Trying out hypothes.is with LENR Forum

I’ve been seeing spots of interest — and bubbles of mishe-gas — on LENR Forum and missing the hot format of immediate comment, even though, long-term, what I’m settling into here is much more useful.

I started using hypothes.is for commentary because Steve Krivit filed a copyright violation notice on a copy of a page of his here. It’s an interesting tool.

I will create tools here to link to my hypothes.is comments (or others if contributors take it up), and here are some to start. (If you don’t see annotations after following a link, look for a small “>>” link at the top right. That should open up annotations.)

Look down the page as linked through hypothesis.is. The page should show highlights on text on which there is public comment. With a hypothes.is account one may create comments or reply to existing ones. It’s a browser extension allowing one-click setup of annotation of any web page.

The links below are actually all the same, they point, through hypothes.is to the same LF page.

response to Zeus46.

response to joshg

response to IH Fanboy

comment on Paradigmnoia just giving a link

And more.

and then  The next IH page.

Comments may be made here, or, with a hypothes.is account, comment replies can be entered with the annotations.

 

We see what we want to see

Too often. If we have a firm position, and we are faced with a massive body of data, and the data dumped into Rossi v. Darden was massive, we will scan over it looking for “facts of interest.” If we are not careful, and some are not at all careful, we will pick facts that appear to confirm our prior views. It’s called “confirmation bias.”

I’ve pointed out an example in How Planet Rossi reads fact. Here is another from the same user, same deposition.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?

All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.

This was classic. I’ve called it trolling, based on the actual meaning of “trolling.” Even though I do think IHFB is “sincere.” Nevertheless, he makes statements that are evidence free, or that don’t actually match the evidence, if it is cited. Naturally, IHFB doesn’t link to the document and this is a huge PDF file, but at least it is there. However, IHFB is actually comparing two alleged facts. One is what is in the deposition and the other is what was “pushed on all of us here”? That is largely meaningless without any actual citation or quotation, but trolls are not interested in evidenced and sober discussion, and IHFB expects to be attacked.

What happened? Continue reading “We see what we want to see”

How Planet Rossi reads fact

This example poked me in the eye today. On LENR Forum, IH Fanboy, a strong supporter of Andrea Rossi and a critic of Industrial Heat, wrote this:

@Dewey,
Murray testified that Jed visited the Doral location with either you or JT Vaughn. (215-3, pages 122-123.) Do you agree with Murray? Was it with you?

Below this was the standard note:

anotherTroll likes this.

anotherTroll is a new user, appropriately named. LENR Forum is still figuring out how to handle trolls. They like free speech, but ….

Jed had said, many times as I recall, that he had visited the IH facility in North Carolina, but not the Doral plant in Florida. I was fascinated to see that Jed was even mentioned. So, of course, having the files, still working on annotating them, I looked this up. Continue reading “How Planet Rossi reads fact”

What if we provide a magnifying glass?

About the judge in Rossi v. Darden denying the requested page limits in Motions for Judgment.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

Dewey Weaver, I don’t suppose the font can be made smaller to fit more onto the limited page space…

Devious bastards think alike, we do. The same idea occurred to me, however, I know too much. I could not find the rule immediately, but pleadings must be in a certain form. That covers font size. I did find the federal appellate pleading rules, 14 point minimum for proportional spacing. Or 10.5 characters per inch maximum of a monospaced font. Pica typewriter, basically, 10 cps, for those who remember such ancient contraptions, if I’m correct (“elite” was 12 cps).

Footnotes might be smaller type, do I remember seeing that? I’ll come back and annotate this based on the record. I would want to look at the actual court rules. Do not violate the intention of the rules.

However, there is no limitation on type size for exhibits, and one could present exhibits in forms even more clearly than what has already been done, with various devices to compress and collapse. Look at the existing exhibits, they are highly wasteful. This would require care. Sometimes a rewritten copy might be submitted with a certification of “true copy” and a reference for verification. For example, deposition transcripts could be vastly condensed. More than one document could be presented in a single exhibit, easily.

I don’t think there is a limitation on the number of exhibits, however, or pages in exhibits. So for the Motion for Judgment and statement of facts, brevity will be the soul of wit. Continue reading “What if we provide a magnifying glass?”

Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!

That’s a Planet Rossi trope. Recent Planet Rossi comments have explained that internet discussions are being warped by attacks against Rossi by “paid” advocates for IH. When it is pointed out that a for-profit venture capital company, operating mostly with high privacy, would not pay for this, because they gain nothing from Rossi looking like he always apparently wanted to look (like a con artist or fake), it is then asserted that the purpose of this is to influence the jury in Rossi v. Darden.

Mostly this is being advocated by people with no deep knowledge of the jury system and how it works. A surprising possible exception is rionrlty, an American, using his real name, with apparent experience as a real estate broker, now retired. With an assumed long career, one might think he’d have more experience than to assert what he’s asserting. I will here examine what is being said about the jury selection process and rules, and provide sourced information about this.

Bottom line, not only is it unlawful to attempt to influence the jury selection process or to present “information” to the jurors outside of the court process, but it is also unlawful for the jurors, who are under oath, to lie about their experience and knowledge of the case or case issues, and they will be asked. It is also unlawful for them to violate the rules, which include any attempt to obtain outside information about the parties or issues, that they don’t already have and admitted having. It is not automatic that a juror would be excused if they knew something about the case and the parties; but it is a factor that the judge and attorneys would consider.

In the end, the goal of the Judge will be that the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) agree that the jury, as selected and having been questioned, under oath, about all this, have been fairly selected and will be fair and impartial. Continue reading “Fair and balanced jury? Yeah, right!”

What happened with the video depositions?

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions rest on a legal fiction, taken to a ridiculous extreme, the personhood of a corporation. They are an invitation to create hearsay evidence, and an opportunity to make mistakes that cannot be corrected. Essentially the 30(b)(6) deponent is making official statements for the corporation, whereas most official corporate statements in law and practice are made by corporate officers, generally in writing, to make it clear that this is a corporate statement, not an individual one.

It’s been pointed out in legal advice sources that it may be advisable to designate a 30(b)(6) representative without direct knowledge, because the opposing attorney may fish with questions not on the list of issues, or seeking unspecified detail that might not be included in a briefing. I really can’t see why these depositions are even allowed, compared to interrogatories, which also create legally binding testimony. Corporations act through board approval or authorization, which is, in theory, deliberated. It is in that process that a corporation becomes a person.

The reason for depositions rather than interrogatories is so that a jury could, if necessary, view the witness to judge probity, (affect matters), but this is very strange in a 30(b)(6) deposition, where it could be very common that a witness will decline to answer, which, then, to some, may look evasive, or “slimy,” as as IH Fanboy called some answers — which seem proper to me in context — on LENR Forum.

It appears that the Rossi questions and conduct in the depositions was designed to solicit that kind of response, then to attack the corporation based on lack of response to questions that have already been answered by someone with much more direct knowledge, on the basis of failure to prepare. We discuss. Continue reading “What happened with the video depositions?”

IH Fanboy

IH Fanboy is an anonymous LENR Forum user. On Who’s on first?, I categorized him as Planet Rossi. A common Planet Rossi trait is to identify a possible error in the post of someone who seems opposed, and then claim that this is obviously wrong, attempting to impugn everything that the person has written because of the alleged error. This is also characteristic, by the way, of pseudoskeptics. It is really about people, not facts.

Patents and Jury trials

IHFB’s target is JedRothwell, I have classified as a Believer. Jed was at one point a believer in Rossi’s claims, even though Rossi had not allowed him close to the reactors, knowing that Rothwell would want to verify claims. Jed’s position ultimately changed. One thing has not changed, Jed tends to express what he concludes as “fact.” He can be strongly dismissive of disagreement. So, on the one hand, Jed, from his position and experience, is quite knowledgeable, and from the other, may overstate matters.

This matter when through a convoluted history, common with LF discussions. I’m not going back to the full beginning, but starting here:

Rionrlty [Planet Rossi] wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

That would do no good. That strategy would not work. After I.H. steals it and begins selling it, the whole world would know it is real, and Rossi could then easily win any lawsuit, for practically any amount. The fact that I.H. initially persuaded people on the internet that the technology does not work, or even initially persuaded a jury, would make no difference once the money starts coming in.

Before going ahead with Rion’s comment, this discussion is about a Planet Rossi claim that the IH intention was to steal the technology, as if they could easily profit from that. Jed’s comment was a bit overstated, it might not be “easy,” but the Planet Rossi argument generally assumes that getting away with stealing a patented technology would be a slam-dunk. This is all a reflection of the Rossi paranoia, a long-term trait that whacked him in Italy. As a result of his fear, others took him down, because he did not engage major corporate support, he was suspicious of it. So here Rionrlty claims a method IH would have used.

He could have given it to one of the other researchers they claim to be supporting, had them present it as their own and completely circumvented Rossi. If you think there wouldn’t be takers for that amount of money then you are much more naive than I thought. This is where the grown-ups spin their webs and nobody invests that much money and doesn’t play the game for keeps.

That is a strategy that someone who does not understand intellectual property and patent law might dream up. First of all, if the technology is actually covered by a Rossi patent, what someone else claims, with a later priority date, is irrelevant. If a new patent is issued, it can be voided with a proper claim showing lack of priority. Further, what will the greedy “grown-ups,” imagined ready to play this deceptive game, do when faced with a necessity to testify under oath, where deception can result in jail time? It isn’t quite so easy, and it would only take one whistle-blower, or person with personal experience, not willing to lie. And if there is even a rumor, there can then be a basis for a subpoena, this is much of what Discovery is about.

JedRothwell wrote: (responding to Rionrlty)

That would not work. There is a paper trail of patent filings and experiments proving that Rossi invented the device. Rossi could easily prove this claim is false.

You[r] scenarios fail for common sense reasons.

Again, “easily” may be overstated, but if Rossi has the money or backing for hiring decent lawyers, it is likely he could prevail on the facts alleged. If the Rossi patents were invalid (another issue) and if the new inventions were not dependent on a valid patent, but instead were new — or public domain — technology, no, he could not prevail. Again, that is likely, not ever a certainty, any good lawyer will point that out. However, the odds are very much that way.

IH Fanboy wrote: (responding to Jed)

IH will claim that Rossi’s patents are invalid (oh wait, they already have). Then, when me356 provides his information more openly and/or when BLP introduces their first complete prototype to the public, IH will once again claim to be working with NiH systems, while proceeding with their own patent filings, partnering with a manufacturer, and eventually introducing their own IH-cat.

I am not aware that IH has claimed that the Rossi patents are invalid. As is common with Planet Rossi, what others may have suggested is attributed to IH, this is part of the idea that it is all an anti-Rossi conspiracy, and ultimately this requires that numerous people be lying in public, but even more, that they have or will lie under oath.

The scenario described here is that IH is willing to wait years to introduce the technology, whereas the technology, if valid, is worth maybe a trillion dollars per year. They would then be buying a legal mess, where they could lose everything. Instead, this is ordinary self-interested business sense, they would pay Rossi the mere $89 million if it were legitimately earned, which is certainly claimed by Planet Rossi. At the same time, by delaying, they would not only be losing the potential sales, they are risking that someone else will independently develop technology, there are many looking at it. What did Rossi do that was unique? Allegedly, he tried a thousand combinations before finding one that worked. Others can look at thousands of combinations, it is only a matter of time, and not that much money, all things considered. If NiH works, that is. If it does, there are those that know it does, so they would be hot on the trail. Me356? Maybe. But nothing of importance can be based on the unconfirmed claims of the anonymous. Even known people making extraordinary claims — like Rossi — cannot be relied upon fully without confirmation.

JedRothwell wrote: (responding to IHFB, my emphasis)

It makes no difference what they do, or what they claim. They can “claim” this or that until the cows come home. It will not help them. If the technology works, it will become generally known that Rossi invented it. There is a paper trail proving this. At that point, Rossi will be able to sue I.H. for any amount of money, with 100% assurance he will win. In a patent lawsuit, nobody cares what you say or claim. They only look at the facts. These are not trials by jury. The judge decides, and the judge is an expert in patents.

There is no strategy I.H. could employ, and nothing that I.H. could do to win, if Rossi’s technology really does work.

This is Jed’s long-term habit, to state a probable situation as if it were an absolute fact. As I read this, I did not know if Jed’s statement was true, but I could see the ontological error: “There is no strategy.” There might be one, and IHFB actually gave one, IH could argue that the patent was invalid, a real possibility, perhaps caused by lack of Rossi willingness to fully disclose what was necessary to make working devices (quite possible, out of his paranoia), or some other error in the patents — one reason to hire a good patent lawyer. However, what about “trials by jury”?

Jed’s comment was obviously based on the assumption of valid patents.

IH Fanboy wrote, responding to Jed:

Jed, you clearly know nothing about which you speak. I suggest you stick with something that you are more familiar with, such as Japanese.

Trolling, deliberately or inadvertently. No substantial argument or evidence, pure ad hominem.

I do not know much about this, but I have consulted with experts who do. This is what they tell me. Your assertion that I am wrong is — as always! — your opinion alone, not backed up by any facts.

And thus fact-free trolling fills discussions with extensive irrelevancies, making LENR Forum far less accessible. A more useful response from Jed would have been to ask what was wrong, specifically, and then for evidence regarding it. But he didn’t, Jed himself just reacted. Very human. Jed is actually human, I have watched him eat food, etc.

IH Fanboy wrote:

I suggest you consult with better experts.

How would he know they are better? Wait! There is a clear standard to apply. If they are better, they will agree with IH Fanboy! But as to what? Nothing has actually been specified! It is loosely assumed from context. That’s not a question to take to an expert unless the expert has time to burn, and they usually don’t. I’ve consulted a patent attorney and I’m pretty sure Jed Rothwell has, as well. So what has IH FB done? It comes out.

ele did reply to Jed’s comment with Planet Rossi misdirection, implying from it what Jed did not intend to imply, but I’m not quoting it here. In another post ele seems to believe that IH could poison a jury by internet gossip, demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of legal process and realities.

JedRothwell wrote:

ele wrote:

IH hopes that after that one if Rossi fails he will not have enough money to start another.

If this device works and it is commercialized, everyone will soon know that Rossi discovered it. There is a massive paper trail proving this. Rossi will become world famous overnight. Every major law firm in the U.S. will be eager to take on his case against I.E. They need not charge him up front. They can take a percent of the winnings. By the time this happens, I.H. will have billions of dollars from license fees from major corporations world-wide. Rossi will be in position to take all of that money.

IH Fanboy wrote:

I don’t know how to say this nicely, but you are completely disconnected from the real world.

Notice how IHFB is using hyperbole (“completely”) to push his point, without revealing what the point is, and repeatedly. He’s attempting to set Jed up for the coup-de-grace, PROOF that he is WRONG! This is clear trolling.

JedRothwell wrote:

As you so often do, you have given an opinion here not backed by facts. We have no idea why you think I am disconnected or the scenario I describe is unrealistic. If you have a reason, I suggest you state it.

Jed is himself stating an opinion not backed by facts, that is by facts provided. This is very easy to do.

There were two very reasonable response to this IHFB sequence: ignore it, or ask what he know asks. Jed says “we” here, and probably says it deliberately. I used emphasis above because I had already seen where IHFB went with this, so I knew what to emphasize.

IH Fanboy wrote:

Some things are so blatantly obvious that they require no explanation. Notice how nobody comes to your rescue on some of your more wild statements. Dewey would have, but he was warned off from our presence.

More trolling. Most people are ignoring this issue, and IHFB’s rantings. IHFB apparently thinks that it will be “obvious,” but IHFB often thinks that his own warped logic is obvious. He is really setting himself up, exposing himself. What actually happened with Dewey is not yet clear. He was asked to “tone it down,” something I’d been suggesting for almost a year. That’s all diversion.

JedRothwell wrote:

[answering IHFB as if it were a serious discussion], ending with]

They have not come to your rescue, either. I expect most people can see that I am right. Anyone who has read history or has experience in business will see that I am right.

Right about what, Jed? About everything? Trolls lead people into indefensible replies. It’s a cultivated skill. Looking at this sequence I’m re-evaluating IHFB. I’m no longer convinced he is sincere Planet Rossi. The name itself is trolling, “IH Fanboy”? Apparently he thinks that the time is right to spring the trap, but, of course, he wants to draw it out as long as possible.

IH Fanboy wrote:

@Jed
Your statements are blatantly ridiculous. They don’t deserve to be graced by my explanation as to why. If you are unfamiliar with the business and legal landscapes, just do a few quick Google searches and you will immediately see the errors in your thinking. I suggest you start with keywords “patent lawsuit jury trial” and go from there.

JedRothwell wrote: [quoting only the first two sentences]

So, we should take your assertions as infallible pontifications from the Pontiff of Cold Fusion. A Papal Bull. “Bull” is the correct term.

I give facts, examples from history and cogent arguments. You dismiss them without deigning to give a reason. Do you really think people find that persuasive?

Jed took the bait, perfectly. Instead of doing what was suggested, it appears that he only responded to the first part of the claim. There is no sign that he did the suggested search. In fact, I suspect that Jed knows the topic reasonably well, so he might think he didn’t need to. However IHFB has seen something that he thinks is probative. It isn’t, apparently. I did the search and will point to what I found below. (I always assume that even a troll might have a point, so I would almost always check presented evidence, even if it is weak like this, unspecific. After all, that suggested search returns over a half-million results!)

IH Fanboy wrote:

No. But if I say they are blatantly ridiculous, you can easily see why by doing a few short Google searches. For example, you unequivocally state that there is no such thing as a jury trial in a patent case. That is ridiculous. And a simple search will reveal that to you. You don’t have to trust me on certain things. You wouldn’t believe me anyways.

Notice: “For example” is a device for conflating a single incident with an extensive pattern. Jed did not state what IHFB claims here. Jed described routine practice, as he understood it, possibly from years ago. IHFB has translated that to “no such thing,” thus creating a blatant error which he then attempts to rub Jed’s nose in.

JedRothwell wrote:

My understanding is that most patent issues are decided by judges.

Jed does not confront the misattribution. What he says, though, is unconditionally true. This is his understanding. His understanding also is properly qualified, “most.” It is also apparently correct about some issues that might be called “patent issues.,” validity, in particular, but the reality here is not completely clear. And it can be quite complex.

IH Fanboy wrote:

But that is not what you said originally, is it?

It is consistent with what he said, if we understand that a general statement is not necessarily qualified fully.

You said: “In a patent lawsuit, nobody cares what you say or claim. They only look at the facts. These are not trials by jury. The judge decides, and the judge is an expert in patents.”

This was also possibly overstated; however, again, Rossi v. Darden was assigned to Altonaga because she apparently does patent cases. See the Docket, document DE 11.

A word of advice. When someone corrects you, and there is no way around it, here are a few good words that will result in respect by others: “I stand corrected.” When you make a mistake, admit it and move on. If you persist in your errors, you will lose the respect of me and others. Funny that, I’ve never once observed you retract anything you have ever said, save for the time that you eventually changed your claim on the temperature data (but not after tremendous pressure from LENR Calender and me).

Most plaintiffs in patent disputes demand a jury trial. Most district court judges are not expert in patents

It is good advice, but mixed with poison. I’ve seen Jed retract errors, many times. In this case, Jed was not clearly wrong, though he might be in error in some ways, but he was also misread. And IHFB is being misleading. What was the point? It is totally lost in IHFB’s convoluted “correction,” which poked and provoked for many comments before even describing what he was talking about.

Rionrlty wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

My understanding is that most patent issues are decided by judges.

It is up to the Plaintiff whether he will require a jury trial or accept a Judges ruling instead, just as it was in this case.

That is the general rule, not necessarily so with patent cases. Nobody, so far, is actually pointing to evidence. So, here we go. IHFB suggested googling “patent lawsuit jury trial.” So, of course, I did. The first hit: Jury Trials in Patent Cases which refers to this 2013 paper: Why Do Juries Decide If Patents are Valid?

The jury trial is a fixture of modern patent litigation. Lawyers, scholars, and judges take for granted that when a patent case goes to trial, that trial will almost always be before a jury.3 And that jury will decide most, though not all, of the significant issues in dispute – including whether the patent is valid. The dynamics of the jury system drive both the structure of patent litigation and its outcome. Jurors are more likely than judges to rule for patentees. Lay jurors are reluctant to second-guess the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and invalidate a patent the PTO has issued. And the fact that the parties are gearing up for a jury trial affects both the high cost of patent litigation, the structure of pretrial proceedings, and the willingness of the parties to settle and on what terms. This regime is built on an uncertain foundation. For while patent lawyers take for granted the power of the jury to decide whether the PTO made a mistake in issuing a patent, the role of the jury in patent cases is a recent and unusual phenomenon with a murky history.

After all, we don’t normally ask juries to review the decision of an administrative agency, at least outside the criminal enforcement context. The Administrative Procedure Act presupposes that judges, not juries, review agency decisions. The Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to jury review of administrative agency decisions. And as the Supreme Court held in 1999, the PTO is an administrative agency subject to the normal rules of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The result is a puzzle. Why do we assume that juries will review PTO decisions when we don’t do so in other areas of law? The answer can’t be that “we’ve always done it that way,” because that’s not true. For much of American history, and as recently as 40 years ago, less than 5% of patent trials were before juries at all. Indeed, even today we don’t always let juries determine patent validity; validity can be determined in a bench trial in a number of instances, and by administrative agencies with no trial at all in still others.

The upshot here: there are two kinds of claims in patent lawsuits: ones that contest the validity of the patent and ones that claim damages. Formerly, damage claims required a jury, validity claims required a bench trial, i.e., were decisions made by a judge. The situation is far more complex than “jury” or “not-jury.” As of 1976 or so, about 6% of patent cases were tried before a jury. according to the author, that percentage began to rise, reaching about 70% by 1994, and has stayed about the same since. (See page 38 of the article)

The author also claims that it is well known that juries favor the patentee, i.e., the owner of the patent. Now, can a party demand a jury trial? According to the author, the matter is muddy. It may depend on the specific claims in the case.

From this source, Jed’s comment was only possibly correct if we limit consideration to issues of validity. He did not do that and clearly was considering questions of fact, not law. So I conclude that Jed probably did err. Why? Well, we don’t know when he formed his opinion. The percentage only reached 50% in about 1990, and Jed easily may have discussed this with a lawyer before then, and as well, lawyers are sometimes slow to revise opinions. And we don’t know the mix of cases. “Patent cases” includes the two kinds of cases.

From the second hit, obviously there are some jury trials in some patent cases:
We Get Through to Juries in Patent Trials

The third hit clarifies the matter:

Jury Trials in Patent Cases

In patent litigation, the right to a jury trial historically depends on the remedy sought by the patentee in its complaint. Infringement actions seeking only damages are legal in nature and, therefore, warrant a jury trial. Actions that seek only injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, or other solely equitable relief do not give rise to Seventh Amendment protection. …

If an action seeks both legal and equitable relief, different fact-finders will decide the claims. A jury will decide the legal claims while the judge will decide the equitable issues. In such cases, the jury must first decide any common issues of fact. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959). Moreover, the jury’s findings on the overlapping issues will have a res judicata effect on the subsequent bench ruling on the equitable claims. Parties should also be aware that while affirmative defenses do not affect the analysis, monetary counterclaims do give rise to a jury trial right.

In the other direction, IHFB does not seem to be aware of the distinction between the two kinds of patent actions, and makes it depend only on the plaintiff’s choice.

And the original point was totally lost in “Is so! Is not!” discussion, mostly with IHFB claiming that this all was totally obvious.

In the “present case,” the action was filed and assigned as if it were a patent action. Validity of patents was not the issue, contrary to what was claimed by some. This was not actually a patent infringement issue, the only claims of patent infringement were completely incorrect and were dismissed by the judge. I.e., they did not go to a jury! What was left for Rossi was a claim of damages from nonpayment and then allegations of fraud. So “this case” shows a decision by a judge, not a jury. And then the rest remains, and nobody has questioned the appropriateness of a jury trial if requested.

 

Who’s on first?

Reading LENR Forum, categories of participants become apparent. As could be expected, categorization may vary with the experience and understanding or belief of the categorizer. Some of this is really and routinely obvious, though. This is explicitly my categorization, what occurs to me, and objections may be made to these in comments below.

Planet Rossi

Continue reading “Who’s on first?”

Everybody knows

I’m waiting for the results of today’s Rossi v. Darden hearing, and was struck by events on LENR Forum. So how to introduce this, and the line came to me, Everybody knows … that’s how it goes.

For the full lyrics.

Is that a depressing song? Well, no, because this is where the future begins: where we are. What “everybody knows” is not the future, it is the past, and Cohen mentions this. So here we go, the immediate past on LENR Forum. Continue reading “Everybody knows”

Demonstration of pseudo science and skepticism

This is a cautionary tale demonstrating pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism, a particular kind of pseudoscience that appears to be or is believed to be “scientific.” It is about the “Egely wheel” and human behavior. The application to LENR is that these responses are possible in this field. It is clearly possible to fake demonstrations and videos, to look totally convincing and to be, in fact, fraud, or, generally with a less convincing demonstration, mistaken, but it is also true that any clear fraud does not prove that all claims are fraud or error.

Rather, what can be derived from these is “possibility,” but translating that to “scientific reality” is a painstaking and endless process. As humans, we may need to make decisions by a certain date, but for humanity as a whole, there is no near-term and clear end date. We may sanely postpone decisions until they are necessary, considering all the risks and costs. To the case in point:

Continue reading “Demonstration of pseudo science and skepticism”

Discussion of how crazy can it get

How crazy can it get? (Claims of witness tampering)

One consequence of this filing is that Dewey Weaver has been silenced — or at least inhibited for a time. It was always a wonder that he disclosed so much.

There is discussion on LENR forum that I review below. Continue reading “Discussion of how crazy can it get”

Quack rentals?

In discussion of Rent-an-Expert Penon (Actually Rossi v. Darden developments), it was mentioned by Dewey Weaver, the only actual IH informant in LENR Forum discussions, that “Penon has proven that he doesn’t know beans about much of anything,”

So Alan Smith wrote: (my emphasis)

Which is why he graduated from University with the highest possible honours. ‘Summer comes Laundry’ as they say.

I won’t go into how inane that “factoid” is, in context. No sirree. I will not mention the word “idiot” once. Stealing a line from the RvD documents, the post speaks for itself.

However, what is this “summer comes laundry” thing? And AlainCo picked it up and made it huge: Summer comes Laundry

So, WTF? I googled it and the top hit was to this:

Rentals

’nuff said.

 

What does it mean to sell one’s soul to the Devil?

In the matter of Rossi v. Darden, and Peter Gluck, it’s becoming clear. On LENR Forum, yesterday, Peter Gluck wrote:

It ius better to have Rossi Diabolicus with a working technology than perfect man with no technology.

Here 80% goes about Rossi’s character and 20% about the issues of real interest, Y/N?

To me, and to most, people are far more important than technology. After all, what’s it for? If we have a perfect man, he will generate technology or not, it doesn’t matter, because such a man can and will transform society toward what is possible for humanity. If we have a major technology controlled by a “Diabolicus,” — a devil — we could have cheap energy and all die from a nuclear war, because that is exactly what devils do: cause people to fight, and they use lies or whatever means available.

Peter is promoting, though he probably does not realize it, the end justifies the means.

See Consequentialism.
Continue reading “What does it mean to sell one’s soul to the Devil?”

Validity of LENR Science

I tend to write about what is in front of my face. On LENR Forum, digressions on the thread, Rossi v. Darden developments Part 2, were finally split to new threads. So the following appears as if it were a new post. I will get to the topic at #Validity, after looking at the administrative aspects.  Continue reading “Validity of LENR Science”

Bob Greenyer and the Temple of Doom

A topic appeared on LENR Forum, MFMP preparing some big announcement? In fact, the Facebook user, “Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project” is Bob Greenyer, and my training has strongly discouraged confusing individual actions and beliefs with those of a community, which MFMP is.

As is being pointed out, Greenyer has become manic. Continue reading “Bob Greenyer and the Temple of Doom”

Conversations: THH

[My comments are in indented italics. I have done some minor copy editing of THH’s original.)

Under Pseudoskepticism vs Skepticism: Case studies:

THH wrote:

As a borderline pseudoskeptic I should have interesting personal experience to bear on this topic!

Sharing personal experience is always welcome.  Continue reading “Conversations: THH”

And Abd’s favorite topic

Abd!

Being busy writing about Rossi v. Darden or mishegas here and there, I had entirely missed the LENR Forum trolling of Zeus46, joined by Alan Smith. I’m amazed at the research Zeus46 has obviously done, he must think I’m worth all that effort. I’m adding the More link before going on because the only importance that I see here, other than bringing up nostalgia for me, is how LENR fora attract really unpleasant people whom I have very little interest in ever meeting, and especially some moderators. However, there are others I’d love to spend time with. And some I have been blessed to meet in real life. Continue reading “And Abd’s favorite topic”

Pseudoskepticism vs Skepticism: Case studies:

There are some resident skeptics on LENR Forum. There is no clear dividing line between “skeptic” and “person interested in science.” However, pseudoskepticism, by the name, imitates genuine skepticism. The core of it is skepticism toward the claims and views of others, combined with apparent certainty — or at least practical certainty — toward one’s own beliefs. A pseudoskeptic may often assert that, no, they don’t believe in their own beliefs, but this is simply denial, and the belief is obvious to the discerning and knowledgeable.

“Pseudoskeptic” is not a complete description of any person. No argument is wrong because it is advanced by a pseudoskeptic and, in fact, most pseudoskeptics hew toward the mainstream, and a result of that could be that there is a substantial possibility that they are right. Continue reading “Pseudoskepticism vs Skepticism: Case studies:”

LENR+ is never having to apologize

Once upon a time, IH Fanboy, while clearly a Rossi supporter, was more or less coherent, at least sometimes, as I recall. That’s gone out the window. Gross errors are made but never admitted or directly confronted. If Jed, say, points out a fact that doesn’t fit the IHFB story, IHFB then changes the subject to something else where maybe, he thinks, he might “win.”

At this point he is more or less reduced to “You don’t know everything” and “You have no proof that,” when, in fact, anyone sane recognizes that little is proven, but much is plausible and even probable.

Continue reading “LENR+ is never having to apologize”

Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom

Hope springs eternal. Throw enough mud at a wall and some will stick. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. A sucker is born every minute. La, la, la, I can’t hear you! Please explain!

Peter Gluck has been vilifying cold fusion heroes, now, since the filing of Rossi v. Darden. Before that he mostly confined himself to disparaging basic LENR research as useless, weak, a dead end, whereas his “LENR+”, now, is the savior of humanity and the Nobel Prize would not be enough as a reward. How about $89 million of someone else’s money for a start? Continue reading “Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom”