Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand

It’s not paged unless someone prints it. It’s a blog post, and such are classically opinion and often very personal comment. I’m still trying to remember why I put “the New Age” in that title. It is eluding me. Maybe I thought it would be catchy.

I changed the WordPress theme early on and the new theme automatically puts the bio of the author at the end of all posts. When I wrote that bio, it was intended only to be seen by those who looked it up. I’m thinking about fixing it, but haven’t gotten around to it. It’s not an emergency. Peter doesn’t seem to like the bio (see below). Tough! That was my life, a least a little of it, it is what it is.

Let’s try to answer to some issues of interest:
– the first pages re-describe Abd’s ban from LENR-Forum seen as a crime against value and meritocracy;

He’s making that up. I described what was in front of me and the associations brought up. This was not what I’d call “substantial content.” It was, like many of my posts, an exploration of my observations, looking at sources and content and the comments of others. A blog. It is not a spear, with a sharp point and all the weight aligned behind it. It’s an invitation to a conversation, and often begins with a conversation, like this, where one person writes something — Peter’s blog in this case — and another responds. To me, this is an opportunity to have a leisurely, unhurried conversation, with no problem from someone hogging the floor. Nothing in this is written in stone. It would be possible to respond to this point by point, on a series of pages, each one of which looks at one issue. I can also edit this to correct errors. User who ask for author privileges here will generally be able to do that. Nobody has asked, yet.

It was this possibility that excited me when I started on-line conversations in the 1980s.

What I was commenting on in my subject post included a blatant contradiction, the locking of a topic I had started because it had allegedly become too long, and then the new thread was far, far longer, as well as the paradox that steps had been taken to discourage the LF community from discussing what is the hottest news in LENR, an actual lawsuit over alleged LENR technology. The sequence with Peter and Dewey took place in that new thread, so I looked at the thread itself first. Context. Don’t leave home without it.

“impossible” is Peter’s idea, because he imagines he wants definitive answers, but, in fact, Peter has no definitive evidence, his positions are based on wishful thinking and hostility, combined. It is true that public knowledge of the alleged 1 MW Plant is scanty, incomplete, but Peter has been making firm and definitive statements about it for a long time, offensively claiming vicious error on the part of others — it started with Jed Rothwell — when they make ordinary rational statements, sometimes based on knowledge. When someone with actual knowledge writes, Peter attacks. Dewey has actual knowledge. Sometimes Jed Rothwell does, though it is usually indirect in some way. Peter has little knowledge, and much of it was imagined, not observed, and he is clearly holding on to interpretive errors he made long ago, this comes out here.

Others involved in discussions on LENR-Forum have been following Rossi with high interest for years, and Rossi has revealed much; the biggest problem is that none of it can be trusted, but people can point out what has been said. In this case, the IH Engineer — who actually was there as the year test was completed and Penon was removing his instrumentation — states some observations, and Peter has attacked this, over and over, as if the observations and what they might imply are vicious, evil fabrications, and impossible, to boot. And then he is upset when his insanity is pointed out. The Murray document was really a set of questions Murray asked of Penon, the alleged Engineer Responsible for Validation. Murray will presumably testify if the matter comes to trial.

Murray may have made mistakes. People do that. However, in court, he would be cross-examined, and they may come out. Meanwhile, a basic legal principle: testimony is presumed true until controverted. Peter, below, asserts a contradiction, but does not appear to recognize that his use of the contradiction to impeach Murray’s observation actually backfires. It could even more clearly impeach the entire “Test.”

Peter does not understand the documents and the legal context, and his understanding of the possible engineering is weak, even if he had, at one time long ago, extensive chemical plant engineering experience (as he apparently did). He has made many indefensible statements. And, then, when the problems are pointed out, he withdraws because LENR Forum is full of putative enemies, and his “friends” conspire with him, as he quoted above. (“conspiracy” here is a social process technical term, it means to agree to an interpretation, and especially a harmful one — but it applies to all interpretive confirmations. They can be dangerous.) He’s choosing his friends on a basis that will lead to ruin, and Dewey Weaver was trying to warn him.

Abd’s answer: “Peter is old and dysfunctional
(this is unfortunately for me-true, but unfortunately for him, has nothing to do with the problem,  without the diagram, including piping any stupid speculation is possible and almost any illogical hypothesis can be, converted in proof for the proofless… Informational chaos works for Abd and Co..

Peter quotes out of context. In any case, Peter is right about one thing. I care more about people than about technology.

We do have a rough understanding of the system, from years of photographs and discussions. What Peter calls “stupid speculation” is based on an eyewitness account. Yes, there could be errors, but Peter is dismissing what is evidence-based from others, while asserting, as if fact, what is pure speculation and imagination on his part — or dependence on the claims of someone known to be deceptive — as shown by clear evidence, uncontroverted.

then I have expressed my disappointment re Dewey asking me about some jewelry without any explanation; I have limits. I am not an”know it all, understands nothing- explains it as a guru- judges it fast with no mercy and no appeal”as the author.

This is a demonstration of what may be age-related lack of comprehension. See my coverage in the blog post.

He was incoherent (which means incomprehensible without much filtering), bringing up an obscure reference disconnected from the original comment he was talking about, when he wrote: “The mean trick of asking absolutely irrelevant question as in my case about the St. Andrew’s Jewelry works only with children”

I saw that and it made no sense. (I had not at this point seen the Dewey comment, nor, when I did, did I recognize the reference clearly, and it took some work to find it. However, Peter was telling Dewey that he had used a “mean trick.” In fact, Dewey had asked him a question, one that would have a simple answer, “No.”

Dewey Weaver wrote:

[comments about evidence and then a mention of Rossi having much larger basic problems.]

Speaking of, how much do you know much about the R’ster’s “industrial gold / silver recovery” & St Andre’s jewelry businesses?

What was he talking about? I didn’t know either, but there is a big difference. Had that question been asked of me, I’d have said, “I don’t know anything about that,” as one option, inviting him to tell me, or I would have searched for information.

However, if one has read the Krivit accusations against Rossi, one would know that Rossi had, as part of his recycling business, precious metals recovery, and that Rossi was arrested over this. I recognized that much, but not “St. Andre.”

Peter did not spell it correctly and seems to think that this was in the U.S. He seems to think that this was done to humiliate him by asking him a question that he doesn’t know the answer to. Yet it’s easy to say “I don’t know,” and there is no shame in it, though it does reveal a certain lack of knowledge. It took a little work, but I found what Dewey was talking about.

It has to do with the honesty and character, as indicated by past history, of the one who had total control of the “Test.” Peter did not understand the context, but was sure that it was hostile, attempting to humiliate him, and reacted with hostility.

There are indications that IH has investigated the Italian history, where there were accusations of gold smuggling and tax evasion. It is difficult to investigate this merely on the Internet, but they may have sent an investigator there. That’s speculation based on an indication from Dewey. Dewey did later point to a page where Rossi quotes the articles accusing him of crimes, and then responds. My point here was not that Rossi was, then, actually guilty or not. I don’t know. My point was how Peter handled the communication.

This is actually Peter-Gluck-infamous. Peter, again and again, rails against Exhibit 5, which is a small part of the IH Answer and Counter-Complaint. It is a set of questions asked of “ERV” Penon by the IH Engineer Murray, about what he had seen in the Plant itself and in the preliminary reports. Exhibit 5 confirmed what Jed Rothwell had seen in a copy of a preliminary report — and Peter had railed against Jed for saying those things. So, here, he is quoting me, in a context where the size of the return pipe from the “customer area” to the Plant is being discussed, with one person claiming that the pipe was DN80, for which there is no evidence.

I am generous, I give the seconds plus wings to fly; that pipe comes out from the upper side cover of the group of E-Cats and it is at a height of 2.8- 3.0 plus meters
very difficult to access, and how many times have you removed insulation from a pipe with a lowly screwdriver?  I doubt you. Abd,  have ever visited a plant but you speak with boarder less arrogance.

Boundless, he means. Peter does not understand, and what he does not understand, he ridicules. The pipe he refers to as high is the steam pipe from the Plant to the customer area. The water returns to the plant at a low level. Not high. Somewhere there it goes through a flow meter, apparently into a holding tank (before or after the flow meter? If it is before the tank, water loss would be irrelevant, unless it was in the customer area.), and is pumped from there to a distribution system into the devices, and steam exits at the top, as one might expect. The return pipe is low, near the ground, easy to reach. This is not in the least controversial. The exact level could matter for certain issues and we don’t know that. IH almost certainly does know, and certainly Rossi knows, and Fabiani and, I would assume, West.

Removing the insulation is not what I’d do. I didn’t say what I’d do, so Peter imagined something stupid. No, if necessary, I would poke the screwdriver through the insulation, aiming for the center, to see how deep it would go before hitting the actual pipe. From the photos, this was ordinary insulation, it could be penetrated like that. It would be easy. We do not know how Murray obtained the DN40 figure, and my next blog post went over an error made in discussing that. In that case, the writer who made the mistake, who had become embroiled in a flame war over it, insisting on his error, apparently read my account, realized his error, and acknowledged it. That is what sane people do. I could say that conflict had made him temporarily insane. It can happen to any of us.

From indications, the holding tank is open to the atmosphere. But this is uncertain.

Peter is completely confused here. No, the possibly half-full pipe would be in the return part of the loop, low, not high, and nobody would design the system Peter has imagined. The steam pipe was above everything, entering the customer area at a high level, exiting low, so that water would flow. Somehow, my guess,  Peter did not understand this from the start, got it all backwards, and this made Jed Rothwell’s comments seem completely crazy. I don’t recall Peter ever describing the concept he had in his mind before. Conversations became bogged down in recriminations.

There are two major issues. Apparently the flow meter has DN80 fittings, but the return pipe is DN40. (The flow meter was not appropriate for task, the flow was below the rated minimum for accuracy.) If so, if the return pipe is smaller than the flow meter, and unless there is an obstruction to flow after the flow meter, creating back-pressure, or a U-joint which causes it to fill, the flow meter will not be full and will over-report flow, which is one of the suspected issues. The other issue has to do with pressure, the Penon report has 0.0 bar as the steam pressure. That’s impossible, so most (including Murray) have interpreted it as 0.0 barG, i.e., gauge pressure, or pressure difference between the atmosphere and the steam. But if the receiving end is open to the atmosphere, it would also be at that same pressure, so there would be no flow. Instead, if the reported water is being vaporized, there would be very high flow in the steam pipes, creating substantial back pressure. Something is inconsistent and Murray asked about several such points.

I have no fear of being wrong, it would be an opportunity to learn something. Why don’t I contact Murray? Not a bad idea, but I would expect that he would not talk to me, for strong legal reasons, and I don’t need to know this detail. As I have written, this is a tiny detail in a case, but Peter doesn’t understand the case and probably doesn’t want to.

Exhibit 5 is simple and coherent. It was probably written carefully, including consultation with a lawyer, and delivered to Penon (delivery method not specified) a few days before Penon released the “Final Report,” if that occurred when Rossi claimed (which IH has not denied). Planet Rossi claims Exhibit 5 was written by a lawyer. Probably not. I reads to me like a careful statement of an engineer who knows a lawsuit is about to be filed. Besides looking for answers, he is memorializing the February conversations, which is a legal device, highly recommended where verbal interactions may become legally important. That is true even when no lawsuit is looming.

The general plant layout has been covered many times on E-Cat World and LENR-Forum, and it appears that Peter has some very different ideas, and were his ideas true, then, of course, he thinks that what people are saying is crazy.

Please try to instill in your brain the following two  ideas that must stimulate you to jpin my request to Dewey for the piping diagram:

Nice. Peter is confirming the calculations of many, but he has not been careful. From the annex to the “Final Report,” the regular flow rate is given as constant, a round 36,000 kilograms per day, or 1500 kg/hr, the figure Peter uses.

The flow varies with pressure across the pipe, which Peter neglects in his comment. The higher the flow, the higher the pressure. From the Penon report, though, the input pressure is 0.0 barG. Others have calculated that, at the reported flow, the pressure at the return pipe end must be about zero, absolute, i.e., 1 atmosphere of pressure behind the flow, though that used the DN40 figure. Dewey pointed out that their measurements showed the system would not hold a vacuum like that. Penon allowed for 10% leakage of water, an astonishingly high figure. Bottom line, the Report is a tangled mess.

Dewey and others have been saying this: the Penon report makes no sense, and, indeed, the whole concept of a 1 MW Plant operating in that warehouse with no visible cooling makes no sense. All I said about the pipe was that Murray asserted it was DN40, and he very likely based that on something. If it was wrong, then Penon would have had an obligation, as the Engineer responsible to Industrial Heat and Rossi, to correct it. Very simple to say. “No, the pipe was DN80 [say], and these are the flow pressure considerations: …”

We don’t know the levels. We don’t know the lowest point in the system. I don’t know if the meter was before or after the pump. Proper system design, assuming no leakage in the customer area, would have the flow meter installed in a U, at the bottom of the U, so that with any flow rate, the U would be full (there are extreme conditions possible where a U would not be full because of air or steam being forced through, but those may be unlikely in this case. The flow rate would be very high to cause that. The flowmeter itself was designed to handle high flow.

Who designed the Customer loop? Hint: apparently, Rossi. He described himself as having done this for JMP, in a blog post, as I recall.

In both cases, I promise to convert  my blog to managerial problem solving and systems thinking and restricting my LENR activity to admirative and laudative comments on the COLDFUSIONCOMMUNITY Blog.
Where is the diagram?

Case (a) is very possible. Case (b) isn’t, it is Peter’s misunderstanding of Rothwell’s claims.

There is a diagram on E-Cat world, put together by Engineer 48, who claimed to be working with Rossi. It is unclear if this is accurate. We have no authoritative system diagram, and the elevation of the components is unclear. One of the problems is that the flow meter was not located, apparently, in a U that would fill with water, ensuring it was full. If the meter had DN80 fittings, but it was being fed with a DN40 pipe, and depending on the location of the pump, the meter might not be full.

This was not Murray’s “idea.” This was not a theory made up to discredit the test. It was an observation of rust marks that indicated partial, incomplete filling, so Murray asked about it.

There are, as Dewey told Peter, bigger problems, starting with very clear fraudulent representation. Peter, you have been backing a liar, who deliberately deceives people. What Dewey wrote to you, which you completely did not understand, was about that.

What follows in the posting:

–  based on my life experience and lectures I make distinction between author and his opus, genius or not, I am focused on Rossi’s technology not his evil personality traits; for Abd this goes in the reverse, he is definitely not a technologist;

I agree dementia is not an offense  and if it is senile that is a kind of excuse
I have a computer program that analyzes a text  and shows if the author is
crazy, Rather normal or a simulant (started by Drs Stossel and Pamfil in the 1960s
and I fear to divulge the result for the first sentence of your bio in which you suggest that Dick Feynman’s genius was contagious;

The first sentence in my bio:

I sat with Richard P. Feynman at Cal Tech 1961-63, in the “Feynman Lectures.”

Where is the “suggestion” that “Feynman’s genius was contagious”? I didn’t say that, but one might infer that I’m “name-dropping.” However, that was my history, and it had a huge impact on me. I would say that his genius was, indeed, contagious. What was his genius? I heard the most famous “Feynman stories,” from him. As is pointed out on-line, his stories were not really about science, but about people and how people think — and don’t think. Looking at Quora on the Feynman stories now, I am reminded of how I learned to think from Feynman. It took years to percolate, to develop, and is still developing. He was a genius, but what kind of genius? A story I strongly remember is how he found the one valve out of a million at the Oak Ridge uranium processing plant that, if it stuck, it would lead to a meltdown, a serious accident. I’ve lived out events like that. It’s called “intuition,” and intuition is not what people often think. It is actually doing something without any conscious knowing at all, something that turns out to create astonishing results.

It’s not about technology. From my point of view, Peter’s focus on technology makes him stupid, because technology serves life, not the other way around. I would hope for Peter to start fully enjoying life, as it is, independent of conditions. Besides present health conditions, he has pain in his past, which can be respected — and left in the past where it belongs. He can, if he chooses, enjoy every moment he has left. And he could be far more useful than he is.

Peter reveals the deep contradictions in his thinking. Paranoia tolerates these. He is making a moral consideration (“excuse” relates to morality), but claiming his interest is technology. His interest in technology allows him to dismiss all comments of others relating to personality or character or basic business relations, the legal issues, etc. But then he is not interested in the “technology” of insanity, i.e., relationship to fact. He’s looking for blame or not-blame, and those do not exist in objective reality, they are thoroughly subjective. He is holding onto his stories of blame and guilt, bad and good, firmly asserting them for others and avoiding them for himself.

This is a common signature of senile dementia (i.e., if these are habits that are not addressed when younger, they commonly intensify). He — and some others– may think of this as an attack or insult. However, I’m almost his age. I am vulnerable to the same aging process. If I lose it, if I become rigid and unable to understand criticism, say, and fail to respond to it functionally, I hope that they will tell me, so that I can notice and factor for it. As an example of factoring for it, I would ensure that I’m edited, by the most trustworthy people I can find. I would start taking more time before responding, to allow time for reflection and self-correction. I would notice when I “believe” that I’m right, for “so many reasons.” These are not difficult measures. With them, I could remain useful to the end.

I thought the Trial is about  a technology not about Rossi’s Italian sins;

Rossi attempted to claim that, as to his tax issues. It was rejected by the Judge. Peter has never understood what the case — it is not a trial yet — is about. He has no patience for reading the documents, and my explanations are too long for him, but he does not ask clarifying questions that might allow him to understand. Instead, he keeps repeating his assumptions, like this, right here.

Rossi filed the case, making claims about his technology, but “great technology” would not win him a penny. Only satisfying the conditions of the Agreement, lawfully and without fraud, would do that, it could win $89 million. However, Rossi did not just go for that, he claimed fraud, which would allow triple damages. And he did not just go after the company with which he had the Agreement, he went after Cherokee Investment Partners, a $2.5 billion corporation, and after Darden and Vaughn personally, not merely as officers. Corporations are created to protect against claims like this. If Rossi technology is real, he still went a bridge too far. Just because he has a real technology, if he does, doesn’t win the lawsuit. It only becomes relevant if the trial needs to go into certain details. In fact, what we know of the “Test” conditions indicates that it was not a one-megawatt plant, in spite of Penon claims and the JMP reports of power received. If there was any LENR power, it was far, far less than a megawatt. It’s impossible to be sure, partly because evidence was removed.

Has Peter noticed that Rossi replaced all the fuel in the reactors, on the last day of the “Test”? There is one clear, obvious reason for that: to remove evidence. Yes, there could be a legitimate reason, Rossi always has a back door, plausible deniability, i.e. he was preparing for the power sale to JMP to continue. However, this is not what someone would do who wanted to ensure that his claims would be solid and clear, it would be someone who has a habit of avoiding independent examination, and Rossi is well known for that.

Describing your 4 years partner abruptly as a total monster leads to the question- when have you stated this?

Peter, apparently, has never read with understanding the various people who have described the rational motivations and intentions of Industrial Heat.

First of all, Industrial Heat has never described Rossi as a “total monster.” They have shown, with evidence, prior behavior, some of which was known to them, and some of which would lead many people to conclude “fraud,” long ago. Consider Krivit. IH surely was aware of everything Krivit wrote on Rossi, some of which was fact. So why did they enter the relationship with Rossi?

Anyone who knows the situation with LENR research from 2011- 2013 or so would know. I’m not going to describe it again here. I will, instead, point to fact. We now have independent test conclusions regarding rossi technology, because IH created those tests and ran them. They had high financial motivation to discover excess heat, and had invested much on the mere possibility of it — in the face of contradictory accusations and ideas. By entering into a “risky agreement,” they accomplished their goal, which was, as Darden stated in 2015, to “crush the tests.” That is, to make sure, to not rely on maybes and half-assed tests, and, indeed, on easy assumptions that Rossi’s technology was fake because Rossi had been in legal trouble before.

To do this, they needed to engage Rossi and to give him every opportunity. What Peter would apparently have them do would simply have led to Rossi slamming the door in their face. This was known behavior! Yes, there is a down side, if we want to moralize. They led him astray, allowing him to think that he could do whatever he wanted and they would allow it. One way of saying this would be that they allowed him to think they were gullible, and driven by greed. So, believing this, Rossi spent a year in that shipping container. Isn’t that unfair?

No. This is what I’d call a “natural test,” which allows the outcome to be determined by the subject. It is unfair if Rossi is insane, it would be taking candy from a baby. It is unfair within a world-view that puts Rossi’s comfort above actual testing of the technology! That expects people to disclose everything they think, under all conditions.

“Insane” is an excuse in criminal law, not in business.

Normally, authenticity is a high value for me. However, there are exceptions. IH suppressed what must have been their obvious distaste for Rossi, as shown in that Hydro Fusion matter, before the Agreement had been signed. Has Peter studied that sequence? It is clear in the Rossi emails, and clear in Lewan’s An Impossible Invention. There is an unavoidable conclusion: Rossi’s claims cannot be trusted without truly independent verification. He lies — or has his “own facts,” which he invents as needed to create the impressions he wants.

Industrial Heat’s strategy — to give Rossi everything he asked for, within limits — proved effective. As a result of it, Woodford gave IHHI, the new parent company of IH, $50 million in May, 2015, and committed, apparently, another $150 million if needed. In other words, if IH had decided to pay Rossi (for whatever reason), they could have accessed that money, assuming they could convince Woodford the reason was sound. Rossi move toward, in his Discovery process, to a position that IH was lying, they never had the money and could not pay. For starters, IH did not represent, in the Agreement, that they already had the funds. To raise the money to pay Rossi the $10 million for the License, they held a stock offering a few days before, raising what was needed for that and to reimburse whoever provided the initial $1.5 million for the Plant. The offering was limited to $20 million, and there is no sign of a new offering. So $20 million may be what they invested up to the formation of IHHI, which brought in some new capital, including Woodford’s ante, $50 million.

Their strategy was brilliant, and, I’d claim, fair. Rossi had a full opportunity to fulfill the Agreement. Had they pointed out the problems, demanded explanations, etc., none of this would have happened, because Rossi always took any demands for explanations and independent testing as proof that he was not trusted and so … he’d walk away. He only allowed contact to continue with people who allowed him complete freedom. I can understand it, but it also led him into some enormous difficulties. Deja Vu all over again.

Combined with the question when have you stated that the technology is worthless and a scam and how have you reacted?

They have never stated the technology is worthless. Dewey Weaver sometimes makes comments like that, though. He is not IH. He is an investor in IH, a consultant to them, and Rossi excluded him from an early IH demonstration, according to Dewey’s account, with “get that lawyer with a heat gun out of here!” Dewey is not a lawyer. But he did have a heat gun, to enable him to roughly verify Rossi’s temperature measurements. Not allowed. The exclusion of Murray in July 2015 nailed it. This was going down, and if Rossi didn’t understand that, he was insane. It’s fascinating to see Rossi’s explanation of that exclusion. (“Spy.”)

Peter shows by his comments and questions that he has not followed the case or the discussions. All this has been covered in many discussions.

IH has alleged fraudulent representation. The evidence we have shows that IH formally objected to the Doral Plant as a “GPT” and Penon as “ERV” by December 4, 2015. (See Requests 30 and 31, asked by Rossi.) That was, I think, a lawyer letter, and we know that Rossi was working with Annesser on this case, apparently expecting legal action, before that, because of the correspondence about the Rossi and Cook paper. (Rossi to Annesser, November 15, 2015) My guess is that IH had objected to Rossi behavior on the matter of confidentiality and probably other matters.

We do not know when IH concluded that the Test was not working, that the reported data was fraudulent or serious artifact. We can speculate that they sent Murray to find out, however, so this could be before July, 2015.

The strategy required assuming the best of Rossi, not confronting the obvious Rossi problems. They may have suspected the customer was fake, from the beginning, but maybe this was real, how could they be sure? So they waited. A sign that they suspected is that they apparently did not invoice JMP for the power. Why not? Suspicion of fraud, probably. They were being conservative. This should be understood: to these people, $300,000 was chicken feed. They could invoice later. They still could! (Because the invoices would be based on JMP request, not any IH claim that the power was actually delivered.)

Instead, I expect, they will go after recovery from Johnson for his part in the fraud, they will include all expenses for moving the Plant(s) to Doral, all expenses paid for Fabiani and West and Penon, and all other expenses paid after the move. This could exceed $300,000.

Any half idiot can see fast ERV report=zero excess heat (Jed) IH has not seen and has paid it well (Jed does not answer, why- we have to be responsible  for what we say. I refuse to accept IH’s narrative and I am insulted by people  who (CENSORED)

Peter continually confuses “narrative,” which is called “story” in my training — with evidence. Evidence may be introduced to support a narrative, but evidence stands as it is, without narrative. Peter’s comment above is incoherent. He is capable of writing better English, but not when he’s upset.  Peter uses narrative as an excuse to avoid fact, i.e., evidence. He rejects evidence that does not match his narrative. This is heavily disempowering, it creates a gap between us and Reality.

WTF should be “word of honor” a Rossi Planet theme? If Jed has no personal knowledge  or certainty about the critical pipe size the best is to not speak about it.

At one point, Rossi was asked a question and gave his “word of honor.” We could look at this. In this case, Peter asked Jed to give his “word of honor” that a certain alleged fact was true, but Jed had nothing but hearsay evidence on that. Jed could, with some ontological sophistication that I don’t normally see from Jed, answer, giving his “word of honor” that he has heard this or seen that, with attribution (or denying that he can attribute, because of a promise of confidentiality).

Jed could not say what Peter was demanding without risking giving his word of honor to something that could be false.

There would be other ways to do it: “I give my word of honor that the opinions expressed here are my true opinions, that I am not knowingly concealing anything contrary.” All this depends on a clear ontology or epistemology that distinguishes sensory from interpretive faculties. The sensory is what it is. It is the closest we get to Reality — and we often neglect it in favor of stories we have constructed or accepted.

Legally, courts know this. Most witnesses will not be allowed to report other than what they know from personal experience. An exception exists for qualified experts, who may analyze and draw and report their conclusions. They are legally compelled to report those conclusions fairly. Sometimes they don’t, being paid. It’s a problem, but this is as far as the U.S.. legal system has taken it. There is no legal process for determining, say, a consensus of experts, except for a limited set, and as judged, typically, by non-experts, i.e., the jury.

Any 1/4 brainer could see clearly that I said IH has paid for the ERV report that has not changed much- so please try to get the idea.

We have not seen the “ERV Report,” only, now, some tables from it, without the cover sheet. IH apparently paid Penon up to a point, but not for the final Report, I infer. The Report confirms some of what was in the Murray questions. Penon apparently went into hiding.

In 2015 the technology still was not worthless, not scam, not conspiracy- after the Trial start it became so, stepwise
but the emphasis was always on its diabolic author.

All this dramatic language (“diabolic”) is Peter’s. I have concluded that, by the signing of the Term Sheet in 2014, IH considered that what they claim in the AACT was fact: either Rossi had not transferred the technology to them, or there was no technology, it was fraud. So they gave up possession of the Plant(s) and allowed Rossi the opportunity to demonstrate his megawatt. It was last-ditch. The Term Sheet allowed them full access. Rossi violated that by excluding Murray. That created adequate cause to refuse to honor any test results. They did not, however, sue Rossi. He sued them.

Both sides knew this was coming, though. Rossi lied about it, on his blog, and IH made some public statements that were seen as puzzlingly weak, on Planet Rossi. They didn’t sound bullish!

Planet Rosi is a toxic, hostile, over-used metaphor Trying to divide Rossi and his followers, associating Rossi with dictators a name for those who unlike you find the IH scenario weak, retarded, useless. But with what you have nothing better can found.

“Planet Rossi” refers to an obvious mind-set. It has nothing to do with “dictators.” It is not pejorative in itself. It is not a metaphor, as such. “Planet” is a colloquial reference to a human community, and “Rossi” identifies the community as supporters of Rossi. Some others assert “Planet IH” about Industrial Heat, but it is much weaker, for many obvious reasons. IH has not been making public pronouncements for a half-dozen years to fans who pour over every word, attempting to derive truth from them. This was obvious from 2011 on, it did not start with Rossi v. Darden.

If I were to claim that everyone associated with Planet Rossi thought the same as everyone else, this would be classic oversimplification error. “Planet Rossi” refers, most of all, to certain memes, some of which Peter repeats here. They are common arguments, repeated, often, as if they had never been discussed before, and as if they were sterling proof of something, usually some Bad Behavior by others, though “Planet Rossi” does include positive claims accepted as true or probative. After all, how could six independent professors be wrong? Isn’t that preposterous?

That’s a Planet Rossi meme.

I notice a contradiction. Peter refers to Rossi’s “followers,” with “Planet Rossi” being an attempt to divide them. That assumes that the followers are united with him. That unity is “Planet Rossi,” and Peter is denying that Planet Rossi is anything other than a vicious metaphor.

“Planet Rossi” is not asserted by IH, which mostly shows no care or interest in the claque. It was coined by Dewey Weaver, who, while an IH insider, is not IH and is not speaking for IH, i.e., as authorized by IH, and no other insider, AFAIK, is writing about this case.

What you say about the return tank is a new proof of your plant illiteracy- there is no connection between this and the pressure but I had enough Abdisms for today-

Peter is not specific. So I will be. What did I say? I think this is it:

There are critical issues; an obvious one is whether or not the water tank that receives return water from the customer area is open to the air or not. If the system is sealed, the deduction of 10% from flow to be conservative was senseless. A neutral ERV would not be qualifying data without clear evidence. An engineer would measure the actual performance, and would include error bars, which would cover such matters. A neutral ERV would actually measure water loss, not grossly estimate it like that. The 10% idea actually came from Rossi. An instruction to be “conservative” was not part of the ERV task according to the Agreement. This was all Rossi promotion, the creation of appearances.

If the system was open to the air, then the pressure measurement is a serious problem, because pressure at the return end would be 0 barg. To move the steam through a DN40 pipe, according to a calculation just put up, would require almost one atmosphere, so the mention of needing a perfect vacuum at the receiving end was not silly, it was a consequence of looking at the data. Something is drastically off with the “ERV” pressure measurements of “0.0 bar”, even if we read that as “barg,” and they are critical to the Report. And an obvious source of error that would create that result would be a failure of the pressure gauge due to being well over the rated temperature.

So what did I say about the “return tank” that was “proof of my plant illiteracy”? I said that if the return tank was open to the atmosphere (which could explain some loss of water, though not 10%), this would establish a pressure of — by definition — 0.0 barG at that point. I did not give all details of this, and it is possible to imagine details not mentioned that could create an exception. Pressure cannot be increased without adding energy, as with a pump. The pumps that we know about are, in the cycle, after the return tank, being the main pump and then individual pumps for each reactor. If there is flow in the system, a pressure difference must exist between the return tank and the steam source. This is the question Murray asked. Remember, he actually examined the system, he didn’t need a “system diagram.” Could he have overlooked something? Of course, but this is the best evidence we have, so far.

(there could be a pump in the customer area, as an example of some possible explanation for the data. It’s a stretch, but not impossible. This would create an effective pressure below atmospheric at the pump inlet, and above atmospheric at the pump outlet, so that water would flow through the remainder of the system as well, ending at a 0.0 barG pipe as it empties into the reservoir. In this case, if the line into the tank was elevated above the flow meter, the flow meter would probably be full, depending on some details. But we have never seen any claim that there was a pump in the customer area, the assumptions have been, on all sides, that the system is passive up to the pumps in the Plant.)

[I see today that there hints of something in the customer area, from Dewey, possiblyl  that could shift this. Perhaps a pump.]

Peter ignores and does not discuss the actual technological issues. He commonly bails in a flurry of foam and complaint.

have to tell about LENR publications and news to my Readers. BTW a third time the Miami Pacermonitor was updated, let’s see.
Arrivederci!

I pointed out how it is not the “Miami Pacermonitor.” But Peter sails on obliviously. Pacermonitor (for this case, here) is updated five times a week, Monday through Friday, at 11:59 PM, probably Florida time. It is meaningless that it has been updated. When Peter wrote this, the update showed nothing new. There was, in fact, a filing yesterday, at 6:43 PM, a hearing notice filed by IH re Fabiani’s deposition and discovery process. I had this here before it showed up on pacermonitor or on Eric’s googledrive archive. The case can be followed on Rossi v. Darden docket and case files

I am working on study resources. A few are listed on that page. More are in process, to make the very complex case documents more accessible. I am not aware of any case like this in history. While some highly eccentric inventors, possible frauds, have been known to sue, generally for libel, none with an Agreement like this, with such a large sum at stake, as far as I can recall.