Four bit fever

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

LENR Calender wrote:

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

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

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

P. 7 shows 4 digit precision.

LENR Calender wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “Misc and Flabber gas – May 2017”

Takes a licking and keeps on ticking

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

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

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

The macaw is the official bird of Planet Rossi

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

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

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

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

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

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

ele wrote:

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

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

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

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

sigmoidal wrote:

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

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

ele wrote:

sigmoidal wrote: [Some commenters here claim…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ele wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:

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

Probably yes.

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

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

In many agreements that is true.

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

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

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

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

 

Amped up on Ampenergo

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

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

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

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

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

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

On LENR Forum, Argon wrote:

Ahlfors wrote:

The amount of ale you rock …

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

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

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


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

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

Joe Pike > big investor in IH

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[sic], around

1000 x stronger than coils only


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


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

GL= General Ledger

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

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

How should 1% be recorded by AEG?

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

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

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


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

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


page 8
20 April 2015

This is printed text, not handwritten.

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to handle a shitstorm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misc Mash

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

(I contacted pacermonitor and they fixed the problem. At least for now!)

LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intern 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05249]

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

Ahlfors 

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

Ahlfors 

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

Ahlfors

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

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

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

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

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

Ahlfors,

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

Ignored.

I notice the people who upvote things like this….

IH Fanboy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Ahlfors wrote:

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

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

Ahlfors wrote:

Friends and IP protection …

Quote: “AR is a convicted fraudster”

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

snap4: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitst…9480/Pinho.pdf?sequence=1

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

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

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

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

snap6: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inqui…cumentNumber=M14000008590

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

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

Ahlfors’ agenda is now clear. Slimy.


Update

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

Ahlfors wrote:

@andrea.s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there is a shot from here. This page, in fact, above, near the top.

LENR-Forum.com is being spammed with a new troll: Ahlfors. “Female, Member since May 6th 2017”

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

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

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

Isn’t it obvious?!?!

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


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

joshg wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:

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

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

Hello {username},

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

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

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

For more information see the forum discussion thread:

Rossi vs. Darden developments

Your LENR Forum Team

joshg goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

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

Rather, Turner and Evans then give cause:

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

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

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

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

LENR Forum
The Independent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Community

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

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

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

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

Update2

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

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

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

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

Pike history

From The Story of RU-486 in the United States (2001 third year paper)


By way of background to this controversy, the Population Council had licensed another nonprofit organization, Advances in Health Technology, see supra note 91, to manufacture and distribute RU-486 in the United States.178 Advances in Health Technology subsequently sub-licensed the manufacturing and distribution rights to NeoGen Industries, a corporation controlled by a lawyer and businessman named Joseph Pike. Pike had earlier worked with the Population Council on the development of an intrauterine contraceptive device.179 In an effort to raise money from investors to finance the RU-486 project, Pike established a series of limited partnerships and some other companies that were incorporated in the Cayman Islands.180 One investor, the Giant Group of Beverly Hills, paid $6 million to Pike for a 26% interest in Pike’s companies  and allegedly secured as part of the agreement a restrictive covenant that barred Pike from selling a significant portion of his entities to other prospective investors.181 When Pike allegedly violated this agreement by attempting to sell a substantial share of his entities to various other purchasers, the Giant Group filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing Pike of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and unfair business practices.182 In keeping with RU-486’s fascinating and controversial odyssey was the lawsuit’s further contention that Mr. Pike was a disbarred lawyer who had been convicted of forgery in North Carolina and, as a result, received a suspended two-year sentence and 18 months probation.183

Information about Pike’s alleged notorious dealings and shady past soon ignited a flurry of lawsuits against him that hindered RU-486’s entry into the U.S. consumer market. KCC Delaware, one of the investors in Pike’s entities, sued Pike and accused him of concealing his past and mishandling the investment deal.184

In a separate suit filed on November 4, 1996 in New York State Supreme Court, the Population Council and Advances in Health Technology charged Pike with fraud.185 The lawsuit alleged that Pike had not properly accounted for the money that was invested in his entities and had ciphoned [sic] off money into some dubious off-shore entities.186 While the Population Council and Advances in Health Technology did not seek to rescind the sublicenses Pike had issued to Danco Laboratories and other companies to manufacture and distribute the drug, they did seek to wrest control of the company from him by having his interest in the entities transferred to a court-appointed receiver.187 The Population Council strongly believed that Pike’s past legal troubles and his efforts to conceal them disqualified him from serving as a fiduciary and the lead business entrepreneur in the RU-486 enterprise – a politically sensitive and controversial venture that needed a person of irrefutable integrity at its helm.

After months of legal jostling, the stalemate finally came to an end on February 12, 1997 when the Population Council announced that it had settled the lawsuit surrounding control of RU-486 and had arranged for a new privately held company, Advances for Choice, to handle the drug.188 Under the settlement, Pike agreed to sell most of his equity interest in the RU-486 enterprise, keeping only a modest passive investment, and to relinquish any role in the management of the newly formed company.189 Jack Van Hulst, a Dutch attorney and Population Council consultant, became the president and chief executive of Advances for Choice and forecasted that the drug would be available to doctors and clinics by December 1997.190


178 See Editorial, The Troubles of RU-486, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 1996, at A32.
179 See Tamar Lewin, Abortion Pill’s Legal Woe May Be Nearing an End, N.Y. Times, Jan. 25, 1997, at A7.
180 See Gina Kolata, Business Dispute May Delay Introduction of Abortion Pill, N.Y. Times, Nov. 1, 1996, at A20. The Cayman Islands entities were not required to disclose the names of officers and partners. See id.
181 See id.
182 See id.
183 See id.
184 See Sharon Bernstein, Persistence Brought Abortion Pill to U.S.: Two Feminist Activists Culled Nonprofit Organizations and Dedicated Individuals To Do The Work That No Pharmaceutical Company Was Willing to Tackle, L.A Times, Nov. 5, 2000, at A1.
185 See Tamar Lewin, Dispute May Delay Abortion in the U.S., N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 1996, at A16
186 See id.
187 See Caryle Murphy & Kathleen Day, Abortion Pill’s U.S. Debut Snagged by Business Dispute: Sponsor Seeks to Oust Associate For Not Disclosing Disbarment, Wash. Post., Jan. 12, 1997, at A1.
188 See Tamar Lewin, Legal Bout Over Abortion Pill Ends: Group Will Apply For FDA Approval, L.A. Daily News, Feb. 13, 1997, at N19. The Population Council had previously intended to distribute RU-486 through Advances for Health Technology, which was subsumed into the new company. See FDC Reports, Mifepristone (RU-486) Distribution Given to a New Company Headed by Former Generic Exec Van Hulst, The Pink Sheet, Feb. 17, 1997.
189 American Political Network, Spotlight Story, Story RU-486: Suit Settled; Sales May Begin in ’97, 7 Abortion Rep. No. 137, Feb. 13, 1997, available in WL APN-AB File.
190 See Tamar Lewin, Legal Hurdle Cleared in Sale of French Abortion Pill in U.S., N.Y. Times, Feb. 13, 1997, at A28


Discussion

The upshot of this (as it came to be of interest here) is that there is a Joseph Pike who was convicted of forgery. “In keeping with RU-486’s fascinating and controversial odyssey was the lawsuit’s further contention that Mr. Pike was a disbarred lawyer who had been convicted of forgery in North Carolina and, as a result, received a suspended two-year sentence and 18 months probation.”

Pike was sued with regard to the RU-486 affair, but that was settled, apparently satisfactorily. The issue about disbarment was raised by the plaintiff in that lawsuit. The source is the New York Times article by Gina Kolata, November 1, 1996, who has:

The lawsuit contended that Mr. Pike had misrepresented himself to the Giant Group. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Pike is a disbarred lawyer who was convicted of forgery in May in North Carolina and is on probation after receiving a two-year suspended prison sentence.

Mr. Christensen’s public relations firm provided copies of Mr. Pike’s affidavit before the North Carolina State Bar, which took away his license to practice law in 1993, and legal documents describing his suspended sentence for forgery.

This is weak confirmation. However, the disbarment action is available, July 9, 1993, and it includes an affidavit signed by Joseph Daniel Pike, acknowledging the actions that led to his disbarment.

Another NY Times article, by Tamar Lewin, November 6, 1996, has a little more detail:

Margaret Catley-Carlson, the president of the Population Council, said her group told Mr. Pike in late July to divest, after learning that he had been disbarred for forgery in a 1985 North Carolina real estate deal and had been given a suspended two-year sentence. Ms. Catley-Carlson said she had long known Mr. Pike as a backer of products shunned by pharmaceutical companies, like the Copper-T intrauterine device.

So the alleged fraud was over thirty years ago as this is written. A decade later, he was given a suspended sentence, which is likely an indication that the offense was not major, but it would still be, likely, a felony, and would surely lead to disbarment for a lawyer. He did not serve time in prison. In the RU-486 affair, while he was accused of fraud there, it appears that it was all settled, there were no criminal charges.

Next issue: the name is common. Is this the Joseph Pike who is a principal of JPIH Holdings, which holds significant investment in IH Holdings International? (Perhaps 6 million shares, par value about $60,000.)

The North Carolina J. Daniel Pike was obviously a businessman dealing with major funding. That could be significant. He signed the articles of association of IHHI, (see pdf page 6). The signature is close enough to that of the North Carolina J. Daniel Pike that I conclude this is the same person.

On the face, JPIH Holdings was formed to be Joseph Pike IH Holdings. JPIH Holdings LLC (Florida) has Pike as manager and registered agent, with a Florida address. JPIH Holdings likely represents his personal investment. It is a Delaware corporation, formed 5/24/2013. From the date, Pike was an early investor in Industrial Heat.

And this is meaningless. Pike’s history could be of concern to someone placing great reliance on him, and the RU-486 affair was largely about his being heavily trusted but not having disclosed his (then recent) past. As an investor, that would not be relevant.

Loopy devices?

On LENR Forum, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Zephir_AWT wrote:

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

That would be complicated and expensive.

That depends on unstated conditions.

Zephir AWT’s original comment was better:

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

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

Let’s see what I find here.

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

Wytte? Not.

On LENR Forum, Wyttenbach demonstrates his clarity of memory and thought. Not.

(Update: Wyttenbach was banned for two days because of this.)

(Update again: Wyttenbach unbanned, based on allegedly poor English comprehension. This is a reason for lifting a relatively harmless two-day ban? If poor comprehension leads to offensive behavior, why is this then a reason to avoid a minor slap on the wrist, of no long-term consequence, when the behavior involved actually goes back a year or so.)

Continue reading “Wytte? Not.”

More meshu and flabber on LF and then something completely different

Gaseous emissions continue on LF, as usual, but then comes something completely different, an informative description, generally neutral. I’ll add some links and then blog comments, reserving the right to be crazy-as-hell (meshu) myself. After all, posts here are a blog (translate: fun!) and may be quite opinionated. Overall, CFC is intended to be neutral, but neutral-by-inclusion (like Wikiversity) not neutral-by-exclusion (like Wikipedia).

sigmoidal wrote: (an excellent post covering recent documents filed) Continue reading “More meshu and flabber on LF and then something completely different”

If I’m stupid, it’s your fault

See It was an itsy-bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot error and Shanahan’s Folly, in Color, for some Shanahan sniffling and shuffling, but today I see Krivit making the usual ass of himself, even more obviously. As described before, Krivit asked Shanahan if he could explain a plot, and this is it:

Red and blue lines are from Krivit, the underlying chart is from this paper copied to NET, copied here as fair use for purposes of critique, as are other brief excerpts.

Ask Krivit notes (and acknowledges), Shanahan wrote a relatively thorough response. It’s one of the best pieces of writing I’ve seen from Shanahan. He does give an explanation for the apparent anomaly, but obviously Krivit doesn’t understand it, so he changed the title of the post from “Kirk Shanahan, Can You Explain This?” to add “(He Couldn’t)”

Krivit was a wanna-be science journalist, but he ended up imagining himself to be expert, and commonly inserts his own judgments as if they are fact. “He couldn’t” obviously has a missing fact, that is, the standard of success in explanation: Krivit himself. If Krivit understands, then it has been explained. If he does not, not, and this could be interesting: obviously, Shanahan failed to communicate the explanation to Krivit (if we assume Krivit is not simply lying, and I do assume that). My headline here is a stupid, disempowering stand, that blames others for my own ignorance, but the empowering stand for a writer is to, in fact, take responsibility for the failure. If you don’t understand what I’m attempting to communicate, that’s my deficiency.

On the other hand, most LENR scientists have stopped talking with Krivit, because he has so often twisted what they write like this.

Krivit presents Shanahan’s “attempted” explanation, so I will quote it here, adding comments and links as may be helfpul. However, Krivit also omitted part of the explanation, believing it irrelevant. Since he doesn’t understand, his assessment of relevance may be defective. Shanahan covers this on LENR Forum. I will restore those paragraphs. I also add Krivit’s comments.

1. First a recap.  The Figure you chose to present is the first figure from F&P’s 1993 paper on their calorimetric method.  It’s overall notable feature is the saw-tooth shape it takes, on a 1-day period.  This is due to the use of an open cell which allows electrolysis gases to escape and thus the liquid level in the electrolysis cell drops.  This changes the electrolyte concentration, which changes the cell resistance, which changes the power deposited via the standard Ohm’s Law relations, V= I*R and P=V*I (which gives P=I^2*R).  On a periodic basis, F&P add makeup D2O to the cell, which reverses the concentration changes thus ‘resetting’ the resistance and voltage related curves.

This appears to be completely correct and accurate. In this case, unlike some Pons and Fleischmann plots, there are no calibration pulses, where a small amount of power is injected through a calibration resistor to test the cell response to “excess power.” We are only seeing, in the sawtooth behavior, the effect of abruptly adding pure D2O.

Krivit: Paragraph 1: I am in agreement with your description of the cell behavior as reflected in the sawtooth pattern. We are both aware that that is a normal condition of electrolyte replenishment. As we both know, the reported anomaly is the overall steady trend of the temperature rise, concurrent with the overall trend of the power decrease.

Voltage, not power, though, in fact, because of the constant current, input voltage will be proportional to power. Krivit calls this an “anomaly,” which simply means something unexplained. It seems that Krivit believes that temperature should vary with power, which it would with a purely resistive heater. This cell isn’t that.

2. Note that Ohm’s Law is for an ‘ideal’ case, and the real world rarely behaves perfectly ideally, especially at the less than 1% level.  So we expect some level of deviation from ideal when we look at the situation closely. However, just looking at the temperature plot we can easily see that the temperature excursions in the Figure change on Day 5.  I estimate the drop on Day 3 was 0.6 degrees, Day 4 was 0.7, Day 5 was 0.4 and Day 6 was 0.3 (although it may be larger if it happened to be cut off).  This indicates some significant change (may have) occurred between the first 2 and second 2 day periods.  It is important to understand the scale we are discussing here.  These deviations represent maximally a (100*0.7/303=) 0.23% change.  This is extremely small and therefore _very_ difficult to pin to a given cause.

Again, this appears accurate. Shanahan is looking at what was presented and noting various characteristics that might possibly be relevant. He is proceeding here as a scientific skeptic would proceed. For a fuller analysis, we’d actually want to see the data itself, and to study the source paper more deeply. What is the temperature precision? The current is constant, so we would expect, absent a chemical anomaly, loss of D2O as deuterium and oxygen gas to be constant, but if there is some level of recombination, that loss would be reduced, and so the replacement addition would be less, assuming it is replaced to restore the same level.

Krivit: Paragraph 2: This is a granular analysis of the daily temperature changes. I do not see any explanation for the anomaly in this paragraph.

It’s related; in any case, Shanahan is approaching this as scientist, when it seems Krivit is expecting polemic. This gets very clear in the next paragraph.

3. I also note that the voltage drops follow a slightly different pattern.  I estimate the drops are 0.1, .04, .04, .02 V. The first drop may be artificially influenced by the fact that it seems to be the very beginning of the recorded data. However, the break noted with the temperatures does not occur in the voltages, instead the break  may be on the next day, but more data would be needed to confirm that.  Thus we are seeing either natural variation or process lags affecting the temporal correlation of the data.

Well, temporal correlation is quite obvious. So far, Shanahan has not come to an explanation for the trend, but he is, again, proceeding as a scientist and a genuine skeptic. (For a pseudoskeptic, it is Verdict first (The explanation! Bogus!) and Trial later (then presented as proof rather than as investigation).

Paragraph 3: This is a granular analysis of the daily voltage changes. I note your use of the unconfident phrase “may be” twice. I do not see any explanation for the anomaly in this paragraph.

Shanahan appropriately uses “may be” to refer to speculations which may or may not be relevant. Krivit is looking for something that no scientist would give him, who is actually practicing science. We do not know the ultimate explanation of what Pons and Fleischmann reported here, so confidence, the kind of certainty Krivit is looking for, would only be a mark of foolishness.

4. I also note that in the last day’s voltage trace there is a ‘glitch’ where the voltage take a dip and changes to a new level with no corresponding change in cell temp.  This is a ‘fact of the data’ which indicates there are things that can affect the voltage but not the temperature, which violates our idea of the ideal Ohmic Law case.  But we expected that because we are dealing with such small changes.

This is very speculative. I don’t like to look at data at the termination, maybe they simply shut off the experiment at that point, and there is, I see, a small voltage rise, close to noise. This tells us less than Shanahn implies. The variation in magnitude of the voltage rise, however, does lead to some reasonable suspicion and wonder as to what is going on. At first glance, it appears correlated with the variation in temperature rise. Both of those would be correlated with the amount of make-up heavy water added to restore level.

Krivit: Paragraph 4: You mention what you call a glitch, in the last day’s voltage trace. It is difficult for me to see what you are referring to, though I do note again, that you are using conditional language when you write that there are things that “can affect” voltage. So this paragraph, as well, does not appear to provide any explanation for the anomaly. Also in this paragraph, you appear to suggest that there are more-ideal cases of Ohm’s law and less-ideal cases. I’m unwilling to consider that Ohm’s law, or any accepted law of science, is situational.

Krivit is flat-out unqualified to write about science. It’s totally obvious here. He is showing that, while he’s been reading reports on cold fusion calorimetry for well over fifteen years, he has not understood them. Krivit has heard it now from Shanahan, actually confirmed by Miles (see below), “Joule heating ” also called “Ohmic heating,” the heating that is the product of current and voltage, is not the only source of heat in an electrolytic cell.

Generally, all “accepted laws of science” are “situational.” We need to understand context to apply them.

To be sure, I also don’t understand what Shanahan was referring to in this paragraph. I don’t see it in the plot. So perhaps Shanahan will explain. (He may comment below, and I’d be happy to give him guest author privileges, as long as it generates value or at least does not cause harm.)

5. Baseline noise is substantially smaller than these numbers, and I can make no comments on anything about it.

Yes. The voltage noise seems to be more than 10 mV. A constant-current power supply (which adjusts voltage to keep the current constant) was apparently set at 400 mA, and those supplies typically have a bandwidth of well in excess of 100 kHz, as I recall. So, assuming precise voltage measurements (which would be normal), there is noise, and I’d want to know how the data was translated to plot points. Bubble noise will cause variations, and these cells are typically bubbling (that is part of the FP approach, to ensure stirring so that temperature is even in the cell). If the data is simply recorded periodically, instead of being smoothed by averaging over an adequate period, it could look noisier than it actually is (bubble noise being reasonably averaged out over a short period). A 10 mV variation in voltage, at the current used, corresponds to 4 mW variation. Fleischmann calorimetry has a reputed precision of 0.1 mW. That uses data from rate of change to compute instantaneous power, rather than waiting for conditions to settle. We are not seeing that here, but we might be seeing the result of it in the reported excess power figures.

Krivit: Paragraph 5: You make a comment here about noise.

What is Krivit’s purpose here? Why did he ask the question? Does he actually want to learn something? I found the comment about noise to be interesting, or at least to raise an issue of interest.

6. Your point in adding the arrows to the Figure seems to be that the voltage is drifting down overall, so power in should be drifting down also (given constant current operation).  Instead the cell temperature seem to be drifting up, perhaps indicating an ‘excess’ or unknown heat source.  F&P report in the Fig. caption that the calculated daily excess heats are 45, 66, 86, and 115 milliwatts.  (I wonder if the latter number is somewhat influenced by the ‘glitch’ or whatever caused it.)  Note that a 45 mW excess heat implies a 0.1125V change (P=V*I, I= constant 0.4A), and we see that the observed voltage changes are too small and in the wrong direction, which would indicate to me that the temperatures are used to compute the supposed excesses.  The derivation of these excess heats requires a calibration equation to be used, and I have commented on some specific flaws of the F&P method and on the fact that it is susceptible to the CCS problem previously.  The F&P methodology lumps _any_ anomaly into the ‘apparent excess heat’ term of the calorimetric equation.  The mistake is to assign _all_ of this term to some LENR.  (This was particularly true for the HAD event claimed in the 1993 paper.)

So Shanahan gives the first explanation, (“excess heat,” or heat of unknown origin). Calculated excess heat is increasing, and with the experimental approach here, excess heat would cause the temperature to rise.

His complaint about assigning all anomalous heat (“apparent excess heat”) to LENR is … off. Basically excess heat means a heat anomaly, and it certainly does not mean “LENR.” That is, absent other evidence, a speculative conclusion, based on circumstantial evidence (unexplained heat). There is no mistake here. Pons and Fleischmann did not call the excess heat LENR and did not mention nuclear reactions.

Shanahan has then, here, identified another possible explanation, his misnamed “CCS” problem. It’s very clear that the name has confused those whom Shanahan might most want to reach: LENR experimentalists. The actual phenomenon that he would be suggesting here is unexpected recombination at the cathode. That is core to Shanahan’s theory as it applies to open cells with this kind of design. It would raise the temperature if it occurs.

LENR researchers claim that the levels of recombination are very low, and a full study of this topic is beyond this relatively brief post. Suffice it to say for now that recombination is a possible explanation, even if it is not proven. (And when we are dealing with anomalies, we cannot reject a hypothesis because it is unexpected. Anomaly means “unexpected.”)

Krivit: Paragraph 6: You analyze the reported daily excess heat measurements as described in the Fleischmann-Pons paper. I was very specific in my question. I challenged you to explain the apparent violation of Ohm’s law. I did not challenge you to explain any reported excess heat measurements or any calorimetry. Readings of cell temperature are not calorimetry, but certainly can be used as part of calorimetry.

Actually, Krivit did not ask that question. He simply asked Shanahan to explain the plot. He thinks a violation of Ohm’s law is apparent. It’s not, for several reasons. For starters, wrong law. Ohm’s law is simply that the current through a conductor is proportional to the voltage across it. The ratio is the conductance, usually expressed by its reciprocal, the resistance.

From the Wikipedia article: “An element (resistor or conductor) that behaves according to Ohm’s law over some operating range is referred to as an ohmic device (or an ohmic resistor) because Ohm’s law and a single value for the resistance suffice to describe the behavior of the device over that range. Ohm’s law holds for circuits containing only resistive elements (no capacitances or inductances) for all forms of driving voltage or current, regardless of whether the driving voltage or current is constant (DC) or time-varying such as AC. At any instant of time Ohm’s law is valid for such circuits.”

An electrolytic cell is not an ohmic device. What is true here is that one might immediately expect that heating in the cell would vary with the input power, but that is only by neglecting other contributions, and what Shanahan is pointing out by pointing out the small levels of the effect is that there are many possible conditions that could affect this.

With his tendentious reaction, Krivit ignores the two answers given in Shanahan’s paragraph, or, more accurately, Shanahan gives a primary answer and then a possible explanation. The primary answer is some anomalous heat. The possible explanation is a recombination anomaly. It is still an anomaly, something unexpected.

7. Using an average cell voltage of 5V and the current of 0.4A as specified in the Figure caption (Pin~=2W), these heats translate to approximately 2.23, 3.3, 4.3, and 7.25% of input.  Miles has reported recombination in his cells on the same order of magnitude.  Thus we would need measures of recombination with accuracy and precision levels on the order of 1% to distinguish if these supposed excess heats are recombination based or not _assuming_ the recombination process does nothing but add heat to the cell.  This may not be true if the recombination is ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination).  As I’ve mentioned in lenr-forum recently, the 6.5% excess reported by Szpak, et al, in 2004 is more likely on the order of 10%, so we need a _much_ better way to measure recombination in order to calculate its contribution to the apparent excess heat.

I think Shanahan may be overestimating the power of his own arguments, from my unverified recollection, but this is simply exploring the recombination hypothesis, which is, in fact, an explanation, and if our concern is possible nuclear heat, then this is a possible non-nuclear explanation for some anomalous heat in some experiments. In quick summary: a non-nuclear artifact, unexpected recombination, and unless recombination is measured, and with some precision, it cannot be ruled out merely because experts say it wouldn’t happen. Data is required. For the future, I hope we look at all this more closely here on CFC.net.

Shanahan has not completely explored this. Generally, at constant current and after the cathode loading reaches equilibrium, there should be constant gas evolution. However, unexpected recombination in an open cell like this, with no recombiner, would lower the amount of gas being released, and therefore the necessary replenishment amount. This is consistent with the decline that can be inferred as an explanation from the voltage jumps. Less added D2O, lower effect.

There would be another effect from salts escaping the cell, entrained in microdroplets, which would cause a long-term trend of increase in voltage, the opposite of what we see.

So the simple explanation here, confirmed by the calorimetry, is that anomalous heat is being released, and then there are two explanations proposed for the anomaly: a LENR anomaly or a recombination anomaly. Shanahan is correct that precise measurement of recombination (which might not happen under all conditions and which, like LENR heat, might be chaotic and not accurately predictable).

Excess nuclear heat will, however, likely be correlated with a nuclear ash (like helium) and excess recombination heat would be correlated with reduction in offgas, so these are testable. It is, again, beyond the scope of this comment to explore that.

Krivit. Paragraph 7: You discuss calorimetry.

Krivit misses that Shanahan discusses ATER, “At The Electrode Recombination,” which is Shanahan’s general theory as applied to this cell. Shanahan points to various possibilities to explain the plot (not the “apparent violation of Ohm’s law,” which was just dumb), but the one that is classic Shanahan is ATER, and, frankly, I see evidence in the plot that he may be correct as to this cell at this time, and no evidence that I’ve noticed so far in the FP article to contradict it.

(Remember, ATER is an anomaly itself, i.e., very much not expected. The mechanism would be oxygen bubbles reaching the cathode, where they would immediately oxidize available deuterium. So when I say that I don’t see anything in the article, I’m being very specific. I am not claiming that this actually happened.)

8. This summarizes what we can get from the Figure.  Let’s consider what else might be going on in addition to electrolysis and electrolyte replenishment.  There are several chemical/physical processes ongoing that are relevant that are often not discussed.  For example:  dissolution of electrode materials and deposition of them elsewhere, entrainment, structural changes in the Pd, isotopic contamination, chemical modification of the electrode surfaces, and probably others I haven’t thought of at this point.

Well, some get rather Rube Goldberg and won’t be considered unless specific evidence pops up.

Krivit: Paragraph 8: You offer random speculations of other activities that might be going on inside the cell.

Indeed he does, though “random” is not necessarily accurate. He was asked to explain a chart, so he is thinking of things that might, under some conditions or others, explain the behavior shown. His answer is directly to the question, but Krivit lives in a fog, steps all over others, impugns the integrity of professional scientists, writes “confident” claims that are utterly bogus, and then concludes that anyone who points this out is a “believer” in something or other nonsense. He needs an editor and psychotherapist. Maybe she’ll come back if he’s really nice. Nah. That almost never happens. Sorry.

But taking responsibility for what one has done, that’s the path to a future worth living into.

9. All except the entrainment issue can result in electrode surface changes which in turn can affect the overvoltage experienced in the cell.  That in turn affects the amount of voltage available to heat the electrolyte.  In other words, I believe the correct, real world equation is Vcell = VOhm + Vtherm + Vover + other.  (You will recall that the F&P calorimetric model only assumes VOhm and Vtherm are important.)  It doesn’t take much change to induce a 0.2-0.5% change in T.  Furthermore most of the significant changing is going to occur in the first few days of cell operation, which is when the Pd electrode is slowly loaded to the high levels typical in an electrochemical setup.  This assumes the observed changes in T come from a change in the electrochemical condition of the cell.  They might just be from changes in the TCs (or thermistors or whatever) from use.

What appears to me, here, is that Shanahan is artificially separating out Vover from the other terms. I have not reviewed this, so I could be off here, rather easily. Shanahan does not explain these terms here, so it is perhaps unsurprising that Krivit doesn’t understand, or if he does, he doesn’t show it.

An obvious departure from Ohm’s law and expected heat from electrolytic power is that some of the power available to the cell, which is the product of total cell voltage and current, ends up as a rate of production of chemical potential energy. The FP paper assumes that gas is being evolved and leaving the cell at a rate that corresponds to the current. It does not consider recombination that I’ve seen.

Krivit: Paragraphs 9-10: You consider entrainment, but you don’t say how this explains the anomaly.

It is a trick question. By definition, an explained anomaly is not an anomaly. Until and unless an explanation, a mechanism, is confirmed through controlled experiment (and with something like this, multiply-confirmed, specifically, not merely generally), a proposals are tentative, and Shanahan’s general position — which I don’t see that he has communicated very effectively — is that there is an anomaly. He merely suggests that it might be non-nuclear. It is still unexpected, and why some prefer to gore the electrochemists rather than the nuclear physicists is a bit of a puzzle to me, except it seems the latter have more money. Feynman thought that the arrogance of physicists was just that, arrogance. Shanahan says that entrainment would be important to ATER, but I don’t see how. Rather, it would be another possible anomaly. Again, perhaps Shanahan will explain this.

10. Entrainment losses would affect the cell by removing the chemicals dissolved in the water.  This results in a concentration change in the electrolyte, which in turn changes the cell resistance.  This doesn’t seem to be much of an issue in this Figure, but it certainly can become important during ATER.

This was, then, off-topic for the question, perhaps. But Shanahan has answered the question, as well as it can be answered, given the known science and status of this work. Excess heat levels as shown here (which is not clear from the plot, by the way) are low enough that we cannot be sure that this is the “Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect.” The article itself is talking about a much clearer demonstration; the plot is shown as a little piece considered of interest. I call it an “indication.”

The mere miniscule increase in heat over days, vs. a small decrease in voltage, doesn’t show more than that.

[Paragraphs not directly addressing this measurement removed.]

In fact, Shanahan recapped his answer toward the end of what Krivit removed. Obviously, Krivit was not looking for an answer, but, I suspect, to make some kind of point, abusing Shanahan’s good will. Even though he thanks him. Perhaps this is about the Swedish scientist’s comment (see the NET article), which was, ah, not a decent explanation, to say the least. Okay, this is a blog. It was bullshit. I don’t wonder that Krivit wasn’t satisfied. Is there something about the Swedes? (That is not what I’d expect, by the way, I’m just noticing a series of Swedish scientists who have gotten involved with cold fusion who don’t know their fiske from their fysik.

And here are those paragraphs:


I am not an electrochemist so I can be corrected on these points (but not by vacuous hand-waving, only by real data from real studies) but it seems clear to me that the data presented is from a time frame where changes are expected to show up and that the changes observed indicate both correlated effects in T and V as well as uncorrelated ones. All that adds up to the need for replication if one is to draw anything from this type of data, and I note that usually the initial loading period is ignored by most researchers for the same reason I ‘activate’ my Pd samples in my experiments – the initial phases of the research are difficult to control but much easier to control later on when conditions have been stabilized.

To claim the production of excess heat from this data alone is not a reasonable claim. All the processes noted above would allow for slight drifts in the steady state condition due to chemical changes in the electrodes and electrolyte. As I have noted many, many times, a change in steady state means one needs to recalibrate. This is illustrated in Ed Storms’ ICCF8 report on his Pt-Pt work that I used to develop my ATER/CCS proposal by the difference in calibration constants over time. Also, Miles has reported calibration constant variation on the order of 1-2% as well, although it is unclear whether the variation contains systematic character or not (it is expressed as random variation). What is needed (as always) is replication of the effect in such a manner as to demonstrate control over the putative excess heat. To my knowledge, no one has done that yet.

So, those are my quick thoughts on the value of F&P’s Figure 1. Let me wrap this up in a paragraph.

The baseline drift presented in the Figure and interpreted as ‘excess heat’ can easily be interpreted as chemical effects. This is especially true given that the data seems to be from the very first few days of cell operation, where significant changes in the Pd electrode in particular are expected. The magnitudes of the reported excess heats are of the size that might even be attributed to the CF-community-favored electrochemical recombination. It’s not even clear that this drift is not just equipment related. As is usual with reports in this field, more information, and especially more replication, is needed if there is to be any hope of deriving solid conclusions regarding the existence of excess heat from this type of data.”


And then, back to what Krivit quoted:

I readily admit I make mistakes, so if you see one, let me know.  But I believe the preceding to be generically correct.

Kirk Shanahan
Physical Chemist
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River National Laboratory

 Krivit responds:

Although you have offered a lot of information, for which I’m grateful, I am unable to locate in your letter any definitive, let alone probable conventional explanation as to why the overall steady trend of increasing heat and decreasing power occurs, violating Ohm’s law, unless there is a source of heat in the cell. The authors of the paper claim that the result provides evidence of a source of heating in the cell. As I understand, you deny that this result provides such evidence.

Shanahan directly answered the question, about as well as it can be answered at this time. He allows “anomalous heat” — which covers the CMNS community common opinion, because this must include the nuclear possibility, then offers an alternate unconventional anomaly, ATER, and then a few miscellaneous minor possibilities.

Krivit is looking for a definitive answer, apparently, and holds on to the idea that the cell may be “violating Ohm’s law,” when it has been explained to him (by two:Shanahan and Miles) that Ohm’s law is inadequate to describe electrolytic cell behavior, because of the chemical shifts. While it may be harmless, much more than Ohm’s law is involved in analyzing electrochemistry. “Ohmic heating” is, as Shanahan pointed out — and as is also well known — is an element of an analysis, not the whole analysis. There is also chemistry and endothermic and exothermic reaction. Generating deuterium and oxygen from heavy water is endothermic. The entry of deuterium into the cathode is exothermic, at least at modest loading. Recombination of oxygen and deuterium is exothermic, whereas release of deuterium from the cathode is endothermic.  Krivit refers to voltage as if it were power, and then as if the heating of the cell would be expected to match this power. Because this cell is constant current, the overall cell input power does vary directly with the voltage. However, only some of this power ends up as heat (and Ohm’s law simply does not cover that).

Actually, Shanahan generally suggests a “source of heating in the cells” (unexpected recombination).  He then presents other explanations as well. If recombination shifts the location of generated heat, this could affect calorimetry, Shahanan calls this Calibration Constant Shift, but that is easily misunderstood, and confused with another phenomenon, shifts in calibration constant from other changes, including thermistor or thermocouple aging (which he mentions). Shanahan did answer the question, albeit mixed with other comments, so Krivit’s “He Couldn’t” was not only rude, but wrong.

Then Krivit answered the paragraphs point-by-point, and I’ve put those comments above.

And then Krivit added, at the end:

This concludes my discussion of this matter with you.

I find this appalling, but it’s what we have come to expect from Krivit, unfortunately. Shanahan wrote a polite attempt to answer Krivit’s question (which did look like a challenge). I’ve experienced Krivit shutting down conversation like that, abruptly, with what, in person, would be socially unacceptable. It’s demanding the “Last Word.”

Krivit also puts up an unfortunate comment from Miles. Miles misunderstands what is happening and thinks, apparently, that the “Ohm’s Law” interpretation belongs to Shanahan, when it was Krivit. Shananan is not a full-blown expert on electrochemistry — like Miles is — but would probably agree with Miles, I certainly don’t see a conflict between them on this issue. And Krivit doesn’t see this, doesn’t understand what is happening right in his own blog, that misunderstanding.

However, one good thing: Krivit’s challenge did move Shanahan to write something decent. I appreciate that. Maybe some good will come out of it. I got to notice the similarity between fysik and fiske, that could be useful.


Update

I intended to give the actual physical law that would appear to be violated, but didn’t. It’s not Ohm’s law, which simply doesn’t apply, the law in question is conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics. Hess’s law is related. As to apparent violation, this appears by neglecting the role of gas evolution; unexpected recombination within the cell would cause additional heating. While it is true that this energy comes, ultimately, from input energy, that input energy may be stored in the cell earlier as absorbed deuterium, and this may be later released. The extreme of this would be “heat after death” (HAD), i.e., heat evolved after input power goes to zero, which skeptics have attributed to the “cigarette lighter effect,” see Close.

(And this is not the place to debate HAD, but the cigarette lighter effect as an explanation has some serious problems, notably lack of sufficient oxygen, with flow being, from deuterium release, entirely out of the cell, not allowing oxygen to be sucked back in. This release does increase with temperature, and it is endothermic, overall. It is only net exothermic if recombination occurs.)

(And possible energy storage is why we would be interested to see the full history of cell operation, not just a later period. In the chart in question, we only see data from the third through seventh days, and we do not see data for the initial loading (which should show storage of energy, i.e., endothermy).  The simple-minded Krivit thinking is utterly off-point. Pons and Fleischmann are not standing on this particular result, and show it as a piece of eye candy with a suggestive comment at the beginning of their paper. I do not find, in general, this paper to be particularly convincing without extensive analysis. It is an example of how “simplicity” is subjective. By this time, cold fusion needed an APCO — or lawyers, dealing with public perceptions. Instead, the only professionalism that might have been involved was on the part of the American Physical Society and Robert Park. I would not have suggested that Pons and Fleischmann not publish, but that their publications be reviewed and edited for clear educational argument in the real-world context, not merely scientific accuracy.)

Planet Rossi Flabbergas

When I can’t make up new words any more, shovel dirt in my face. This one is easy, though, a rather obvious back-formation.

The occasion is the reaction on LENR Forum to new filings related to the Motions in Limine. For those who need a program, these are motions seeking to exclude evidence as improper,perhaps likely to emotionally (and irrelevantly or deceptively) bias a jury, or as spoliated, i.e., damaged through deliberate action or carelessness when care was due.

I’ll start with a post just before the docs hit the fan, IH Fanboy wrote:

@Shane,
Yeah, I agree that JMP/Rossi are for most purposes (although not technically) one and the same.

What is interesting to me is sig mentioned a lease agreement, and that he had seen it. That is new information, at least to me. And how did he gain access to it? Inquiring minds want to know, and all that.

IHFB is more or less unique on Planet Rossi in that he does acknowledge the “customer fraud.” In a new document that IHFB has not seen yet, evidence is emphasized that countersinks the screws. (None of it is particularly new, we just see a little more of the JM/JMC/JMP negotiation) that makes the “Johnson Matthey” fraud totally clear, and Rossi’s later claims about it as probable perjury. IH does not here assert all the evidence that has been shown. For example, Bass saying to Rossi that he’s not clear how to answer questions about Johnson Matthey. Where did he get the idea that Johnson Matthey was involved? He clearly has the idea that the Doral operation is a Johnson Matthey operation.

However, I don’t think IHFB is familiar with the case documents. Frankly, that’s quite understandable. I’m spending many hours a week sorting and organizing document access, and I don’t consider myself thoroughly familiar, merely more than the average bear. Continue reading “Planet Rossi Flabbergas”

Fun with Phase, and Going With the Flow

There are flurries of posts on LENR Forum about a potential error in measuring 3-phase power, and this post caught my attention:

ele wrote:

LDM wrote:

Reversing a clamp, for example on I1 inverts the polarity of I1

This is usual absurdity that have been heard many times.

AC current have no defined polarity ( is in AC !) so if you reverse a clamp the instrument will detect a 180 phase shift of the current but the power calculation will remain the same !

All your formulas are wrong.

Start reading e.g. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ase-electrical-d_888.html

This is one more piece of circumstantial evidence that ele is Rossi. Continue reading “Fun with Phase, and Going With the Flow”

Physician, heal thyself

This is just too funny to pass up. On LENR Forum, Zeus46 wrote:

maryyugo wrote:

I used to know an old doctor, now dead, who actually met and treated Papp for [redacted]. He said Papp was a flaming nut case (not his words– he said [redacted]).

Some interesting bits and pieces from California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act:

“CMIA prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, except as specified.”

Note: I have redacted the medical information. (Not entirely, a doctor who treats someone and calls him a “flaming nut case,” would probably be violating HIPPA and CMIA, and repeating this could still be a violation.) I’m not a California resident, but just to make the point. CMIA prohibits any person from releasing private medical information, not only the providers listed. There are sources warning the media, for example, about publishing such information without permission. I’m reminded of the physician who accessed the medical information, particularly death certificate information, for Atkins, the cardiologist who developed the Atkins Diet, and then released it for political purposes (and it was misleading). 

Zeus46 went on to quote many relevant regulations and issues. Without doing extensive legal research myself, it looks like, on the face, the regulations set up sanctions for physicians, in particular, but also some other individuals or entities, for disclosing information similar to what maryyugo has posted.

It is possible that the original disclosure by Papp’s doctor was not a violation of regulations at the time, but this does not excuse maryyugo from the present violation. It is obvious to me that Zeus46 knows the real-life identity of maryyugo, it is not difficult to find, since he outed himself years ago, but continued using the “anonymous” identity. The real person, I’d give it more than 99% probability, is a physician licensed in California.

It appears that “Mary” is so eager to present classic debunkery, and so eager to prove it with “evidence,” that he completely ignores legal risk from his profession.

Zeus46 did not actually reveal that maryyugo is a physician, so he did not violate LENR Forum rules against outing or doxxing.


Update

I had assumed, as did others, that the CMIA rules applied to health care providers. They do, but they also apply to everyone. From LENR Forum:

THHuxleynew wrote:

maryyugo wrote:

I’m surprised you can put your clothes on by yourself in the morning. You can, can’t you? PS: dead people can’t sue for damages nor can anyone on the behalf. Not to mention that I am not releasing any of Papp’s sordid records because I never saw any. I am not even reporting facts about Papp! I am simply reporting an anecdote about what someone told me. Hear say. Also you seem to have lost track and wandered into the wrong thread. Anyway sue me. Give it a try. I am terrified.

FWIW, Abd’s comment on this related not to anyone suing you (ridiculous) but to professional disciplinary action for which no doubt the rules are different. However, I have no idea what is your profession, nor any of the details here, so what he suggested remains for me highly speculative.

I would assume that Zeus46 knows Mary Yugo’s identity. It is trivial to find. I have confirmed the identity and “Mary” has revealed, at various times, personal history that matches that of the identified person. One will see people, in various fora, calling Mary by the real name. Mary denies it, but the real person could trivially torpedo this, if different.

I was concerned that the comment here might not be from Mary, but could be a troll. This has definitely happened in the past. So I checked. The information I have as admin here is consistent with the known identification; more than that I will not say. Absent necessity, I will respect user rights.

Mary Yugo is a licensed physician living in California. He has a history of debunking (and has done real investigation, qualifying him as a skeptic in some cases). However, he is also highly opinionated and knee-jerk contemptuous of others who might be pointing something out that he does not understand, and this sequence shows it.

The risk is low, but Mary has not understood the risk. I do not know how CMIA is enforced, there might be no precedent, but the situation Mary describes is of a physician treating Papp revealing what would now be illegal to reveal (I don’t know about then). According to Mary, that physician is deceased, but CMIA also prohibits any person from revealing such information. And any person may file a report. If there are no provable actual damages, the potential fine is limited to $2500.

Mary claims it’s “hearsay.” Yes, it is. Hearsay about medical information, and it is contrary to CMIA regulations to repeat that. Theoretically, to anyone. So far, the walls don’t have ears, and in a case like this, my guess is that the courts would rule that CMIA does not trump ordinary freedom of private speech. But this was not private speech.

It was also unnecessary and irrelevant in context. Mary is a gossip.

There are resemblances, to be sure, between Papp and Rossi. And as to what is involved here, an alleged physician’s diagnosis, that merely demonstrates what was already known: Papp was not necessarily, himself, a reliable witness, and from the submarine incident, may have been capable of staging an elaborate fraud. The diagnosis, however, does not show that the Papp engines did not work, and from what I’ve seen, there is sufficient evidence that they did, in fact, work, to keep this affair in the realm of mystery. Mallove wrote an extensive article on this, and I consider some of his expressed opinions there unfortunate and not yet supported by reliable evidence, but … there are some things that we may never know. Or maybe the “Papp effect” will be confirmed in some way. What I have seen in this line is quite unconvincing.

We also know, then, that Rossi is an unreliable witness and is capable of arranging an elaborate fraud (the fake customer!). We know that Rossi was accused of various frauds in Italy; the ultimate disposition of all that remains a bit unclear to me. Rossi has claimed that all charges were dismissed and all fines refunded, but I have not seen that conclusion from any independent investigator. However, all that does not demonstrate that there is no Rossi Effect.

One statement that IH has made has raised concern for me. From the joint stipulation, IH introduces their “Statement of the Case” with:

Plaintiffs claim to have invented a technology called the “E-Cat” capable of violating the law of conservation of energy by producing far more energy than it consumes.

First of all, the plaintiffs do not claim that the E-Cat is capable of “violating the law of conservation of energy,” and the concept of “consuming” energy is scientifically defective. What is referred to is input energy, and, yes, it is claimed that the E-Cat generates more heat than could be produced by input energy. However, this does not violate conservation of energy if there is a fuel.

As a trivial example, it takes energy to detonate a stick of dynamite, but there is no violation of energy conservation just because the explosion releases far more heat than is generated by the blasting cap that triggers it. Energy “input” must include the potential energy of all system components.

Rossi did not originally provide any theoretical basis for his claims, but he was generally working with LENR, so the general claim would be that there is a nuclear transformation releasing the energy.

If the Industrial Heat investors did not think this possible, without violating conservation of energy, they had no business investing in such a claim. It sometimes occurs that skeptics dismiss LENR as involving “perpetual motion machines.” It would not be that. The energy available from a nuclear fuel is limited. It is not “free energy.” It would not be “perpetual.”

That introductory comment was just plain wrong, because Rossi doesn’t make that claim, and a working Rossi device would not violate conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is an aspect of the first law of thermodynamics, and the IH experts have pointed to violations, but that was in the testing, as to the behavior of steam, not about the claimed effect itself, which would presumably be nuclear in origin. Have the attorneys misunderstood?

If possible, this should be corrected. LENR should not be on trial in Florida.

It was an itsy-bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot error

A comment today pointed out a post by kirkshanahan on LENR-Forum.

zeus46 wrote:

KShanahan. What’s that story about the time you were trying to dispute some ‘cold fusion’ findings by showing a non-correlation between two factors, but ballsed up the analysis, and ended up unknowingly proving it? Or something. Abd used to write about it. Never heard your side of it. Maybe something about a horizontal line on a graph?

In my 2010 J. Env. Monitoring paper, there is a slight error in my discussion
of a specific figure. Abd has tried to use that to discredit everything I write
in a ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ style. I replied to him here on
lenr-forum, but in brief… Continue reading “It was an itsy-bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot error”

With friends like this, does LENR need enemies?

On LENR Forum, kirkshanahan wrote:

It seems Krivit has issued me a challenge (Kirk Shanahan, Can You Explain This?) but provided no way to respond. So I’ll do it here…

My first answer is: Probably, what exactly do you need explained?

That was, of course, a direct answer to Krivit’s actual question. The post is undated, but it’s the latest “Recent News Article” at this point.

Krivit takes Fig. 1 from 1993Fleischmann-Pons-PLA-Simplicity and adds some lines to it to make the displayed figure.

And Fleischmann asks the question himself:

One can therefore pose the question: “How can it be that the temperature of the cell contents increases whereas the enthalpy input decreases with time. 9” Our answer to this dilemma naturally has been: “There is a source of enthalpy in the cells whose strength increases with time.” At a more quantitative level one sees that the magnitudes of these sources are such that explanations in terms of chemical changes must be excluded.

But Krivit is asking the question of Shanahan. Why? Slow news day? We know that Shanahan has alternative explanations, and most LENR researchers and students have rejected them, but what could be useful is a detailed and careful examination of them. Krivit refers in an update to Shanahan’s response, but it is more or less as expected, and Krivit does not address the issues.

Apparently he is unable to understand why the temperature can increase and the voltage decrease over time in the cell without excess energy from LENR being the cause.

For starters, Krivit refers to the plot of voltage as if it is a plot of power input. He’s not incorrect, because the experiment is likely constant current, in which case power will track voltage, but simply showing a voltage plot will not communicate that to a reader. There are also issues of possible bubble noise that could cause an error in measuring power. That has been addressed to my own satisfaction, but the point is that the matter is not as simple as Krivit imagines. To him, that plot would be a proof — proof, I tell you — of LENR. But it’s not going to convince any skeptic, without serious study. And I haven’t seen any converts from that plot. Shanahan went on:

I would suggest he read the section of my whitepaper discussing the flaws in the F&P calorimetric method. THH conveniently posted a link (Mar 2nd 2017 post #92 in thread “Validity of LENR Science…[split]” “Kirk’s white paper answering Marwan et al: https://drive.google.com/file/…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view) to it. Then think it through while chanting “CCS CCS CCS”.

Kirk does not know how to make links work. When text is copied, as he did, the link may look like a link, but it’s been munged with those ellipses in the middle. It is one of the little joys of LF software. Rather, follow the link and then copy the full URL from the browser bar. Shanahan also could have copied the link to that post 92, the date stamp is a link that can be copied. That’s what I do. The post number is also a link.

Here is his white paper.

BTW, there are other reasons besides ATER/CCS for this as well (and I suspect the cause of the drift shown in the Figure is actually not ATER, that comes later in the paper). Ask an electrochemist.

Shanahan has never successfully shown actual flaws in the Fleischmann calorimetry; rather, he has alternate hypotheses, unconfirmed. However, this could deserve careful discussion here. The LF style sequential commentary doesn’t lead anywhere but to useless smoke.

We have to assume constant current for the discussion to make sense. Fleischmann doesn’t actually say that the input is from a constant current supply, but gives the current as 400 mA.

Krivit responded to Shanahan, but didn’t.

April 28, 2017 Update: Shananah’s response: “Probably.” [That’s the extent of Shanahan’s explanation. He provided no specific details as to how the cell temperature steadily rises while the input power steadily decreases over several days in this graph. Dr. Shanahan, if you want to reply further, please send your comments to the contact page here. I will publish them so long as your reply is specific and exclusive to this graph and your response reflects professional etiquette.]

Krivit does not answer Shanahan’s question … at all.

The input voltage shows a decreasing trend, not the power, that’s what the plot shows. And this is not “steadily.” (Nor is the temperature “steadily” increasing.) But, yes, we know that this is a decreased power input. Shanahan simply pointed to his paper. Does it propose mechanisms? Well, “CCS” is Shanahan’s code word for an effective shift in cell calibration caused by unexpected recombination or a shift in where recombination occurs. Some such shift, as an example, could indeed cause an effect as shown. As well, shifts in loading could create such effects. How large is the effect?

At 4.9 V and 400 mA, the input power is about 1.96 W. The claimed XP is 115 mW by the end of day 6, or about 5.9% of input power. In an SRI series, this would be considered barely reportable. However, FP calorimetry was reputed to be quite precise, on the level of 0.1 mW.

Why is the voltage going down? With constant current, the cell resistance is going down, so the power supply lowers the voltage to keep current constant. Here is my stab at it:

Water is being split into deuterium and oxygen. That’s endothermic. Then the deuterium is absorbed by the cathode. That is exothermic initially, but moves toward endothermic as loading reaches the values necessary for the FP Heat Effect. Fleischmann-Pons calculations include these issues (or they would not be accurate; these are open cells, not cells with a recombiner where the potential energy created when deuterium and oxygen are dissociated. If there is an unexpected shift in this chemistry, the XP values would be incorrect. Ideally, the gases are measured, and loading is monitored. It’s complex. This is not a job for Steve Knee-Jerk.

And it’s not a job for me, either, unless I’m prepared to put a lot of time into it. I would much prefer to see a careful discussion here, with THH and, I’d hope, Shanahan, and others, as well; here, I’d organize this so that useful content is created. He is totally free and invited to comment here. THH has author privileges and I’d give them to Kirk as well, in appreciation for his years of service as the Necessary Skeptic.


THH wrote:

Going back to the original post. LENR advocates would I think agree that they get relatively little scientific critiques from mainstream scientists, or indeed anyone who is technically competent and highly skeptical, so interested in finding holes in arguments.

All this is symptomatic that this is debate, not scientific investigation, where “sides” are arrayed against each other, rehashing old issues, with issues never being fully resolved, with true consensus being elusive. To me, the big disappointment was the 2004 U.S. DoE review. It was superficial and hasty, like much with LENR. The review made claims pretending to be reports that were not supported by the review paper evidence (that were actually contradictory to it). The review process obviously did not include serious, interactive analysis of data, where errors would be corrected, instead they were allowed to stand.

The review did agree that further research was warranted, and half the panel considered that the anomalous heat was real, i.e., at least there is an anomaly — or collection of them — to investigate. If the DoE had actually been paying serious attention, they would have established a LENR desk. For their part, the review paper authors made no specific request. So they got no specific result. Funny how that works.

They need that. So I find no excuse for the process Kirk notes in the first posts here. Marwan et al may believe they have settled Kirk’s points. More likely (and my judgement reading the source material) they have partially addressed them.

… and possibly in a somewhat misleading way. However, the context is important. Kirk had been criticising LENR research strongly, on the internet, since the 1990s. I attempted to search for his posts on vortex-l, but that list is archived in zipfiles that Google does not search. Practically useless, typical Beatty.

Kirk’s points were answered again and again. To his mind, those answers were inadequate. I met Kirk on Wikipedia in 2009, when I first started investigating cold fusion. I saw him as the last standing major critic. I attempted to support examination of his ideas. I found him hostile and combative. I also attempted to present his ideas on Wikiversity. He cooperated with none of it.

If there are errors on Wikiversity, anyone could correct them.

The way to elucidate this is for them to defend their work against critiques of their defence – not to ignore the critiques of the defence and answer only the original points. Kirk similarly of course, but in this case I have noticed this phenomena less, he picks up on nearly all of the points made by Marwan et al.

His Letter to JEM was the last stand of published LENR critique. He has complained that JEM would not publish his final reply. This would be an editorial decision, not that of the scientists who replied to him, called the “Marwan” critique. Marwan and Krivit were the original authors, and Krivit dropped out, claiming editorial misbehavior. Vintage Krivit.

The Letter contained gross errors, so bad that the respondents did not even address them (and apparently did not understand them), and it was on a crucial point, Shanahan claiming to have analyzed data in a chart published by Storms, finding low correlation between heat and helium, when the chart actually shows quite the opposite. Shanahan had misunderstood the chart, which showed the scatter in heat/helium results, so the x-axis was heat and the y-axis was helium/heat. As the operating hypothesis is that there is an experimental ratio between heat and helium, that this may be a constant except for experimental error, what is actually shown is that as heat increases, the ratio settles, as would be expected from the lessening effect of fixed experimental errors. If the experimental data were perfect, there would be no correlation between heat and helium/heat. It took a long time before Shanahan admitted he had erred. His first response when I pointed it out to him was on the lines of “You will do anything to cling to your beliefs.” Pot, meet kettle.

That is water under the bridge.

From such a to and fro one can obtained a balanced view of the likely validity of each point. Normally both sides end up agreeing, or at least agreeing that areas of disagreement require further work. Typically what happens here is that points made are valid for a specific set of circumstances, and elucidating whether than covers the matters of interest takes time and effort.

The issue here is not primarily about who is right in this exchange. It is about how you convince independent observers that you are right.

Anyone with that goal has left science and is dwelling in politics and attachments. The assumption THH is operating on is adversarial, not collaborative. It’s also personal. Convince others “that you are right.

I prefer to set up process that will facilitate finding consensus, which may include creating new experimental results to clarify issues. There is a place in this for review and discussion of what has already been done, and I hope that this can take place here, but Wikiversity could also be appropriate.

See Cold fusion

Skeptical arguments

Shanahan

Many interested in cold fusion complain about Wikipedia suppression, but few, hardly any, would participate on Wikiversity, I found, which has standards much more like those of academia, it is not an “encyclopedia,” but more like an eclectic combination of university library, seminars, and studies, including student work.

In theory, then, Wikipedia would link to Wikiversity for “further study.” That would be standard, but was always suppressed by the dominant faction on Wikipedia. It is one of the actions of that faction that would not have been supported by the full Wikipedia community, but they got away with it because of lack of attention and clear stand, lack of unity and collaboration among supporters of cold fusion, or such collaboration expressed not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Basically, the faction banned the editors with the editorial skills needed (such as myself and pcarbonn). They were about personal winning, and not actually aligned with Wikipedia policy.

In any case, I have uploaded the documents here:

The Marwan et al response to Shanahan

The Shanahan white paper