Lowdown on Lie-bull

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

Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

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

Ascoli65
Tuesday, 11:30 pm

@ Alan Smith,

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

Ascoli65 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “capacity” implies a maximum!

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

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

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

Smith then adds his comment in bold:

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

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

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

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

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

So some discussion ensued:

Alan Smith wrote:

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

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

Jed Rothwell wrote:

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

Alan Fletcher wrote: (in response to Jed)

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

Lots of legal foo, but admins, note : 

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

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

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

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

Alan Smith replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potentially, yes

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

There are two main approaches to dealing with this risk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

altered records
bad moral character
bankrupt
bribery [or corrupt influence]
gambling den
gangster
graft
hypocrite
illegitimate
incompetent
intemperate
intolerance
mafia
mental illness
mobster
moral delinquency
mouthpiece
perjurer
pockets public funds
profiteering
scam
scandalmonger
scoundrel
sharpdealing
shyster
smooth and tricky
smuggler
sneaky
sold out
spy
swindle
thief
unethical
unprofessional
unsound mind
unworthy of credit
villain

Avoid any words or expressions imputing:

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


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

Policy on libel and copyright violation

Comment here or there is welcome.

Update1

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

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

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

Ascoli65

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

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

Ascoli65 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

And now Ascoli65 confirms that:

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

To give this in-line for convenience: here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are talking about the wrong test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Ascoli65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abd wrote:

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

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

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

(1) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abd wrote:

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

Let me doubt this, too.

You can doubt or believe anything you choose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even more from Ascoli65

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

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

So a few snippets from Ascoli65:

Abd wrote:

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

I’m not interest in Rossi’s says, […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essén wrote back the next day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Krivit did very thoroughly cover the issues on this.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

56 thoughts on “Lowdown on Lie-bull”

  1. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

    now I am able to post here.

    In the “More from Ascoli65” section ( http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/#Ascoli65-2 ) Abd wrote:
    The theme in the English comments seems to be that certain scientists would surely have known better than what they said or wrote, therefore something highly suspicious is going on, which he isn’t going to say, and please don’t mention the “F” word, but he can’t think of any other possibility.

    The behavior of those scientists, ie the professors involved in the Ecat activity, can’t be explained on the basis of what people are normally told about the way the science operates, and this raises many questions.

    As for the “F”, I have no problem using the word “farce”, but I don’t want go further for two obvious reasons. First, I really don’t know what the true scope of the Ecat farce is. Second, there are public offices that have the burden to consider the other “F” hypotheses, if any.

    Abd wrote:
    It’s all about tests and reports from six years ago

    So what? Most of the references in your paper on Current Science (1) are much older. They are also much less important than the calorimetric report of the January 14, 2011 demo, ie the most astonishing, witnessed, reviewed, and celebrated test in the CF/LENR history. It is so important for the CF field that the preface to the special issue of Current Science, the same that hosts your paper, presented it with these words (2):

    “It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience and later in the year he followed it up with a demo of a 1 MWth (Megawatt thermal) reactor (composed of over a hundred of the basic 10 KWth modules connected in a series/parallel fashion). Now this ‘development’ (some would say that, in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘un-proven’ claim) has revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR. Dozens of websites have cropped up to follow Rossi’s Ecat. (One may Google search on ‘Ecat’ to know more.) A recent book titled “An Impossible Invention – The True Story of the Energy Source that could Change the World” by science journalist Mats Lewan chronicles the fascinating story behind the inventor and his Ecat.”

    The cited Lewan’s book begins also with the demo of January 2011 (3).

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

    Absolutely not true! I’m really interested in understanding how it could be that a dozen of expert and reputable professors could have behaved in the way we can see in the documents available on the web.

    For example, I’ d like to know what Focardi meant when, in front of many journalists, he said (4): “There are some collegues of the department of physics which are providing the calibration of different instrument that are used for measurement.” How does this statement reconcile with your hypotheses that his colleagues have been fed with data provided by someone not belonging to his department?

    Abd wrote:
    I am not going to research the claims Ascoli65 makes, unless they are clearly and specifically evidenced with links. […] Ascoli is giving links for some claims, but not all.

    I usually provide links to documents that contain all the evidences you need. If some links are missing, or are no longer available on the web, you can ask them.

    Abd wrote:
    First of all, nobody became “responsible” for “measuring the excess heat” simply by attending a demonstration.

    The professors who attended the demo were all involved in some way in that initiative.

    A few days before the test, a press release was published (5) that announced:
    Press Release (Department of Physics, University of Bologna) On Jan. 14th, 2011, […]
    The test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department.

    At about t=5:32 of the aforementioned video (4), Levi introduced his two bosses to the audience: “… we got the two directors who are supporting us in this research, there is professor Z. and professor C., professor C. director of the department of physics and professor Z. director of the INFN in Bologna.”

    So, the cited institutions were involved in the Ecat research, and many of their members took the responsibility of measuring the excess heat, ensuring the correctness of all the related experimental data to the public.

    Abd wrote:
    Consider the Doral test, it’s much the same. Rossi was claiming that the Plant was producing a megawatt.

    I don’t care what Rossi claimed about Doral’s test. This was a private initiative. Instead, I’m interested in what he said to the journalists after the January 2011 demo, a test carried out under the responsibility of people paid by the Italian taxpayers. With Focardi sitting next to him, and in the presence of the directors of UniBo and INFN, Rossi stated (6): “We’ve brought this reactor to be reviewed, people who have done this test, which now give me the exact numbers of what happened, are professors at the University of Bologna.

    Abd wrote:
    So … the Kullander and Essen test was not an “independent test,” …

    I’m not interested in the role played by the Swedish professors, either. The opinions on their actions were already given by some colleagues of theirs. In particular, I like the comment written on October 2014 by Pomp (7). I’d have liked to read a similar comment by someone at UniBo.

    (1) “http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf”
    (2) “http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0491.pdf”
    (3) “http://animpossibleinvention.com/chapter_1/”
    (4) “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng” (at the beginning and at t=5:32)
    (5) “http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/20110111-Levi-PressRelease.shtml”
    (6) “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw” (at t=6:33)
    (7) “http://stephanpomp.blogspot.it/2014/10/the-pomp-factor-in-cold-fusion-reply-to.html”

    1. I’m not an Italian taxpayer and I don’t accept the Bologna test as having any probative value, other than as a demonstration of error and then attachment to error. It was, for its time, an indication, not any kind of proof. We now know that Rossi has routinely set up conditions that can fool honest scientists — and the possibility of error is why, in science, we want to see true independent replication, not “demonstrations.” You wrote, above:

      “The behavior of those scientists, ie the professors involved in the Ecat activity, can’t be explained on the basis of what people are normally told about the way the science operates, and this raises many questions.”

      What people are “normally told” is largely bullshit. There are ideas that some scientists follow. There are professional standards that some follow. Some don’t. The entire cold fusion affair is replete with incident after incident of poor behavior, on all sides. In the end, identifying blame is almost totally useless, it does not move us forward. Identifying what can be done to clarify open issues can be useful. Here, I, with help, will be documenting the trial and what it revealed, for the use of those who might need to know. Just for the blame game, it would not be worth it.

      1. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

        you wrote:
        I’m not an Italian taxpayer and I don’t accept the Bologna test as having any probative value, other than as a demonstration of error and then attachment to error.

        It’s not important what is accepted as probative by you or by me, but rather what has been believed by the public thanks to the academic status of those who claimed to have measured 12 kW of excess heat coming from a tabletop device. The problem, for me, is that these results have been believed by those many Italian representatives who urged the Government to increase public funds dedicated to CF research. I find it unacceptable that such requests were based on false results obtained in the ways that are documented on the web. The professors should demonstrate their attachment to the scientific truth, not to their errors.

        Abd wrote:
        It was, for its time, an indication, not any kind of proof.

        You have to distinguish between the two different claims made by the professors. After the demo of January 2011, they claimed:

        1 – to have measured with absolute certainty a heat flux of about 12 kW coming out of a tabletop device fed with about 1 kW of electric power;

        2 – to be not sure about the phenomenon that generates such an excess heat, but to exclude that it is due to the combustion of the hydrogen, so they conclude that it should be considered an indication of a still unexplained nuclear phenomenon.

        In such a reasoning, the error is all concentrated in the first statement. But, on the basis of the available documents, they couldn’t have said to have measured with certainty an excess heat of 12 kW.

        Abd wrote:
        We now know that Rossi has routinely set up conditions that can fool honest scientists

        This is the narrative which is currently accepted by most members of the CF community, especially after the conclusion of the Rossi vs IH litigation, but it was strongly rejected until then. For example, JR wrote (1): “This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could “fool” these people. I think that would be physically impossible. Rossi may be a crook but he could not persuade Levi to destroy his career. The fact that Levi and other established professors took part in the experiment is about 4 orders of magnitude more significant than what Rossi may have done, …”

        For once, I agree with him.

        For sure, it’s impossible that Rossi fooled the professors involved in the demo of January 14, 2011. In fact, Levi explicitly revealed that he, and somebody else, personally calibrated the “system” for two weeks (2): “we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration”. On the other hand, on the bases of a message appeared on JoNP one month earlier (3), Rossi arrived in Italy only the day before the demo: “Dear Enrico, I will not be in Italy in February. I will be in Italy from the 13th through the 20st of January and I will be glad to meet you personally.”

        Abd wrote:
        … and the possibility of error is why, in science, we want to see true independent replication, not “demonstrations.”

        Oh yes, that’s true. But science requires also to publicly admit asap to have erroneously measured and carelessly diffused wrong data and results, in order to avoid costly and useless replications. In the case of the demo of January 2011, we are still waiting for that admission.

        Abd wrote:
        What people are “normally told” is largely bullshit. There are ideas that some scientists follow. There are professional standards that some follow. Some don’t.

        This is not at the choice of public researchers. They should follow the scientific rules, and one of the most important, in order to preserve the credibility of their community, is to promptly acknowledge their errors, if any.

        Abd wrote:
        The entire cold fusion affair is replete with incident after incident of poor behavior, on all sides.

        When you see three elephants in a row, it’s not by incident, you should realize you are in a circus.

        Abd wrote:
        In the end, identifying blame is almost totally useless, it does not move us forward.

        It is useless only for one side, but it allows the other side to avoid so many delusions, and save public money.

        Abd wrote:
        Identifying what can be done to clarify open issues can be useful.

        I agree. That’s what I’m trying to do.

        Abd wrote:
        Here, I, with help, will be documenting the trial and what it revealed, for the use of those who might need to know.

        That’s for sure interesting and could be also useful. But, an early admission of the errors in the demo of January 2011 would have avoided also the trial.

        Abd wrote:
        Just for the blame game, it would not be worth it.

        Why not? It reminds to the public researchers and professors, that is not possible to fool all the people.

        (1) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg41324.html”
        (2) “http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf”
        (3) “http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338&cpage=1#comment-16139”

        1. It is generally useless to propose an alternate history. Yes, there were many errors made by scientists. However, they are now almost entirely moot. I know of no public Italian money being spent based on claims about Rossi. The U Bologna support vanished fairly rapidly, except for Levi and perhaps Foschi. Basically, at this point, who cares? Rossi has fanatic followers and there were “likely frauds” — like Keely — who still have followers. There are still Flat-Earthers. It is appropriate for a few to address common errors still being repeated, but, beyond documenting the lawsuit — where there is clear evidence, not just weak circumstantial evidence — I do not expect Rossi to be the focus of coldfusioncommunity.net. Fusionefredda was founded as “E-Cat & cold fusion.” Not my blog, not my problem. Cold fusion was called the “scientific fiasco of the century,” long before Rossi was apparently aware of it. He used cold fusion to give himself a leg up. It’s a complex drama, with many lessons, but …. they are not being developed by your discussions, Ascoli65.

          Cold fusion does not equal E-cat. Most cold fusion research has involved palladium deuteride. Only a little involved nickel hydride, and such was never clearly confirmed; the ash is unknown, this is fringe of the fringe, except for Rossi’s claims; if the heat had been real, they would have been truly important.

          Industrial Heat claimed in depositions that even if there was a 1% chance of the technology being real, it was worth the risk. I concur with that estimate. But that horse is dead. The 99% won. It usually will, you know. (Back in 2011, I considered the possibility somewhat higher than 1%, but still most likely that Rossi was a fraud, as he clearly was seeking to appear to be. Clever strategy, in fact! He walked with what was left of $11.5 million, after legal fees. We don’t know what those were, but I doubt it was over $5 million. At this point, if Rossi fleeces anyone else, they walked in and voluntarily handed their skin to him, because it has all become very obvious, in ways that it was not obvious in 2011, in spite of Krivit’s excellent research (which is now very useful if one wants documentation, but Krivit’s conclusions were those of a yellow journalist, even if he was right in at least some ways.) Industrial Heat took the risk so that others would not need to, and their behavior was, in my opinion, exemplary. They gave Rossi every opportunity, and he responded with anger, paranoia, and personal attack. It’s all visible in what was filed by IH and Rossi, and depositions under oath and penalty of perjury.

          The presence or absence of a Testo 650 humidity probe in 2011 is doubly irrelevant now. It feeds a conspiracy theory for a dead conspiracy. However, if that’s not so, if there are current efforts to spend Italian “taxpayer money” on Rossi nonsense, then the place to take that is Italian political institutions, the Italian public, and Italian media. Not here, for sure, where it’s useless. Rossi had U.S. friends who trusted him, some of them with governmenal connections. They are largely flabbergasted. One can see signs of Planet Rossi falling apart at the seams.

          By then end of 2011 or in 2012, Krivit had thoroughly deconstructed those early tests. IH knew all that and went ahead, with their own money, not that of taxpayers or clueless investors. As long as IH appeared to be supporting Rossi, it was plausible to think maybe he had something (in spite of the really poor public tests.) When he sued them, it became obvious, even before they answered, that they had not been convinced of the practical reality of his work. When we saw the IH Answer and the counterclaims and their evidence, it became clear beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is a theoretical possibility that Rossi has something, it is now so unlikely that the alternate hypotheses of fraud or insanity are what any reasonable investor or governmental or corporate decision-maker would rely upon.

          Rossi still has a way forward, and it’s very simple, and he has announced it as a plan. He intends to sell power, not E-Cats. That is what he pretended to do in Doral, but he was actually selling it to himself. If he installs a Plant and sells steam at competitive rates, he’s going to be judged by the market, which is what he has always claimed to want. There is an old joke about a business that was losing money on every sale, but was trying to make up for it with volume….

          If he can deliver a megawatt of steam for heating purposes, reliably, and below market prices, he can make billions of dollars in profits. I just would not advise anyone paying him a cent in advance, or allowing him to measure the power delivered, that’s all. He’s already been paid in advance, and delivered bupkis. In mercato veritas. Escrow would be okay. If truly independent.

          1. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

            you wrote:
            I know of no public Italian money being spent based on claims about Rossi.

            This is merely the merit of people, such as Camillo Franchini, who immediately raised a lot of questions on the web about the reliability of the results claimed by the UniBo professors.

            Abd wrote:
            The U Bologna support vanished fairly rapidly, except for Levi and perhaps Foschi. Basically, at this point, who cares? Rossi has fanatic followers …

            The UniBo support to the Ecat lasted a whole year after the demo of January 2011, up to the withdrawal from the contract signed with Rossi (1). During this period, her prestige has been widely used in the media to give credence to the Ecat. This effect has not vanished, but persists due to the refusal of professors to recognize the errors they have made in evaluating the excess heat.

            Rossi’s followers are not fanatic, they simply still believe in what the professors have said. The situation is well represented by the words of this Scandinavian follower (2): “I would not use 5 seconds on Rossi had it all been claims from himself. But as Sven Kullander said, his connection with Professor Focardi and Professor Levi makes him look good (or at least better). And also: “Also the facts that it all started within academia, with professor Piantelli (I believe) that originally discovered some strange excess heat phenomenon in Nickel / hydrogen systems, continued with Focardi and others, makes it somewhat easier to believe. That means Rossi has “only” built further upon work from real scientists and found an improved recipe by experiments.”

            Abd wrote:
            I do not expect Rossi to be the focus of coldfusioncommunity.net.

            But, anyway, it’s a fact. Using the search function at the top of this page, it can be found that, here on CFC, Rossi is twice as cited as Fleischmann (about 838 vs 341 results), and the E-cat is more cited than LENR (about 528 vs 485 results).

            Abd wrote:
            Cold fusion does not equal E-cat. Most cold fusion research has involved palladium deuteride. Only a little involved nickel hydride, and such was never clearly confirmed; the ash is unknown, this is fringe of the fringe, except for Rossi’s claims;

            Ecat has hegemonized the CF field since the beginning of 2011.

            In the “LENRraries” brochure (3), recently released by the Anthropocene Institute, Ni-H technology is much more cited than Pd-D (36 vs 23 occurrences), and Rossi is again more cited than Fleischmann (9 vs 7 occurrences, mainly due to the MFMP acronym).

            Finally, as you well know (4), the nickel hydride claims lie on the “scientific validations” provided by some academicians, and not on Rossi’s claims.

            Abd wrote:
            Back in 2011, I considered the possibility somewhat higher than 1%, but still most likely that Rossi was a fraud

            Yes, I recognize that, from the very beginning, you were one of the most suspicious among Vorticians, even when you was reminded about the key role played by the “university scientists” in the demo (5).

            Abd wrote:
            in ways that it was not obvious in 2011, in spite of Krivit’s excellent research

            No. As you wrote many times on Vortex, it was quite clear since January 2011 that there was something wrong with the calorimetric results of the demo. And it became crystal clear in mid 2011, after Krivit published his interviews to the testers. It was impossible for anyone who was interested in the LENR field ignoring the many warnings raised by Krivit on the web about the Ecat performances.

            Abd wrote:
            The presence or absence of a Testo 650 humidity probe in 2011 is doubly irrelevant now.

            Please, beware, don’t confuse the instruments. As reported in the calorimetric report, the instrument claimed to have been used during the January 2011 demo was “an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe”, and this fact remains relevant until someone at UniBo publicly explain where, when and why such an instrument would have been used during that test.

            Abd wrote:
            However, if that’s not so, if there are current efforts to spend Italian “taxpayer money” on Rossi nonsense, then the place to take that is Italian political institutions, the Italian public, and Italian media. Not here, for sure, where it’s useless.

            Abd, I’m here because you took the initiative to publish on your blog this post, that deals with the removing of a comment of mine from the LENR-Forum, that in turn dealt with the credibility (inherent to the Ecat facts) of a public researcher at UniBo. You kindly invited me to post here, and that’s what I’m doing now: I’m replying to your replies on the above subject.

            Abd wrote:
            Rossi had U.S. friends who trusted him, some of them with governmenal connections. They are largely flabbergasted.

            Let me know better. Are you talking about those people who, as for Krivit’s allusions (6), registered the JoNP’s site, where all the Rossi’s says have been, and are still, published?

            Abd wrote:
            While there is a theoretical possibility that Rossi has something …

            Really? On which bases do you concede him such a possibility?

            Abd wrote:
            … it is now so unlikely that the alternate hypotheses of fraud or insanity are what any reasonable investor or governmental or corporate decision-maker would rely upon.

            Why are your alternative hypotheses limited to these two only? I don’t see any factual evidence that supports any of them.

            Abd wrote:
            Rossi still has a way forward, and it’s very simple, and he has announced it as a plan. He intends to sell power, not E-Cats.

            Rossi is essentially a talented PR man. Everyone, especially his friends, knew it. How can we say what he is really selling? Maybe, he has just regularly sold thousands of “Rossi’s says” on the JoNP, and now is going to selling more.

            (1) “https://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/01/24/university-of-bologna-terminates-relationship-with-rossi/”
            (2) “http://stephanpomp.blogspot.com/2014/12/how-often-does-one-have-to-kill-cat.html?showComment=1420460365767#c2962888335145653835”
            (3) “http://coldreaction.net/get_file.php?id=32145978&vnr=618897”
            (4) “http://coldfusioncommunity.net/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing/#comment-2088”
            (5) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg42379.html”
            (6) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38061.html”

            1. Abd wrote:
              – I do not expect Rossi to be the focus of coldfusioncommunity.net.

              But, anyway, it’s a fact. Using the search function at the top of this page, it can be found that, here on CFC, Rossi is twice as cited as Fleischmann (about 838 vs 341 results), and the E-cat is more cited than LENR (about 528 vs 485 results). I wrote “expect to be” which is about the future, not the past.
              That is about the past, representing the major focus on the lawsuit. I’m not sure at all that the count is complete, because there are thousands of case documents probably not included.
              However, there will be ongoing work organizing the case documents, and people will comment about them, etc. I am talking about the alleged science of the “Rossi effect,” which is no longer a major LENR topic.
              It’s too much work to respond to other points, and I’m not seeing the value. If you have a question, ask it. One question at a time, please. Thanks.

              1. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

                you wrote:
                It’s too much work to respond to other points, and I’m not seeing the value. If you have a question, ask it. One question at a time, please. Thanks.

                OK. Let’s start again from the first question regarding the Rossi’s U.S. friends who, as you said, “trusted him, some of them with governmenal connections”. Moreover, in order to stay closer to your present journalistic interest, let’s take advantage from your work of “documenting the trial and what it revealed, for the use of those who might need to know”.

                As I already said, I’m not interested in things such as the Rossi-IH contracts or the Doral test, but I found very interesting a few declarations regarding the very beginning of the Ecat adventure. In particular, I found interesting what has been said by the representative of Ampenergo during his deposition (Exhibit 326). He said that Rossi approached them approximately in 2008 (page 25). Then, when he was asked about their due diligence on this technology, he didn’t cite Focardi or any other Italian academicians, but he mentioned Mike Melich (page 26), who is also a physicist and a professor, but at a quite special governmental school. The deposition continues (up to page 30, then at page 156 et seq., and finally at page 181 et seq.) explaining in some way, not very clearly indeed, which tests were performed with the involvement of DoE and DoD, but not a single word about the involvement of an Italian university. So, it seems to me that all this earlier activity could have begun even before Rossi came in Italy to meet Focardi in July 2007.

                Consider also that, as for Krivit (1), “Melich and Macy was the first Rossi promoter in the LENR community. They strongly encouraged members of the LENR community to support Rossi and the E-Cat idea”, and arranged a meeting with Rossi and Darden already in June 2011.

                My question: what’s your opinion, as a journalist, about the very beginning of the CF/LENR initiative that we now call the Ecat story?

                (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml

                1. “My question: what’s your opinion, as a journalist, about the very beginning of the CF/LENR initiative that we now call the Ecat story?”

                  Great question. What do I know about it? The Rossi story became very public in 2011, but we (the CMNS community, which largely communicates through a private mailing list that I was admitted to in 2010) knew that there was activity before that. Marianne Macy (whom I trust, given that she and her husband Michael Melich are privy to secrets they are not at liberty to disclose, so what she says may not be the “whole story,” but I have never seen her be misleading) wrote these articles:
                  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMicccfinrom.pdf (ICCF-15, Rome, 2009). This did not mention Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli, anc Celani is mentioned in passing, once.

                  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf was an early report on the big public demonstration. She does not say where she got her information. It is clearly what she was told, but by whom is not stated. It refers to the Delta Ohm “air quality” meter. There is no sign of critical analysis. This was essentially a report of claims. It was not published in a “reliable source.” Some statements are attributed, some just presented (as to language) as fact. All of this article appears to be accurate as to *claims* made by someone at the time.

                  Next article I know about was based on an interview with Tom Darden, at ICCF-19, April 13, 2015, in Padua. http://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf At this point Rossi had started the Doral sale of power (pretending it to be a sale to an independent customer), and “350 day test” tacked on). Macy mentions the Parknomov “Rossi replication,” it was called by Parkhomov. When Parkhomov announced at the end of 2014, I was pretty excited, and wrote so, privately, but, then, very quickly, studied the Parkhomov results in detail. Parkhomov’s interpretations fell apart when all his data was considered. It was quick and dirty, and we knew that. The problem is that it was much dirtier than he realized. I’ve writeen elsewhere about that, showing the problems with his original data. Parkhomov’s work, to this day, remains inconclusive, but I have not examined his latest work. I burned out when he kept changing the physical experiment, meaning that work with one design could not be compared with work with another. Bad Science. Complicated by a bit of data manipulation that probably resulted from Parkhomov naivete, not exactly an intention to decieve, but rather, my opinion an aspect of his experiment that he did not want to disclose — and never has disclosed — high noise in his thermocouple readings, caused by close proximity to chopped AC input power.

                  As to Darden, his talks about the background, and it’s fairly non-specific. Having studied the Rossi v. Darden lawsuit documents, everything I know about Darden and IH is consistent with what he said. After that conference, in May, 2015, he received $50 million from Woodford Fund for LENR projects, and none of this went to Rossi, at least nothing significant. IH continued to pay for some support for Rossi’s Doral installation (i.e, Fabiani and West’s contract payments, and Penon’s fees). They continued to attempt to replicate the “Rossi Effect,” with continued failure. They did not announce any of this to the public, and the world only found out about the massive failure when Rossi sued, claiming failure to pay under the original Agreement, and fraud.

                  And that takes us to the next Macy article:

                  http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue127/the-rossi-industrial-heat-lawsuit.html

                  This was an interview with David French, a patent lawyer who has been following LENR for some time, I first met him at MIT in something like (2012?). Commenting on the Rossi claims:

                  These allegations are so ill-conceived that it’s almost an embarrassment to criticize them.

                  At this point, I was writing extensively on LENR Forum on these points. IH filed a Motion to Dismiss, and four out of eight claims were dismissed, with the central Claim I — the claim that a payment of $89 million had been earned — hanging on by a thread. In my view, it was within reason for the Judge to allow Claim I to stand pending Discovery, but her later rejection of the Motion for Summary Judgment on the same points, now confirmed by Discovery, was an error, and I’ve written extensively about why. It is all legally moot now because of the Settlement, but we can look at these things outside of the legal context, i.e., What Actually Happened? There is plenty of evidence.

                  It does not answer the question of whether or not there was any excess heat at Doral, the question Rossi fanatics assume an answer to, and some others want to answer in the opposite way. What the evidence shows is that the test was fraudulently set up, was incorrectly measured, was not independent, with Rossi personally taking critical measurements, and could not possibly have been generating the claimed power of a megawatt. As well, the case documents demonstrate clearly that Rossi either lies or makes statements so far from reasonably true that they might as well be considered lies, perhaps excused by insanity.

                  At this point, IH had not answered, and we didn’t have all those documents, so French was just looking at the Rossi claims!

                  After the Answer was filed, I had a conversation with Macy. I’m not at liberty to disclose details, but I will make a comment about those who had known Rossi for a long time and who had supported him. They were appalled to see what Rossi had written, amazed and astonished. (The email about the Hydro Fusion test was striking, showing beyond doubt that Rossi could create misleading appearances, at least. He actually bragged about it.) That IH went ahead with the Rossi investment shows just how far they were willing to go to find out the truth for sure. They were willing to risk $11.5 million, which is, by the way, not a large sum for them. Darden manages a $2.5 billion corporation, and commonly invests $25 million in risky projects, that not uncommonly lose money, but that occasionally make lots of money. As long as his estimates of probability are, overall and on average, decent, this is a way to become a billionaire. I don’t know his total wealth, though. I do know that much of the money invested in Industrial Heat (until Woodford came along) was personal, and the rest was from friends and relatively close associates. The story that they were risking “other people’s money” was misleading. It’s more true with Woodford, but that is exactly what Woodford does with his “Patient Capital Trust.” Long-term investments that could totally fail, but that could make money — a lot — if a few make a lot of money.

                  So this takes us to the next article:
                  http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue127/reporting-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

                  I highly recommend this article as revealing what an excellent writer Macy is. It is rich with details that make history interesting.

                  Here, she reveals her past relationship with Rossi. She reveals that she met Rossi in 2009 when in Rome for ICCF-15. She explains why some things were secret (governmental rules about the privacy of disclosures). Rossi, by the way, has often claimed he cannot talk about some of the early demonstrations because of NDAs, but it’s unclear with whom those NDAs existed, and the governmental rules would not constrain him, only those with a governmental affiliation would be constrained. This could be yet another Rossi deception. Or he might have had an agreement with, say, Ampenergo — but Ampenergo pretty much wanted to support Rossi. Some of these things may become clear, some may remain unknown forever.

                  We know of a number of early Rossi demonstrations involving the U.S. government. My overall sense of them is that nothing was truly conclusive, and that when attempts were made to confirm Rossi’s claims, he bailed, in spite of possibilities of substantial investment or support. His supporters claim that he was afraid that his secrets would be stolen. Maybe. Maybe he was actually paranoid, and maybe this was all a cover for avoiding expert examination. The latter is highly likely.

                  The Macy story is an honest disclosure of her reactions to what she was finding, through the lawsuit, putting it together with what she already knew — and her personal trust in Rossi. Rossi was able to engender trust in some. I highly recommend the book by Maria Konnikova, The Confidence Game. Con artists can fool very intelligent people. Some con artists are purely greedy, but some are insane, and their “fooling” of people may be combined with fooling themselves.

                  It is not my job to judge people as to moral character. When I say that Rossi Lies, as I do, it is not moral condemnation. It’s a simple conclusion based on known fact. Good journalist also don’t confuse fact and interpretation (and moral judgment, good and bad, etc., are all forms of interpretation.)

                  For the future, anyone considering any investiment, financial or even reputational, as in speculating on the physics of the “Rossi effect,” as some of my friends have done, should know the facts, that Rossi Lies, and that what he reports cannot be trusted, and, as well, that he has been able to somehow induce (or, at minimum, allow) scientists to make gross errors in analyzing his demonstrations, and therefore suspicion as to what they report is appropriate. Only if they conducted a fully independent investigation could they be trusted, as scientists, and they have never reported that. (Levi claims to have done some private testing, but “some private testing” is not a full independent investigation, and, in particular, transient results are not reliable unless confirmed, themselves. Science doesn’t allow short-cuts, except in setting up something to be investigated later, in depth.)

                  I consider all of this, now, as well-known to those who look at the evidence. Mats Lewan stopped looking at the evidence, before Rossi v. Darden.

                  I’m fascinated by human beings.

                  1. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
                    thanks for your long reply, even if it is not an answer to my question. You summarized your point of view on the story starting from late 2010 onwards, while I asked your opinion about its very beginning (just the opposite direction), back to 2007 or even earlier, before Rossi came in Italy to meet Focardi.

                    The most pertaining Macy’s article, among those you mentioned, is where she write (1): I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration.

                    So, it seems that all this Ecat story began in the U.S., in a circle very close to governmental organizations that have quite enough technical skill to detect those kind of elementary tricks used, for instance, during the Ecat demo of January 2011. It’s very hard to believe that an Italian philosopher, with a very controversial past, could have fooled so many physicists and other experts in the CF field, including who teaches to the high level U.S. officers how to be aware about the most insidious warfare stratagems.

                    Well, after your last long reply, I have no more questions for you. So, if you don’t have either, I would thank you for hosting my posts, and for all your kind replies. All the best.

                    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue127/reporting-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

                    1. Ascoli65, you believe many things without actually knowing them, and other things you find “hard to believe.” That’s an expression that indicates a contradiction. Contradiction is always an interpretation, and we find an idea “hard to believe” when it conflicts with something else that we believe. Honestly, the world could move more rapidly into a future worth living into if basic ontology were taught to children. It’s happening, but it’s slow.

                      You asked for my “opinion as a journalist.” As a journalist, I “believe” that evidence speaks for itself. Reality speaks for itself. When I toss in interpretations, I tend to conceal reality. From my training, I recognize my own beliefs as my human invention, “the human being is a meaning-making machine.” It is what we have been doing for as long as “meaning” has had any meaning. Meaning is a tool, not a reality. So “belief,” for me, is an operating assumption and, where possible, I need, to be able to move beyond the limitations of my identity, to distinguish these assumptions.

                      Science is designed to do this. When there is an apparent contradiction, the scientific method suggests setting up tests of the assumptions or hypotheses.

                      You have an idea of what an “expert” is like. You have an idea of what Melich does, or did. You have an idea that such a person could not be easily “fooled.” You have an idea that he was actually fooled, but that conflicts with your idea that as an expert, he could not be fooled.

                      Instead of explaining what I know about the early Rossi tests, which were, indeed, in the U.S. and with governmental representatives (you can find information on this on newenergytimes.com or .net) I gave you the best summary I’ve seen, Macy, who, with her husband, Michael Melich, was close to Rossi — as close as anyone other than perhaps his wife — and the Industrial Heat people.

                      Experts can be fooled. If they keep looking, though, it’s difficult to continue the deception and if they know the history of cold fusion, they will know that appearances can be deceiving. There were numerous demonstrations, some showed nothing or were inconclusive. Some looked “good,” but Rossi never allowed independent examination, never set up independent testing, in spite of investment possibilities, so there was never a commitment. However, as Macy points out, these people, as government employees or acting as government consultants, were legally bound to confidentiality. They are not going to “blow the whistle.” Not publically, anyway. Melich and Macy visited Industrial Heat. I think IH knew full well the history, and knew the obvious appearances, but also knew that these were not conclusive.

                      As has been noticed, Melich is on the JONP Board of Advisors, from the beginning (I forget the date. 2010?). However, I’ve never seen a statement from him. Good chance I’ll met him again next year, maybe I’ll ask. However, I don’t know if I’ll be able to publish his answers. (I did sit with him and his wife at ICCF-18 … and my conversation with his wife last year was great! These are very smart people, but also nice, which matters much to me.)

                      The last few days I’ve been dealing with a mess on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, cleaning up disruption by someone attacking the Wikiversity educational resource on parapsychology. Similar people (though not necessarily as outrageously offensive as this. Close, some of them) have attacked cold fusion. Science is fun and skepticism is fun if it pursues science — and science runs on consensus, but it’s essential for genuine consensus that questions remain open. Assholery and smug and contemptuous belief are not fun, and sane people mostly walk away from it.

                    2. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

                      your last reply contains some interesting points, so let’s continue our discussion.

                      Abd wrote:
                      Honestly, the world could move more rapidly into a future worth living into if basic ontology were taught to children. It’s happening, but it’s slow.

                      Not so slow: a philosopher has already become the world’s most famous myth in the field of CF nuclear technology.

                      Abd wrote:
                      You asked for my “opinion as a journalist.”

                      But I asked for an opinion on the very beginning of the story. I understand you don’t know much about, but a journalist well introduced in the CF world should better investigate also this period.

                      Abd wrote:
                      When there is an apparent contradiction, the scientific method suggests setting up tests of the assumptions or hypotheses.

                      I agree, but only after having thoroughly verified that this apparent contradiction is not an artifact.

                      Abd wrote:
                      You have an idea that he was actually fooled

                      Not my idea.

                      Abd wrote:
                      However, as Macy points out, these people, as government employees or acting as government consultants, were legally bound to confidentiality. They are not going to “blow the whistle.” Not publically, anyway.

                      That’s very reasonable and is also what one would expect for a potential strategic technology, as it was described in November 2009 (1): “If nuclear reactions in LENR experiments are real and controllable, DIA assesses that whoever produces the first commercialized LENR power source could revolutionize energy production and storage for the future.”

                      But only a few months later, in March 2010, the JoNP site appeared on the web, publishing Rossi’s patent, with the apparent aim of finding interested buyers, somewhere in the world. The most puzzling aspect of this public initiative is that one of the JoNP’s advisers is a DoD employee who since 2007 was in the best position to assess whether this method had a little chance to be real. If that was his thought, I don’t understand why he was among the promoters of the JoNP initiative. Any suggestion?

                      Abd wrote:
                      … but it’s essential for genuine consensus that questions remain open

                      Simply staying in a scientific context, I would complete your sentence in this way: “it’s essential for genuine consensus that genuine questions remain open”.

                      (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

                    3. One issue at a time: You wrote

                      Abd wrote:
                      – Honestly, the world could move more rapidly into a future worth living into if basic ontology were taught to children. It’s happening, but it’s slow.

                      Not so slow: a philosopher has already become the world’s most famous myth in the field of CF nuclear technology.

                      Ascoli65, you are suffering from “Rossi brain,” you are obsessed. Rossi has a degree in philosophy, yes, but his understanding of ontology is primitive, and he is not known as a “philosopher,” though some of his followers worship every word and scour his writings for whatever shred of meaning they can derive. Or he’s just plain lying. My crystal ball, that can read minds, is broken.

                      I have come to one very clear conclusion: what Rossi claims cannot be trusted, it has been, at least on occasion, misleading, with apparent intention. However, discerrning the actual intention of someone who is insane can be error-prone. Next issue?

                    4. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
                      you wrote:
                      Ascoli65, you are suffering from “Rossi brain,” you are obsessed.

                      Oh, no. I did always invited people to downgrade the role of Rossi in the Ecat phenomenon (1). But it is an undisputable fact, as anybody can verify searching for LENR and Rossi on the web, that he conquered the top of the hall of fame in the CF field.

                      Abd wrote:
                      Rossi has a degree in philosophy, yes, but his understanding of ontology is primitive, and he is not known as a “philosopher,”

                      Yes, I know. Thanks to many people, starting with those appearing in the JoNP’s Board of Advisers, he is now much more known as a “nuclear scientist”. But in my opinion he remains a philosopher. I don’t know if he understand ontology at your level, but he probably knows a lot about sophisms.

                      And I’m not the only one to appreciate his philosophical background. In her great article (2), Macy wrote: “Rossi loved American movies and popular fiction. He conveyed an incredible sense of mission about his work and the importance of it, of environmental and energy concerns. And he was deeply interested in philosophy; it was what his degree was in. That, I would come to see, was something he thought about a great deal.”

                      From this words, he seems to have had all the characteristics required to became the main protagonist in the CF popular fiction. No wonder that she added: “Michael Melich and I probably spent more time with Andrea Rossi than most people in the LENR field, certainly in the U.S.”

                      But these are only my opinions, not questions for you.

                      Abd wrote:
                      Next issue?

                      My previous comment contained only one issue that was intended to ask you something (the others were just my replies to your statements), and it ended with this question: “Any suggestion?” So, have any suggestion about that issue, that you can share with your readers?

                      (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-%E2%80%9CLooks-Like-it-Worked%E2%80%9D/?postID=29893#post29893
                      (2) http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue127/reporting-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

                    5. Here is what you wrote:

                      But only a few months later, in March 2010, the JoNP site appeared on the web, publishing Rossi’s patent, with the apparent aim of finding interested buyers, somewhere in the world. The most puzzling aspect of this public initiative is that one of the JoNP’s advisers is a DoD employee who since 2007 was in the best position to assess whether this method had a little chance to be real. If that was his thought, I don’t understand why he was among the promoters of the JoNP initiative. Any suggestion?

                      From that article:

                      Michael Melich is on record in two public tutorials saying that Rossi’s 2009 demonstrations seemed to show that he was producing about 10 KW for a period of 4-5 hours. Absent independent instrumentation an estimate of the minimum amount of heat produced could be made knowing the flow rate of the cooling water, the rise in temperature of the total volume of water and the duration of the experiment. That number seemed to be 10 times greater than what was being shown on the electrical watt-hour meter. Using the temperature rise across the reactor and the flow rate an estimate of the heat being produced would suggest 10 KW of power was being injected into the cooling water. Subsequent information about the configuration called into question the initial power gain of 10, however, the estimate of 10 KW of excess heat still remained unexplained as coming from an electrical input. The ambiguity of interpretation of this first demonstration by Rossi was to become a continuing feature of subsequent efforts to quantify what his reactors were producing.

                      The bottom line is that there was not a conclusive Rossi test to report that we witnessed.

                      I know that in 2011, when discussion of Rossi became widespread, the scientsts were quite aware that the demonstrations were not conclusive. By the end of 2011, it was obvious that something was off, because how could so many demonstrations have so many obvious possible flaws, not addressed systematically? Lewan wrote in his book that Rossi wanted to appear doubtful. So this was not proof that he was a fraud, but it was definitely cause for suspicion.
                      However, in 2009, Melich, according to Macy, saw 10 kW on the face of it. At that point, it was a common opinion — quite incorrect — that a demonstration with power that high would be conclusive. It turns out to be trivial to manage a fake 10 kW, and maybe even to fool oneself, though one would have to be extraordinarily inattentive.
                      Now, Melich and Macy hosted Rossi in their home. They were friends. So, what I imagine is that Rossi asked Melich if he would be on his Board of Advisors, and he accepted. Being on that Board was not anything more than a mild validation, and perhaps at that point Melich did not suspect shenanigans.
                      You did not ask what might be the real question: why has Melich continued? Maybe he hasn’t paid any further attention. That position is not a governmental validation, it has no official meaning. Maybe he does not feel like insulting his old friend. Maybe he thinks it is hilarious. Maybe he thinks he can influence Rossi to come clean. I can think of many reasons, and don’t know the truth. But, as I said, perhaps I’ll ask him. These are nice people. It is possible to talk to them.
                      While Melich might have been in the “best position” at that point to assess the Rossi claims, nobody was in a good position. Rossi was secretive and highly controlling. Ampenergo trusted Rossi, apparently, from prior dealings. Rossi does not appear to trust anyone.

                    6. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
                      you wrote:
                      However, in 2009, Melich, according to Macy, saw 10 kW on the face of it. At that point, it was a common opinion — quite incorrect — that a demonstration with power that high would be conclusive.

                      So, you are confirming that, in your opinion, he was convinced that the device was working, or at least that it had a high chance of being a valid technology. But that’s exactly the point that I’m not able to understand. He was a DoD employee, he was following the CF field since 1989 on behalf of the US government, he was surely aware of the DIA report of November 2009 which considered a possible LENR technology as a strategic game changer. Why did he decide in March 2010 to promote and/or support the appearance on the web of a so-called journal that informed the world about the existence of such a valid technology? For friendship?

                      These are just rhetoric questions. I don’t want to force you to answer anymore. You already gave me your opinion, and added that you don’t know the truth. That’s enough for me and I thank you for all your replies, but, please, understand that it’s not so easy for me to share your version of the story.

                    7. You overstate what I wrote. First of all, I don’t know the exact nature of Melich’s involvement with U.S. governmental consideration of LENR, nor of Rossi. Secondly, what we know about early Rossi demonstrations is that some of them appeared genuine, but the devil is in the details, and independent confirmation (i.e., independent testing) was not available. As mentioned, Melich and Macy hosted Rossi in their home. I consider that Rossi may have asked Melich to be on his Board of Advisors, and Melich consented. It’s that simple. It is not clear that Rossi made it clear that this was for a journal, but maybe it was. These are all assumptions being made. It is not at all clear what the role of the Board was (or is).

                      Yes, for friendship. And for the possibility that the technology was real. As I have mentioned, perhaps I’ll ask him. His wife wrote what she wrote, and I suspect that this is “hard” for you to “understand” because you are holding assumptions or interpretations that seem to conflict with it.

                    8. So, you are confirming that, in your opinion, he was convinced that the device was working, or at least that it had a high chance of being a valid technology. But that’s exactly the point that I’m not able to understand. He was a DoD employee, he was following the CF field since 1989 on behalf of the US government, he was surely aware of the DIA report of November 2009 which considered a possible LENR technology as a strategic game changer. Why did he decide in March 2010 to promote and/or support the appearance on the web of a so-called journal that informed the world about the existence of such a valid technology? For friendship?

                      Was he following the field on behalf of the government, or because he personally had a strong interest in the possibilities? Obviously, should these ever pan out, the government and everyone else would be interested. Also, it is sometimes possible to obtain government money for unusual left field proposals (look at Polywell with Navy funding).

                      As I see it he was interested in LENR, he hoped Rossi’s claims were real and wanted to support Rossi. All from a personal standpoint, with a potential work interest should things pan out.

                    9. Right, more or less what I think. However, Melich apparently had connections with those with a more direct “work interest.” It is not clear that Melich’s “job” was this. See the yellow journalist, Krivit, on Melich. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml

                      Krivit himself is making assumptions about “covert operators.” Melich is apparently an “insider,” that is clear. The exact meaning of that is unclear. He may be trusted with confidential information. As I’ve written, I’ll ask him for clarification. I have been trusted with confidential information, although likely not information of high sensitivity. This is common with journalists. If they violate the confidence, there goes their access. If I have publishable information from him — when I have doubt I check with the source — I’ll report that. In the field of cold fusion, there is much information that is kept secret. Sometimes it leaks anyway. My primary interest, however, is in science, which cannot be based on private information. Science is a public affair. Obviously, some information is kept secret for various reasons, but the secrecy also harms the process and progress of science. There are ways around that, and I hope to be working with Nagel’s LENRIA on this. A rising tide floats all boats.

                    10. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax and THH,

                      Abd wrote:
                      These are all assumptions being made. It is not at all clear what the role of the Board was (or is).

                      In the JoNP site, you read: “All the paper will be reviewed by our scientific council to ensure scientific rigor and compliance with copyright law.”

                      More information can be derived from the exchanged emails between Krivit and the JoNP editor (1): “The editor of JONP is a team of scientists who finance the Journal. We have no owner and we are a free association. …” From another answer, it seems that Rossi was just the spokesman of this association.

                      Abd wrote:
                      I suspect that this is “hard” for you to “understand” because you are holding assumptions or interpretations that seem to conflict with it.

                      No need to suspect. I confirm. My common sense suggests that if an NPS professor, who has followed a possible strategic field like CF since its beginning, is the first expert of the US administration to be aware of the existence of a viable method to achieve this dream becoming also a close friend of the inventor, his main duty should have been to keep it secret until this method could have been fully understood and eventually developed by his government. The last thing I would have imagined is that he chose to promote, as suggested by Krivit (2), the appearance on the web of a site that reveals to everyone the existence of such a method and the identity of its inventor. It makes no sense for me.

                      Also, I can’t understand how friendship can justify a derogation from this behavior. Friendship is a mutual feeling. He should have urged Rossi to show by first his personal friendship to him, and, above all, to the Country where he got a friendly refuge.

                      THH wrote:
                      Was he following the field on behalf of the government, or because he personally had a strong interest in the possibilities?

                      It depends on how you interpret what he said at the ICCF16 in Chennai (India) a few weeks after the first and most famous demonstration of the Ecat held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. On that occasion he said (3): “the reasons that I am involved in this at all derives from my responsibilities as a federal employee who is frequently approached and Rossi and his partners approached us”. Who “us” was, is specified in the “Overview of the ICCF16 in India” (4): “Melich described the involvement he has had with Rossi’s efforts: “Rossi and his partners approached us at the Navy …””

                      (1) “http://news.newenergytimes.net/2011/01/14/focardi-and-rossi-reality-or-scam”
                      (2) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38061.html”
                      (3) “http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20110206-Melich-on-Rossi-ICCF16.pdf”
                      (4) “http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MacyICCF16IE96.pdf”

                    11. Ascoli, you make assumptions that I do not. You call them “common sense.” They are somewhat plausible, but ignore other considerations. In particular, Melich would be obligated, it is reasonable to assume, from government regulations, not to reveal what Rossi had shown without Rossi’s permission. The description of the function of the Advisory Board is from Rossi, which is utterly unreliable. It assigns no special responsibility to Melich, personally. And he would have no legal responsibility to prevent the Rossi disclosures. Of course, it is still secret (fraudulent or real), and it was never revealed to Melich, nor to anyone other than Industrial Heat, if, indeed, it was revealed to them. There is no sign that the U.S. government considered the Rossi technology as anything more than a possibility, and no sign that declaring it a disruptive or dangerous technology (allowing governmental seizing of patent rights) was ever considered. The long-term judgment of all I know of who witnessed early demonstrations was that, in the face, some failed and some appeared to show substantial excess heat, but none were conclusive. Same as the public demonstrations, in fact.

                    12. @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
                      you wrote:
                      Ascoli, you make assumptions that I do not. You call them “common sense.”

                      I called them “My common sense”. That’s my personal common sense, based on information available in the web.

                      Abd wrote:
                      They are somewhat plausible, but ignore other considerations. In particular, Melich would be obligated, it is reasonable to assume, from government regulations, not to reveal what Rossi had shown without Rossi’s permission.

                      I didn’t ignore it. That just was not my point.

                      Abd wrote:
                      And he would have no legal responsibility to prevent the Rossi disclosures.

                      I didn’t talk of any legal responsibility of anyone.

                      Abd wrote:
                      There is no sign that the U.S. government considered the Rossi technology as anything more than a possibility … but none were conclusive.

                      OK, just a possibility, that was confirmed also in a presentation of NAVSEA, approved for public release in 2015 (1), which talks extensively about the Ecat. I just wonder why, if they really believed in such a promising and strategic possibility, they promoted in 2010 its early disclosure on the web, before the conclusion of their own judgment. Quite a weird behavior for me.

                      (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2134-louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fl/

                    13. In reply to Ascoli65.

                      @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,

                      the system here adds the “in reply to” lede automatically if you use the Reply button to a post. “@”, to my knowledge, does nothing to ping the user.

                      you wrote:
                      – Ascoli, you make assumptions that I do not. You call them “common sense.”

                      I called them “My common sense”. That’s my personal common sense, based on information available in the web.

                      That’s an oxymoron, Ascoli. “Common sense” is “common,” meaning allegedly widespread. It was simply your “personal sense,” your personal impressions or inferences, and it is based on complex and general interpretations of life. You think them “simple” — part of the definition of “common sense.” They are not. I really think basic ontology and epistemology should be taught at the earliest levels of education. It ‘s not.

                      Abd wrote:
                      – They are somewhat plausible, but ignore other considerations. In particular, Melich would be obligated, it is reasonable to assume, from government regulations, not to reveal what Rossi had shown without Rossi’s permission.

                      I didn’t ignore it. That just was not my point.

                      Correct. But that restraint is the only one actually operative. It requires that the government employee (or admitted outsider, possibly contracted) maintain confidentiality. It does not restrain him from doing what he actually did, which you misrepresent. Basically, you made that up, but think it is “common sense.”

                      Abd wrote:
                      – And he would have no legal responsibility to prevent the Rossi disclosures.

                      I didn’t talk of any legal responsibility of anyone.

                      That is correct. You invented a “moral” or inferred responsibility to prevent something, basically to prevent Rossi from revealing his “secret.” In fact, Rossi did not reveal anything more than a claim to have a device, with patents that were inadequate to reproduce the claimed effect. It is not clear that Rossi consulted with Melich or his “Advisory Board” before publishing that material, nor is it clear to me what Melich would have advised on that point. By that time, it appears that negotiation with the U.S. government had broken down. Melich may have remained personally interested, and the breakdown was not any kind of proof that Rossi had no interesting technology. It indicated what everyone knew, Rossi was, at least, eccentric, not readily predictable.

                      Abd wrote:
                      – There is no sign that the U.S. government considered the Rossi technology as anything more than a possibility … but none were conclusive.

                      OK, just a possibility, that was confirmed also in a presentation of NAVSEA, approved for public release in 2015 (1), which talks extensively about the Ecat.

                      Dense with assumptions. The presentation, on the face, is the opinion of a single author, a physicist, his “research notes.” It was allegedly cleared for public release. By whom, I don’t know. Calling it a “presentation of NAVSEA” is misleading, absent official NAVSEA approval. We have other government documents that have such approval, it will be on the cover page. “Cleared for public release” might simply have been a decision made by the physicist, communicated to Acland or Ashfield. Or maybe DeChiaro asked his supervisor, who said it was okay. Or Acland made it up, though I doubt that. The notes do not “talk extensively” about the Ecat. There are only two sentences mentioning Rossi and his work. Here they are:

                      I would also suggest that some praise might be due to people like Andrea Rossi, who (by and large) had little alternative but to employ the Edisonian method and nevertheless appear to have obtained positive results. We have run materials simulations (also known as Density Functional Theory simulations) on our best guess of Rossi’s alloy material. It satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Nickel does not.

                      At that point, it was plausible to assume that Rossi had a real technology, for various reasons (the largest being the known involvement of Industrial Heat) and I have gone over this many times. Notice the word “appear.” The physicist is only looking at the possible catalyst used, and inferring that it is not pure nickel. In any case, this is completely irrelevant as to thinking in 2010!!! It is not clear that the physicist even knew about those early tests, nor about JONP. What you are doing, Ascoli, is searching for evidence for “something weird” and seizing on it as if it were some kind of proof. People do that all the time. It is part of how we fool ourselves. It is normal, and natural — “common” as a process” — and the function is narrow, and when this process is applied outside of the survival imperative, it disempowers us and can lead to major harm.

                      I just wonder why, if they really believed in such a promising and strategic possibility,

                      My training leads me to notice the language. “they” extends this beyond Melich, when the core allegation here is about Melich. It associates him with a vague group. “really believed” overstates what is seen as a “possibility.” In my training, anything is possible. *Anything,” given a certain condition. And they also tell us that nothing they tell us is the truth. Hah! It’s a mind fuck, a koan, and what is the outcome of koans and fucking?

                      Enlightenment and new life, something not possible with the isolated, entrenched, fossilized thinking rooted in our identity and past experience, assumed to be “truth.”

                      they promoted in 2010 its early disclosure on the web, before the conclusion of their own judgment. Quite a weird behavior for me.

                      So, again, “they” is used, but the only “promotion” in 2010 was by Rossi. “Their own judgment.” Who is “they”? By collapsing what Rossi did with what Melich did, you end up with something weird, to be sure. But it is your fantasy that is weird. Congratulations in inventing a weird fantasy! All I assume that Melich did was consent to being on Rossi’s Board of Advisors. We do not know what he actually did or consented to, other than what is in the Macy report.

                      (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2134-louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fl/

                      That is not the disclosure, it gives a link to it. Ascoli, I suggest, think about how your readers will use what you write. [http://e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/ The actual link.] Quite interesting, I’d say. There is a red herring in the comments, referring to a 2015 document by Mosier-Boss and Forsley. An actual publication by Mosier-Boss, Forsley, and DeChiaro was later. It does not mention Rossi. Nor does the 2015 document, as far as I’ve seen.

                    14. To Abd UlRahman Lomax,

                      Abd wrote:
                      That’s an oxymoron, Ascoli. “Common sense” is “common,” meaning allegedly widespread.

                      Yes, I know that “my” and “common” are contradictory, but I used them for a matter of language. In Italian we say “il mio buon senso”, literally “my good sense”, for indicating the natural or instinctive capacity of judging, especially as a personal attitude. I found “common sense” as the only translation of “buon senso”, so I added “my” in front of it to keep its Italian meaning.

                      “My common sense” is what I expressed, and documented, in the previous comments. I recognize that “your common sense” is different from mine.

                      Abd wrote:
                      It does not restrain him from doing what he actually did, which you misrepresent. Basically, you made that up, but think it is “common sense.”

                      What I said is nothing more than what Krivit has strongly implied in the mail he sent to Vortex right after the appearance of the JoNP (1). Evidently “his common sense” is different from yours.

                      Abd wrote:
                      By that time, it appears that negotiation with the U.S. government had broken down. […], and the breakdown was not any kind of proof that Rossi had no interesting technology.

                      I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how it is possible to break down the negotiation on a LENR “interesting technology” just within a few months after an internal report was concluded in this way: “And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.”

                      Being DeChiaro among the authors of that report, I take the occasion to answer the other points you raised with respect to his document.

                      You are right about the document mentioned in the link I provided you. It was the wrong link. I apologize. The presentation held by DeChiaro at the IEEE meeting on September 23, 2015, is still available here (2).

                      It included 23 slides. All of them have this notice: NSWCDD-PN-15-00408; Distribution A: Approved for Public Release: Distribution is Unlimited

                      Abd wrote:
                      “So, again, “they” is used, but the only “promotion” in 2010 was by Rossi. “Their own judgment.” Who is “they”?

                      I don’t know who exactly “they” are. That’s what I asked you as a journalist in the LENR field (3). Anyway, whoever they were, the JoNP initiative has always been presented as a plural initiative. From the beginning, all the readers were informed that there was a Board of Advisers that reviewed the published articles. Readers have always believed in them, not in Rossi. The advisers, especially those at the top of the list, knew they were there, and their role in the Board. So, I think the plural person is appropriate, though almost everyone in the LENR debate uses the singular person to attribute the responsibilities of the Ecat adventure.

                      (1) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38061.html
                      (2) “https://www.ecat.tech/sites/default/files/node-files/63/20151004_ieee-brief_dechiaro_9_2015.pdf
                      (3) “http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/#comment-5471

                    15. Endless regression?

                      What I said is nothing more than what Krivit has strongly implied in the mail he sent to Vortex right after the appearance of the JoNP (1). Evidently “his common sense” is different from yours.

                      Krivit speculates about who registered the domain for the faux journal. An American — he did not actually claim that — who is often a co-author with Russians. Where he got the “Russian” connection from, I don’t know. Your alleged “common sense” also operates to read what you want into what someone else has written, as if it is a confirmation. It’s simply not there … not unless you have much more direct evidence than what you think someone else implied, from known fact (i.e., the registration of the journal). He knows it’s a faux journal, and there is no serious dispute about that.

                      I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how it is possible to break down the negotiation on a LENR “interesting technology” just within a few months after an internal report was concluded in this way: “And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.”

                      The report is from 2015. So of course you don’t understand! The negotiations broke down before 2011. It is not clear that DeChiaro even knew about the earlier incidents. His report is generally good, as to what was thought at the time. He does not seem to be aware of the massive skepticism within the LENR community about the Rossi claims and the claimed “replications.” That naivete about replication has been common in the field. Parkhomov and Jiang were “general confirmations” not replications. Each was different, even radically different. All vulnerable to the file-drawer effect. So the DeChiaro report was overheated. The ultimate possible significance of LENR, though, is real. IF.

                      The negotiations broke down because Rossi walked out when they started talking about independent testing. Macy tells the story.

                      I don’t know who exactly “they” are. That’s what I asked you as a journalist in the LENR field (3). Anyway, whoever they were, the JoNP initiative has always been presented as a plural initiative.

                      By Rossi, and only by Rossi. “They” is largely a fantasy here. I assume that the “Advisors” did consent to the use of their names, but I have never seen any information about the actual operation of the Board.

                      From the beginning, all the readers were informed that there was a Board of Advisers that reviewed the published articles. Readers have always believed in them, not in Rossi

                      Informed by Rossi. Rossi runs that site. It does publish a few papers, with a declared process that sounds like many Rossi fantasies. Some authors are desperate to publish and will publish anywhere. I have seen even respected scientists publish in a pay-to-publish journal, a “predatory journal.” Generally older scientists, apparently naive, who get an email and believe it.

                      Some readers may believe in the Tooth Fairy. I know of nobody in the CMNS community who trusted JONP at all. “Fake journal” was obvious obvious, no matter whose name was on the BoA. Did Krivit ask? I don’t know. Maybe he did, and maybe he ran into a brick wall. Krivit was falling over a cliff by this time, mesmerized by W-L theory and “not fusion.” His yellow journalism had alienated almost the entire community, scientists no longer would talk to him.

                      The advisers, especially those at the top of the list, knew they were there, and their role in the Board.

                      I have no idea what they knew. As I’ve written, high probability that Rossi got their consent, before the journal was actually operating. This, however, may have been a vague consent. And may have included assurances that they would not be required to do actual work. I assume these people wanted to help Rossi, as Melich certainly did. There is nothing more there than that, to be seen clearly. We do not know of the “Advisors” ever actually advised Rossi, except that we know a case where Rossi was advised during the IH affair, by an Ampenergo rep — see below — and he ignored it.

                      So, I think the plural person is appropriate, though almost everyone in the LENR debate uses the singular person to attribute the responsibilities of the Ecat adventure.

                      The use of “they” implies coordination. It appears there was little of that. IH was secretive, generally. For IH, I use “they” because that is an organization with multiple actors, initially Darden and Vaughn, and then bringing in others.

                      Who was on the Board? What does a visitor to the site see?
                      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
                      The home page displays the Rossi patent award. This is not a serious journal at all, it is promotion for Rossi. The site is used as his personal blog (in comments). Very few comments have anything to do with published papers. There is a link at the top, however for “Advisers.”

                      ADVISERS
                      The Journal will publish papers, in the areas of interest, without charge.

                      All papers will be reviewed by our scientific council to ensure scientific rigor and compliance with copyright law.

                      Publications will not be corrected and will be published “as received” in chronological order of receipt.

                      The authors are solely responsible for the contents of their papers.

                      BOARD OF ADVISERS:

                      Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA)
                      Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy)
                      Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy)
                      Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy)
                      Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA)
                      Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Bologna University – Italy)
                      Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (LTI-global.com)

                      No editing. Not a real journal, right there (copy editing takes labor). This was all there in 2010, but two more advisers:

                      Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy)
                      Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy)

                      the page title was “nuclear experiments blog.” The first page posted was February 28, 2010, the bibliography for the Rossi-Focardi paper, which was then followed by the other parts, in reverse order. (the sequence can be seen in the post numbers.) Sloppy mess, he didn’t know what he was doing. (But it does then display the pages in order, because blogs display, by default, in reverse date order, of posts. A blog used for a Journal would have the papers as “pages” with an announcement and link to the pages on the blog posts.) Then, still the same day, a Rossi patent, which then was prominently displayed, what he wanted. The next paper was published March 18, 2010, by Lino Daddi. In a comment on that paper, permission to reproduce was requested, and Rossi granted permission. Unless there was a release of copyright to Rossi, he could not give permission. The paper gives no affiliation, but a later paper on JONP does: “Lino Daddi, Retired Earlier Professor at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy” Lino Daddi has many peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals. So a feather in their cap. Getting papers on LENR published, however, could be difficult. So perhaps he took the easy way. Krivit quotes Daddi from a presentation in Rome in 2005. Daddi has three papers listed on lenr-canr.org.

                      The purpose of the “blog journal,” then, is obvious: a place where Rossi can publish with some appearance of review, but under his own control, same as everything else he does. Of course, the reviewers were all selected by Rossi. This was all very visible when Rossi news exploded in 2011. Few had noticed before then.

                      Focardi, of course, died. Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) is no longer on the Board. When was his name removed? It was still there in the web capture of January 25, 2011, and gone by February 25. Gee, what happened in that time? The notorious “demonstration” was January 14, 2011. The “18 hour test” was, per Levi, February 10-11. Ongoing, Rossi presented Levi as an “independent professor.” It looked bad, eh? Levi and Focardi were friends. Focardi was mostly an observer, not allowed to know the “secrets.” He was obviously hopeful!

                      Focardi was still listed Sept. 18, 2015. Gone by March 5, 2016. Focardi died June 22, 2013. A little slow to update what really did not matter, as to actual function.

                      The other memebers:
                      Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA) we have been discussing. Listed as “DOD USA”. Not his academic affiliation, but how Rossi related to him.

                      Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy) [http://didattica.unipd.it/offerta/docente/1FC758B389C1CB06DAA593D5A1200145 His professorial page at Padova]. There is a reference on JONP, in the original Rossi-Focardi paper, to a paper “[8] A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv.” To my knowledge, nobody has yet found a copy of this paper. However, this shows Focardi, Carnera, and Rossi to be working as a team at the time JONP was founded. Note 8 is cited in this text:

                      These allowed us the determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6 different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic natural composition. The Zn64 derives from the β‾ Cu64 decay: as it.s shown in Table 3, formation of Cu64 requires the existence of Ni63 which, absent in natural Ni composition, must have been in precedence produced starting by more light nickel isotopes. More details on this analysis will be given in a successive paper [8].

                      No wonder this never was published. The “ash” of copper was later discredited and considered possible deception (i.e., Rossi diversion to confuse competitors. But if so, he also confused Focardi and possibly Carnera).

                      Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (LTI-global.com), originally listed as Richard P. Noceti, Ph. D. , richard.noceti@lt.netl.doe.gov. Interest in petrochemicals, long association with Rossi. One of the principals of Ampenergo, Rossi’s first U.S. licensee, and a source of funding for Rossi. Krivit has investigated this and seems to cover it well. Ampenergo later figured prominently in the Rossi v. Darden lawsuit. They appeared to be originally attempting to support Rossi, but also refused to allow the “2nd amendment” that would have allowed Rossi to postpone the “Guaranteed Performance Test.” They appeared to be straight-arrow. LTI-glbal.com is a domain owned by Lenonardo Technologies, Inc. Rossi apparently sold his interest in LTI to the other principals.

                      Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy) apparently a nuclear physicist. Nuclear physicists would be the easiest scientists to fool with Rossi tricks. That’s why it is hilarious that Rossi and his lawyers challenged experts in steam as not having expertise in nuclear physics! What was needed was expertise with steam and calorimetry. Any physicist would understand the basic physics of steam, but not the details of steam behavior — and possible calorimetric artifacts, if their attention was misdirected. Hence the major bloopers, like thinking that a humidity meter can measure steam quality. Nobody with steam experience would fall for that! But Rossi selected his observers, carefully, excluding anyone likely to see through the confusion. Malferrari is or was with INFN, “Laureate” from UniBo in 1990. He is listed in the UniBo directory as “INFN.” INFN has “sections” in Italian universities.

                      Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA) See [https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55006.html this vortex-l post]. It’s Rossi all the way down. The affiliation is probably incorrect. Kelley’s page at NIST. There is no sign of any continued communication with Kelley. My guess: at some point Rossi asked him, “will you serve on my board of advisers,” and he said, “yes,” and that was it. Rossi then listed him. Maybe I’ll call him up, if he is still reachable. The response of Jed Rothwell to the Vortex post is a decent analysis.

                      Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Bologna University – Italy) Stremmenos was very involved with Focardi, working with nickel nanopowder. He was also very involved with the Defkalion mess. He could be seen as being on Rossi’s “side” in this. In 2012, he was listed as associated with UniBo, “retired.” Interesting comment from him on Piantelli, and his relationship with Rossi.

                      Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy) Apparently still with UniBo. The name is misspelled. It’s “Pier Luca.” A Health physics expert, not a professor. Rossi is very sloppy.

                      This was not only a faux journal, but the appearance of some relatively independent Board of Advisers was blatantly deceptive. This was Rossi all the way down. I covered this before, on LENR forum messcelany. However, were those individual members responsible for that? This is less than clear. We simply, so far, don’t know what actually happened, other than what I have seen. Ascoli, perhaps you could talk to some of the people who are in Italy. If you do, carefully document what is said. Get rid of your opinions and listen. Watch out for questions that show suspicion or accusation: many people will shut up and perhaps hang up, and you will learn little or nothing.

                      (Krivit has made a story out of “they wouldn’t talk to me,” often, but … that is not a story, being more about Krivit than the people he was talking with.)

                    16. To Abd UlRahman Lomax,

                      you wrote:
                      Krivit speculates about who registered the domain for the faux journal. An American — he did not actually claim that — who is often a co-author with Russians. Where he got the “Russian” connection from, I don’t know.

                      This could be one possible connection: “https://tpu.pure.elsevier.com/ru/publications/hot-deuteron-generation-and-charged-particle-emissions-on-excitat”

                      Abd wrote:
                      It’s simply not there … not unless you have much more direct evidence than what you think someone else implied, from known fact (i.e., the registration of the journal)

                      Krivit had evidence that the JoNP site was registered in California, and he alluded to a co-author with Russians of LENR papers. I’m not aware of any paper co-authored by Rossi with Russians.

                      Abd wrote:
                      The report is from 2015. So of course you don’t understand! The negotiations broke down before 2011.

                      The report I quoted was released on November 13, 2009 (1).
                      In a previous post, you said that the negotiations broke down before the appearance of JoNP, which happened on February 28, 2010.

                      Abd wrote:
                      It is not clear that DeChiaro even knew about the earlier incidents.

                      He was among the contributors of the above November 2009 report. Then, on September 2015, he presented his LENR briefing at the IEEE meeting. So, he has had six years to carefully follow the most famous device in LENR, a field that the 2009 report defined a “disruptive technology [that] could revolutionize energy production and storage”.

                      Abd wrote:
                      The negotiations broke down because Rossi walked out when they started talking about independent testing. Macy tells the story.

                      Sorry, I didn’t find where she tells this story. Could you be more specific, please?

                      Abd wrote:
                      “Fake journal” was obvious obvious, no matter whose name was on the BoA. Did Krivit ask? I don’t know.

                      He was the first to ask the LENR community something more about that “bogus Web site that is masquerading as some sort of Journal”. His mail to Vortex is dated March 13, 2010 (2). He also asked: “And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire “DoD”, is involved with this?”

                      Abd wrote:
                      The use of “they” implies coordination. It appears there was little of that.

                      Even assuming that almost all the members of the Board ignored the reasons they were “on board”, there should have been at least a coordination between who registered the site and who signed the messages on JoNP.

                      Abd wrote:
                      What was needed was expertise with steam and calorimetry. Any physicist would understand the basic physics of steam, but not the details of steam behavior — and possible calorimetric artifacts, if their attention was misdirected. Hence the major bloopers, like thinking that a humidity meter can measure steam quality. Nobody with steam experience would fall for that! But Rossi selected his observers, carefully, excluding anyone likely to see through the confusion.

                      There was at least one member in the Board that was fully aware of the possible calorimetric artifacts with steam and calorimetry (3). He also wrote the first brief report on the calorimetry of the demo held on January 14, 2011 (4), in which it is stated that: “There is another probe without its electronics that measures the dryness of the exiting steam. The instrument used was a Delta Ohm HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality Monitor that was operated by a specialist on the faculty of the University of Bologna.”

                      Abd wrote:
                      We simply, so far, don’t know what actually happened, other than what I have seen.

                      I agree, but this is valid for Rossi too: we don’t know which role he played in the Ecat story.

                      (1) “http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf”
                      (2) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38052.html”
                      (3) “http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf” (in particular page 21)
                      (4) “http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20110117Melich-Report-Rossi-Expt-from-Miles.pdf”

  2. More from Ascoli65
    (You sure you cannot do anything to let him post here directly? Simply asking, nothing more)

    (From https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/df/#comment-61847 )
    Ascoli65 ha detto:
    16 settembre 2017 alle 6:48 pm
    @ Abd UlRahman Lomax,
    in response to the section “More about Ascoli65” under your post: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/ .

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

    I’m not interest in Rossi’s says, nor in those coming from any other people different from the many professors who publicly took on themselves the responsibility to measure the excess heat, that the Ecat should have produced during the public demo held on the January 14, 2011. All of them, I guess, had the competence to distinguish a thermometer from a humidity meter, and all of them knew that such last an instrument is not able to measure the steam dryness. Notwithstanding, the calorimetric report (issued with the UniBo logo) clearly indicates that on the top of the Ecat device there was (see Fig.2 of that report) a “HP474ACR pt100 probe” connected to a “Meter HD337AB1347” for the “Steam dryness measure”, and the text mentions “an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe”. But, conversely, the photos taken before and during the boiling phase (the only time in which that measure was required) show that on the top of the Ecat device there was a totally different probe. That’s an elephant in the room, the first out of three.

    Abd wrote:
    – Did anyone photograph the humidity meter in use? Maybe. Would that satisfy Ascoli65? Maybe.

    During the January 2011 demo, the test setup was filmed and the images shown in real time on the monitors placed in the large room outside the laboratory. So whoever holds that historical video could have easily demonstrated the use of a humidity probe. But he didn’t. Show me those frames, and I’ll tell you if I am satisfied.

    Abd wrote:
    – Reading over that Levi report, it reeks of unexamined and unchecked assumptions, with an effect of promoting a commercial interest and with displayed indifference to error, as to what we have seen in what came after.

    Sorry, but it seems to me that you don’t know what are you talking about.

    The day after the demo, JR got all the main calorimetric data from “one of the people in the project”, and announced that “They are writing a detailed report covering the calorimetry and nuclear measurements.” (1)

    After two more days, JR published the “Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011” (2). He also said: “The experiment has been underway at U. Bologna since mid-December 2010. It has been done several times. Several professors with expertise in related subjects such as calorimetry are involved.”

    After a while, JR announced on Vortex (3): “I will soon upload a more detailed description by Mike Melich, and I hope I can add Prof. Levi’s report. I think it is all but certain these results are real. They cannot be a mistake, and fraud seems unlikely to me.”

    And again (4): “I revised the H2 flow measurement part already. The first report I will upload today is by Melich. This week or next we should have one by Prof. Levi.”

    The above cited Melich’s report (5) lists all the prominent experts and institutions which examined and checked the calorimetric data.

    So, the Levi’s report has been issued more than one week after the demo, after it was reviewed by many physicists, scientists, professors, etc. in Italy and US. Probably, it represents the most impressive example of internationally “peer reviewed” document in the history of cold fusion!

    Abd wrote.
    – Something not showing in photos is not evidence that it was not used, unless those photos were continuous and clearly documented as such.

    Abd, let me say, the day you decided to became a physicist, the world lost a great advocate! 🙂

    Anyway if you are looking for a continuous evidence of the inconsistencies of the January 2011 demo, I would suggest you to look at the third elephant (6): the doubling of the duration of the boiling phase. In this case the curves document the whole period, continuously.

    I also suggest you a test. Show the second video of the demo (7) to a high school student and ask him to estimate, on the basis of what he can see in the video, how long the temperature remained at 100 °C. I guess you will get the right answer in less than one hour.

    Abd wrote:
    – Ordinary steam from a boiler is normally wet to some degree. When water evaporation is used for calorimetry, though, there is another problem, bumped water, which looms larger than mere wet steam.

    And do you really think that a dozen a professors, who teached physics at both side of the ocean, didn’t know that?

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

    You can easily understand that providing a way to allow quick insertion an air quality probe inside a pipe foreseen to be filled with water (in liquid or vapor phase) while the device is operating, it’s a nonsense in itself.

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

    At your choice. The important is that they stay close to the CF/LENR stuff they refer to.

    (1) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41364.html”
    (2) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41442.html”
    (3) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41443.html”
    (4) “http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41453.html”
    (5) “http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20110117Melich-Report-Rossi-Expt-from-Miles.pdf”
    (6) “https://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg”
    (7) “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw”

    1. CimPy – If Ascoli65 is taking precautions to remain anonymous (and the two different source domains imply that) then the spam-rejection routines will likely bounce him/her. Since Abd stated he’s getting around 100 spams per day, then I wouldn’t expect him to remove the antispam software.

      We all have our ideas of what may have happened, but Abd is concentrating on what can be proven. I wouldn’t trust Levi’s results, but stating he intentionally fudged the data is something else altogether. I may have implied that at times myself, though…. I suspect Rossi may have set things up so his assistants didn’t need to fudge the results, but simply to read what the meters said. I’ve mentioned before that it seems that Rossi has “glamour”, which means he can influence people to accept what he says as the truth even though they normally wouldn’t.

      About the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that the various Rossi demonstrations were not conclusive as regards what power was output. Certainly not conclusive enough to bet a few hundred million on developing them. I expect that the detailed analysis of Rossi will continue for years yet, but unless Rossi tells all we really won’t know what happened. Even then, can you ever trust what RossiSays about anything?

      For me, generally I’d say cut the losses and look at other experiments rather than Rossi. We’re really not going to learn anything more than we have, except maybe not to get fooled again the same way (if we haven’t already learned that). He’s wasted peoples’ time with his claims, and that time would be better spent on pretty-well anything else. Far too much data is either obviously bad or unavailable, so no real conclusions on the science can be reached except that the data is insufficient.

      1. Well, all three URLs I have seen are the same service provider, maybe different servers, I’m not sure, and it’s not worth finding out. That’s not the problem. I’ve told him what the problem is, and he should be able to fix it. I can imagine a situation where he couldn’t, which would be unfortunate. At least he should now know the cause and what he can do. WP-SpamShield support turned out to be excellent. The nailed the problem immediately, and, yes, it’s obvious from the log — but I didn’t know what to look for and they did. It might have helped that they had a spam code — WP-SpamShield doesn’t publish them because they don’t want to reveal what they are actually testing, I think for obvious reasons.

        I don’t think anyone sane is left, taking Rossi seriously. What I think is that, while it is not utterly impossible that he actually had or even has something, it will come out if so. It’s unlikely enough that it is not necessary to hedge for it. We can support other research. Industrial Heat obviously decided that keeping a hedge that they had actually paid for was not worth the cost of not settling promptly on July 5.

        So what remains is a blame game, that some want to play. I recommend that people who made mistakes that contributed to the confusion admit them, not because we need it, but because that’s what will clear their future better than the stonewalling that has afflicted some.

      2. Agreed Simon.

        There is a general human tendency to underestimate the susceptibility of humans to misdirection from a charismatic personality. Especially when the people concerned are experts. It is ironic, since LENR, if it is exists as a nuclear phenomenon, is an example of experts being wrong even without charismatic leadership, and we know that people will do very silly things when following leaders.

        One of the fascinations of the Rossi matter is that Rossi, in is well documented external persona, does not seem charismatic. He seems a dishonest (at the level of extreme misdirection, rather perhaps than overt lying) buffoon. Yes, it is also clear that he can influence a range of people, and particularly scientists, to become enthusiastic supporters against all apparent evidence.

        One of the reasons, we might speculate, is that Rossi offers several powerful wish-fullfillment fantasies to any such person, especially if they think they can be involved in a nascent new energy revolution.

        Another must come from his personal characteristics – and that is lost in his internet comments.

        1. The rejection cascade was actually fueled by charismatic leadership; one must understand that “charismatic” is not an absolute characteristic, but a relationship. To one person, a certain ostensible leader may seem a buffoon, to another, OMG! Someone finally willing to Tell The Truth!

          At last! Koonin said what we were all thinking, but it wasn’t politically correct! “… we’re suffering from the incompetence and perhaps delusion of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.” (Taubes, Bad Science, 265) This was a blatant emotional appeal, not at all “scientific,” ascribing “our suffering” to someone else, classic demagoguery. In the pages leading up to this, Taubes covers the background, and it is very clear: there was an extensive emotional reaction to the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, so Koonin simply tossed a match on the fuel. It’s a fascinating story.

          I recommend Maria Konnikova’s book, The Confidence Game. While it sometimes descends into pop sensationalism, much of it is good reporting. A con artist will select their audience, observing or setting up conditions that would predict vulnerability. Example: the really poor spelling in the Nigerian email scams. Only someone relative desperate is likely to set that aside. That, then, reduces their “false positives,” i.e., wasted communication effort and dealing with communications is their primary workload. I knew from my childhood that hypnotists select subjects for “suggestibility.” (Which is, by the way, not at all the same as “gullibility.” Suggestibility is more or less a willingness to allow an idea some space before rejecting it, to see what happens if one allows the idea to sit for a while.)

          Konnikova dispels the myth that con artists only prey on stupid people. They prey on people who are, at some point or other, vulnerable; the vulnerability defeats normal defense mechanisms, and it is not necessarily “rational.” Rather, the artist may be plugging into the underlying structures that create emotional response, and “this is right” is an emotional response. We can be fooled by our own emotional responses, and this is readily observable, watching all the discussions on blogs and other public media. We will create “reasons” to believe what we have already accepted, and then think our beliefs have been “proven.”

          I do not find it simple to conclude that Rossi is a simple con artist. He certainly could be. He could also be insane. Which is worse? However, I don’t need to know. What I can know from the evidence, and very clearly, is that what RossiSays cannot be trusted. The worst of it is actually the most plausible, and it apparently slips right by the defenses of someone who, one might think, would be an experienced skeptic. And then the “victim” becomes a defender of the con, instead of clearly recognizing the possibility of their own error. Thus the identity of the victim as a “serious scientist,” and the normal defense mechanisms against looking bad, are used against him. Rossi may be doing this instinctively, but the pattern is quite clear. He’s managed to fool many scientists, in spite of what we can see, in his writing, entrenched ignorance and narcissistic megalomania. Obviously, then, his appeal is not on that level. It’s apparently very direct and very personal, it’s a kind of presence that engages people. I’ve talked with a number of people with extensive personal contact with him. They are smart, very smart, and the reality of the Rossi v. Darden evidence perplexes them. They then find explanations, a common one seems to be that he is a “very bad businessman.” Indeed.

          I met him in person, at the trial. I got nothing from that. He’s been described (by the Woodford rep, apparently), as “cagey.” Rossi revealed nothing to me, in person, other than simple civility and cordiality. He knew who I was (and I’m pretty sure he told his attorneys, Lukacs knew me by name, using it in court.) He showed no trace of emotional reaction that I could see. I did not see him as hiding anything, but neither as revealing anything. I also saw no sense of humor.

          I imagine him saying to me, based on what he’s written about me, “You don’t look as dumb as I thought,” and I could have replied, “Neither do you!” and we could have laughed. But that certainly did not happen. He did not deal with any substance at all. It was, of course, very different with the IH people. I also had a deeper conversation with the younger Rossi attorney, Bernstein, we talked about Ruth Silver, I simply commiserated with him about her passing, and he thanked me. Nice.

    2. Ascolo65 has some serious security issues. I’ve told him, and he should be able to fix them. If not, he will not be able to post here. fusionefredda has, I suspect, poor security (many signs of inexperienced or administrator). I’m running WP-SpamShield, which is quite good, about the best. Support answered my question immediately. One of the things they check for is possible hacker access, and Ascoli65 is at risk for being hacked. He would have the same problem on any similar protected site.

  3. Comments on Ascoli65’s fusionefredda posts are here and here. With the second, since Ascoli65 kept insisting, I looked at his links that showed the history of our interaction. I don’t hold onto this stuff, especially really stupid stuff. It was, and remains so. There is no point in continuing, this post was started about a possibly excessive ban, but behind that ban would be, as is often the case, trolling, which eventually burns out administrators. Ascoli65 is probably sincere, but the effect is the same. “Sincerity” is an excuse, the effect can be quite the same and therefore the consequences.

  4. Link to Update1. Comment added giving the alleged libel from Ascoli65. In my opinion, this was not libel, it was fair criticism combined with an edgy question that did not cross the line, though it came close. This was explicitly a request to Alan Smith, who responded by obliterating it.

    1. from: https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/df/#comment-61662

      Ascoli65 ha detto (12 settembre 2017 alle 5:54 pm)

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

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

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

      The source are the Lewan’s reports of the two tests held on April 19 and 28, 2011. These reports were published on the NyTeknik site, but they are no more accessible. Anyway a copy of the first one is still available on NewEnergyTimes (1). It ends with the list of “Instruments”, where the first one is called “Peristaltic pump”. I don’t know if this definition is correct. Whatever it was, I agree with you, it was a metering pump, a dosimetric pump, an instrument devoted to deliver a calibrated flux of water.

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

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

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

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

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

      I did provide all the links to the many documents available on internet which clearly demonstrate the many errors (at least three errors only for the January 14 demo: pump’s flow rate, missing steam probe, and doubled test duration) present in the January 2011 report. The problem is that I can’t see how these errors can be interpreted as mistakes. I did ask many people to suggest me possible explanations, but I didn’t get any answer on the merit, that is nobody suggested a possible chain of events which could explain why, for example, it was erroneously reported a flow rate much higher than the max output of the pump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1. I have now looked at that comment, and replied there. This appears to give the text that was removed by Alan Smith as allegedly a blatant libel. If this is it, it was not libel, my opinion. It was actually asking a question, on the face of it hoping that Alan could answer, given his more direct contact with Levi. If it was insincere, this was far, far from the worst offense on LENR Forum, and I doubt that a libel claim would arise over it, and even less that such a claim could prevail in court. On the face, the questions appear reasonable. The text does not claim data falsification, and error in reporting is not falsification, if that existed. Basically, Alan may be libelling Ascoli65 by claiming he wrote a libel. Ironic, eh? Pot, kettle, black. (But such as actual legal claims are rare, and very difficult to sustain, and pretty much useless, not worth the effort, where the only damage is to possible reputation on a minor web site, and even that is highly speculative as actual damage. I’m better off being banned there, for example. Gives me more time to work on content that might actually make a difference.)

        (But a claim that Levi falsified data, if made (or implied to be provable), would be a serious libel, because he is a scientist whose career depends on trustworthiness. He can make mistakes, he can err, but data falsification is a gross offense, commonly resulting in complete loss of career. Don’t make that claim, unless it is *necessary* and you have strong proof, not merely grounds for suspicion.)

        1. I find a mismatch between the picture Ascoli65 posts of a “similar pump” and the statement that this is a peristaltic pump. Why does the pump have a setting for both speed and stroke? A peristaltic pump, as I know it, has only the speed (and the bore of the pipe that’s being squeezed) as the variable. Output pressure variations would also make very little difference to a peristaltic pump, since the speed of the rotor should be closely controlled (that is after all why they are useful) and the outlet pressure will make very little difference. Though the inlet pressure will swell the peristaltic tube and thus vary the throughput, this is not the way these type of pumps are used. Inlet pressure would normally be held to a positive or negative head of a few inches. Note https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52765.html (and following) as some comments on this with reference to a RossiSays on the pump output.

          Of course, it’s possible that the pump make and serial number have been misreported…. People mention hearing a sound in the video about once a second (40 times per minute is later mentioned) that would correspond to a piston-type (or diaphragm-type) metering pump.

          Of course, since it’s been a very long time since I used such pumps in a lab, I may be wrong.

          1. That Vortex post was Alan Fletcher. There are inhabitants of Planet Rossi who recognize that something is off. There are two horns of the dilemma here. The first is that treating the label flow as a “maximum” without understanding what the specification actually means, is actually intended to convey, creates one kind of error. It does not mean the largest possible flow, and Fletcher showed that by experiment, and others did so by reference to full specifications. In the Rossi v. Darden presentation, Smith treated that spec as if it were an actual maximum, though I’d need to review what he said to be sure. What was created by the specification was an appearance that the Penon report claims of flow were very much larger than the specification, not just a little larger. And as Jed pointed out, that is not how specifications like this are written, because it would unnecessarily impact sales.

            What the specification means is that the stated flow is the maximum that one may expect or rely upon, without more details, and that is at the pressure stated, probably. Even at the pressure, actual flow may be higher than that. But, based on Jed’s argument, the actual flow is unlikely to be much higher. Error in flow is undesirable, and that includes error in either direction.

            The other error is the reverse, treating the flow spec as a simple minimum, that flow will be at that or higher, with no restriction on how high. As Planet Rossi pointed out — and it is literally true — there is a Prominent pump document that states that actual flow, at atmospheric pressure (which must mean equal inlet and outlet pressure), flow can be “several times” greater than set flow. That does not specific “set flow” more accurately. Planet Rossi tended to assume — and actually sometimes stated — that this was a claim that this applied to the flow specification. As written, it does not, it refers to the flow setting, which could be quite low, and at low flow settings I’d expect the error to be greater, or at least it could be.

            The flow as calculated by Levi was about 150% of the spec. That is not so high as to be completely beyond reason, as Ascoli may think. In addition, if the reactor coolant chamber acts as a pump (with a one-way valve in the input), and it bumps steam out, as it might, it could effectively lower the outlet pressure, causing overpumping, depending on conditions. Reading over the Levi papers I found, I was amazed by the naivete. And, as well, looking at Lewan’s early reporting, it is worse than I remembered. He states as if fact what he could have confirmed as fact. He states conclusions without attributing whose conclusions they were. That was shoddy journalism. He’s still doing it.

            I could not find a source for the pump data and the pump being called “peristaltic.” I’m sure it’s out there, but wasn’t linked by Ascoli65. So many don’t know how to write a thorough report, seem to believe it is enough to report what they think is fact, without sourcing it. When I write and have what I think is a fact to report, I often will look for verification. Not uncommonly, my memory was defective! In other words, sourcing cleans up my writing. It’s not just about being considerate of readers, self-interest indicates sourcing also. And if I can’t find a source, I don’t report it as fact, but as simply what I recall, which could be in error.

            The pump model number is not for a peristaltic pump. It’s a metering pump, a dosimetric pump, and someone (Lewan!) may have assumed that meant “peristaltic,” but, of course, it doesn’t.

            To be sure, Rossi was asked about the pump rate for the “peristaltic pump” His answer did not correct the error, if it was an error. (and this is common in his responses to questions that contain errors, unless these errors really poke him in the eye.) He answers “15 kg/h of water.” Peter Heckert asked that question, and reported it in the Vortex-l post that Fletcher was replying to.

            I have never seen clean, carefully compiled documentation on all the claims and reports. It’s difficult to find the information. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort. Those old tests were full of possible but unrecognized artifacts. The first Levi report on lenr-canr.org has this:

            The main origin of possible errors in [Test 1] measurement was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test 2] this measurement was done by
            Dr. Galantini, a senior chemist, who used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe.

            Unfortunately, this error was also taken up by Kullander and Essen, and none of these ever responded, to my knowledge, to the obvious critique: an “air quality monitor” — basically a humidity meter — has no way of measuring either steam quality, but even less overflow water. either steady-state or from bumping. Overflow water can exist underneath steam, including saturated steam, because the heat transfer rate from steaam to condensed liquid water is slow. (It is very fast to suspended droplets, hence the confusion that liquid water cannot exist above the boiling point at the relevant pressure. It can’t. The confusion assumes uniform temperature, (even neglecting the possibility of superheated water, about which I know little.) As well, the water, being lower in the outlet pipe, will have higher pressure than the steam above. What the statement indicates, about Levi and Galantini, is that they were clueless about steam, making knee-jerk assumptions based on what they thought they knew. Anyone can do that, but what is unusual for scientists is that, here, six years later, they have never acknowledged even blatant errors like this.

            And if this analysis is incorrect, surely they could respond with evidence! Instead, we see the claque on LENR Forum and elsewhere claiming that scientists are not going to bother responding to “internet trolls.” Let me call that “less than inspiring.”

            The pump in the next paper was measured at 6.47 kg/hr, easily less than 12. What is not recognized in these reports is that pumping under calibration conditions may be different than pumping under experimental conditions. This is not how to manage the testing, and all this is easily obvious in hindsight.

            There were many tests and differing conditions and possibly different pumps. Without clear sourcing, this is an insane mess.

            The Ascoli65 critique (the apparently deleted on) refers to “1) January 2011 – Report issued under the aegis of UniBo, about the tests held in Bologna on December 16, 2010, and January 14, 2011;” that report, linked above, also has this:

            The measured flux was of 168 +/- 2 g in 45 +/- 0.1 s.

            While it is difficult to control a water flow with a precision of 0.1 second, this would be 13.4 liters per hour. That doesn’t seem impossible for a pump rated at 12 liters per hour, if the back pressure was low, but …. Rossi’s reactor’s control would appear to depend on heater power and cooling flow. The cooling is, then, apparently flat-out, meaning that it is not useful for control, because it cannot be increased. This is, at least, odd. (Same arguments apply to the Doral test. Running cooling flat-out would create a risk of loss of control.) In any case, this is largely meaningless if not all the water is being evaporated.

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

            He cites a flow figure of 17.5 l/hr. That’s from a Macy report of an “exclusive interview with Levi.” Yes, that would be oddly high if it is the 12 l/h pump involved. But that figure is different from Levi’s paper covering those tests. What someone says in an interview can be different from what they would say in a published paper. I’d trust the paper over the interview, even if the interview was by email (where some will be incautious and errors abound). As well, this may have been about a different test, and this got confused.

            The pump issue is much stronger in the IH arguments about the Doral test. There, we know the specific pump and have specific data, and … something is clearly off, and we can see, as well, the half-baked arguments, asserted with great confidence. I expect that from lawyers, it’s their job.

            Smith covers the pump flow issue starting on page 15 of his Supplemental Expert Report. (It appears to me that IH did not realize the pump rate discrepancy until late in the court process. Smith also responds with regard to the alleged heat exchanger, revealed by Rossi only at close to the last moment in discovery, not allowing time for more careful analysis. Rossi is correct that Smith makes a mistake, treating label “maximum flow” as if this were a limit, when, in fact, it’s a guaranteed flow at max pump setting. However, this is a good example of Rossi using a “plausible argument” with misleading effect. The Smith objection is, overall, sound, at least as plausible as the Rossi position.

            This was far from the major thrust of the IH case, but it was an easy point for Pace to communicate to a jury. Something is rotten. The larger point was that there was no clear confirmation of complete evaporation; and with additional pumping (either the Grundfos pump, as Smith speculated, or the “recirculator” as Rossi claimed), the flow could be explained, but it would just be pushing hot water around the system, not steam. And that seems to be an old “trick” or “error.”

            1. Thanks Abd. That sorts out my confusion by showing that the data stated really is confused and insufficient.

              To my mind, a dosimetric pump that gives a different output with varying input/output pressures is simply badly-designed. It may be sufficient for the industrial uses it was designed for, where the pressures would be closely controlled anyway, but it’s not exactly difficult to design feedback control loops to ensure that the pump delivers exactly what it says. These pumps are not cheap, either. Funny thing, but if this sort of inaccuracy existed at the fuel pumps when you fill your car there would be a lot of complaints.

              With around 40 strokes/minute, the 45 second interval in measuring the output of the pump seems somewhat short, and thus the precision stated for the results is overstated. The “measured flux” can only be accurate to around 3.3% (one stroke), not the ~1.4% stated. Not good science….

              1. My sense is that the pumps are accurate, when calibrated at constant pressure. I’d think the problem is leaky valves, and designing the pump to avoid that could be quite difficult. A gasoline pump is operating at roughly constant pressure. They are calibrated periodically. The way I would think of making the pump more accurate would be to measure the pressures and then use a look-up table. Temperature should also be measured. The problem of expansion with temperature is much more severe with gasoline, but, again, most gasoline is pumped from underground tanks that would be at roughly constant temperature. The flow rate is also fixed, the pump is either on or off. The Wikipedia article is interesting.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dispenser#The_metrology_of_gasoline. Errors of as much as 2.5% appear to be common.

                Yes, there are two aspects to the short measurement periods. Unless the pump is electronically controlled, there is reaction time to consider, and dosimetric pumps are digital, delivery is quantized, as you note.

                To defend Levi, precision of flow was apparently not considered important, given the high COP. I notice that Levi thought it important that the collected flow didn’t have bubbles in it. Indeed. But it wouldn’t have mattered, since they were weighing it.

                The issue of “dry steam” is more significant, and then, even more significant is overflow water. Levi, first of all, relied on Galantini, who didn’t know what he was doing. That meter, Macy has it as a Delta OHM # HD37AB1347 Indoor Air Quality
                Monitor, cannot measure steam quality. Steam quality is a difficult measurement, and when I researched this in 2011, I found that there were companies that do just that, and the methods of measuring steam quality are relatively complex. One would not expect to find the capacity in an “air quality meter.” Galantini was in the business of providing environmental monitoring, and people don’t live in steam. The meter has a setting to display the weight of water per cubic meter, but it is calculated from humidity, which is what the instrument measures. The humidity of steam is generally 100% (and the meter is not accurate at that high humidity). That is dry steam or wet steam.

                I remember the arguments back then. “You think an expert was wrong?” Yup. Wrong. Obviously and seriously wrong, with an error that was plausible enough on the unexamined face that it also convinced Kullander and Essen, and this affair demonstrated that scientists put their pants on one leg at a time and can make even major mistakes, when operating outside of familiar territory, and Rossi did not allow steam experts close to his devices.

                But what about the temperature and pressure? Levi assumed that “above saturation temperature” at the measured pressure was adequate to insure dry steam. It’s not. First of all, basic physics would lead to some suspicion. At “atmospheric pressure” there would be no flow. The amount of steam supposedly generated would be high flow. That flow would necessarily create back pressure. The boiling point would be higher than the point at atmospheric.

                If Galantini actually measured “atmospheric pressure,” that would indicate no flow (or limited flow). It’s like the scientists were asleep, or mesmerized, distracted by the magic in front of them.

                I have a weasel as the site mascot, here, because of the amazing weasel behavior shown in a youtube video. They create a show in front of a rabbit which distracts the rabbit, which does not run away, it sits staring. And then they catch the rabbit, which could otherwise easily outrun them and escape. The weasel display looks “crazy.” Yes, crazy, crazy like a fox — or weasel. Beautiful animals. Very dangerous to rabbits.

                Further, there could be steam, even dry steam, above flowing water. The assumption of “dry” applies to the “gas phase” where “wet” indicates suspended droplets, which have a high surface/volume ratio and where, then, temperature transfer is fast. Wet steam maintains its own temperature at saturation, by evaporation of the droplets when it’s hotter and by condensation of droplets when it is cooler, i.e., has lost heat. The transfer of heat across the surface of flowing water is relatively slow. If the steam is hotter than the water, the water would be — slowly — heated. Where the temperature was measured would become important. And means of detecting flowing water would be employed. For something simple, I thought in 2011 of a transparent T joint inserted in the flow line. Would Rossi have allowed this? Apparently not, he removed the steam traps that IH had installed in the 1 MW reactor.

                A strong sign that the steam was not dry was the allegedly close-to-constant temperature at “0.0 bar,” which must have been intended to be “barg.” Maintaining constant temperature with dry steam is very difficult, because the temperature regulation of wet steam is lost. Minor variations in process heat would create relatively large variations in temperature. More likely, to be sure: the Doral plant circulated hot water, which may have been “steaming hot,” which isn’t dry steam, it’s wet. Saturated steam is invisible, so when the Florida government visitor saw “steam” leaking from pipes, this merely indicated hot water, with maybe some steam. Unless he looked carefully and saw that the visible plume was (1) under pressure, and (2) invisible as it exited the pipe. If it was visible, it was definitely wet, very wet. If it was low flow, it merely indicated that the water was hot enough to show mist.

                Once the possibility of incomplete evaporation — which is much larger than ordinarily wet steam — was raised, it became impossible to know the actual heat generation of the E-cats, beyond what was required to raise the water to 100 C. COP could be as low as 1.

                Kullander and Essen easily could have examined the outflow. They did not, they simply accepted the Galantini myth.

                Krivit was shown the flow by Rossi. That was amazing. Levi was jocular. He did not seem to have any clue that, at the claimed steam flow rate, there would have been very strong flow, not the “steaming” wisps that were shown. When Rossi pulled the hose from the drain, he first drained it. He knew there could be water in it, obviously. Then, if there was significant water flow, he could hold up that long pipe for a certain time safely, before the pipe filled.

                If Rossi were sane, I’d say he had to know the problem. But my operating hypothesis is that he’s not sane. The insane may believe things that are contradictory to their own experience. In my view, this is far more common than most of us think, “normal” people may be insane, at least in some ways — as they might be functional in others.

                Because of this literal “issue,” clearly possible, Rossi flow calorimetry was seriously defective, and this was never resolved. Kullander and Essen never admitted or confronted their own alleged error. Are there rules for scientists in Italy and Sweden that they ignore criticism and persist in published stupid claims (“stupid” in hindsight)?

                I do not blame scientists for making mistakes. The only way to avoid mistakes is to take no risks. But, for a scientist, the only thing worse than stonewalling is data falsification, which is a career-killer for any scientist, if it is discovered.

                That is why implying that a scientist has deliberately presented misleading data is probably defamation. Truth is, at least in the U.S., a defense against a libel charge, but proof is required. In some cases, journalists, like scientists, are allowed to make mistakes. But an intention to defame is actionable, and sometimes even illegal.

                The flow calorimetry problem then rose its head again at Doral. Smith’s opinion was that the system just circulated hot water.

                The Penon system relied on a set of simple measurements, and confirmed none of them. In a situation where there were — allegedly — major consequences, an $89 million payment hanging on them, using a single-measure system was obviously foolish. Rossi touted Penon as a “nuclear engineer,” and he was. He could have no experience with the specifics of steam measurement (and certainly not with possible fraud). He was naive, like all those Rossi recruited. No nuclear engineer would design or approve a nuclear plant that was monitored by single measures. They can fail. Nuclear engineers know to design in massive redundancy.

                Steam generators are also very dangerous, not nuclear-dangerous, but dangerous enough that buildings explode, people die. However, nobody seems to have been seriously worried in Doral. Certainly not Rossi, who apparently got the Plant to pass inspection by not claiming any power generation, only input power. A water heater (and boiler) with power less than the level that would have required major safety certification.

                Rossi tells whatever story serves his immediate purposes.

                Rossi shows many characteristics of a highly skilled con artist. It is difficult to impossible to distinguish this from insanity, and the two conditions can co-exist. (Vide the “he would have to be crazy” argument that considers Rossi’s action in suing IH to be proof of the reality of his work. That assumes a sane con-artist with a rational profit motive. Studying Rossi’s business behavior, it’s not rational, whether or not he has a real effect. Many of his supporters obviously share his paranoia (real or claimed,) even when it makes no sense. (Rejecting Murray because Rossi thought he was a spy was pure paranoia, since Murray was working for Industrial Heat and there is no evidence of anything else, and Industrial Heat had full rights to know full details about the Plant operation.

                Contrary to Rossi claims, the Term Sheet did not cover setting aside the “customer area.” (Though IH made no effort to enter it during the “test.”) It’s amazing how many arguments made by Rossi counsel in the case were blatantly contradictory to evidence. What that came from was an earlier draft that was not accepted. Yet Rossi appears to have believed that this was a part of the agreement. That is yet another example where Rossi holds on to fantasy as if real.

                He did survive the hurricane. That’s real. As well, the hurricane survived him, and moved on.

      2. Abd note: This was posted by me From https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/df/#comment-61542
        I have created actual links for some text, and wrt one LENR Forum link, I found what is probably the intended target and linked it. Ascoli65 apparently had difficulty posting here, probably due to the spam filter, which may detect the use of an anoymizing proxy, for example, and which will also sometimes reject posts with many links. However, I was able to post this using an anonymous account, so I suspect the proxy problem or some other “spam signal.” I actually posted this twice, first with an anonymous account I have used before (therefore it was approved automatically) and once with a new account (and that went to moderation). I apologize for any difficulty caused by the spam filter, but that filter is quite good, and rarely blocks posts that would be acceptable. It’s blocking almost 100 spams per day, and it was taking an increasing amount of time to review them. I’m not willing to spend the effort to allow anonymous posts, where the identity is concealed from me. Don’t trust me? Then I don’t trust you! Normally, user information is confidential, with rare exceptions. If you fall into an exception, you are a danger to the internet and the cold fusion community (no matter what “side” you may think you are on).

        I am not personally “neutral,” but I intend this site to be, and it will become even more so as users of good will (of diverse opinions) volunteer to help administer it. I will die eventually, the community will not, but whatever depends solely on me will end with me. If this kind of work is important, it will nevertheless go down unless the community steps up, and the more and the sooner the safer and better.

        =========== inizio del mio commento cancellato ============
        @ Alan Smith,

        Alan Smith wrote [https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5287-rossi-vs-darden-aftermath-discussions/?postID=70681#post70681]
        You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.

        Although I agree that personal human problems should be kept out of this debate, I think it’s not only fair but also very necessary to firstly address the Levi’s credibility as far as his involvement in the Ecat affair is concerned. In fact, Levi is the lead author of the 3 principal academic reports listed below, which support the supposed excess heat measured during the Ecat tests carried out under his own responsibility:

        1) January 2011 – Report issued under the aegis of UniBo, about the tests held in Bologna on December 16, 2010, and January 14, 2011;

        2) April 2013 – Report issued in cooperation with other members of UniBo and UniUppsala, about the tests held in Ferrara between December 2012 and March 2013;

        3) October 2014 – Report issued in cooperation with other members of UniBo and UniUppsala, about the test held in Lugano between February and March 2014.

        In assessing the credibility of the data contained in these documents, we must begin with his first report, which describes the Bologna tests. As you know, in the demo held on January 14, 2011, a dosimetric pump was used to drive the refrigerant flow through the Ecat device.

        This is the front panel of a pump similar to that used in Bologna (1).

        The label underneath the knobs shows the pump’s main characteristics (identification numbers, and nominal performances). The specific data of the pump used in Bologna was revealed by Lewan in his reports published on April 2011:

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

        The nominal max output (12 L/h) coincides with the value Levi mentioned during his introduction to the January 2011 demo, after he was asked for the pump flow rate. He said (2): “What? Right now I think 12 L/h, but after I give you the exact number.”

        Also, shortly after the Bologna demo, Levi stated (3): “The flow rate was 146 g in 30 seconds. Using a simple measurement gives a simple result. There was a pump putting in a constant flux and what I have done is – with the reactor completely off take measurements – we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration.”

        Nearly the same values (146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s) appeared eventually, after more than one week of internal and external reviews, in his calorimetric report (4). These values correspond to17.6 L/h, ie almost 50% more than the pump nominal capacity, and almost 150% more than the maximum expected flow corresponding to the actual pump speed.

        I had already asked THH (5) how it might be, in his opinion, that this incongruity derives from incompetence, instead of a intentional misrepresentation of false experimental data, but he didn’t respond because he feels too far from the UniBo environment. On the contrary, you said you are familiar with someone in that circle, so can you please provide your explanation of how it has been possible that, after having calibrated the pump for two weeks, Levi did report in his document a much higher value than its max capacity, which was clearly indicated on the front panel? And, above all, how do you explain the lack, in that same document, of any infos about the nominal performances of the pump, ie one of the most important instrument used in the demo?

        (1) http://www.rb-instrument.nl/in…mbraanpompen/lmi-p1-serie
        (2) “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng” (at 9:46)
        (3) “http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
        (4) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
        (5) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?
        ============ fine del mio commento cancellato ============

    1. Simple: I didn’t. I wrote about the comment about the comment, which I did read and cite, and, considering the context and the participants, inferred what was likely in the deleted comment. That’s not “about the comment,” but about the context and my assessment of it. Thanks for pointing to that page in Italian, I’ll look at it.

      One of the problems about deletion, and especially deletion by someone who might have an axe to grind, is that the evidence is covered up, destroyed, becomes unverifiable. That is one reason I do not delete content here, but, if necessary, hide it. It’s there if needed. I do keep an activity log on this blog, and when we are active enough to have more administrators than me, others will be able to see what has been done, read hidden content, and see if content was edited and by whom. I understand, hopefully, not only how to administer with integrity, but also how to generate confidence that this is being done, which is important for building community. I’ve learned both how to do this and how not to do it, through years of study and practice with the problem.

  5. On Ascoli’s comments

    As Abd, I find Ascoli’s claims that Levi and/or other UoB scientists were deliberately fabricating results to support Rossi’s early (and later) experiments unconvincing. At most the flow meter evidence indicates an error. Errors can occur for many reasons. In this case, given the way these pumps work, I’d expect the figures Ascoli notes from Levi are an error (which would mean the claimed COP explained from a known mundane cause) but leave open the possibility that the pump was actually operating under pressure conditions that allowed much more flow than expected from its plate rating.

    My comment about bad science from levi related not to the emissivity mistake (anyone can make mistakes, no shame there) but from Levi’s response to a critique, where he claimed that he checked with colleagues at UoB and they confirmed his (erroneous) view. Levi did not give any substantive critique of the critique, nor additional scientific support for this contrary view. It is bad science not to follow up properly critiques. In this case I am very confident, because it has been confirmed by different methods from independent people that the TC theoretical analysis here is correct. In any case it is (to an informed rviewer0 obviously true, just as Levi’s argument is obviously false.

    So the bad science is an attachment to ones own ideas that does not allow proper checking. Quite how Levi managed to get support from these ideas from colleague I don’t know, but can guess that if they were not fully expert they might be convinced by the argument levi gave Matt – that even if the emissivity were 1, the Lugano results would hold with COP=2. Of course this is incorrect, because “the emissivity” does not exist, therea re two, different, emissivity values used in the clauclation. But this facile argument might well be affirmed by a non-specialist colleague.

    More generally, the involvement of Levi and the other scientists in Rossi’s experiments is unfortunate. I can understand the mistakes – it is clear now that Rossi was present and he could easily have encouraged them, whether deliberately or out of delusion makes no difference. I consider the reaction to criticism, complete silence together with Levi’s informal restatement of correctness to Mat, to be bad science. It is possible that the silence is forced for political reasons to avoid embarrassment – which would be irregular and unfortunate. It is difficult to imagine how Levi’s comments could be so forced, although plausible as I’ve indicated above that they are genuine comments from a scientist unable to respond appropriately to criticism who therefore I would say is practising, in this case, bad science.

    Levi’s involvement in and support of many of Rossi’s tests which have issues indicates a past pattern of bad science – given that the issues have been highlighted many times with no response from Levi. In those cases Levi might be working under NDA or equivalent from Rossi. If that prevented suitable correction the bad science would be to allow his name to continue to be associated with Rossi.

    1. Yes. I found his arguments unconvincing, as I wrote this time and before. You have well stated the other possibilities. Ascoli seemed to think that his interpretations of, say, photos, was the only possible one. This is what I call a basic ontological error (though, technically, this is epistemology, but I like “ontology” better, as leaning more toward world-view, which can dominate us.)

      Your claim of “Bad Science” is not libelous, it is obviously an opinion, even though it could be considered an “attack on reputation.” Actually, what we would hope for Levi is that he remedies any shortcomings. What Levi displayed in his unattested “Declaration” in Rossi v. Darden, however, was a highly emotional and even hysterical reaction. While this is not directly related to his scientific knowledge, it could fundamentally damage his ability to respond to criticism. What is particularly bizarre is that conversation reported by Mats Lewan. Dead wrong, as you point out. Lewan, some time ago, abandoned any “investigative reporter” obligations — he used to be that — and started to naively accept arguments presented to him. He does not ask inconvenient questions. He is far more passive than that.

      I see the same obtuse reaction to fact in Rossi, the same self-certainty. Birds of a feather flock together.

      Yes, the Lugano testers may be under formal or informal NDAs, including not discussing the results. That, however, would make them “not independent.” Something is rotten in at least one Scandinavian country, or is being allowed to appear so. We saw in Rossi v. Darden that Dewey Weaver attempted to communicate with Bo Hoistad on the test reports, and what did Bo do? He passed this on to Levi, who exploded. This was very odd behavior. I’ve seen some suspicion from Weaver of “undue influence.” I don’t know, all I can tell is that something doesn’t make sense.

      Scientists, who receive public support through their institutions, have an obligation to the public. They may make mistakes, and, indeed, it would be offensive not to allow them that freedom. What can be pointed out here is that the Lugano report was never published under review. However, it was published with institutional affiliations, so the institutions also have some responsibility for how their good name is used or abused.

      What I have not seen, and you do not claim, is “data falsification” on the part of actual scientists involved in LENR — anywhere. Rossi is not a scientist and inventors and entrepreneurs not uncommonly fudge data or even worse. I did not see anything looking like actual data falsification until maybe the Doral test, and even there, it could simply be extreme sloppiness. IH never outright alleged data falsification, but did allege “lies.” All of Rossi, by the way, not Penon or Fabiani. And had quite strong evidence for it. My version of Hanlon’s razor. Add to “stupidity,” “insanity,” and it covers more. I intend to write a defense of Rossi. It must be, in some ways, an insanity defense. He may believe that what he was saying was “truth,” but with a crazy definition of truth. A “reasonable person” would have known it was misleading. But Rossi is not reasonable. For this reason, he might not be successfully prosecuted for perjury. As a civil matter, though, it was fraudulent representation. Mens rea is not required, as it is for criminal prosecution.

      Reminds me. IH could still sue Penon, if they chose to do so, to recover what they paid him. Penon was not protected by the settlement agreement. And they could bill JMP for all those invoice requests. Also not protected, my opinion. I’d need to look at the exact text on that latter claim, since JMP was a party to the settlement agreement. It’s only about $300,000, but pretty simple to issue an invoice “as requested.”

  6. A while back we had a problem on R-G from someone (anonymous in effect) who was on a crusade against Mark Goldes, and was attacking anyone associated with MG as well. MG is polite, personally charming, and enthusiastic about his inventions and theories – and so far has not proved any of them to be viable, so has consumed a lot of money without any success. A charitable assessment of MG would posit incompetence, but it is very easy also to shout “scam” and to be able to justify it. In my opinion, though, the people who were associated with MG at various times (recently Chava and Ken Rauen) were exploited by MG and though they might be accused of being misguided at the time they were honest in what they actually did, even though MG puffed up the claims. They didn’t deserve to be made victims twice over because they believed what MG said.

    The attacking comments thus needed to be removed, even though they were in my opinion partly right, since they didn’t differentiate between MG and the people who had been fooled by him. In fact, a whole article and the string of associated comments had to go because of the libel involved (they are however still in the database). It’s a tricky line to walk between telling the truth and getting sued for overstatements. A lot of what the attacker said was true in my opinion, though, and if he/she had not tarred everyone associated with MG over the years then the comments may have remained. If defence was needed, then demonstrating that they are true is likely sufficient.

    MG, like Rossi, has a long history of big claims with nothing succeeding. I see a lot of parallels between them. Though I wouldn’t put money into anything MG proposes, I can see that he’s good at convincing people that his projects are worth pursuing. They are plausible, and you have to dig deep to find the errors.

    If you noticed, Alan Smith knows Levi personally and is on good terms with him (no link, and on LF it may be evanescent anyway). Alan thus believes that Levi did not falsify his measurements and did not make mistakes, even though it seems fairly obvious to me at least that there are problems in what Levi claims. It isn’t right to impute calumny to the University of Bologna, and I’d agree with Alan there (though I didn’t see the offending post, so can’t tell if Ascoli65 actually did spread the blame).

    It’s a matter of record that Rossi lied, but Levi can in my opinion only be accused of being mistaken, and being mistaken isn’t a crime. Of course, it’s better if people don’t make mistakes in measurements, but replication attempts tend to show where those mistakes are and things get corrected over time. We can find a lot of examples in history of scientists who were certain that they were right but have been proved later to have been wrong. We muddle onwards to find better answers and results. Levi’s work on Rossi’s experiments was done with Rossi there and presumably it was Rossi who arranged for the mismeasurements. It seems that people working with Rossi don’t question his setups – Rossi has glamour, and people who don’t succumb to it are dismissed.

    LF seems to chew over the same problems again and again with regards to Rossi. People are generally set in their opinions and won’t budge from them whatever evidence is submitted. This seems more of a religious argument than a scientific one.

    Deleting comments is a last resort. It is better to wait until the person involved complains about a comment, since removal of such comments when notified of their offensiveness to the subject of them is sufficient. The opinions expressed in the comments are not assumed to be the opinions of the site owners or publishers, and it is possible to trace the person responsible for them if legal recourse is desired. In this case, therefore, Alan probably over-reacted to perceived calumny against a friend of his. Considering that Alan also thinks Rossi has a workable technology, I’d expect more comments to disappear – after all that happens on ECW for any comments that are perceived as anti-Rossi. Not good, but that’s what happens. In general, most anti-Rossi comments on LF seem to survive, though there are too many pro-Rossi socks that also make it through to try to achieve some appearance of neutrality. It’s not however neutral and often not scientifically correct. Too much unsupportable belief being promulgated, with maybe 10% of the comments worth the time to read.

    1. I have, so far, not seen my comments on ECW censored. I attempt to be reasonably fair and neutral, but not at the expense of concealing what I know — and ordinary and relatively obvious inferance from it. Frank has, in fact, been supportive of me and this blog, linking to it on occasion. It is my long-term observation that people of good faith can disagree, even strongly, without the extreme incivility that so often arises. Waiting for a libelled person to complain can be counterproductive: consider the back-and-forth and all the non-libelous comments that were then hidden (upon complaint by MG?). Removal is not the only opinion. It is possible to present the controversy in such a way as to allow the expression of opinion, clearly labelled as opinion. This is “attribution,” and the issue then would be whether or not the attributed content serves a public interest. If someone is soliciting investment, there is then a public interest in that being subject to review, and if that review is subject to strict standards of proof, it is chilled. I recommend reading Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox (linked in the Update.) There, the blogger was personally responsible, but claimed a private source for probably false factual claims. This case has not been ultimately resolved, as far as I know, a retrial was ordered. That blogger went far beyond reasonable discretion, but was protected as to much of her outrageous claims. She simply went a bridge too far, it appears! Out on the edge, a small mistake may take one over it. Not a good place to hang out.

      Yes, from my point of view, LF’s usability is badly damaged by the lack of a clear and coherent and enforced policy. This is very common on informal sites like LF, that start with amateurs, often with no administrative experience but naive ideas about “free speech,” and an assumption that “we can work out any problem when it arises, we don’t need no stinkin’ rules.” This is actually what afflicted Wikipedia. It worked when the “administrative cabal” was small and tight with a clear vision. Later, it fell apart, for reasons I have documented ad nauseum. It still works, but Wikipedia is a pale image of what might have been, if the community had been willing to reconsider how it worked and develop clear and efficient structure. Instead, it all became insanely conservative. Conservative of what? The power of that cabal, to the extent that if someone later mentioned the obvious (“cabal,” commonly mentioned in media sources, actually reliable source for Wikipedia purposes), that was considered proof of nefarious intent. And those with power made jokes about it, “Cabal Approved” on their user pages, etc. There is a cabal, but not necessarily a formal one, with funny hats.

      LF is only of very limited use for community decision-making, but it falsely bills itself as “The Independent Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Community.” Peter Gluck complained about my using the word “Community” here, but, in fact, my goal has been to empower the community, not to dominate it or pretend to represent it, other than in intention. I do not speak for the community unless it authorizes me, and the structures do not yet exist for it to do so. In my view, that “community” is a “community of interest,” so it is not just “believers,” it is also anyone interested in LENR, even if only to “debunk” it. However, debunking tends to not be collaborative or cooperative with those of differing opinions, so the participation of extreme skeptics might be limited. But not excluded, and even extreme skeptics may ask useful questions. The extreme position is more or less in opposition to the very idea of a community of interest, the *entire community* being considered, on the face, as a complete waste of time. A bit oxymoronic, but human beings are not necessarily consistent. Genuine skeptics are more than welcome here, they are positively invited, because the inquiry is what can create, in the long run, genuine consensus, which is powerful.

      Legally, removal on complaint will normally be adequate to protect a site from libel claims. However, that is not necessarily the only legitimate response. It’s the easy way, and I would not blame volunteers for taking the easy way out.

      The Ascoli65 case shows how, in my opinion, to overreact, and what action in conflict of interest looks like, and it also shows, from what is missing on LF in this case, how to respond more positively and in ways that would increase community confidence instead of possibly damaging it. Ascoli65 asked a question. It was not complicated, and it could have been answered, calmly and objectively. Instead Alan attacked Ascoli65 and banned him. Long term, this can do nothing but create resentment and a belief that Ascoli65 was wronged.

      Yes, Ascoli65 had committed classic libel, but most people (including him) probably would not know the difference between reasonable criticism, reasonable questions, questions and possibly libelous claims, and on-the-face libel. Claiming that a scientist, an academic, “misrepresented data” or whatever it was, is clearly libel on the face (because if true, that is a career-killer). It then would require special circumstances to be allowed. Ascoli65 probably thinks that he avoided that by asking a question. Alan Smith called that “thinly veiled.” I think a court would agree with Smith on that. But Ascoli65 could have expressed an opinion, as an opinion, and it would not have been libel. The difference could be subtle. Alan Smith hates “subtle.” He prefers to be laconic, dislikes full explanations. He represents complex situations with a few words and often no evidence. He is, I think, my age. Many of us get quite cranky and knee-jerk. Handle with care.

      To my mind, the role of a moderator is to facilitate positive communication and interactions. That would include telling a user like Ascoli65 *how* they could express themselves within the rules or policies.

      I’ve been a chair under Robert’s Rules of Order with the authority to rule someone out of order. As a flat rejection, however, it could be, or could appear to be, the chair serving his or her own opinion. A good chair will quickly and efficiently advise the user as to how to use the Rules to seek what they want. Even if the chair does not agree with that goal. “Your comment is out of order, please sit down. You may raise this matter …”” and then tell them how and when. The goal of a chair, in the understanding of the Rules, is to facilitate full and fair democratic decision-making, which must respect the rights of minority opinions to be considered in complete deliberation.

      The powers of the chair are only in service of that, not of their personal views — and a chair who finds himself or herself tempted to move outside of that service is advised to recuse, step aside temporarily, and doing so will promote and preserve community confidence. A knowledgeable assembly — it really only takes one member who knows the rules with at least one other willing to support this member — can also intervene to restrain an abusive chair, the Rules provide for very efficient process on this.

      (I find that many people don’t understand Rules of Order, deliberative process, and have negative opinions about it, mostly based on having seen the Rules abused — when they did not know how to address that, because they had never studied the Rules. Under Robert’s Rules, the rules can only be abused if the assembly tolerates it, and, yes, a simple majority of those present can do almost anything, because they can actually suspend the rules. That’s called the Nuclear Option in the U.S. Senate, and it has been creeping, over the years, closer to it. Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty. The ability of the majority to suspend the rules is essential to democratic process, but there is a basic assumption: that the majority will be wise. If one is in a place where the majority is not wise, but is nevertheless active, the ancient advice is to move. It is an extremely dangerous condition, and attempting to force a fix would be a minority dominating the majority. And what is that called?)

      1. Abd – it wasn’t MG who complained, but Hagen Ruff of Chava. Hagen was justified in the complaint, since he had removed MG and was in the process of cleaning the excessive claims from his website. Though I pointed that out to the attacker, and that Chava were in fact damaged by MG, he didn’t change his attacks or his attack website. Some people get stuck in a belief, and this person’s aim in life seemed to be to try to destroy anyone connected to MG. He was also pretty prolific. Having searched on his favourite words, it seems that every time MG put a comment up on any place that took comments, the attacker would reply and link his attack site. MG seemed to not be worried about it at all, and remained polite and attempted to convince me that his projects had merit. Like quite a few others we come across, he guarantees that if he gets enough money and time, they’ll work. I beg to differ….

        Running too late here, so I’ll address the other points you’ve raised tomorrow. One thing I’ll point out now is that people who comment on blogs (or go into politics and debates) are self-selected because they have stronger opinions than the majority. The tenor of a discussion can be shifted by one person with a lot of socks, and in discussions of LENR that certainly applies. It’s somewhat difficult to determine the majority position, given the uncertainty about how many people there are in the discussion.

        1. Abd – the Obsidian v. Cox case looks fairly similar to what MG’s attacker was doing, in that he ignored the truth in his enthusiasm to try to destroy MG’s prospects of getting any more investors, and spread that malice to anyone that had been associated with MG.

          Looking at the available evidence, we don’t know what hasn’t been made public, but we can infer from what actually did happen how reasonable it is that the claims are true. Generally I’d expect a good experimental result to have some consequences – interested people would replicate and in the case of superconductive organic fibres, magnet-only motors, devices to extract environmental heat as usable energy, and LENR, to get both replications and (if shown to actually work) then we’d see some commercial product available. Theoretical objections will be raised, but experimental evidence can be used to show that the theories are insufficient providing that evidence is of high quality. MG’s evidence wasn’t good…. The big question (that I still can’t really answer) is whether MG knew the experimental evidence wasn’t good and plugged it anyway. Much the same question as about Rossi, really. We can’t be certain that he knows his measurements are in error, since he may be under the impression that his measurements are OK and that (for example) it really doesn’t matter if you switch the direction of one of the clamps on a 3-phase measurement of power. It gave the answer he wanted to see, so it must be correct. That however falls over somewhat when we look at the arrangements Rossi made for dissipating 1MW of power at Doral, but again we could posit that he didn’t know it would be difficult (with ~1MW of sunshine on the roof at Doral, and OK inside, then another 1MW wouldn’t make a lot of difference). Still, for me that lack of prior planning (and the lack of observable heat) is a slam-dunk that Rossi didn’t expect to get 1MW out but knew he could fudge the metering in some way. Others obviously take a different view.

          Wikipedia remains useful on non-contentious science or other subjects. If you want to know the mainstream consensus, then it will tell you. Most of the time, the consensus is good to follow. Contentious stuff (like LENR) is bound to be badly-covered, but then specialist sites for such things do tend to end up as echo-chambers where the alternative (and possibly wrong) ideas get aired and we find people putting time and money into experiments that didn’t work last time they were tried and thus most likely won’t work this time either. Still, people seem prepared to spend a lot of time and money trying to re-create devices that are widely-publicised as “suppresssed technologies” in the hope that this time it will work. A lot of people haven’t yet realised that in order to get a different result, you need to do something that is different.

          It seems you read Ascoli65’s deleted post before it was deleted. Robert’s Rules of Order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order ) may not apply to a blog situation, where you don’t really know how many are members or how many have multiple socks. A moderator should moderate the comments that do come in, but this is maybe somewhat arbitrary where the rules of conduct are not specified. Generally, a blog will not have 669 pages of text explaining what commenters can and cannot write. Generally I rely on the principle that if saying it at a dinner party/barbecue would earn you a bloody nose or ejection from the party, then you shouldn’t put it into a comment. Are the majority wise? On some blogs, yes, but on others you’d need to take a 2-by-4 with you at least (baseball bat for the US readers).

          People find this blog useful because of the effort you’ve put in to getting the information organised, but I suspect that any blog cannot really form a community. People exist that are running CF experiments to varying degrees of competence, yes, but they aren’t really a community since most are competitors trying to get there before someone else does. Those glittering prizes…. The thing that will really light the fire for Cold Fusion is undeniable evidence that it works, yet Miles is sufficient evidence that it both works and is nuclear. I suspect though that the people on the ground will still not be a community but competitors keeping their details secret. Maybe a few more academics will add their theories of why it works to the pile, and maybe someone will actually get it near-enough right that the experimental results will improve when using that theory. What is needed is to sway the mainstream consensus from “pathological science” to “it works but we don’t know why”. That needs hard data, not persuasion – experimental evidence that anyone who wants to can replicate, or with a weight of reputations resting on the veracity of the experimental results.

          One other note is that though Alan Smith has based his business on Rossi being right, and I’m pretty sure that Rossi has lied a lot, the methods Alan is attempting are not illogical. There’s thus a possibility that he’ll succeed where Rossi didn’t. It’s true that the experimentation is somewhat Edisonian, but then Edison did after all have some success. One of the reasons it’s been so difficult to be certain about Rossi (until Doral, at least) was that he appeared to be using methods and procedures that had some logic to them.

          1. No, I did not read Ascoli’s deleted post, just the comment he made on it and Smith’s reaction to it. Robert’s Rules of Order do not specifically apply to on-line “meetings,” but show how genuine democracy can work efficiently. I did some experimentation with on-line democratic process years ago. My study is mostly of organizations where high consensus is sought. It can be done! Further, where the function of an organization is to advise, not to control or govern, and where the structure is designed to document trust (rather than conclusions as such), could, in theory, make it useless to sock. Wikipedia made socking such an issue by creating structure that was highly vulnerable to it, by using “rough consensus” without any sophistication. In theory, dispute resolution process there exists to deal with problems, but first of all, it is not widely understood, it is ignored by those with power (often), and, as structured routinely, it is horribly inefficient. And then some administrators ignore it, and are not sanctioned, and taking an admin to the Arbitration Committee is commonly wiki-suicide. They routinely shoot the messenger.

            I’m not arguing against NiH, other than to note that the evidence for it is weaker than for PdD. The equipment LFH makes could be very useful. best: coordinated research, with standard exploratory protocols, so that knowledge can accumulate. I argued for the reasonableness of some aspects of Rossi’s claims. Some laughed at controlling heat with heat, but it did make some sense. It also was probably not the most efficient approach, controlled cooling should allow running at higher reaction efficiency — and self-sustain.

            Rossi isn’t a scientist and doesn’t think like one. Input power that only maintains an internal temperature is not actually “input power.” It can be replaced with less heating and more insulation, and with variable cooling. Basically, it takes input power to bring a device, perhaps, to operating temperature, but it does not, in theory, take power to maintain that temperature if the internal generation exceeds the cooling rate, which could be made quite low. So for text purposes, when the goal is not to “prove” something, but to test materials and conditions, one can separate environmental heating, that maintains a reactor at a controlled constant temperature, from input power that actually stimulates the device. Storms fairly recently showed HAD in an electrolytic experiment that maintained XP, he reported, after the electrolytic current was shut down, but he maintained electrolyte temperature with a resistive heater. Obviously, this result depends on his calorimetry being sound.

            I’ve imagined an oven maintained at a constant and controlled temperature, with many devices (fuel samples, perhaps in sealed containers) on a tray, perhaps observed with a thermal camera. Some of the devices are controls, which is coded so it’s blind to the experimenter who records results. The device containers are, other than contents and coding, identical. There are dummy contents in the controls so that heat capacity is the same for all of them. If the “fuel” is Ni and Lithal, and this is properly arranged, one should be able to see the normal heat from Lithal. Some of the controls are Lithal with various forms of nickel. It’s unlikely that all will work! Work like this can be painstaking, but could actually generate clear results. Take that oven up to, say, 800 C or more. (I see a technical problem with the visibility of the samples, but that could be solved, my opinion. If not that, then it gets more expensive, with a pile of thermocouples, and scanning technology. (It is not necessary to continuously monitor all the thermicouples simultaneously.)

            1. Abd – at the moment I don’t see evidence of a community in CF. It seems to me that what we have is a set of individuals who are competing to be first to find the Holy Grail, and another set of people who don’t actually run any experiments but spend a lot of time at the keyboard talking about it. A few (like Alan) are actually working open-source and telling people exactly how to replicate what they are doing, which is why I personally would allow him more leeway as regards attitude. Getting such a disparate group to agree to discuss the situation using an agreed set of rules of order seems a little difficult to me. For a genuine democracy, in any case, you do need to know who it is you’re discussing things with.

              As such, I see two main routes to promote LENR and bring it into mainstream. The first is in persuading a reputable oragnisation to do a better replication – this is your Plan B. The other is running experiments to prove it yourself, and hopefully to get that lab-rat that everyone can replicate – Alan is one of those trying that route. At this point in time I don’t see a lot of value in analysing what Rossi did (or what RossiSays) since it’s pretty obvious that Doral was faked and, by extension, it seems overwhelmingly likely that all previous (and future) Rossi experiments and demonstrations were also faked (and will be in the future). Though I do find the court case somewhat fascinating and it exposed things we didn’t know before that, by now it’s joined the realms of crosswords and Sudoku as a way to pass time without actually producing anything useful.

              Though it’s possible to control a heat-generating (and heat-dependent) reaction using heat alone, the control-loop does need careful design and errors in the control would obviously risk meltdowns. Much the same as the traditional nuclear power station, where the control-point is just short of criticality for best output, with the attendant risk of disaster. It’s more logical to control the cooling/insulation.

              The oven idea you specify would work if the reaction only required the heat-level to control it (no other stimulation needed) and had a relatively small heat output. Given the chemical energy (also phase-change, atomic realignment energy) that may happen with the reactants, though, it seems likely to me that if there was a reaction in one of the individual containers in the collection then that one may go into runaway and melt down. After the meltdown, you haven’t really got much to analyse since like the others it would be inert. Given the odd things that can happen (see recalescence) all you’d really know is that something odd happened with one of the test reactors. At this point in time, though, I’m not at all certain that a mixture of Nickel and Lithium Aluminium Hydride actually does anything nuclear at all. Replications of Parkhomov with better calorimetry seem to have been within experimental error of the Null Hypothesis.

              Mizuno’s calorimetry looks pretty good to me, in that the control reactor is identical as regards construction and airflow, thus variations in the atmosphere in the lab should apply to both equally. As such, the difference in output air temperature seems pretty certain to be a real effect. Not quite the lab-rat yet, but it seems promising. Maybe a bit too much art needed to apply the Pd to the Ni backing for easy replication. It seems it’s a Pd reaction, though, and not the Nickel.

              For Ni/H, we have Piantelli and the Thermacore experiments. It seems likely to me that there is something there, but that it may depend on using a precise alloy (in the same way as P+F depends upon using the right alloy) and that we don’t have enough information about the precise structure of the alloys used. Jones speculated about the Nickel at https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg114525.html and https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg112784.html . Where the Nickel came from, what impurities it has and how it is refined may be critically important in achieving the same results as recorded in history. Doing a precise replication may be difficult, given that technology moves on and finds cheaper ways of producing the same product, and also as we mine ore the actual impurities will vary with time (and the mine eventually runs out of ore). Somewhat akin to never being able to cross the same river twice. We are certain this applied to P+F (people failed until “Uncle Martin” gave them a Palladium sample to use) so it seems likely it applies also to Nickel. Since we also know that on a P+F cathode the reaction level is not distributed evenly over the face but has specific points of activity, it seems to me that the reaction may depend on having a precise arrangement/density of impurities, in the same way as precise doping of semiconductors is needed to get a transistor that works reliably.

              There’s a bit of black humour here, too, in that given the lack of knowledge of the variables it seems possible that Rossi may at some point have actually had something that worked. Possible, though I think unlikely. Somewhat more likely is that he mismeasured the output and thought he had something that worked. To my mind, though, the most probable explanation is that he never had anything that actually worked, and simply claimed he had and fudged the measurements to give the impression that he had.

              1. There is a lot in what you have written, Simon. Let’s say that worrying about thermal runaway in the kind of setup I described (which would be small samples in small containers, inside an oven, with precautions taken for xplosion possibilities) is premature. We should be so lucky. No, the approach would be to study the behavior of the samples as temperature is increased. Yes, there are chemical sources of heat, and a good setup will detect and quantify them. The most difficult part of this is probably designing and fabricating the containers, to handle the pressure. That’s engineering and design. If the containers are uniform, and if the contents are designed for identical specific heat, the setup would be massively and immediately calibrated, by the controls. I’m not going to design the details or detail everything I can think of, I don’t consider it “rocket science.” Just attention to detail combined with some understanding of what can go awry.

                There is a cold fusion community, but I consider it to be mostly fast asleep or caught in some dream. There is little coordinated activity, but some, because of a few pioneers. Structures are primitive. There is little coordinated vision. I know it, and some prominent in the field know it, and I see a level of movement, and am doing what I can to stimulate it. Transformation is coming, and we will make a difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield