Avoid any words or expressions imputing:

2. a crime, or words falsely charging arrest, or indictment for or confession or conviction of a crime;
3. anti-Semitism or other religious, racial or ethnic intolerance;
4. connivance or association with criminals;
5. financial embarrassment (or any implication of insolvency or want of credit);
6. lying;
7. membership in an organization which may be in disrepute at a given period of time;
9. unwillingness to pay a debt.

Reviewing Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, as part of an ongoing study, I am drafting a policy for CFC, to govern some legal issues that could arise here, both from the point of view of protecting the owner of CFC, Infusion Institute, Inc. (III) from liability, protecting CFC administration, whether volunteer or otherwise, protecting the interests of the community that CFC attempts to represent and serve, which includes the right of free expression, while at the same time protecting individuals and organizations from libel and claims of copyright violation.

Policy on libel and copyright violation

Comment here or there is welcome.


A copy alleged to be (and believed to be) the original obliterated post on LF has been added here as a comment.

While this is edgy, it is not libelous in context. It was actually a challenge to Alan Smith, which he removed by censoring it. This is long-term Smith behavior. The real problem is not Smith, but an LF Staff that does not restrain its members. I have seen many bans now. Most of them were well-earned. This one was not, but there is no clear appeal process, and no genuine explanation, so bans do not establish precedent and policy remains unclear.

Ascoli actually asked for an explanation of how his post could be considered libel. Instead of an explanation, he got a ban. This is far, far less than civil and helpful. It is knee-jerk hostile, behavior unbecoming of any site moderator or administrator, if the site clains to represent a community (as LF does) instead of merely the positions and interests of the owner. This could be remedied, but the owner is mostly absent, it is not clear that he pays attention to LF administration. This is, again, not uncommon, but this shows how internet structures can break down.


{This was originally posted under Is cold fusion a fraud?]

This section was one of a number of copies of and comments on posts on fusionefredda, one of which explicitly called “cold fusion a fraud,” and other of which was radically and blatantly pseudoskeptical. Ascoli 65’s post was not libelous, though it skirts close to an edge, but he  apparently did not want his user name associated with such blatant claims of fraud. He requested that I move that section here, which I have now done. I will leave behind a note. I hope this is satisfactory to him.

Ascoli65 wrote:

[a civil post in which he discusses various issues. I’d reply there except for it being much easier for me to write here, with formatting, etc. So his post:]

@ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
I’m still unable to post on the CFC site (I tried just now), so I reply here to your comments, and, if you don’t mind, I’d invite you to reply here as well.

Thanks. I intend to post a link to this there. I may not continue to monitor that blog. As to the posting problem, something about the user email or identity triggers the spam filter. I have put Ascoli65’s email address on the whitelist here, so, in theory, he could post here by providing that address, and I have confirmed the address (because he kindly responded to my email).

In your comment on CFC dated September 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm (*), you wrote:

– I could not find a source for the pump data and the pump being called “peristaltic.” I’m sure it’s out there, but wasn’t linked by Ascoli65.

And now Ascoli65 confirms that:

The source are the Lewan’s reports of the two tests held on April 19 and 28, 2011. These reports were published on the NyTeknik site, but they are no more accessible. Anyway a copy of the first one is still available on NewEnergyTimes (1).

To give this in-line for convenience: here.

It ends with the list of “Instruments”, where the first one is called “Peristaltic pump”. I don’t know if this definition is correct. Whatever it was, I agree with you, it was a metering pump, a dosimetric pump, an instrument devoted to deliver a calibrated flux of water.

There is a lot in that document. Yes, at the end:

Peristaltic pump NSF
Model # CEP183-362N3
Serial # 060550065
Max output 12.0 liters/h
Max press 1.50 bar

First of all, the pump identification is almost certainly incorrect. The only returns, Googling the Model number, are E-cat or similar discussions taking that number, likely, from the paper cited. One comment cited a manufacturer page. Dead link. I looked at the manufacturer web site. Found no clue, so far.

Years ago, I designed equipment to use a peristaltic pump. It is a particular type of metering or dosing pump, see the Wikipedia article.

Dosimetric pumps, most (all?) types are pressure sensitive. That is, flow will vary with back-pressure (or forward pressure). “Calibration” of these pumps is valid at the calibration pressure (and I would think calibration would be necessary across a range of pumping rates). One-point calibration is only valid if the pump operation is that the same pressure. Which does open up possible artifacts.

The Levi paper appears naive to me, unaware of possible problems, so they were not checked.

Levi claims to have measured a flow of 4.12 kg/hour. He was actually weighing the water, in two sessions, a total of about 8 or 9 kilograms each. This should be accurate, if, as it appears, he was pumping water from a weighed reservoir. The rate is not a problem, being well under the specified flow of 12 l/hr, i.e., about 12 kg/hr, at 1.5 bar.

Is that a maximum flow? A lot of hot air has been issued on this. It is a minimum maximum. That is the manufacturer is, with the specification, is guaranteed that the maximum actual flow at maximum flow setting, will be a minimum of 12 l/hr. Jed Rothwell makes the point that if the pump would pump a *lot* more than that, the manufacturer would increase the claimed number, because they could sell more pumps. Perhaps.

In the cited paper, the problem of “maximum pump flow” does not exist.

– There were many tests and differing conditions and possibly different pumps.

Yes. This is a common problem in review of various claims. There may be many experiments and demonstrations, with differing conditions. It’s easy to get them confused and to think that what is true for one is necessarily true for another. Indeed, Rossi might sometimes be hiding behind that.

In 2011, there have been 10 tests at lab scale whose info appeared on internet (2). In most of them a pump was used to feed the various Ecat devices, and this pump, from the January 14 up to the October 6 tests was the same yellow dosimetric pump, featuring a nominal max output of 12 L/h.

– The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s.
While it is difficult to control a water flow with a precision of 0.1 second, this would be 13.4 liters per hour. That doesn’t seem impossible for a pump rated at 12 liters per hour.

You are talking about the wrong test.

Nope. Not “wrong.” Different from what you intended, and, indeed, I have no clear idea what test you were talking about. Bottom line, Ascoli65, you are not writing clearly and carefully. Some people, believing that it’s all very simple — and very bogus — don’t take care to be clear and complete. It’s work! If we want to assist the full community in coming to choices based on evidence, we need to be clear, or, too often, we are just adding confusion.

The normal blog format and practices encourages terminal sloppiness. What does it matter if an error is buried in thousands of posts that are all over the map? Nobody is going to study these anyway! You’d have to be crazy!

The datum you cited refers to the first test [Test 1] held on December 16, 2010, whose results was reported in the same calorimetric report (3) issued on January 2011, along with those of the January 14 demo [Test 2]. In the December test, whose setup is shown in Fig.1 of that report, no pump was used. The inlet hose was directly connected to the water tap, which was presumably used to regulate the flux. Conversely, the yellow dosimetric pump has been used only starting from the public demo held on January 14, 2011.

So the problem, the inconsistency is where? You aren’t saying, Ascoli65!

– Ascoli’s real point: this early report demonstrates Levi error, which, combined with a lack of later follow-up and correction, indicates that his reports are not trustworthy. With Lugano, we saw different errors, but the same intransigence and stonewalling. I could not find verification of the pump used. He doesn’t provide a source for it, but then makes an argument that depends on the information.

I did provide all the links to the many documents available on internet which clearly demonstrate the many errors (at least three errors only for the January 14 demo: pump’s flow rate, missing steam probe, and doubled test duration) present in the January 2011 report.

Ascoli, all this is next to useless unless I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what you mean. I’ll do that to a degree, but if you are not convincing people, the first place to look is not in them, but in your own expression. When I submitted my paper to Current Science for that special issue on LENR in 2015, the reviewer initial comments were basically, “horrible paper.” Instead of getting mad, I took responsibility — which is what I’m trained to do, this wasn’t my “natural good nature.” I can be pretty crabby naturally! So I rewrote my paper, rather extensively, making sure that his objections were addressed. He turned around completely.

That’s how to write, Ascoli65. You can make real contributions if you back up and learn to write effectively and clearly. At the same time, what it takes to be careful and thorough will educate you far more deeply. You might find some of your opinions changing, or even beliefs. That will be entirely up to you!

The problem is that I can’t see how these errors can be interpreted as mistakes.

  1. You have not detailed the errors for me to review.
  2. There are many errors. By focusing on many, you become stuck in an overview (“these errors”). Rossi has long inspired scientists to make stupid blunders (stupid in hindsight). I’ve speculated that he is really good at this. Rossi’s psychology is not necessarily simple, but it is obvious that his presence inspires some people to trust him. That could be the skill of a con artist (they can be amazing in this way, with people continuing to trust they were told long after it became obviously false. And this happens with very smart people, not stupid people. Konnikova, in The Confidence Game, points out that “gullible people” are generally happier. That is, a con artist takes advantage of a very functional human behavior: trust. People who cannot trust are seriously disabled.
  3. Rossi may also be insane, that is, he might actually believe the deceptions he pushes. He might be fooling himself.
  4. Until you can understand these possibilities, as generalities, you won’t understand the specifics, and until we understand each specific example, generalization from the specific to the general can be drastically off and heavily influenced by expectations and knee-jerk reactions.
  5. If you need someone else to invent an explanation, I might be able, but that will not establish what *actually happened.* All I have claimed is that, so far, there is no evidence I have seen sufficient to justify making a public claim of data falsification for any of the scientists involved. CimPy is libelling an entire field, and no wonder he is hiding behind anonymity

(Libelling a field is not actionable until and unless it becomes personal. The courts will dismiss it as bloviation, of no substance. If I were to say, “all liberals are pedophiles,” I would simply be an idiot, I could not be sued for it.)

I did ask many people to suggest me possible explanations, but I didn’t get any answer on the merit, that is nobody suggested a possible chain of events which could explain why, for example, it was erroneously reported a flow rate much higher than the max output of the pump.

Here, we are engaged in a discussion of this matter, and you have not clearly made your case. You keep repeating certain conclusions without providing a clear and connected factual basis.

– He cites a flow figure of 17.5 l/hr. That’s from a Macy report of an “exclusive interview with Levi. Yes, that would be oddly high if it is the 12 l/h pump involved. But that figure is different from Levi’s paper covering those tests.”

The flow rate announced in the Macy’s document (“146 g in 30 seconds” = 17.5 L/h) was the same reported a week later in the final calorimetric report (3) of the demo held on January 14 [Test 2], ie “146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s”, equivalent to 17.6 L/h. In the meanwhile this figure has been reviewed by many people, in Italy and in the US.

That figure is not so far above the rated flow that it’s impossible. It merely raises doubt. As well, this could be a single error that propagated. I don’t see evidence cited as to what pump was used in that specific demonstration.

As well, what you are doing is focusing on, relatively speaking, a fly, when there is an elephant in that living room, the use of a humidity meter to check steam quality, plus a complete absence of examination as to overflow water, which could make the calorimetry almost completely meaningless. Lack of consideration of alternative hypotheses afflicted all of the apparently successful Rossi demonstrations I know. In the early flow calorimetry, verification of complete evaporation was missing, it was based on some incorrect ideas. In the Lugano test, assumptions about measuring temperature with an IR camera badly afflicted the claimed results, and a calibration at full power — one of the most obvious verification measures, was missing, for reasons stated by the authors of the report, but almost certainly based on Rossi Bullshit, stated by them as if factual and sensible.

None of this, though, shows actual data falsification, merely naivete and error and, later, stonewalling, avoiding the obvious. Be careful! Details matter!

Bottom line, that you cannot understand something shows much more about you than about reality. It’s a failure of imagination, because a free human mind can always find “explanations” for anything. It’s what we do. For better and for worse. The task for adults is to sift through this and come up with sufficient analysis to create basis for action.

Should there be more investment in cold fusion research? How about more investment in Rossi? Industrial Heat? What action can members of the public take or encourage? We need facts, not more knee-jerk reactive analysis.

– I’d trust the paper over the interview, even if the interview was by email (where some will be incautious and errors abound).

As shown above, interview and calorimetric paper reported the same flow rate value (ie 17.6 L/h), whereas the max output of the pump was 12 L/h, that is the same value (12 L/h) mentioned by Levi during his speech before the test (4). The main problem is that, in the Macy’s interview, he also said: “After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment.” How do you explain this statement? Was this also an incautious declaration?

I get no impression from Levi of care and caution. The statement, however, does not seem odd to me, yet. That was not a report of an actual measurement, “the same quantity” is a coarse judgment, not a number, the result of an actual measurement. I find it difficult to parse — to understand — the statement you report. The language is confused, unclear. Normally, it is possible to clear these things up, by asking the scientist questions. That totally broke down.

So my own conclusion is that I don’t trust anything Levi says. He is emotionally involved and reactive, read his “unsworn declaration” in Rossi v. Darden, and also read the private investigator’s declaration.

But I have not seen any actual lies, just gross misinterpretations.

BTW, how can you say that the interview was by email?

I didn’t. So that’s an easy question to answer. Read it again.

(*) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/#comment-5420
(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2011Lewan19AprilData.pdf
(2) http://i.imgur.com/rB93G1X.jpg
(3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng (at 9:46)

Thanks for giving the video time location. Many writers neglect doing that.

Watching that video, I’m impressed by how Levi became an advocate, far from a neutral observer and analyst. He is explaining the demonstration, as if he was working for Rossi. He leaps way ahead, instead of focusing on the critical issue, the heat level, he wants to exclude a chemical source. If we know the actual heat level and various other statistics, then “non-chemical” would fall out rather simply. It’s like the Lugano report, substantial energy devoted to a Rankin diagram, which is polemic and overheated analysis, not fact, while the most obvious facts — how bright was that thing glowing at, allegedly, 1400 C.? — are ignored. And later, when questions are asked, stonewalled.

But how this could happen, how scientists could stonewall, is not such a difficult question. They are human: embarrassed, defensive, or, as well, they might consider themselves bound by non-disclosure agreements, none of which would be at all surprising.

There is some of what Taubes called Bad Science there. So what else is new? What’s the reality? We will not find it by focusing on the errors of so-and-so. There is plenty of work which is not so afflicted, and there is more work to be done. That’s where we can find the future.

Even  if the future is that someone finally identifies the artifact or collection of artifacts that led me to think that deuterium is being converted to helium, in some “cold fusion” experiments, and demonstrates it with controlled experiment (as happened with N-rays and polywater) I’d break out the champagne (hah! just an expression, I’m a Muslim and don’t drink.). I completely trust reality, and my stand is that reality is better than anything I can imagine.

More from Ascoli65

Ascoli65 persists with beating a dead horse, long after reasonable utility. Well, maybe this will have some value. I’m skeptical, but I do lots of things just in case.  He wrote on fusionefredda: (15 settembre 2017 alle 12:12 am)

@ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
you replied to an above comment of mine (*) in your last post titled “Is cold fusion a fraud?” (**). As you know, I didn’t like very much to have been addressed in a post which deals with possible “fraud”, because, as I always said in all and every occasion, I’m not interested in this specific aspect. I would have preferred to read your answer in your previous post on CFC, where the pump issue was treated and a replication of my comment was still present (***).

This was corrected yesterday, per his email request. I’ll say that he might be judged by the company he keeps, it happens in real life.

(*) https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/df/#comment-61662
(**) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/is-cold-fusion-a-fraud/
(***) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/#comment-5426

Anyway, being still unable to post on your blog, I post here my answer to your reply.

He could email me, as one possibility. As before, I checked the spam filter. He attempted to post again on 14 September. As before it failed WP-SpamShield code ‘UA1004.’ I have been unable to find the significance of that code, and I have no other reports of failure that did not have a clear cause (the only other failure was a post with four links. His test post had no links. His email address is on the whitelist. The two attempts showed IP addresses from different service providers.

(I think WP-Spamshield does not post the codes because they don’t want spammers to know exactly what tests they are using. Combining the failure with the use of two different service providers makes me suspect some attempt to conceal identity, which I don’t mind in this case, but … there can be consequences. I don’t know that this is the cause.)

Ascoli65 is not providing me with precise information about what is happening. He reported a message that is not what WP-SpamShield allegedly displays to a user whose post is being blocked. There is no way I can test his access. The problem is not yet clear enough for me to file a support request, which I’m reluctant to do for free software (I have not paid for support). Back to the issues under discussion:

While I have nothing to add to what I already said about the pump issue, I’d like to answer these two points of yours.

Abd wrote:

– As well, what you are doing is focusing on, relatively speaking, a fly, when there is an elephant in that living room, the use of a humidity meter to check steam quality, …

I already pointed out many times, even to you (1), the issue of the presumed dry condition of the coolant at the outlet.

That is only one aspect of the issue. The aspect I mention is the use of an explicitly named meter, as reported by multiple sources, that can’t do what is claimed. It is an on-the-face error. However, the real situation is even worse, because even if the meter could measure steam quality, it would be possible to have high quality steam and water outflow at the same time. It’s possible accidentally. If we add the possibility of fraud, it could be even more possible (i.e., if there is a separate water pipe inside the steam pipe). When a technology that could be worth a trillion dollars if real, and with testing that did, in fact, attract investment in the many millions of dollars, fraud must be considered as a possibility, not on the part of scientists, necessarily, but on the part of the one who controls the tests. The magician, as it were.


is a post where Ascoli65 begins by quoting me. “Ascoli65 is a troll.” The good news is that he did link to my post, so what I was actually writing about was visible if anyone checks. I don’t call people “trolls” without, at least, some evidence, and merely being wrong or even idiotic does not make someone a troll. It is trolling when someone posts something, without necessity, that one would know, if at all careful, would be offensive, and he had done that — not to me, but another user.

The foundation of Ascoli’s claim is summarized in this faux fact:

– NO Air Quality meter has been ever used to measure the quality steam during the January 14, 2011, demo!

That is not a fact, it is an inference Ascoli65 made, long ago, from the absence of evidence, not evidence. That is, no photo of the necessary probe, as I recall. Photo showing some other probe. A claim that it would be impossible to change probes (which neglects that Rossi claims low pressure — a problem in itself, but a separate one). Given the testimony we have, from Levi and from Kullander and Essen, it is highly likely that an Air Quality probe was used, at least at some point.

Given the sloppiness of other reports, such as the Lugano report, it is possible that Rossi or Levi or someone said that such a probe had been used, and that it was not actually used at the specific time in question. Again, that would not be lying, exactly, it would be terminal sloppiness, which we know happened in Lugano (which also involved Essen), so I can’t say it’s impossible.

But it is most likely, in my opinion, that a probe was used. It’s simple and actually changes nothing, and it is far easier to establish that a humidity meter cannot do what was claimed than it is to claim as if a proven fact that there was no meter, a claim made by someone who was not a witness and who appears to be relying on shaky and indirect evidence.

Ascoli65 is operating on a well-known principle: I was right, and others are wrong. And he is stuck on it, after many years, even while it has become totally useless and probably impossible to resolve. It is impossible to prove a negative, another well-known principle. Did anyone photograph the humidity meter in use? Maybe. Would that satisfy Ascoli65? Maybe.

But I call this a mouse compared to an elephant. The mouse may squeak, but the elephant will break furniture. Reading over that Levi report, it reeks of unexamined and unchecked assumptions, with an effect of promoting a commercial interest and with displayed indifference to error, as to what we have seen in what came after.

I showed you that the real elephant in the living room is that the instrument (the humidity meter) mentioned in the Levi’s report doesn’t appear in anyone of the many pictures available on internet, and taken during the January 14 demo, even in the middle of the boiling phase (2). But I also learned that you are not willing to recognize this real elephant.

Something not showing in photos is not evidence that it was not used, unless those photos were continuous and clearly documented as such. It can create suspicion only, maybe we think it “should have” shown. Reality often, however, doesn’t match what we expect. This is very ordinary, so why is it not obvious to Ascoli65? I think there is an obvious answer: He committed himself to this claim years ago, and is unwilling to let it go. He thinks “It’s true, dammit!” But so what? So what if it is true? I pointed out above how it could be true and not indicate any fraudulent intent, only sloppiness.

If the Ascoli claim is false, which is possible, easily, the test is still badly defective. The humidity meter was actually irrelevant, that’s what was later realized. Kullander and Essen and Levi never responded to those issues, which were not claims of fraud, but of error.

“Steam quality” was actually a red herring, distracting from the major issue, overflow water. In considering steam quality, there is an unspoken assumption, that the only unevaporated water would be suspended droplets, i.e., “wet steam.” Ordinary steam from a boiler is normally wet to some degree. When water evaporation is used for calorimetry, though, there is another problem, bumped water, which looms larger than mere wet steam. And then the Rossi design, as I understood it, basically required that there be some overflow, or he’d be risking the boiler running dry with associated runaway (assuming the thing actually works). Once that is realized, the issue becomes “how much.”

Industrial Heat recognized the problem and installed steam traps on the Doral Plant. (a bit misnamed, they trap liquid water and drain it off.) Rossi removed the steam traps. Not part of the design, he was reported as saying. Indeed.

You’d rather prefer to imagine the most incredible explanations in the attempt to negate its presence (3).


Apparently, Ascolil considers the use of a product that, were I designing that test setup, I would surely use, to allow quick insertion of probes while the device is operating. He thought such a thing was impossible. That old post show that Ascoli65 is not understanding what he is reading.

The pump issue is the second elephant in the room that you are not willing to see. There is also a third one, which crown the wonder elephant trio (4), but I doubt you will to see it as well.

Yet I have seen all these issues, and have investigated them, considering them carefully. Ascoli confuses my ability to consider alternate scenarios “not seeing” what he is claiming. Let’s say I have dealt with that for many, many years. People think that if I don’t fall over and agree with them, that I don’t “see” what they “see.” Sure. It’s possible that they have seen something that I have not seen, but … they commonly don’t show it, don’t communicate it, and are creating certainty for themselves out of fluff or imagination. People do that all the time, under some conditions. They confuse “seeing” with agreement and understanding.

I have “seen” nothing new here. If there is, anyone is free to point it out. Going over old arguments, that were not accepted, called “beating a dead horse,” is what fanatics and trolls do. I have not seen anyone of weight accept Ascoli’s claims.

I did learn one thing, looking at the links Ascoli65 gave. “cam” on LENR Forum appears to be Camillo Franchine, from an oft-repeated and idiosyncratic argument. If it matters (right now it does not), I may look further.

In science, personal reputation matters. Pseudoskepticism is not science.

Abd wrote:

– Even if the future is that someone finally identifies the artifact or collection of artifacts that led me to think that deuterium is being converted to helium …

Let me doubt this, too.

You can doubt or believe anything you choose.

Sorry, but if you are not able to recognize the three elephants present in the January 2011 demo, ie the most simple, witnessed, celebrated, and documented test occurred in the whole CF history, I really doubt that anyone will be capable of convince you of any artifact presents in any other CF test.

First of all, I recognize all the claims, and the only one I find implausible is the claim that reports of the use of a humidity meter were lies, which is what Ascoli65 has effectively insisted on, in spite of a lack of probative evidence, only a weak ground for suspicion.

I’ll agree that it’s unlikely that someone will convince me of artifact with regard to the best work on heat/helium, but I have identified many possible artifacts in other CF work. Sometimes they may have have been real. I.e., just because an artifact is possible does not show that it actually happened. That takes much more work, work that often was never done.

And it doesn’t matter if I’m convinced or not. What matter is what appears to the editors of mainstream and other journals, what matters is what is actually tested experimentally and reported, what matters is what those who fund research think. They will trust me or not, but what I do, properly, is to present verifiable evidence, not mere claims.

Now that I look back, seeing how much time has been wasted discussing this, I’ll be a little more explicit: I would not present claims like what Ascoli65 is making to any serious investor or in an article for a peer-reviewed journal. I would, instead, flush it down the toilet where it belongs.

(1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=30552#post30552
(2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=30695#post30695
(3) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/if-i-repeat-it-enough-it-will-become-true/
(4) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=25650#post25650

Even more from Ascoli65

CimPy posted another response from Ascoli65, plus the latter made some comments in Italian that reveal more of his position, which, in spite of his denials, is quite similar to that of Camillo Franchine. The theme in the English comments seems to be that certain scientists would surely have known better than what they said or wrote, therefore something highly suspicious is going on, which he isn’t going to say, and please don’t mention the “F” word, but he can’t think of any other possibility. No wonder he was banned on LENR Forum…. do that kind of thing for a while, a moderator may well eventually act, and if the moderator is unskilled, there will likely be problems with how that’s done.

This is becoming tedious. It’s all about tests and reports from six years ago, and no matter how many times I point out that that those tests and reports were riddled with errors, “reeking” of them, Ascoli persists in his idea that he’s incredibly right and nobody else has figured it out. Who cares? Yes, there is some sort of ongoing responsibility for cleaning up institutional errors, but the field of LENR is full of examples where this never happened, and that is about “both sides” of the issues. Reading accounts of the people involved, I’m struck by how intense the emotions became, and nobody thinks and acts well when upset (and being certain about the believed errors of others is a kind of upset, it clouds the mind.)

So a few snippets from Ascoli65:

Abd wrote:

– Given the sloppiness of other reports, such as the Lugano report, it is possible that Rossi or Levi or someone said that such a probe had been used, and that it was not actually used at the specific time in question. 

I’m not interest in Rossi’s says, […]

Then he is not interested in understanding how it could happen that certain scientists stated certain things as fact that they did not necessarily actually observe themselves, or the analysis was fed to them and they accepted it because it did not occur to them that it was seriously off.

A general theme of Ascoli65 is that genuine scientists could not possibly make the mistakes the “professors” made, therefore there must be darker forces at work. Genuine scientists can make mind-boggling errors. It’s human. I’ll explain more below.

I am not going to research the claims Ascoli65 makes, unless they are clearly and specifically evidenced with links. If this was about the lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden, I have extensive resources and know exactly where to look. For old Rossi reports, they are all over the place, many different documents, and not a button push away. Ascoli is giving links for some claims, but not all.

nor in those coming from any other people different from the many professors who publicly took on themselves the responsibility to measure the excess heat, that the Ecat should have produced during the public demo held on the January 14, 2011. All of them, I guess, had the competence to distinguish a thermometer from a humidity meter, and all of them knew that such last an instrument is not able to measure the steam dryness.

First of all, nobody became “responsible” for “measuring the excess heat” simply by attending a demonstration. A series of inaccurate assumptions are being made. One cannot necessarily tell the difference between a temperature probe and an humidity probe, just by looking at it from a distance.. The meter was called an “air quality meter” and it apparently had a g/m^3 display, which could seem to someone unfamiliar with steam quality — and how that meter specifically worked — as if it was measuring steam quality. When I discovered the humidity meter issue (I think it may have been independent of others who made the same discovery) there were people arguing with me using the same argument Ascoli65 uses, that professors could not possibly make such a dumb mistake. In fact, Essen acknowledges his ignorance, in a Krivit interview, and it is utterly unsurprising. Any physicist would understand the physics involved, but not be familiar with the specific issues that arise with steam and steam calorimetry. It’s simply not difficult to understand how they made the mistakes.

What is more difficult to understand is why they then stonewalled all questions. Krivit did get some answers at first, then they clammed up. Krivit is a yellow journalist, always looking for scandal, and almost all CMNS scientists have stopped talking to Krivit; however the “independent professors” stonewalled the whole world. They talk to Mats Lewan, perhaps. Why? Mats does not ask difficult questions and does not follow up. Krivit quotes Essen: (my emphasis)

On July 15, 2011, New Energy Times telephoned Essén.

Krivit: What do you know about the calibration of the amount of steam coming out of Rossi’s device?
Essén: The steam amount was not measured. It was taken for granted that it all became steam.
Krivit: In either your experience or your efforts to inspect perpetual-motion claims, has anybody tried to claim anything on the basis of steam before?
Essén: No, I can’t recall that. I’m new at steam, unfortunately.
Krivit: Do you have any training in steam quality or steam enthalpy?
Essén: Just general thermodynamics.
Krivit: For example, like knowing the 1,600 times expansion rate?
Essén: I’d come across that before. I was aware of that.
[Note: Essén wrote nothing about the steam expansion rate in his and Kullander’s April 3, 2011, trip report.]
Krivit: When you pulled the hose out of the wall and saw the steam, did you think about the expansion rate?
Essén: No, I must admit I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out. I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn’t that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time. When we came, the setup was already there. To make any further studies, it was not possible.

“It was not possible” is a classic excuse. The problem was not that it was impossible to do a better job, but that Essen was inexperienced. Scientists are specialized, and often, operating out of their specialization, they are clueless. The problem was much larger than the humidity meter issue, which would only make a relatively minor difference in the heat measurement. The problem was twofold: there was not nearly enough steam for the claimed evaporation rate, and there was no check for overflow water. At 7 liters per hour, the hose could readily be pulled and checked and it might appear that there was no water flowing. Rossi, for Krivit, pulled the hose. We saw him walk the hose back to the drain, a maneuver clearly designed to drain any water from the hose. There would then be a few minutes in which to display the hose before putting it back.

But the lack of that high steam flow rate was utterly obvious. An electric steam kettle would show far more steam, with far less power than was being claimed to have been generated (about a tenth).

This is similar to the Lugano test: if the device had actually been running at 1400 C external temperature, it would have been blindingly white-hot. Instead, it was dull red. Yet the “scientists” trusted the IR camera and the setting of that camera, probably by Levi. Levi continued to argue that he had done it correctly, when many who have studied the issue know that it was a gross error, and the direct eyewitnessing should have been enough, but … it wasn’t. People can be fooled, sometimes, in ways that later seem impossible. Couldn’t they see?

Consider the Doral test, it’s much the same. Rossi was claiming that the Plant was producing a megawatt. Okay, where was that power going? The problem was out there for about a year, because a megawatt should have killed everyone in the Plant, unless there was a major heat exchanger taking the heat outside. Rossi eventually claimed that, indeed, he had built a heat exhanger, but it would have been noisy and the piping would have been very visible. Nobody reported having seen anything, and the warehouse was comfortable, far from what a megawatt would have done (and there still would have been a lot of heat in the building, unless Rossi could somehow convey the heat with very high efficiency to that upstairs room. Boiler rooms get very hot!)

Any observer who saw that demonstration and who had some idea of what a megawatt means, one would think, would be suspicious. We don’t know the reactions of those who visited during the “test.” Rossi’s original explanations, when asked about the heat dissipation, were completely inadequate, and that was clear. Even his own expert acknowledge that it would have been fatal without the heat exchanger. But when he was first asked, he mentioned no heat exchanger. He claimed the heat was “used” in the secret endothermic process. Then he claimed that it went out the back doors and through a vent in the roof. He mentioned no heat exchanger. Rossi lies. But many people who, we might think, should know better, have believed the lies.

(I often opine that Rossi is not necessarily “lying” in his own world. Rather, he’s insane. If not insane, he would know that he didn’t have a heat exchanger, just an idea for one! My guess, though, is that Rossi does know about the heat exchanger, that he didn’t actually make one, and, instead, he justifies the lies to himself (and some of his followers also invent justifications.)

One more item I came across. This was from Essen to Krivit.

On March 8, 2012, New Energy Times asked Essén for an update: “Considering all that has and has not transpired since [last year] and considering your failure to look for 11,200 liters of steam exiting from the Energy Catalyzer when you were there, is there a revised comment you would like to make on this matter?”

Essén wrote back the next day.

“Considering all the tests (apart from Kullander-Essén) I am aware of, at least two other, rather different, independent tests that give consistent results, either not involving steam or measuring it quantitatively, and other information that I have had since I first came across the Rossi E-Cat, I find it more interesting than ever.

“I am not aware that there have been any measurements of the amount of steam that contradict Rossi’s basic claims. Visual inspection cannot determine amount of steam since only condensed steam is visible.”

This is face-palm stupid. It is not terribly uncommon in people but less common in scientists that when it begins to appear that they made some mistake, they will scramble to invent possibilities that could make them right in the end. So … the Kullander and Essen test was not an “independent test,” and it was clear in Krivit’s earlier interview that Essen claimed the reason he had not made certain checks because it had all been “set up” and they were just observers. In fact, Essen could have noticed certain things and could have checked others, but didn’t, because he really wasn’t familiar with steam. However, perhaps that was harmless, because perhaps the E-Cat really works, and after all, others have confirmed it. However, there is only one substantial body of actually independent tests, those done by Industrial Heat, which was highly motivated to confirm, and, in the end, failed … or we could say, correctly showed that the devices were not working. All other tests were dominated by Rossi, just as was the Kullander and Essen observation.

It’s been noticed that Rossi kept changing the test methods. So with the Kullander and Essen test, there was a possible artifact from overflow water. Instead of setting up the same testing to then confirm that there was no overflow water, the system and test procedures were changed. Magicians do this all the time, they keep changing the tricks, so that one cannot confirm suspicions — or they use an earlier suspicion against the observer, who thinks he knows what is being done, but then the magician turns the hat over, or whatever. It’s different this time, and there are an unlimited number of ways to create false appearances.

Essen is desperately holding on to the idea that the E-Cat he witnessed actually worked. Then he falls into total preposterousness.

Yes. Of course, dry steam is invisible. Yet when dry steam hits room air, it immediately condenses and becomes visible. It does not appear that Essen ever did become familiar with steam. Dry steam is not nailed to the boiling point; if the measurements showed a temperature that was very close to boiling (even if it appears slightly above), the steam is now not at a controlled temperature. Wet steam must be at exactly the boiling point for the pressure (and steam exiting through a hose at some significant rate will be at an elevated pressure, though it might not be much. Just enough to nudge the temperature up slightly.) Dry steam would be very unlikely to be stable at that temperature. Making dry steam involves “superheating” it. So the temperature indications are that the steam, if it was steam, would be wet. And it would immediately condense when it hits the air,

One can readily estimate steam volume by observing the plume from a hose with the same diameter — by comparison. And that has been done. There wasn’t the level of steam flow that was claimed, not even close, and Essen could have confirmed this himself, by looking at how that much steam would appear. He didn’t because he is not looking for the error, he just wants to be right.

For a scientist, sad. Tragic, actually. Unless he wakes up and cleans this up. I can hope.

(Dry steam would also condense quickly, just not as quickly. If we look at the spout of a steam kettle, vigorously boiling, we can see the plume of steam coming out of the spout. It will be invisible as it comes out, for a short distance. If a steam generator is designed to superheat the steam (which isn’t easy, and it takes after-heating, generally, missing from the E-Cats, and this was an issue raised in Rossi v. Darden), that distance would increase, because the steam must cool before condensing. Live steam (the invisible stuff) is very dangerous. Never pass your hand through live steam, major burns would be instantaneous; you can do it with the visible fog kind of steam (though it’s still hot, it is not carrying nearly as much energy).


Krivit did very thoroughly cover the issues on this.

Off-topic comments are the bane of useful content creation

I’ve often mentioned the issue of off-topic comments on LENR Forum. Discussion of issues there is often heavily derailed by off-topic comments. Some of these are from trolls (who choose what to claim or evidence by the anticipated — or easily anticipable — emotional responses, or pursuing their Favorite Topic, everywhere, and with the LF access paradigm and the lack of comment threading, this heavily damages the utility of LF.) One might think that if one is researching the stated topic, one could read a variety of opinions or find evidence on that topic, but these can be buried under piles of irrelevancies, personal arguments, etc.

What can be done about this? Continue reading “Off-topic comments are the bane of useful content creation”

Trolling avatar, trolling tagline, writes like a troll. Troll?

The user Henry on LENR Forum is consistently a troll. His avatar is ripped from a book easily expected to irritate anyone at all attached to LENR as a reality, Voodoo Science by Robert Park. He’s change the author name on that image to “Henry Truth” and added E-CAT in large letters below Voodoo Science.  His tagline, shown with every post, is

JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

This pushed me over a bridge too far: 

SSC wrote:

What problem do you have with Mr.Cook? Do you think he can not formulate a valid theory for the fact that he is affiliated with the Department of Informatics? Do you think that only a Nobel can deal with science? It is difficult to seriously consider your way of judging Rossi and his associates if these are your judgmental parameters. In addition, Cook has formulated a theory. If you think that every time someone presents a theory should also make an experiment that validates it, then you are showing all your ignorance about these themes. And not just on these issues: what peer reviewed magazines would have buried the TPRs? Tell me their names, please, I’m just curious to see what you invent!

Context: Discussion of the topic “Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions.” This is radically off-topic. SSC is making claims that are, to those who know the field, based on assumptions that competent scientists can’t make mistakes. They do. In particular, scientists are not generally trained to detect fraud. They will assume that testimony is true unless controverted. If a scientist presents fake data, and if this is discovered, that is the end of their career, because this can do tremendous damage. In medical or nutritional research, it can cost lives, in this field, it can waste many millions of dollars.

But errors and misinterpretations are not fake data. The best scientists will be open to correction, and will respond with sober defense or correction. Some don’t, and this is a defect in their practice of science, but is not fraud. Nor is it necessarily “Voodoo Science.” It’s just a normal human response to what may be thought of as shaming. Nobody has claimed that the “Swedish professors” or the “Third Party Professors,” which includes Levi and Foschi, faked data, though there are some suspicions about Levi. My own opinion about Levi is that he was duped, himself, and is reactive and unwilling to neutrally consider the matter. We can see his character in his “unsigned deposition” to the Rossi v. Darden court. He is paranoid, like Rossi.

SSC routinely promotes Planet Rossi memes. He is so consistent in this that some have suspected him of being a Rossi sock or “meat puppet.” His language is different from the very likely Rossi socks, the faux commentators on JONP, which, for future readers, is Rossi’s blog, effectively.

JONP was an “alternative journal” that Rossi started with the support of some Names. However, in practice, it is a very undisciplined blog, where the comments generally have nothing to do with the post or paper under which they are placed, they are all communications to or by Rossi. Rossi claims that papers are peer-reviewed by experts. Maybe they are, I have never reviewed this. But JONP is not the journal involved here.

Trolls turn every discussion into their Favorite Topic, which is generally a variation on You Are So Stupid. Some trolls have some redeeming value, and will actually raise issues of interest from time to time. Some are a complete waste of disk space and bandwidth. Henry continued:

In his “paper” (where published? on Nature ? No?) Cook even ignores how works the nuclear fusion he invoked. He wrote a fusion equation for Li+p is:

73Li4 + p → 84Be4* → 2α + 17.6 MeV (Equation 10).

claim the absence of Gamma Rays and Neutrons emission

Henry does not cite the paper. It would be this, published on arXiv, “On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat,” Norman D. Cook, and Andrea Rossi. arxiv papers are not peer-reviewed, but must have an endorser, which is generally someone with a scientific reputation. In theory, Cook could be an endorser, he has the reputation or institutional affiliation, but arXiv says he is not, for this paper.

Henry has misrepresented Cook’s “claim.” Cook is stating that reaction as a possible one which could explain the reported depletion of 7Li, from the Lugano test. Rossi’s co-authorship was a puzzle, because, supposedly, that test was independent of Rossi. In fact, Rossi took the sample, so it might have been fraudulent.

Is Cook correct? I.e., is that reaction possible?

Of course it is! It’s a known reaction. There are two other possible 7LI + p reactions, which Henry hastens to point out:

This is his dream… in nuclear Science (it’s not my invention, LOL) it’s s well known and proved that kind of fusion it’s a lot more complex, just to summarize:

Henry shows no competence in nuclear science. Cook is a published author. He was known for early comments on cold fusion that were, at worst, neutral, as I recall. He knew enough to know that we did not know that an “unknown nuclear reaction” was not impossible. He is also the author of Models of the Atomic Nucleus, Unification Through a Lattice of Nucleons. 2010: Springer. Springer is the world’s largest scientific publisher. Henry is a random troll. So Henry thinks he has found a contradiction. His displayed  image of reactions does not exactly match the file links, but this is what he intends to show:

73Li + 11H → 84Be* [decays through three branches:}

84Be* → 2 84He Q=17.4 MeV

84Be* → 84Be + λ Q=17.4 MeV

84Be* → 74Be + n Q=-1.64 MeV

This is a great example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. First of all, the third branch is endothermic, the Q is negative. This reaction requires that the proton be quite energetic, essentially impossible in the environment being studied. What about the second reaction?

It, like the helium branch for ordinary deuterium fusion, is very rare. The standard argument is that if helium is produced, the gamma is required. In this case, that’s not essential, because, one might notice, Rossi always shields the reactor, and has been paranoid about anyone measuring gamma radiation near it. But he has allowed some. The levels of gammas from his claimed reaction might not be significant outside the reactor. With the helium branch, only about one out of 107 reactions emits a gamma from the 4He*. I don’t know the ratio with 8Be*. Henry does not even realize it’s an issue.

Cook is author of a more recent paper, published in JCMNS. Henry went on.

and the fusion paths are overlapped, the fusion results depend by the proton energy and value of CS.

These are called branches, they are not “fusion paths” but outcomes, and, here, they may be fusion-condition sensitive, particularly the last branch.

What is “CS”? I don’t know. Henry, again, it’s common with trolls, does not cite his source. But, yes, the proton energy is significant. In the Cook proposal, that energy would be very low, far below the level that would allow ordinary fusion, so Cook is proposing an alternate mechanism, and it is also possible that an alternate mechanism would produce a different branching ratio. This argument is often made by cold fusion theorists, but my opinion is that it’s unlikely, rather, the reaction itself is by an unknown mechanism with unknown intermediaries, 8Be being one not-uncommonly-proposed possibility.

The problem with the Cook arXiv paper is that he is using Rossi-touched data without appropriate skepticism (not uncommon with scientists, they are not generally “debunkers”). In his more recent paper, he is speculating on theory based on unconfirmed reports (less shaky ones), it’s common with cold fusion theorists, and I wish they would stop it! But theorists want to suggest theories, it’s what they do!

Could Cook be a good “Informatics” ? Maybe… but a Nobel (ROTFL) for his funny “nuclear theory” is absolutely out of discussion, that’s paper is ticky-tachy.

Cook is a Professor of Informatics, whatever that is. But he has long had a major interest in and publication with regard to models of nuclear behavior. Henry is completely unqualified to review any of this.

Spectacular news – IH support for basic research

Ahlfors typically provides teasers on LENR Forum. Here’s one, four images. I have not yet found the originals for other than the first, but, looking for the fourth led me to this:

Development of a System to Measure Trace Amounts of Helium in Air, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, or Deuterium

Malcolm Fowler. McFarland Instrumentation Services, Inc.
Thomas Claytor. High Mesa Technology
12th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen
Loaded Metals, 5-9 June 2017

Why is this such good news? That’s twofold. First, the only truly conclusive and very direct evidence that the FP Heat Effect is nuclear in nature is the heat/helium correlation. That work was first done and reported in 1991 by Miles, using order-of-magnitude helium measurements. The work was later confirmed with increased precision, but not the precision that is reported here, if I’m correct. They were working with 50 cc. samples, and if a decent sampling protocol can be developed and an analytical service is provided, this could drastically accelerate PdD cold fusion research.

The other news from the document:

We would like to acknowledge the continued support and encouragement for this work by:
Industrial Heat, LLC [address]
Mr. Thomas Francis Darden II, J.D., Manager, President, and Director
Mr. J.T. Vaughn, Vice President
Mr. Dewey Weaver

This is the support Industrial Heat has provided from the $50 million Woodford investment, obviously. This work is not being published for commercial purpose, this is for scientific progress, and the possible commercial value is very long-term.

Dewey Weaver is famous here as the inspiration for the Cold Fusion Community Official Watch-Weasel.

Now, I need to go out, but I intend to look for the other documents.

The source source of the first image: Claytor (1998).

As to the remainder, my guess it is from “Summary of Tritium Evolution from Various Deuterided Metals,” Thomas N. Claytor, Malcolm M. Fowler, Edmund K. Storms, Rick Cantwell, which is listed in Egely’s review of the June 2017 Asti Conference.

That is a very interesting list of authors! But I have not been able to find the paper yet. From Ahlfors’ quotation of the acknowledgements, this was also work supported by Industrial Heat, and from what little I’ve seen of it (from the Egely report and Ahlfors’ hint) this could also be of high interest. Congratulations to Industrial Heat for supporting productive research.

Ahlfors came back with his sources.

Tritium with IH:

Tritium without IH:

He4 with IH:

None of these are the paper I found mentioned in Infinite Energy. It is apparently the slide presentation for the talk (because I find it not easy to understand.) It’s hosted on the ISCMNS site. I had looked to see if I could find files in that directory, but the directory contents would not display without a filename. Those slides for it are shown by Ahlfors as hosted on lenr-canr.org, but it is not yet shown in the index. It is shown in the full listing of hosted files on lenr-canr.org.

In that directory I found a pdf with Claytor, Fowler, Cantwell and others as co-authors, also not yet in the lenr-canr.org library index. It does not have a date, but was given at a 2012 conference.

Kevmo toast on E-Cat World?

Well this was a wild-goose chase. Most of what is below about ECW is incorrect, because the software is … misleading. Contrary to what I found, Kevmo has not been blocked on ECW, AFAIK, and his posts have not been deleted. He did change accounts, apparently, creating some of the confusion. I’ll explain below. Meanwhile, I’m leaving this because there are tidbits of value. When I’m wrong, I’m happy, because I learn things! I’m also glad I caught this before publishing it. Continue reading “Kevmo toast on E-Cat World?”

Winning by losing

Somtimes I think of a catchy or snarky title, then write the blog post. Here, I’m just writing and will figure out a title later.

I was again mentioned on LENR Forum.

SSC wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Of course now SSC thinks there was a trial.

There was a judge, a jury, a courtroom, lawyers ……… but maybe you are right, I’m probably the one who understood bad ….. they were all there to play a joke on Abd, right?

Little does he know! The entire universe is here to play a joke on Abd. The best part of the game is getting it. Continue reading “Winning by losing”


Sifferkoll has been active on LENR Forum, arguing for the right to insult. Not surprising. His blog has skated around the edge of libel, which is criminal in Sweden, and one might think that libeling billion-dollar corporations would generate some caution, but … No.

Did Woodford Recently Buy Industrial Heat Shares at a 87% discount?
Posted on 2017/07/23

This was based on two Ahlfors images from LENR Forum. Sifferkoll commonly doesn’t link to ready verification. Neither does Ahlfors, and commonly Ahlfors images are, ah, unclear in significance. In this case, Sifferkoll has a history of misinterpreting data from Industrial Heat. Continue reading “Sifferkollamity”

Straw houses and straw men

People who live in grass houses shouldn’t stow thrones.

I think I read that story in Astounding Science Fiction when I was in high school.

The occasion for this post is a thread started by the old standard, Mary Yugo, who created a LENR Forum thread entirely based on a possible overstatement by Jed Rothwell, I’m not entirely certain yet.

Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

He starts with:

Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power.

I’ve been seeing this go back and forth for days. Mary says “you said,” and Jed says “something else.” Often there is no link to the prior discussion, a particular LF peeve of mine, users who don’t use the quote facility when responding, so tracking conversations back can be tedious.

Yes, a 100 watt power release for days from LENR without input power would be remarkable. Has this ever happened? I don’t have any example in mind, setting aside the claims of Andrea Rossi, which are, to say the least, unconfirmed, hence not answers to Mary’s question. Continue reading “Straw houses and straw men”

Review Committee

for Morrison Fleischmann debate

Comment on this page to sign up for the Review Committee that will support the development of consensus on the debate papers and overall conclusions.

Please use a real, working email address (which will not be published).

Signing up to participate is consent to being emailed for administrative purposes.

Anyone may comment on pages (including other than committee members), but irrelevancies or other inappropriate comments may be removed. (They will not ordinarily be deleted, so on request, text may be supplied to the email address given.) Comments may also be refactored to move them to different locations for clarity.

Participation may be anonymous, but participants are also encouraged to be open and reveal in the signup comment their real name and qualifications or affiliations. Identity and reputation do matter in science.

After signing up, participation may begin immediately. The ideal place to comment on a section of a paper is on the analysis subpage created for it.

For an example, see http://coldfusioncommunity.net/morrison-fleischmann-debate/original/ABSTRACT/

(I — Abd — have commented on the page itself. Similar comments made to that subpage, as drafts of summaries, may be copied onto the page from comments. Other comments may point out errors or other considerations.)

Until these subpages are created, such comments may be on the Original page; please identify the paper section or page involved when commenting so that it can later be moved to the appropriate subpage.

Don’t worry, if something is at all appropriate for the work or discussion, by not done “correctly,” it will be refactored. Far better for us to have wide participation, than to insist on perfect participation.

Lying with facts

On LENR Forum, SSC has been writing deceptive after deceptive post, sometimes with clear error, but other times reporting facts that SSC would reasonably know, if he were careful, would mislead.

(Fact, presented out of context, can be highly misleading. Rossi often used this in his legal arguments in Miami. Partial truth can be perjury, distinct  from “the whole truth.”)

Here is one from just an hour ago:

SSC wrote:

Shane D. wrote:

I am pretty impressed with TD’s comments Abd so kindly provided. He sounds sincere, and truly committed to the humanitarian first, money second aspect in his search for a working LENR tech. Definitely at odds with the unflattering picture IH haters here painted. By their depiction, the “greedy bastard” should have pulled his money out of LENR by now, and gone back to real estate. Instead, he is continuing on with his LENR quest. Good on him!

You base your judgment on the words that Darden said, while his detractors are based on the facts.

He is lying; if he believes what he wrote, he is being without caution in repeating the deceptive claims of others, so he can earn the reward of those who lie.

Darden can tell all the fables he wants, he can say that his first thought when he wakes up every morning is to save the world and he can even tell you that money does not matter to him. But are you really willing to believe him? Did you read the Cherokee – Zeneca case?

I certainly have. I have researched it in detail. First of all, as is common in the Cherokee libels, there is no discrimination between Darden and Cherokee Investment Partners and the various LLCs that are created for specific projects.

I will not be checking every fact alleged by SSC, but most of this appears factual; however, it simply does not show what he is claiming. What, in fact, is he claiming, exactly? He is presenting facts about this case as if they reflect on Darden’s sincerity. How? Continue reading “Lying with facts”

If it blew up, it must be LENR!

I’m writing this because I like the headline. It does bring up some more, ah, fundamental issues.

THHuxleynew wrote:

kirkshanahan wrote:

The results of doing this is to come up with an excess heat signal that is a) large and b) occurring when no current is flowing, meaning you essentially have an infinite instantaneous COP. The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for ‘normal’ operations. The steady state is so radically different in a ‘boiled-dry’ cell that everyone should know you can’t do that. But not the CFers…it shows excess heat…it must be real…and is certainly must be nuclear!

“The CFers.” Classic Shanahan. Classic ad-hominem, straw-man argument, one of the reasons he gets no traction with those who would need to understand and respect his arguments, if he has a real basis and actually cares about supporting science.

Below, I go into details. Continue reading “If it blew up, it must be LENR!”

CAB Story

This is a study of a Bob Greenyer document, (22 MB) being presented as MFMP Claims Strong Evidence for LENR in Slides and Video on E-Cat World and MFMP: Titanium/Vanadium Neutron production [safety warning] on LENR Forum.

Where and what is the beef here? I took a look at Greenyer et al’s video and gave up after 15 minutes of fumbling and mumbling with no content, but for the record, this is apparently discussed in it. If someone transcribes that, I’d appreciate a copy or a link. Meanwhile we have the document. Copying the text as indented italics:


‘CAB Story’ > SUM(A + B + C)

Testable Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Bob W. Greenyer B. Eng. (Hons.)
2 August 2017

The C, A, and B have images behind them with no apparent meaning. Looks nice graphically. I have not included them here.

Party A

The pdf uses the letters to maintain a level of dramatic mystery. A is Piantelli, something said in January 2015.

Due to other world events on that day, was moved to tell us about specific
reactions that were highly predictable based on their most successful excess heat experiment

Shared full plans of experiment and previously undisclosed details
surrounding the event that produced those results, discussed risk

Shown data other than already in the public domain

Due to other group investing at same time, MFMP were prevented from
replicating which was a huge disappointment

It is unclear how they were “prevented from replicating” if “full plans” were disclosed. This boils down to “Piantelli said,” which is then second-hand, and it’s well-known, details shift with time, the “telephone game” or “Chinese whispers.”

Goldwater *Glowstick* series evidence

GS 5.2 “Signal” possibly due to break down of charge cluster, lead to
purchasing of Neutron bubble detectors

I’ve had a great deal of difficulty decoding MFMP reports. This appears to be this one.

Theorizing about the source of signals is typically way premature, unless evidence is clear. What “breakdown of charge cluster” means is very unclear. Is there a report somewhere? If one suspects neutrons, having some bubble dosimeters around is a great idea. Neutrons can also be detected with LR-115, fast neutrons from the back of the material, perhaps, and slow neutrons with a boron-10 converter screen (which generates alpha radiation from slow neutrons. (I have some).

GS 5.3 Observations of thermal Neutrons in temperature range similar to
Party A

GS 5.3.

There is some discussion on Facebook. The face of Open Science: confused and over-amped? Trying to derive meaning from the timing of single nuclear tracks? This is hardly a report of neutrons, much less what is later made of this.

Following announcement, other researchers (re-)reported neutrons

This is entirely unclear. Who? Under what conditions? I have an Am-241 source on my desk. I have a piece of Beryllium metal. I could make some neutrons. And it would mean what? (Fun, actually, but that’s not the point here.)

Development of Bob Higgins open Neutron detector

Nice article at Physics Open Lab.

How is this relevant? What results have been seen? If one is sitting there getting excited because of a bubble detector showing an apparent neutron track, or a counter showing an alpha from a boron-10 converter in a tube (that’s what is described on that page), the real story is yet to be developed. It’s hard work to distinguish experiment-sourced neutrons from background. SPAWAR provides some convincing evidence, but this must be remembered: the SPAWAR tracks are accumulated over weeks. These tracks could probably not be distinguished based on an electronic detector that would pick up background readily; what they show is an accumulated spatial correlation.

Generally, with LENR, neutron radiation (fast or slow), if any, is close to background, essentially irrelevant to the main reaction. A common expression I use is that (for PdD work), tritium is a million times down from helium and neutrons are a million times down from tritium. For excess heat, we may be looking at 10^12 reactions per second, implying a possible neutron rate of 1 per second, but most will not be detected.

Party B

Party B is Suhas Ralkar. What’s happening with MFMP investigation with Suhas? Last I’d noticed, there was a big flap about he needed money or his lab was going to be shut down and everything would be lost. I stopped following MFMP (and I think many have done that. People burn out.)

Very specific claims of high heat

Known fuel feedstock, known processing, known reactor design

All procedures published

Published where? Confirmed, and if so, how? The approach is radically different, on the face, but Greenyer is presenting these together as if a mutual confirmation of three independent persons. This is a classic cold fusion error (and it happens in both directions: vague results at A are consider to confirm different vague results at B, as long as those results seem to indication something “nuclear.” This is far from direct evidence, it is highly circumstantial and indirect, and easily flawed, in many different ways. One mystery does not confirm another mystery. This is not replication, for sure, and it is hardly confirmation at all.

Present this to scientists as proof of something, they will think you are crazy. This has nothing to do with pseudoskepticism, it is rather a form of common sense.

Subsequently, evidence found in two scenarios supporting claims of
Parties A & C

So far, no actual evidence, just claims that evidence exists. I suppose single tracks are evidence, but it is so weak that relying on it is like trying to repair your roof by climbing on a ladder made of stacked playing cards. I don’t think so….

With each report, there might be years of work to create something clear and definitive. Is that work under way?

Party C
Party C is me356, an anonymous researcher who made many claims on LENR Forum.

Claims of success in triggering LENR with excess heat

Due to timing and choice of reactor / technology,
a hugely disappointing live test with no excess heat result obtained

Notice the excuse given as if it were fact. Maybe that was the cause, purely accidental. Maybe not. How would we know?

Due to the lack of excess heat, a request was made to test samples from
previous reactors; under the circumstances, access was given

I would not spend money on analyses of samples without other evidence of a reaction. Bad idea, except as controls in experiments that show heat with some material samples.

Request was made which samples should be focussed on

Only samples highlighted for examination were interesting, key sample with
same key fuel elements as Party B, support claims of Parties A and B

No evidence is given here and what is being claimed is far from clear.

CAB Story

We had no proof of what Party A was saying until recently

Given the sequence of events and the nature of our project we must inform

PROOF is evidence that is so strong, it would be statistically unreasonable to deny it

This is not untrue, but how statistics are applied is crucial. There are many possible pitfalls, common errors that can trap the naive — and, sometimes, even experts.

Party A – Piantelli, January 2015

Following first Paris attacks, Piantelli was adamant the world could not be responsible with LENR
and worried about an amateur researcher chancing upon a reaction that might cause injury, leading
to a shut down of the field

Highly unlikely. A great deal of research is very dangerous, yet it continues.

Explained that the highest excess was due to reaction products released
from contamination in his reactors stainless steel (never disclosed) which took a long time to

So what is the evidence here? Basically Piantelli Says.

Explained that a common metal hydride could lead to same active
component and that was a real safety concern

We mused for years over if we should conduct experiment as fast track to
LENR proof – not willing to take risk since others may follow as we acted

Neutrons – but why? Source:

*How many neutrons?* Notice: three papers from the same group. Two show no neutrons, and allegedly one does. Was this it? 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. No., this is the “1993” work.  This would be the work, it has the right authors and was published at about the right time, but that paper did not report radiation results, deferring that.

However, this paper may refer to the work: Neutron emission in NiH systems.  (Thanks, Steve Krivit.)

That paper deserves careful study. However, a result from it is not very far from common results in LENR. They estimate that there is one neutron emitted for every 10^11 reactions. The figure that I have often cited — very roughly — has been one in 10^12. That work is still very approximate. Consider the data on pdf page 6.

The “excited” cell produced about 87 neutron counts per 10 minutes, while the “normal” cell produced about 78. That is an excess of 9 counts per 10 minutes, less than one neutron detected per minute. This should be kept in mind. This is common with claims of neutron detection with LENR: the rates are very low.


Vanadium 50 + p

This is speculation. A speculation cannot be an element in a statistical proof. The problem is an undefined sample space.

Only 0.25% Natural as
part component in steel

Titanium and Vanadium

Party B – Suhas Ralkar

Party B – Suhas Ralkar

Party B – Suhas Ralkar

Lovely toy. The significance?

Party C – me356



Party C – me356

Party C – me356

This is essentially meaningless. If a transcript of the video appears, I hope someone will let me know about it, I may come back and edit this.


49Ti + p

Reaction table

This was a broken link.

Reaction chart

Links to a fuzzy image of a set of reaction charts like the one above.

49Ti is 5.41%
Natural Titanium

This set of reactions appears based on sequential proton fusion. This could run square into a major rate problem. Unless the first reaction proceeds to high levels of completion, the second reaction will be very rare. Of course, to explain one neutron per minute, a reaction could be very rare. However, none of this is explained to show it as probative evidence of any kind.

49V – Isotopic tracer

Since 73% of natural Titanium is 48Ti, most likely output is 49V

Has 329 day half life producing 601KeV gamma

Opportunity for verification by long term integration spectrometry

I am not convinced that anything here even merits careful investigation. Maybe. However, this kind of result, neutrons at extremely low levels, is a distraction. It provides little or no guidance as to the main reaction taking place. I remember thinking, back in 2009, how exciting neutron results were. However, that kind of work has basically gone nowhere. The field needs basic science, clear and direct evidence (which can be done without “reliability,”) as well as reliable experiments, a “lab rat.” There is nothing here that shows this. There are possibilities, though my assessment is that probability of success is low.


Nickel + Titanium + Hydrogen + Electrons leads to

excess heat
potential emissions of gamma and neutrons
Seemingly resilient to reactor design

May be verifiable with bubble detectors and gamma spectrometry

These are NiH results, which are, in the CMNS field, the weakest, once we realize that Rossi was a carnival sideshow, never actually confirmed, with massive evidence accumulating that it will likely never be confirmed. Rossi will continue to work on almost entirely alone, and if he actually creates a product, everything will change. I don’t expect it, we are seeing more of the same-old, same-old.

Meanwhile, MFMP appears to be spinning its wheels, having allowed mania to hijack what had sometimes been useful work. Structurally, MFMP was vulnerable to this, and MFMP members that might have done something about it have mostly remained silent.

This pdf was apparently intended as a slide show for the video presentation. This is not science.


Q & A

Comments here are welcome, and especially the correction of errors. It was substantial work to convert the pdf to what could be posted here, and mistakes can be made in the process. This study was inspired  be Bob Greenyer’s comments on Bob Greenyer and the Temple of Doom.

About the original PDF

The original pdf is 23.2 MB. The extracted text is 5 KB. The extracted images total 57.9 MB. (That’s much larger than the file, probably because of PDF compression). Excluding background images (there is one image repeated for every page, 2.6 MB, the patterned background), images remain 4.35 MB. I don’t have general PDF creation tools, so I don’t know what a PDF without the backgrounds would be, but it could not be more than 4.26 MB. So the original PDF is more than 80% fluff. Further, there is data presented as image, instead of as text. That swells the file and makes commentary more difficult.

Cold fusion: Manual for the Compleat Idiot

There is a decent video by Jed Rothwell

Unfortunately it repeats some common tropes that can make an approach to understanding cold fusion more difficult (as they did from the beginning). Rather than take this apart, what would be a better introduction? I’m using a recent post by Jed Rothwell as a seed that may create one.

On LENR Forum, Jed Rothwell wrote:

kevmolenr@gmail.com wrote:

So how do we establish that LENR has been replicated? We are surrounded by hyperskeptics, whom I have no real interest in appeasing because their standard, if it were applied to any other branch of science, would send us back to some kind of stone age.

I recommend you ignore the hyperskeptics. I engage with them here only to keep in practices, as an exercise in rhetorical target practice.

Great excuse! Someone is wrong on the internet! There goes countless hours. This is useful if one actually hones literary and rhetorical skills, but, too often, there is no genuine feedback, no objective standard or measure of success. What, indeed, is success? What I’ve gained from the engagement is familiarity with the issues. It enables me to speak cogently, off-the-cuff. We’ll see how effective that is!

We are not, however, “surrounded by hyperskeptics.” Where does Kev live that he thinks this way? Planet Rossi? If someone new is not skeptical about cold fusion, they don’t understand the problem.

I recommend you concentrate instead on trying to persuade open minded people who are sincerely interested in the subject. There are apparently a large number of such people. Although the numbers seem to be dropping off. See:

lenr-canr.org statistics

I’ve been writing for years about this. A goal of “persuading” people can be disempowering. How about “inspiring” them? Short of that, “informing” them. Of what? Our opinions? Continue reading “Cold fusion: Manual for the Compleat Idiot”


Today I uploaded consolidated deposition files for Penon and three for Rossi (for himself, for Lenoardo, and for JMP). These files were prepared by Bruce H. We have many extracts from the depositions, and we must maintain them because they are cited by specific case exhibit and pdf page, in our study documents. But if someone just wants to read as much as possible of a deposition, these consolidated files make it far easier. There are many more to be done, but Bruce is a pioneer, and I want to take this occasion to acknowledge that, and the help of all those who have made and are making this site useful.

All deposition exhibits (and the consolidated files) are listed on RvD: Depositions

How to shoot your credibility in the foot

Simple. Follow Alan Fletcher’s example. He hasn’t done the testing yet, he claims, but when I saw Alan’s announcement of the pool, my immediate reaction was “Ew! WTF?”

Missing in action: self-critique. What could be a problem with this? How could this pool create doubt regarding the work Alan has undertaken?

This obvious lack of self-critique is a prominent feature of the models of Rossi behavior that I use. Rossi seems totally naive about how his work would appear to others. If he is criticized, they are snakes and clowns. A simple desire to verify is full-on grounds for exclusion. Jed Rothwell wanted to bring his own measuring equipment to a demonstration (such as thermometers.) No, visit not allowed. Rothwell at that time was a strong supporter of Rossi. He didn’t take it personally, remained supportive, because he had friends who privately told him they had witnessed impressive tests, and he trusted them.

Fletcher seems to think that nobody could question his honesty. It is not that I’m questioning it, and the most likely source of mistrust would be from Planet Rossi. And I will explain below what I suspect may happen.

Continue reading “How to shoot your credibility in the foot”

IH Fanboy

I already have a page on IH Fanboy, I notice. I might move that. However, this is about current discussion. Alan Fletcher pointed to a discussion here that also looked at an IH Fanboy post, though a reader won’t know it from reading what IHFB quoted.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Alan Fletcher wrote:

AbD’s been grumbling about me … ” because he has continued with other face-palm stupidities.”
AbD : AF

[IHFB quoted the entire Fletcher comment, having nothing to do with him, though his post is discussed in that liked post.]

Abd is an amazing soul. He actually makes me feel important. I’ve never had someone else write so extensively about yours truly. He probably even outranks my mother on that front.

Trolls routinely lie, but they can also troll with truth. Perhaps IHFB is being sarcastic here, but it is entirely off-topic where posted. Trolls turn conversations and discussions into personal attacks and defenses. They are highly disruptive. There is no clear line between stupid participants and trolls, because trolls will often imitate “stupid.” As well, knowledgeable and sincere participants may say what will poke and irritate another; if this is done deliberately, it’s a form of trolling.

LF has a quite ambivalent attitude about trolling and disruptive participation. Obvious and blatant disruption is tolerated for a time.

(For example, Roger Barker is a blatant troll targeting Mary Yugo; Mary Yugo is just plain weird, but, from years of conversation, Mary does apparently believe what she writes and is merely a particular kind of unsophisticated, a professional with a few big holes in her understanding of life and science. Not uncommon. Mary could do useful work if she decided to engage usefully. Instead, she is wasting vast chunks of her retirement tilting at windmills. I’d put her to work cataloging and documenting windmills. — and I’m using the pronoun of choice, I think. The reality is well-known but there is no need to violate ordinary courtesy. Perhaps Mary could assist us in explaining Kirk Shanahan’s CCS theory, such that Shanahan would say, Yes, that’s what I think.)

The Alan Fletcher post was related to the Rossi-IH relationship, IHFB’s comment is entirely about me, or more accurately, about him, and it pretends, as well, to be about his mother.

What I’d actually written was at the top of the post.

It was not about IHFB, but about what he wrote. I don’t know IHFB, nor do I know his mother, but I’m pretty sure that no mother is writing about “IH Fanboy.” (Married to Mr. Fanboy, eh?) We have a potential interaction between the ghost called IHFB and the real world, through Alan Fletcher. So Alan may come to know who he is. However, I don’t really care. My concern is the “cold fusion community,” and phenomena arising in that community, and the posting of IHFB is one of them. The account has over 2000 posts to LENR Forum. Quality has been declining.

One way to get my attention is to use my name. Unfortunately, the LF interface that would notify me is totally broken, unaccessible, because of the reckless ban. Long story. But I see all comments on this blog, I have to, as admin. However, anyone regularly posting repetitive mishegas or flabber on LF will probably eventually be mentioned. Or, for that matter, useful information or discussion.

(Most of the flabber I see, I ignore. Sometimes it’s a slow news day, or I have serious work to avoid.)

If IHFB says anything worth looking at, someone tell me.


Alan Fletcher

I wrote this update to a post reviewing of certain LF discussions, and mentioned Alan Fletcher.

His response, Alan Fletcher wrote:

AbD’s been grumbling about me … ” because he has continued with other face-palm stupidities. “

AbD : AF

Thanks for the link, Alan. That was a relatively minor part of the updated post, but I have now added an anchor so that the particular part of the discussion can be found. (Anyone may ask that I add such anchors. They do not appear in the page display. They must have the form [letters][numbers], no spaces. Capitalization matters. If a page anchor add to a URL doesn’t exist, the browser will simply display the page, ignoring the anchor, so if someone wants to use an anchor, they can use it (add “#[anchortext” to the URL, and then add a comment to the original post, here, asking for the anchor, I’ll add it ASAP. Make it civil. Be specific.)

Unfortunately, two minor problems: My full name is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, which may be spelled various ways, but the initial noun is “Abd,” which is pronounced “Abid,” accent on the first syllable. Where Alan got AbD from, I have no idea, but the capital D would probably lead to mispronunciation. (However, it would mean, in Arabic, as probably pronounced — Abdee — “my slave.” Not bad. At your service.)

And Alan misrepresents the statement, by taking it somewhat out of context. For years, I have been described as complaining (or “grumbling”) when I state obvious fact. I do think that details matter, and often point to them, but … I also know that LENR Forum is sometimes like a bar-room discussion (or brawl, minus the physical violence, but with all the high-testosterone challenges).

If there is anything dumber than argumentum ad spelling-errors, it is arguing about pointing out spelling errors, or the like (such as rounding off numbers). I had mentioned “face-palm stupidites,” but wasn’t specific as to what was face-palm stupid. Rounding off numbers wasn’t an example of that, it was dicta. Leaving out sources gets closer, when one says something that if one is not “stupid” — which in this case can mean ignorant — one would not say, the effort of finding a source for the claim would often lead to self-correction.

This blog is not a bar-room discussion, it serves two purposes. One is blogging, users with author privileges here (there are now four) can use this to express themselves, with high freedom. The other is building useful content. Blog posts are, by nature, transient, though they can be cited as part of building content. Pages here are used for content. Both posts and pages can be categorized ( I have set this WordPress blog to allow that) and, here, we have our first subpage, to remove clutter from top-level indexes. Expect to see this more and more. The RvD pages will probably become a page hierarchy, because it is necessary to organize them for study access.

… for rounding numbers ($90M vs $89, $270M vs $269 ) … but (unless you’re writing the check) rounding is often better.|Heck, I shoulda rounded $89M to $100M and $267M to $300M.

This isn’t what “worried me a bit” about Alan, nor was the omission of the source for his claim:

.. for not giving references (Hey, this is a blog, not a court case).

See Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] referencing docket 214-23

If this were Be Kind to Readers Day, in Fletcher’s calendar, the actual document would be linked. Apparently it’s not. Nor is the document linked in that earlier post of his, but there are quotations or references, without page numbers. 214-23 is 48 pages. Which page? [turns out the page is mentioned, simply not linked).

This is very common with highly opinionated conversation. It is not investigative, sharing knowledge by sharing sources, it is extraordinarily sensitive to prior belief. Alan is a notch above common Planet Rossi commentary, but still not out of the fog, and that was my point.

I said : In their investment letter they said they’d have to raise it quickly — at just the time they said it was not the GPT.

He purports to be quoting himself there, not the document. But he also didn’t write that in the older post. This kind of sloppiness is all-too-common. The problem with exact quotation is? True, he didn’t use quotation marks, but “I said” implies them. He did not say what he claims he said. He said something that was itself interpretive (not what IH “said”) . Rossi v. Darden was a riddled with these interpretive statements on Rossi’s part, and so too was general Planet Rossi commentary. If Alan wants to move beyond that (does he?) he will need to develop better habits.

Good writing is work. Occasionally I just dash something off — this is, indeed, a blog, but not this page — but I can always be asked for sources by anyone, and if I can’t find a source, I’ll say so and I will fully understand that, then, my comments might be deprecated.

Here, Fletcher is referring to a massive document, 241-23, covering the IH investment strategy, detailing how they would spend the $25 million Woodford investment that was planned (that later became $50 million).

Fletcher does mention “page 8”. In Kind to Readers Week, one will simply add the standard PDF page anchor, “#page=8”. It is just as easy as writing “page 8” but far faster to use.

This is the reference.

Shown is a budget assuming $25 million additional funding. It then considers a “Rossi contingency,” stating at the top:

If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3. 

This is not an agreement, nor does it state that there is an agreement. It is silent on the matter of the Second Amendment failure.

The document is undated. The document is not OCR’d, as I have it. Rossi cited this document in his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as “Ex. 22.” The argument was crucial, but the document doesn’t support exactly what Rossi claimed about it. (Rossi’s pleadings were full of claims that were not supported by the sources, but maybe if you squinted when you read the source, having Rossi’s claim ni mind, you could find a hint.) From that Motion, PDF page 13:

39. In October 2013, Defendant IH, Rossi and Leonardo executed the Second Amendment
to the License Agreement, which extended the time for the commencement of the GPT. See Ex. 7.
40. In addition to the Second Amendment, Defendants’ internal and external
communications reflected Defendants’ agreement that the time for commencement of the GPT had
been extended. See IH-00122484-508 (investment memoranda), IH-00107550-52 (9/11/2014, email
from Vaughn to Mazzarino and Darden), IH-00106452-74 (IH Business Plan), appended hereto as
Composite Ex. 22.

There is no agreement to GPT mentioned in the document. Rossi has cherry-picked the history, leaving out crucial facts. What existed was a conditional statement that was vague as to meaning, and this was not a document given to Rossi, so he could not have depended on it. Rossi never bothered to get agreement, but relied on fuzz. So, as an example, IH could have been talking about a possible set-up for earning the payment, not an already -existing one.

The Second Amendment was “executed” by three of the five parties to the License Agreement, which required all parties agree. Leave out IPH, which had become a party through the First Amendment, that’s an obviously technical detail that would not alter the substance — just like the Leonardo signature being omitted, so leave that out as well — … this was not a complete document, it was never dated, and, crucially, there was no Ampenergo signature. And we learn in other documents that this was deliberate, Ampenergo refused to sign, this was not an accident. Rossi called the Amendment, in an email, “cancelled,” so he knew it was invalid. Without it, the time for the GPT performance had indeed lapsed.

However, the Second Amendment, were it valid, then required a written agreement of all the parties to a start date. Ampenergo was a party. If such an agreement had been created, it would have been equivalent to Ampenergo signing off on the Second Amendment (and the Ampenergo signature could have been added later to the Second Amendment, there was no expiration date unless a signing party had notified the others of a withdrawal) Rossi did not bother with legal necessities and instead proceeded to set up a faux GPT, resembling a real one in a number of ways.

IH was assuring Rossi, during this period, that even though the time for “GPT” had elapsed, they were willing to pay if Rossi could show them how to make devices that passed independent testing.

I.e., ordinary common sense, necessary for raising that kind of money without defrauding investors.

They also could have elected to accept the Doral operations as a GPT, paying Rossi, and they held that possibility open (by making sure that they had access to the funds, if needed, to pay Rossi.) That was not an “agreement” as Rossi claims. It was simply preparing for a contingency, that did not arise, because …

Rossi in his recent interview claims that he decided he wanted the License back, as his total priority, when he learned that IH had became involved with other LENR efforts. That was part of the business plan, and Woodford was totally on board that plan, apparently. The plan did not exclude Rossi, it included him. The plan was probably issued in 2014, we know that the Woodford commitment existed then. IH was long suspicious of Rossi — they were not stupid — but did not act to handle suspicions until July, 2015, when they scheduled the Murray visit that Rossi refused to allow.

That destroyed any possibility that Doral would be treated as earning $89 million. It is not impossible that this was deliberate, a more complicated version of the Hydro Fusion fiasco.

What had Alan written that I considered stupid? Alan gets to it below. Here, he cites the $150M statement

IH said : If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3.

[Culpa mea : AEG got $4,200,000.00 — is THAT precise enough ? — in cash, some $500K (intentionally rounded) more in equity. So I should round down IH’s payment to $4M. I don’t think they mentioned an amount in their email to Rossi about the $89,000,000 GPT tranche. [ No, I’m not going to hunt down the reference]

I don’t know why he is apologizing about a reference to AEG. Must have been some other post. Yes. IH said what he quotes, I quote it above. This was written before any alleged “test” began.

.. for saying the parties represented they had the funds to back up their contract. I thought it was in the license, but I know it’s in the docket … somewhere.

This was a prominent Rossi argument, that IH didn’t have the funds when signing the contract. It was totally dumb, because almost never would a promise like that be backed with actual cash on hand. They didn’t have the $10 million either, but they paid it. They actually didn’t have the $1.5 million, but perhaps only half, and Darden appears to have borrowed the other half from Cherokee.

Yes, this was an example of face-palm stupid. The error shows a lack of familiarity with the case arguments, and an acceptance of Planet Rossi claims, which were then extended into an alleged false claim in the License Agreement, with Alan’s misleading claim matching Rossi’s, but extending it a little.

The closest that the prior arguments comes to this is a Rossi claim that Darden and Vaughn assured him that they would be able to pay, and Rossi commonly takes what is said and runs with it to make it mean something that wasn’t said, whatever he wants it to mean.

Is Rossi lying about what they said to him? Well, one of the arguments in the IH Motion to Dismiss was that Rossi hadn’t been specific, and I can imagine things that they might have said, that were true, but that he may have interpreted differently. For example, they may have said “we” and Rossi interpreted this as meaning “Cherokee.” Very easy misunderstanding.

And this is why the Licence Agreement had an Entire Agreement clause, to avoid misunderstandings like this. Darden and Vaughn did not lie in the fundamental premise: that they could make the payments if earned. If Woodford, for some reason, had backed out, they had other possible resources. Further, a failed intention does not show fraud, at all. If they had misrepresented their ability to raise the money, maybe. It’s still very difficult to show fraud from that, it would need to be very specific and clearly deceptive, in addition to, for something brought up years later, being memorialized in writing. The initial Rossi case absolutely reeked.

Rossi attacked what appear to be, in reviewing the documents, angel investors. They made it as easy as possible for him. So … what did he do? The case documents and the pleadings and his recent Mats Lewan interview show reality, the latter being, still, Rossi Says, but probably accurate in at least some ways about his thinking.

He’s leaving something out. I doubt that Lukacs only presented “You won’t get your License back.” And that desire could have been asserted at any time; it would not have been crazy to formally propose a return of the license, and if Rossi didn’t have enough money to pay them the whole amount, I’m sure some arrangement could have been made. That would be sane business.

Instead, Rossi sued first, creating enormous expense for everyone involved, not taking the time to attempt a negotiation. What was the rush? Some big deal in the wings?

We do know that Rossi met with IH lawyers in something like January 2016, Mats Lewan mentions it in his recent interview. Rossi refuses to say what it was about, as if he’d be prohibited by an NDA, but all those claims about violation of NDAs were killed by the joint dismissal with prejudice, and ordinary attorney-client privilege doesn’t require the client to keep the topic of discussions secret. This is more Rossi secrecy-for-the-sake-of secrecy.

Planet Rossi believes that Rossi made an offer to return the License for $11.5 million. Rossi said that to Mats Lewan, but then, it develops that this may never have been actually presented to IH, it was just blog chatter. Had this been formally presented, I’d have expected IH to hold out for, say, some compensation for expenses. I doubt it was mentioned in the negotiations in court in that 15 minute period.

AbD did send me an email on the Prominent project, which I’ll take note of.

It is important how Alan does this. The idea is totally excellent.

If the goal is to prove this or that, the work could be contaminated. The goal would be to carefully and accurately describe actual pump flow, at maximum setting, under varying back pressures, or at least at atmospheric. (It is not necessary to test at 2 bar. That would add complications; at low pressures, water head is good enough and no pressure gauge will be needed, just precautions to avoid air pockets, etc.)

And then the variation of setting and actual flow at various settings and pressures, frosting on the cake.

Whatever is done should be described clearly so that exact replication can be done by others if needed. If this is done well enough, it might be so widely accepted that replication isn’t necessary, though we already have announced claims on JONP — by anonymous users and no details.

When Alan is done, I recommend then making the pump and any accessories available to the community, selling them to another, and only selling it on ebay if nobody wants it. The committed funder (IHFB) could also agree to back another tester, or require that he be paid back whatever he has put in.

This is a landmark event, in my mind, the “community of interest” agreeing to cooperate and support, even if they have different “agendas,” i.e,. perhaps different ideas of what will happen. Being interested in what actually happens, regardless of what it might seem to imply, is crucial to science. (and also law, by the way),


Alan Fletcher wrote:

AF : Well, they declared in the contract that they had the money to pay him the $90M, so NOT having it was a breach.

AbD: Alan doesn’t point to actual evidence. The “contract,” i.e., the License Agreement, didn’t say what he claims. Such a statement would be rare.

OK … I knew I’d seen it somewhere : Complaint 1.0


lI2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants DARDEN, VAUGHN, IH and
CHEROKEE misrepresented to ROSSI and LEONARDO that:

a. both IH and CHEROKEE had funds in excess of One Hundred Million
Dollars ($100,000,000.00) available to pay to ROSSI and LEONARDO for
the license for the E-Cat IP;

COUNT VI was NOT dismissed (24.0 Order) , so this accusation was still in play.

Some people have no clue when to fold. The point has been entirely missed. Alan’s original point was about breach of contract, and about an alleged claim of having the funds that they allegedly did not have. The Count cited is not for breach of contract, but for “fraud and deceit.”

The difference between evidence in the case (the Agreement is evidence, and would be admitted at trial with attestation under oath) and pleadings is crucial to understand. Planet Rossi often misunderstood this and proclaimed that if it was declared in the court filings it must be true, right?

Not right. It’s legal to lie in filings. Under some extreme circumstances, there can be sanctions, but it is not perjury. There is no assumption at law that statements in pleadings are true. They are not generally admissible as evidence (other than for the fact of the pleading being made, which would be rare).

Rossi did not actually quote what had been said to him. He gave a description of a representation that was quite unlikely to be true, if they actually said exactly what he claims. And it would be totally irrelevant and would not create a breach of contract. Under rare circumstances (which did not actually apply here), misrepresenting ability to pay could be fraudulent representation. This could simply be ordinary business puffery. “don’t worry, we will have never have a problem honoring the guarantee,” when, next year the dealership goes belly-up, and if you don’t have it in writing, you are probably screwed. Even in writing, no protection against bankruptcy, unless it’s insured somehow.

In fact, they had means of raising the contingent funding. This was all Rossi fluff in the case, and my opinion has become that Altonaga erred in a few places. The early errors were very understandable (and less significant, then, as errors), but her final ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment was blatantly incorrect, and that will be covered in analysis. She misinterpreted the rules for summary judgment and did not then take due care. (I don’t think IH can appeal, it’s all now moot.)

What’s significant to me, here, is that Alan clearly wasn’t maintaining the distinction between case fact and Rossi Says. Planet Rossi repeated the meme over and over that IH didn’t have the means to pay, they had lied, and Alan apparently believed that. As a belief, then, we tend to fill in facts that confirm the belief. If it was just Rossi Says, not very impressive. But if this was a clear violation of the Agreement, it’s a much bigger deal.

But it wasn’t in the Agreement. Where Alan got the idea speaks volumes about how he has been thinking about the case.

If I seem to believe something because IH said so, rattle my cage! (I do tend to accept what they have stated, because I know no history of major error in it. But I still distinguish between their pleadings and evidence presented. Murray said some things in his query to Penon. Those were not attested fact. What Murray said in his deposition is attested fact and will be presumed true unless controverted. Either one can still be “wrong.” (especially opinion can be wrong, but lying about opinion would still be perjury; hard to prove but not impossible). What was presented in the Motions for Summary Judgment was attested.

I’m looking forward to Alan’s report on the Prominent pump.

Cherokee Investment Partners

Cherokee Investment Partners (CIP) has very little to do with LENR other than this: in 2012, the CEO of CIP, Thomas Darden, wanted to investigate investment possibilities in LENR, and the CIP reputation probably helped Darden to gain access to Andrea Rossi. Cherokee also assisted Darden and others in starting up Industrial Heat (IH).

In his opening statement in Rossi v. Darden, Chaiken, Rossi’s attorney, claimed that Cherokee had provided half of the initial $1.5 million payment (for the Plant) that secured the License Agreement, and Rossi included Cherokee in his lawsuit (in spite of serious legal problems with that).

(Apparently the $750,000 was a personal loan to Darden, not an investment, for CIP ended up with no IH stock, as far as we know, and no IH Holdings International, Ltd. (IHHI) stock in the stock swap that bought out IH shareholders entirely.)

Back then, Darden et al were considered heroes by Planet Rossi. However, when Rossi sued them, everything flipped, and suddenly everything Cherokee was presented as fraud and ripping off the taxpayers and the like. Documents have been dredged up purporting to show great misbehavior, and even though it is now totally irrelevant to Rossi affairs, some of Rossi’s followers keep beating the drum.

A recent comment on Sifferkoll’s blog theorizes that Darden et al settled because of embarrassing “revelations” about CIP on Sifferkoll’s blog. It disappeared?

This Sifferkoll post is dated 7/3/2017, two days before the parties unexpectedly settled in court:

Are Tom Darden and the Cherokee Lawyer “Sharks” Deliberately Leaving out Important Information in their SEC Filings?

Notice the headline doesn’t actually make a statement, it asks a question. That’s a common Sifferkoll tactic: Ask a question and then present misleading evidence that could seem to point to the answer he believes or wants to wag in front of his audience.

Planet Rossi reads Sifferkoll as Holy Writ. So, sure enough, we have this on LENR Forum:

SSC wrote:

guest111 wrote:

Someone should make a call to the Florida Dept. of Revenue, and IRS, [about a possibility that Rossi did not pay all his taxes.]

This was completely dumb, it would be a total waste of time unless one has personal knowledge or a very good and very specific case to show from public documents (and I don’t think it exists on this point. A stronger case might be made for perjury, and even there I’m told by an attorney that a complaint to state or federal prosecutors would probably be a waste of time. But I would not claim it is “impossible.”) Then SSC goes into nutty brilliance:

The same person should also contact the SEC and warn it that Cherokee has lied in its March statement, because at the question : “You are actively engaged in business as a real estate broker, dealer, or agent.” they answer : “ none “, despite all the related companies engaged in real estate activity (brownfields are by definition a real estate activity in so far they are not just remediation but also revitalization by building and selling housing and commercial centers).

SSC doesn’t cite the actual document nor does he give a source. All too common on Planet Rossi. Sifferkoll, however, dumps a mass of mostly irrelevant detail on us. In this case, though, he is referencing a prior post by SSC. I’ll get back to that.

The actual form being discussed is here.

That’s a complex form, 33 pages. Sifferkoll and SSC imagine that Cherokee should have answered certain questions differently, but that’s apparently an error.

Planet Rossi, in general, has no comprehension of what CIP actually does. They are “investment advisors,” which is why SEC statements are required.

I have seen nothing that indicates that CIP is engaged in real estate activity, per se. Rather, it advises other organizations that do this. CIP doesn’t build and sell housing, but advised LLCs might (and, I think, do). “Real estate broker, dealer, or agent” is quite specific in meaning, legally. CIP is not one of these. They are investment advisors. An investment advisor might give advice on investing in real estate, but does not thereby become a broker, dealer, or agent, and, in fact, it could create a conflict of interest, which is probably why the SEC asks the question.

The individual advised LLCs may do this. As well, CIP may have some investment in them, which does not make them brokers, dealers or agents.

This is typical of Planet Rossi FUD on CIP.

SSC continued:

Moreover at the question “Are you actively engaged in any other business not listed in Item 6.A ( that is other than giving investment advice)?” they answer: “no”, which is an omission, because Cherokee had to declare that it is actively engaged in another business with IH and others. Finally at the question “Has any domestic or foreign court in the past ten years, enjoined you or any advisory affiliate in connection with any investment-related activity?” they answer : “ no”, making an omission because they did not declare the story of Ashley II of Charleston LLC , an affiliate which had some trouble with the Law.

No, CIP did not declare that. Rossi claimed that. Further, CIP was not enjoined, and “trouble with the law” is vague. If I’m correct, Ashley II is in bankruptcy, which means Cherokee, if CIP invested in Ashley, lost money (as did other investors). It also means that whatever happened there is likely to be closely scrutinized. Nothing is alleged here that shows any violation of regulations, just fevered imaginations.

Cherokee was not engaged in business with IH. They provided a minimal level of support to their CEO, Darden (office space and a little staff support, IH claims to have reimbursed for that), and no investment, and had no ownership interest in IH. This is all clear from documents in Rossi v. Darden, where Rossi was desperate to find evidence of Cherokee ownership and essentially came up empty.

For an investment advisor (as CIP is) to leave out “important information” in an SEC filing would be asking for major expenses and possible fines. These filings are prepared by experts, generally, but are here being analyzed by a fanatic who already has his mind made up and is clueless about what is actually happening.

In the claims about CIP, Planet Rossi often completely confuses the situation of an individual project LLC with the situation of CIP. Each LLC is legally independent, and has its own responsible board and its own officers, and, as well, its own set of investors with voting rights, etc. SSC imagines that the existence of some people who are common to the various organizations would create legal identity. It doesn’t. There are narrow situations where it might, under some circumstances. Those circumstances are not alleged. This is all ignorant nonsense.

So Ashley II might be subject to some court order. That does not subject CIP to the order, unless the Court included CIP (and apparently did not). CIP, or more likely one of the managed funds, may be an investor in Ashley II. That does not create any liability beyond the possible loss of their investment. This is all standard corporate law.

The Cherokee family of LLCs operates as they do, because they take on very risky projects. If they did them as Cherokee, the entire structure could come down from one mistake. So, like any corporation, the individual LLCs are responsible to their own investors (shareholders) and for following the law and regulations in the areas where they operate. CIP itself advises those who want to follow the advice. It may help collect the investors. It will disclose risks, etc. It is subject to law and regulations governing investment advisors.

The prior post by SSC goes into great detail founded on the interpretive errors described here. The same lack of analytical skill and caution that led Planet Rossi into hosts of errors, and that continues to do so, are shown here: (SSC’s comment)

Item 11 H (1) (a) Question : “Has any domestic or foreign court in the past ten years, enjoined you or any advisory affiliate in connection with any investment-related activity?”

Cherokee’s answer : “ No”.

SSC knows that the precise meanings of terms is crucial, and quotes SEC definitions:

– Advisory Affiliate : Your advisory affiliates are (1) all of your officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions);(2) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by you; and (3) all of your current employees( other than employees performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar functions).
– Enjoined: This term includes being subject to a mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction, preliminary injunction, or temporary restraining order.
– Investment-Related: Activities that pertain to securities, commodities, banking, insurance, or real estate ( including, but not limited to, acting as or being associated with an investment adviser, broker-dealer, municipal securities dealer, government securities broker or dealer, issuer, investment company, futures sponsor, bank, or savings association).

The application of each one of these by SSC is problematic. His strongest point would be a claim that the Ashley II injunction was “investment-related,” because the key issue was the liability of Ashley II as an owner of property (“investor in property”) requiring environmental remediation. My opinion is no, it would not be that, the intention of the regulations wouldn’t include ownership of real estate and injunctions relating to that as covered, but this is a place where a company like CIP would obtain professional advice, and if they follow professional advice, and absent clear and specific intention to violate regulations, this wouldn’t be a criminal offense, even if the disclosure were required. So set this one aside as possibly establishing that Ashley II was “so enjoined,” and we will see about the others.

An order or injunction will specify who is ordered or enjoined. Who is that? Is it CIP? Is it an officer of CIP? Apparently not. SSC’s interpretation would be impossible to implement. How would a corporation know about all their employees, even key employees? That language is there to avoid a corporation hiding behind an employee, when the issue being asked about is actually corporate business.

An extension of this to CIP is very unlikely, and it would not be criminal to overlook such a fact, if it existed. It would be an error, and it would only be criminal if deliberate. I.e., if they knew something was to be reported and hid it.

The order applying to Ashley II does not apply to CIP, even if there is an officer or investor in Ashley II who is connected with CIP. The court order applies to Ashley II, not to officers or investors in that LLC. If I own shares in a corporation, and that corporation is ordered to pay for remediation work, that order does not require me to do anything. Likewise, an officer would not personally be subject to the order to pay: if the corporation is bankrupt — which happens! –, the ordered costs just get tossed in the hopper to take their place with other debts. The investors only get what is left over after all debts are paid, if anything. Their entire investment is at risk, but only that, not more.

Only if an officer has improperly absconded with corporate funds would there be some possible personal liability. Sifferkoll and SSC are totally confused.


On LENR Forum, ele wrote:

Wyttenbach wrote:

Spoiling 50 Billions of public money is honest,

This was actually off-topic. The reference is to ITER, and the point is obtuse, like much from Wyttenbach. There are certainly problems with ITER, and we might wish that some fraction of the ITER budget would go to a possible alternative, basic LENR research that might establish the possibility of an alternative to hot fusion, but Wyttenbach’s objection, the difficulty of shielding against neutrons, is a known problem with known solutions. They actually use the neutrons to generate more tritium fuel. That is quite well-known physics. Hot fusion is a very difficult engineering problem, to be sure. But so is LENR, and hot fusion is understood, whereas LENR is not.

With no excuse other than he wants to, ele uses this to praise Rossi and toss mud at Darden, but it’s all insane.

Just to note. Rossi never asked or used public money for the Ecat. This is a quite important fact,

Rossi did attempt to get governmental funding, before 2011. His demonstrations flopped, and while he was told he was welcome to come back and try again, he never went back. Further, note that ele says “for the Ecat,” but then comparing to Darden, he doesn’t specify what the funding is for, nor whether or not Darden was personally involved. He is confusing Darden not only with IH — which did not solicit public money — with Cherokee, which also does not solicit public money, but facilitates the formation of individual projects, which sometimes do, and then a generic project to obtain “tax credits” for use by investors in those individual projects was confused by Planet Rossi as “public money,” when it isn’t.

It is a governmental activity designed to encourage investment in remediation projects. Some remediation projects fail. That’s life. That does not necessarily mean that funds were “wasted,” one would need to look at details, which Planet Rossi never does, being content with findings some words they can use abstracted from reality to make the points they want to make.

In contrast seems that Darden has obtained and wasted a huge quantity of public money,

No, Darden has not obtained any public money, as far as I’ve seen. Nor has Cherokee. Some specific projects have obtained grants for environmental remediation. I think there may have been a hundred projects (I don’t know the number). A few, very few, have failed. When one of these projects fails, there could be hundreds of millions of dollars of investment involved (of which maybe $25 million was Cherokee seed-money, that they lose, along with other investors). Each project has its own investors and its own management, being legally independent, and this is essential for operation in a very risky business area. Buying pieces of contaminated real estate, one can become legally responsible for clean-up, which can be astonishingly expensive. Cherokee has managed to do this well enough to prosper and grow, apparently.

However, Rossi did clearly ask for public money with his thermoelectric generators. How did that work out? I don’t know about public money with Petrol Dragon, but public money was or is certainly involved in the necessary clean-up in Italy.

And there is no point, in context, to ele’s defense and attack. Rossi was not being accused of wasting public money, and Darden was an erroneous target, and all this could be is a continuation of the Rossi Good Darden Bad inertia of ele. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic in this thread, the Gullstrom-Rossi paper. It distracts from it. Is that the purpose?

ele and certain others are repeating these fraudulent allegations over and over, knowing, perhaps, that if they say it often enough, others will then take these “facts” up, and repeat them, believing them.

If Rossi has any influence on these people, he should tell them to STFU. They are not helping him, they will stimulate response, some of which will point out more sustainable allegations against Rossi. None of this will help Rossi move forward with his development project.

If Rossi is encouraging this activity behind the scenes, he is continuing to harm himself. He dodged a bullet once, maybe he thinks he can do it again.