From Russia, with love

October 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi:

What do you think of the sceptics that continue to say the E-Cat will not work?
From Russia, with love,

Andrea Rossi
October 30, 2015 at 12:40 PM

D. Travchenko:
Maybe they are right: at this stage I cannot exclude they are. Time is gentleman, we’ll listen from him the truth.
Warm Regards,

On LENR-Forum, Paradigmnoia wrote:

Rules against doxxing prevent me from being explicit, but DT (from Russia with love) has signed off at least once with another pair of initials familiar to us.

Doxxing as an internet offense arose as a protection of anonymity, but not as an encouragement of sock puppetry, which is also normally considered an offense. Forum administrators have access to post information information that would normally reveal sock puppetry. As well, doxxing of “public figures,” i.e., internet identities revealed elsewhere, where the alleged “puppet masters” are public figures, has always been, on sophisticated fora, allowed and is even considered necessary. Consider Wikipedia articles about government officials “anonymously” edited from the office of the official.

LENR Forum has never acknowledged banning a user for “sock puppetry.” It has warned and sanctioned users for exposing sock puppetry (rightly or wrongly). “Doxxing” has no been clearly defined. Claiming sock puppetry is not, in ordinary internet-speak, doxxing. In this case, P. points to what I recall (but could not readily find) as an example where a poster on JONP apparently accidentally signed the post as “A.R.”

The poster in question has commonly posted under what may be a real name, DTravchenko, but the content has been pure Planet Rossi, using common Rossi tropes. Because this is all (AFAIK) on Rossi’s blog, JONP, only Rossi knows for sure, but … pointing out a clear fact, publically accessible, where, if the fact is true, does not reveal the true identity of an actual and unique person, not the known public figure, is not “doxxing.” It is attempting to understand the public record. If DT is Rossi, there is no person harmed by the revelation, i.e., becoming subject to harassment, as might have happened, say, with the doxxing of “Thomas Clarke.” However, even the Thomas Clarke case is bizarre. Thomas Clarke is a real name, so all that “doxxing” did was to identify the specific person with that name. Then the allegation can be made that Thomas Clarke continued to post using a pseudonym. Is pointing this out “doxxing”?

Because we think of “doxxing” as Bad, we want to fit the actions into a category, so we can know if it is Good or Bad. This is common — and defective — ontology. Revealing the pseudonyms of Thomas Clarke is a trivial exercise, anyone who cares can find out. Because Pseudonym is so trivially identified with the real identity — when that identity could have easily been hidden, it is not as offensive as some deeper doxxing with more possible real-life harm would be. For example, there is an English fellow who pretended to be a Muslim and who went on the pilgrimage, and who wrote about it. He used a pseudonym. Revealing his real-life identity could expose him to harassment or worse. That would be serious, and highly offensive doxxing.

If a professional supports Rossi, at this point, it could indeed harm their professional reputation. There is a lesser possibility of harm from any professional’s support of LENR. So I’m sympathetic to desires for anonymity; however, this is a double-edged sword. Anonymous testimony is only useful for creating avenues for confirmation, it cannot be accepted as truth (i.e., with probity depending on the character of the witness).

Some writers, anonymous, develop a reputation for reliability. There are a few anonymous writers whose analyses can — my opinion — generally be trusted, and a few real-name authors who are quite untrustworthy. So the whole issue is complex, not simple.

I was unable to find D. Travchenko in internet searches connected with LENR and Rossi, except as comments on JONP, and then quoted elsewhere. It would be odd for someone with such an intense and frequently-expressed interest in Rossi to not comment or show up anywhere else. That, together with the obvious Planet Rossi points of view, which are quite idiosyncratic (aspects may show up with any Rossi supporter, but there are particular modes of language that are common only with Rossi and certain possible sock puppets), indicates a likelihood that DTravchenko or DT (“From Russia with love”) is Andrea Rossi, setting up questions he wants to stand or to answer, but maintaining deniability.

If DT were to post on LENR Forum, for example, that would create administrative knowledge there indicating identity. The same with E-Cat World. Rossi may trust Frank Acland more, but ultimately, Rossi trusts nobody. How he treated Fabiani is appalling. One can see in the Fabiani correspondence how torn he is between his loyalty to Rossi and his professional responsibility (to provide information to IH, all set up by Rossi — the actual contract was between IH and USQL and a half-owner of USQL was Florida Energy Trust, which Rossi has claimed — or hinted, he’s not completely explicit, he left room for “plausible deniability” — is essentially him.)


Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


9 thoughts on “From Russia, with love”

  1. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (though Shakespeare used slightly different words). After a while you get to understand whose posts are worth taking notice of and whose to take with a certain amount of salt (and how much).

    I was surprised to find that Mats Lewan appears to be totally convinced that Rossi is being maligned here, and that Mats seems to believe that Rossi is telling the truth. I’ve been pushing the idea of “where did that MW go?” for quite a while, since it’s pretty hard to get rid of that amount of energy 24/7 for a year without it leaving a big evidence trail. Rossi has now invented the story of the upstairs heat-exchanger and fans, with some panes of glass removed to allow the entry/exit of the air needed (and thus perjured himself in the process). The neighbours would have noticed such a fast blast of hot air (necessarily limited to 104°C maximum and the size of the window-pane) which would have been very noisy and should have had legal consequences from the complaints. Maybe that palm-tree in front of the window would have died, too. Yet – no complaints from the neighbours about the noise and the heat, even if the IR survey is not legally admissible. If you take most of Rossi’s claims one-by-one, you can stretch the available evidence to admit the claim is not impossible. With the invisible/inaudible heat exchanger, though, that can’t be done. You can’t do it that way. The evidence would be external to the warehouse and would have been easily noticed by anyone passing. I haven’t checked the date when Murray visited and was refused entry, but assuming that Penon’s report says that there was power being produced on that day (since it was also produced during power-cuts) the hot air could not have been missed by Murray as he approached the building. This is the dog that didn’t bark – absence of his mentioning it is tantamount to saying it wasn’t noticeable.

    Maybe the kindest explanation is that Rossi is an X-man whose superpower is making people believe the unbelievable. This superpower obviously doesn’t need personal contact (see Peter Gluck).

    At this point, I feel that the scientific side is pretty cut-and-dried. There is no evidence of excess heat or of any nuclear reaction with Rossi’s “test” or from the designs he gave to IH. If there had been some slight excess heat generated, we wouldn’t know from Rossi’s measurements or Penon’s data. IH say that their tests were not successful once they found and sorted out the measurement problems.

    The legal side just depends on how much uncertainty Rossi’s lawyers can generate. Natural justice should see IH winning (though somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory since that’s time and money down the drain that will not be recoverable) and Rossi being fined an amount of money he doesn’t have or has a hope of earning, especially if he’s jailed for the perjury.

    LENR has the reputation of crackpot science, so I can understand THH’s position on anonymity. I hope Abd’s Plan B brings some shine back to LENR so THH can admit he’s involved. I have no problem about anonymity – I’m retired so can’t be sacked…. IH seem to have invested in others working on LENR, though, so I have some hope that the level of commitment they’ve shown with Rossi will apply to the others as well, and thus reaches something workable somewhat faster than would have happened without their investments.

    1. The rejected visits were rejected in writing, not by Murray showing up at the door. However, there were visits by IH people, before the shutdown of visits in July 2015 by Rossi. Barry West was there almost all the time. Fabiani might decide to simply tell the truth. It’s hard to hide a megawatt if you try, but why try? Actually, the whole idea of a megawatt reactor before there are available smaller reactors was a Bad Idea from the start. Far easier to conclusively test smaller reactors.

      In the end, IH set out to find out if the Rossi claims could be trusted. They found out. What has become crystal clear is that Rossi cannot be trusted. Behind that, what’s real? And, really, does it matter? If a technology is real, and someone is pursuing it, it will break through. What we know now is that the Rossi Effect is not evidence of anything other than the possibility of deception, of self and/or others. NiH LENR is just as possible as it was before Rossi came along. Basically, there were reports of interest, nothing proven reliable. It’s still that way.

      Yes, IH showed amazing patience and persistence.

      1. Abd – thanks for the correction. I’m losing track of the details of what people did. It remains that the 1MW would have been very noticeable, and yet no-one remarked on seeing any evidence (apart from the meter readings, that is).

        The 1MW claim was always a Red Flag. Real inventions tend to start small (in the free energy field I normally comment on the fakes go for 100kW or so claims, whereas the real ones claim in the mW range or less, with one being 5.6µW). Strangely, 1MW is also harder to measure accurately than a few watts.

        Ni/H, Ti/H and W/H are just as possible as before, but post-Rossi need a more-dedicated crackpot to persevere long enough to achieve it. I expect that a method will be found, but until it is moved into the Real Science arena the chances are that the USA won’t have that many researchers.

  2. …Even then. Look at Mats …
    My opinion on the subject of qualifications and identity was formed from what I believe is the point of view one comes from. For instance, the situation of Mats Lewan is extremely interesting to me, almost more so than LENR itself! What I see here is “how and why do people think like they do”.

    This does not necessarily require identity or educational background to be known. Although, I would agree that educational background would be relevant and interesting.

    I once worked with an engineer, masters degree and extremely intelligent. His logic in “engineering” was exemplary. Yet, he belonged to one of the most outlandish cults I have ever encountered. I mean really, far out stuff.

    How does this relate to Matts? I am extremely intrigued by how people form and integrate beliefs into their reality. Matts is educated and has some amount of pedigree. Yet he has bought into the “cult” of Rossi. (I use cult as only comparison to my former colleague’s situation) Does his name matter? No. Does his educations, to some extent yes. How does one buy into something that if they applied their logic and objective training to, they would see as false? Similar to E48 on ECW. He has bought into Rossi. He has some amount of education and logic. Yet he has chosen to go down a path that critically stretches his objective training.

    So for me, identity has little value or need in these types of blogs. As with THH, I also think that what a person posts is more important as to what their education credentials are. And the fact that those credentials can easily be falsified on line also reduces their importance. (I could say I have a Phd., but that would not make it true)

    My interest is why do people think and make choices as they do. I am not nearly as strong as THH in math and other disciplines and therefore my posts are not as technical as they could or possibly should be. (An area that I do work on improving) So my interest lies in logic and why people develop their views. (As I continuously consider my own thoughts and beliefs on religion and how they are established) What qualifications brings to this, I am unsure.

    With that said, I am convinced, that the Rossi/eCat saga has become more of a religion to some, more so than of a scientific event. Therefore, a certain amount of logic and qualifications are “thrown out the window” so to speak. I find this most interesting.

    1. I care more about people than I care about LENR. This is one factor that distinguishes me from Peter Gluck, who became obsessed with his “LENR+”.

  3. Personally, I don’t find qualifications or real identity helpful when evaluating technical comment from internet posters. those who are competent show this from quality of argument and detail. I can and do evaluate that. Whether someone is a professor, or a member of an industry organisation, says not much about specific expertise or the agility and intellectual strength needed to argue well on some random issue.

    Those with better maths background, who are used to thinking for themselves and working things out, will have advantages. But, to understand those, we do not need to see a CV (such as e.g. I could provide). Nor will all those with good maths qualifications be good at using maths in matters of interest. A classic example of how acknowledged experts, on oath, can mislead whilst being technically accurate, and no doubt perfectly honest, is Wong’s report. He uses an approximation that I’m sure he would agree on further analysis is inappropriate. But as a first pass guess, which is how he presents it, it is plausible.

    So identifying web voices is not in general helpful. There is an exception when the web voice is part of the story being discussed (and therefore to that extent a public figure). Rossi or Levi or Dewey here. In that case identity is highly relevant to the matter at hand.

    Some people want to be judged by public qualifications: and therefore will post under their real name. That is fine. I personally do not wish to be judged by my public CV. That is decent, and interesting, but I’d much rather that the quality of my comment was determined from inspection rather than have anyone accept me as an authority based on my qualifications. In fact I’m uncomfortable with that.

    The web is an interesting place. You get a wide variety of expertise and quality. I think unless you can judge posters on content, independently of claimed or actual qualifications, you will inevitably be misinformed. that means until a given internet voive is well known and understood you have no confidence in their accuracy. That is as it should be.

    Finally, my posting here is for pleasure and I’d rather keep it separate from my work. Thus continual linkage of my posts with my real name (as would inevitably be done by unfriendly posters were there no rule against it where I post) would make such separation impossible when some 1000 students might know me and a few of them read these forums, and many more will google my name.

    Regards, THH

    1. In general, if you do not wish to assert your personal qualifications, anonymity would be fine unless you are concealing something truly relevant. As an example, in itself, the exposure of nckhawk as Dewey Weaver was appropriate, but many aspects of that exposure were not appropriate. Given who he was, I’d have highly recommended (to him) either refraining from comment, disclosing identity, or, another option, feeding information to someone else who then becomes responsible for posting it (hopefully after verifying it and then making the verification available to others).

      It’s important to distinguish between information and analysis. The kind of analysis you do, THH, could be done by anyone with the skills, and generally, the necessary skills could be obtained, if one is willing to put in the work it takes. At least it becomes possible, with study and interaction with a topic, to become able to ask appropriate and informative questions of experts. Information, though, i.e., fact, such as what happened if not based on public evidence, is quite different. There, character becomes very important.

      I think that most of us involved in these discussions would support anonymous “suggestion of ideas,” except where these become, effectively, libel. That gets dicey. I have always been open about my identity. But I also received bomb threats. (Not about LENR, to be sure! But I have written about many topics, and some are truly hot, where there are people willing to kill — or to be killed. LENR is tame by comparison, as to everything I’ve seen.)

      1. I just don’t accept unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, and I think not many people do. So, if somone was in the business of supplying such, then yes, they would need to be authenticated and have a plausible back-story for why they have possession of such non-public information.

        Even then. Look at Mats – who would seem to be a good example in this matter of somone with such additional information. How did that go then?

        1. You noticed.

          THH, you are not presenting, with your anonymous identity, unsubstantiated information. Nothing would be materially different even if you were a “paid puppet of IH,” and I know you are not. I personally will encourage you to come in out of the cold and to participate openly, but this must remain your choice. LENR is coming, and it needs sane critics, and that is what you are. (I claim it’s coming, and I have substantiated this under peer review, but it is up to each individual at what point to consider evidence as (1) preponderance, and (2) conclusive, or not these). Mats has now commented here, on Mats Lewan buys condo in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Is that actually Mats? How would I know? Here is how, and I’ve used this before. I will assume it’s Mats, absent a denial. I did this with the material from Bo Hoistad that came into my hands. No denial ever appeared, when it would be easy to say, “that was not from me.”

          Fabiani seems to have denied a Linked-In page that he apparently created. What was the truth there? How would we know? But, more importantly, does it actually matter? Someone who has a true need to know can subpoena records, it’s a bad idea to lie about stuff like this, if your reputation matters.

Leave a Reply