Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom

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

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

This idea of some person or some idea or some organization as the Savior of Humanity, when it justifies hatred of other-than-that, has become the evil it hates. I’ve been reading recent developments with Scientology. What the Church of Scientology has done — and continues to do — is justified based on the Mission being essential for the future of the universe, all time, and that’s all extensively documented. Leah Remini has been confirming what was already known, for those who look, but Scientologists are prohibited from looking at the Evil Suppressives, and the Church has an Inquisition that is more skilled and effective than any previously known to history, armed with polygraphs and skilled users. All voluntary, of course, except when it isn’t. It beggars belief.

Mats Lewan fell for this a bit.

Even if we consider the probability very low for LENR to be possible, …

Mats confuses contexts. Who is “we,” here? Who considers the “probability very low for LENR to be possible”? Those who believe such only engage in the LENR conversation as “debunkers,” pseudoskeptics, and possibility and probability are quite distinct. Nobody with a deep scientific knowledge of the field called LENR comes up with “impossible,” because LENR has an open definition, and is, at this point, an experimental field. Would someone be claiming that anomalous heat is impossible? Often we see pseudoskeptics confidently proclaim that, say, fusion at low temperatures is impossible. Point to Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and watch the fallback into irrelevant arguments that this is not MCF (and it isn’t, but MCF shows that “low-temperature-impossible” is simply not correct.)

By creating a black and white context (LENR Impossible vs. Rossi Real), Lewan excludes the middle where reality might be found. He is claiming to be seeking “truth” but makes a seriously flawed argument over where to look for truth. (I think he is sincere, but overwhelmed by evidence that he has no time to review.)

… I urge that you honestly consider two things:

In case it really works, would you like a possible transition to LENR based energy in the world to be governed mostly by the work and actions of lawyers and lobbyists at APCO Worldwide and Jones Day?

APCO and the lawyers advise Industrial Heat, which pays them (though we don’t actually know that APCO was retained, all we know is that a person who used to work for APCO and who had an email address there also visited the Doral power sale and was on cc to a mail to Lewan.) “Governance” here is control of funding by those responsible for it. This does not control the “possible transition,” and the prejudice against publicists and lawyers is obvious. Evil. Lewan has already accepted the Sifferkollian concept that Darden and Vaughn are experts at “making money disappear,” based on nothing but accusations and innuendo. Not so great for a journalist seeking truth.

Admitting that there might be at least a minor possibility that the E-Cat and LENR is valid, on which side would you prefer to be—those who fight for it to be used to get away from fossil fuels and provide cheap and clean energy to everyone on Earth as soon as possible, or those who are trying to stop it, referring to the possibility that Rossi is a fraudster, or at least slow down the transition in order to protect some powerful people’s interests?

So we see this idea that there are two sides. One is obviously Evil, and the other is presented as Good. What does it mean to “fight for” LENR? Who has been doing this? In my book, the person whom Lewan deprecates as being obsessed because of all the posts he wrote, Thomas Clarke, is “obsessed” by what he found when he studied the Lugano report, which he reported. Truth (or at least neutral analysis). But Clarke isn’t attacking “evil.” He is not a crusader against “the evil Rossi.” He is a normal, rational Truzzi-style skeptic who investigated, and he is not “against” LENR. He may not be convinced yet, and there are many like this; for example, I think Dieter Britz still claims to be unconvinced. My goal has been to facilitate the research that will conclusively address the issue of reality, so that research can move on to How and Where and even commercial possibilities. Those in the field generally consider that enough has already been done, so this effort has remaining two purposes: to establish the reality of LENR through confirmed research, independently verifiable (and “news,” so publishable), and to measure the heat/helium ratio, which is apparently consistent, and which, then has theoretical implications for PdD LENR.

Lewan confuses exploration of the possibility of fraud with belief in impossibility. Yes, if one believes that LENR is impossible, one will then fall quickly into the probability of fraud or major error. However, fraud is possible with claims of something that might be real. Even very possible, a fraudster would want to make what is claimed look plausible to a target audience. Very much, if there is a target audience believing that it was unfairly rejected and consigned to the Outer Darkness of Pseudoscience, a fraudster might appear to this, and LENR scientists did become reluctant to critique any claims within the field, because of the history.

Now, the occasion for my post today was continued discussion on LENR Forum. Peter had been demanding that Jed Rothwell supply a “system diagram.” Jed picked up on my noticing the Penon description of the system, which supplies the necessary information, information that Jed had already provided from a private diagram he claims to have gotten from Rossi (though probably indirectly, and where he cannot reveal his source for obvious reasons, and, no they are not that he is being Paid by Black Hats, it is that if he reveals a source, this, besides violating a promise, can shut it off. In particular, if Rossi provided information to someone who then gave it to Jed, that channel likely gets plugged.

So Jed started a thread on LF:

Penon described the position of flow meter

There has been some discussion here about the position of the flow meter in Rossi’s configuration. I have information from Rossi showing it was located in the gravity return between the customer site and the reservoir. I do not think there was a U pipe but I cannot rule that out 100%. Nothing like that is shown and no one who was there told me there is one — and I did ask. Anyway, Abd pointed out that Penon described the configuration in one of the lawsuit documents. It is a little hard to understand Penon’s English, so Abd added the comments in square brackets:

The cooling water is contained in a tank, placed inside the Plant, that receives the water from an external plant [sic, “tank”].

It is conveyed by pumps in [sic, “into”] the unit’s E-cat[s], where it is heated to vaporize. The steam is collected in one tube of the steam line, which conveys it to the outside of the shelter.

The steam is then passed through the customer’s facility, where it cools up to its condensation.*

The water is so recycled to the internal [sic, external] tank in a closed loop. The water is distilled water.

The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank to the internal tank by gravity. […]

– flowmeter for measuring the flow rate of cooling water inlet into the shelter. It is located along the line of return of the water. between the Plant of the Customer and the 1 MW E-Cat.

* Note from Jed: “Cools up to its condensation” means it cools down until it condenses.

This contradicts assertions by Peter Gluck.

As will be noted by another, one of my corrections was probably incorrect. I was thinking of a single loop, with the two tanks in series, but it is more likely that the external tank only adds water to the internal tank as needed. It is not part of the coolant loop. However, that it is gravity feed with a float valve (and no pump) indicates much about pressure in the system.

Peter wants a drawn diagram, but the plant layout for coolant flow is clear as described:

internal tank (<- external tank to maintain level)
-> master pump (?) -> reactor pumps
-> reactors (boilers)
-> steam lines -> combined steam line
-> customer area condenser (radiator?)
-> return coolant line
-> flow meter
-> (remainder of return coolant line to internal tank).

Peter Gluck wrote:

JedRothwell wrote: [quoted above]

This was [discussed] already twice but DeJavu is a reality (see my blog today about the neurological phenomenon).

Every discussion ended with Peter demanding “System Diagram or Shut Up!” and making definitive statements about flow meter placement based on What It Must Be, which Peter does not distinguish from What It Actually Was. Do we know what it actually was? We have only the proposed protocol description, the Murray description of some of it, what Jed claims to have seen. The actual position might not be discernable with direct evidence, because we think the flow meter was removed by Penon (to be sent to the manufacturer for recalibration). However, the inside of the E-Cat, presumably, has not been touched since then, so the absence of a flow meter there could be confirmed. Peter’s claims require that the flow meter be between the internal tank and the E-Cats, after the main pump. Is there a main pump? I think the system requires it, the reactor pumps are elevated, the system pump must be at the lowest point in the system, as I interpret the conditions.

As well, every discussion avoided Peter creating clear factual conclusions, from communicated evidence, with Peter making ad hominem arguments and then complaining that others point out how dumb they are. In his blog post, he complains, as he has been complaining in many places, about being deeply insulted, reporting something that did not happen in the way he tells it. As is all too usual, he provides no link, just an unsupported claim, oft-repeated. Peter is not grounded, able to distinguish between reality and what he imagines are motivations and intentions, and his story is heavily mixed with a belief in evil. (And that, then, is what he projects onto others.)

Above, I have summarized some discussions. That’s not “fact,” it’s my impression from reading and memory. If anyone questions that interpretation, I would commonly go back and link to evidence. Or anyone can do that. However, this is all-too-common on Planet Rossi: no links, no evidence, or what is linked and claimed as evidence does not support the claims. (This is not unique to Planet Rossi, it is common with fanatics everywhere, of all kinds.)

Question: do you have information from Rossi or you have the piping diagram of the plant showing clearly and exactly (as position) where
in the gravity return pipe was placed the flowmeter?

Jed had told us already, many times, that he has a system diagram from Rossi (though an intermediary). Such a diagram would not show “exact location” more than we have from Penon. The flowmeter would be in the gravity return pipe, “It is located along the line of return of the water, between the Plant of the Customer and the 1 MW E-Cat.”

“Return” refers to return to the internal reservoir. The apparent indication there is that the flow meter is outside the “E-Cat,” i.e, the reactor shelter.

Can you ta ke a look and tell where was placed the main pump (for 1500 kg/hour- floating in the air or firmly placed on the ground?

An obvious place would be “on the ground,” but what ground? The Shelter floor? This would not be shown on a system diagram. I would expect that the pump would be at the lowest point in the system, so that water can enter the pump by gravity. The job of the main pump is to keep the individual reactor pumps, which are “floating in air,” supplied with water. There are discussions of pump capacities. The reactor pumps are apparently metering pumps (someone can verify that, please). So the maximum full flow should be the sum of the individual reactor pumps, it would not be set by the main pump (that would be an impossible design).

In any case NOT measuring the flow of water which enters directly to the generators and using a 25 times undersized pipe for steam are fatal flaws and if your favorite author Murray got it right than he is the diamond witness for IH. On the contrary if he errs than he is just a plant illiterate
trying to find imaginary things- doing harm fo those who have paid him.

Again, Peter diverts from the factual discussion by introducing elements from many other discussions, issues, and accusations.

Yes. The flow meter does not measure the flow of water which directly enters the generators; that is controlled by the metering pumps, by computer, I think. A feedback system would be required for this to work, because we would expect boiling rate to vary. (There might be float switches in a reactor internal reservoir?) Thus maintaining a constant overall rate of 32,000 kg per day would be very difficult, and not even desirable. Hence the strong suspicion of Jed and others that something is wrong with this reported number.

The system, as described by Penon, appears intended to measure the flow of coolant by measuring the condensed flow. In a proper test, this would be cross-confirmed with the metering pumps, as well as taking measures to insure the flow meter is entirely submerged, no air, and, in fact, the entire system would be visible, and it should be possible to independently estimate reactor output by overall heating effect in a monitored system. In the Term Sheet design, this would have been JMP reporting on delivered power. Instead, we got what we got, and Peter systematically ignores all that evidence.

The pipe dimension is not relevant to the basic system diagram here, but will come into further analysis. However, Peter refuses to accept the most basic and clearly-established facts. “Favorite author” is all Peter Gluck bloviation, having no factual basis at all. Murray is a witness, who may have gotten the pipe size correctly or not. Murray is also a witness for IH, but not necessarily “diamond,” since he would have an obvious bias. It will be up to a jury, if the case goes to trial, to assess probity.

According to you scenario: 4X flow, just water there was no steam in the plant. If it not there and it does not condense.

Again, Jed at one point speculated on the level of flow meter error. He did not claim any level, and at this point what is being discussed is only where the flow meter is placed. Peter wants to jump ahead to consequences, before accepting present evidence. This, again, is characteristic of fanatics, desperately arguing for a fixed position.

Peter has asked for a point-by-point consideration, but this has been supplied to him many times by many writers, and he does not handle it as point-by-point, he handles it with ad-hominem arguments. “Planet Rossi,” which he often objects to, is not an “ad-hominem argument,” properly used. It simply refers to memes common among Rossi supporters; these are generally the product of believing Rossi Says, that is the common defining source. As someone wrote, if Rossi is a great inventor, Be Proud! (But be clear about where facts come from!)

If you have such a ardent desire to contradict my assertions, show the diagram and… the story was ended.!

So, here, presented with what is effectively a system diagram, he still demands a system diagram, and he refers to “ardent desire to contradict.” That is a conversation-stopper. Most people, at this point, will throw up their hands and walk away.

It happens I know steam is able to condense from practice and books. One of my first research projects was optimization of steam distillation, for the start I used Perry’s Handbook of Chemical Engineering.

Great. Everyone involved knows that “steam is able to condense.”

A matter of high importance is pressure in the system, which will vary with location. The highest pressure would be in the steam lines (unless it is higher after the pumps, due to flow restrictions after them). That pressure determines the boiling point of water. The Penon report (is Penon “Peter’s favorite author”?) shows a constant steam pressure of 0.0 barG. If the pressure there is as stated, then for there to be high flow, there must be a lower pressure further along in the loop. Steam condensation can create low pressure, but if there is low pressure at the end of the return line, it will create other problems. The most likely explanation at this point is that the pressure gauge was broken or disconnected. Even water flow would create some pressure.

ps Do you have amnesia regarding the persons who all stated the flowmeter was used to quadruple the flow? You tell sensational things and we have to believe you

Well, if I ever read Jed state what Peter claims here, I don’t remember it. Is that “amnesia,” or is it normal forgetfulness, or did it simply never happen? — but it seems to me that I remember Jed writing something like that, but different, in a crucial way. Peter repeats what he has imagined, over and over, probably increasing his own certainty that it actually happened. He does not link to back up his claims; when I’ve been able to find the original references, his errors were obvious.

Here was an immediate discussion with immediate evidence, and Peter avoids it and demands unobtainium.

Also you say impossible and technically irrational things

to a confused mind.

and you want to believed.

That is totally irrelevant, if true. Here, again, we have a detailed discussion of simple fact, based on evidence, and Peter is unable to handle it. What then about much more complicated issues?

Difficult communication.

Indeed. In my training, if communication is difficult, responsibility is to be taken by the one who seeks communication. Who is seeking communication here? — and there is a lost performative: communication with whom? One of my goals is to present a continued opportunity to Peter to recognize what he’s been doing, but that is not my only goal. By discussing the involved issues, I become familiar with the situation and become empowered to explain it to others.

Is Peter having difficulty communicating? How? What’s missing?

THHuxleynew wrote:

Peter:

Is your view that Penon’s statements in the disclosed documents do not constitute good evidence? You are saying that Penon’s description of the setup is fatally flawed. Perhaps you should be a witness for IH:

  • Either Penon is wrong about the setup in these legal documents, in which case as ERV he cannot say anything meaningful about the test
  • Or Penon is right about the setup, which is therefore fatally flawed.

Perhaps we are all getting closer to agreement?

Peter is fighting for his life. I’m reminded of a time when a friend trapped a raccoon with a large metal trash can, against a mesh screen. The raccoon went through the screen like it was butter. One fighting for his survival is not going to be stopped by mere logical consistency. Rather, he will make you wrong in some way. (Never corner a raccoon! They will go through you like that screen. They are not vicious creatures, but never come between them and survival and normal fear. Unless you don’t mind being torn up.)

Peter Gluck wrote:

Answer to Jed and THH, something does not go with QUOTE:

Peter doesn’t know how to use the quote facility on LENR Forum. There, I might explain it. Not here.

Penon simply says flowmeter between JMP plant and E-Cats and anybody who has seen a plant knows ab ovo it MUST be immediately after the pump water flow measured, injected in the E-Cats

Depends on what water one wants to measure: injected water or returned water. Peter relies on what “anybody who has seen” would know, but then ignores comments by people who have worked with steam. The water injected into each E-cat is apparently controlled by metering pumps. That data is probably computer-recorded and might be recoverable. Yes, there could have been a flow meter inside the Shelter, after the main pump. However, it would have been redundant to the metering pumps. In theory, then, the external return flow meter, if properly installed, would have been a confirmation of flow at the other end of the loop. I would not have objected to that Penon plan (but might not have realized the possible issue.)

We do not know if there was flow error or, if there was, how much it was; we only have surmise from conditions. If there was not a megawatt, which seems clear from independent evidence, then there must have been either made-up data or some error source. Either is theoretically possible. Because visitors were expected, some of whom might have engineering expertise, it would not be surprising to find a relatively sophisticated fraud, such as air injection in the customer area. However, was there a U-joint? If not, then a possible error source becomes relatively obvious.

on JONP Rossi said more times: piping forms U flowmeter down- standard engineering

Peter doesn’t cite JONP. When I’m writing, and I want to say something like this, I will find it. Peter does not do that, but complains about long posts (which become long because explanations and implications and evidence are detailed.) I have never seen Rossi address this issue, but I certainly have not seen everything. Jed claims he asked. It is not impossible that the observers simply didn’t notice something, but this is a common Planet Rossi meme: if there is no evidence or if there could be some error in evidence, Rossi must be right. That is, in fact, a normal assumption dealing with normal people under normal circumstances. Not when there is $89 million hanging on it and a great deal of circumstantial evidence of fraud.

you (Jed) say- “many pumps, but they could not produce this much flow.”
Much flow, 6.6 gallons per minute, 25kg/minute too much…were you awake when you wrote this? (I know you are not drinking too much alcohol so the explanation must be something bad)

Peter does not do the actual calculation. How many pumps, how much flow each? Instead of actually providing evidence in response, Peter refers to “something bad.” It’s obvious: he believes Jed is lying or being deliberately misleading, which amounts to the same thing. I think there is data on the pumps and don’t know what it shows. The master pump is not actually relevant, since actual flow will be limited by the individual reactor pumps.

Next discussion with you when you have the diagram. Waeted time is not recoverable..

We know where the flow meter is located. Penon was quite explicit.”It is located along the line of return of the water, between the Plant of the Customer and the 1 MW E-Cat. Where is the pump? Not there. It is between the internal tank and the E-Cats. If the flow meter is in that line (after the pump as Peter has insisted), Penon’s description is misleading. The understanding Peter is insisting on would be tortured, creating multiple inconsistencies. What has been presented by Jed and I, based on Penon’s description, is internally consistent. It only conflicts with Peter’s fixed idea about where the flow meter *must* be located. Rossi’s comment, if he made one, about a U-shaped trap, makes sense for the flow meter being in the return line, not in the plant pump line. It would not be necessary in the plant pump line, with the main pump being the lowest point in the system, gravity fed from the internal tank, and the metering pumps being “in the air.”

THH- please think over- use imagination, put the flowmeter in that return pipe and … does it work?

Or buy borrow n apo=debit- flow-meter and install it in high- 3-4 meter pipe- pressure 0.3-0.4 barr with losses- will the meter show something?

What is this “high” idea? Peter seems to have had, at some point, the idea that the return line is high off the ground, and he has never acknowledged abandoning that idea. The high pipe is the steam line, not the return line. Peter has never examined, apparently, his various gaffes. He doesn’t clean up the messes he creates, he just sails on, creating more of them.

Ineptness has limits, I am not ngry with you guys your re defending an ideal but please be rational. Jed you was so normal and a great LENR-ist before this unhappy story;

What ideal is being defended by “you guys”? I’ve known Jed from personal correspondence since 2009. He’s the same guy. I don’t know if I’d call him “normal.” (“Normal,” to me, is not necessarily a complement.) He has always been highly opinionated and sometimes blunt. He also has always been highly informed. Even where I think he is wrong about something, his position isn’t totally stupid, “irrational.” Peter is not realizing that what has shifted is him and how he is thinking. He became attached to certain ideas and unable to understand others as a result.

This is remarkable about Planet Rossi, as it is remarkable about Rossi himself. He doesn’t seem to understand skeptical positions. He doesn’t seem to understand allowing people to be skeptical, and especially investors. As soon as they showed any sign of wanting to verify, he’d bail, walk away. It is as if his basic test of people is “do they trust me,” with mistrust being a total disqualification of value. As I understand trust, it must be earned. There is a basic trust that is normal, a running “assumption of good faith,” it’s called on Wikipedia. However, it’s rebuttable.

forget the half full pipes…My old heart is singing Germont’s aria from Traviata to you Come back to reason

If Peter wants others to “come back to reason,” he will need to learn to listen much more deeply. I told him a simple truth, the truth of an emotional reaction — which was about me, even if the reaction was to something he wrote — and he has translated this into a wish for his death. He doesn’t know how to listen, he is psychologically naive and untrained, obviously. If my child tells me how horrible I am (has this ever happened to you? If not, my condolences, it probably means that your kids never developed freedom of expression, and/or it was never tolerated, Open expression, freedom, can be messy at first!), do I pull the plug and disown them?

THHuxleynew wrote:

THH- please think over- use imagination, put the flowmeter in that return pipe and … does it work?
Or buy borrow n apo=debit- flow-meter and install it in high- 3-4 meter pipe- pressure 0.3-0.4 barr with losses- will the meter show something?
Ineptness has limits

No, it does not work, although from Rossi’s POV maybe it does. Rossi thinks control experiments are a waste of time. And such or worse ineptness is typical of almost all Rossi demos. So for this to continue is not just plausible, it is expected.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Be realist (I know it is not easy) it was a plant working for a lot of time, it was fisrt a design supervised by engineers, Rossi was not alone in that plant, not there all time., IH people also there, visitors not all ignorants in plants – the professional rules had to be respected, safety rules also, Rosssi was not ubiquituous and omnipotent there.

Rossi was plant manager. He was alone there commonly. Yes, he was not there all the time. Peter seems to think that what he is saying has a bearing on the issue being discussed here.

And the plant as normsl hsd problems, as all plants have I remeber a few in which I have worked in 3 shifts, surprises come all the time according to the rule of Pareto – 80% bad.

I do not ask you for empathy just for realism.

About what? No “problems” were mentioned. One factor stands out. The Plant was not commercial-ready, it required far too much attention. The whole concept of a one year 1 MW test was crazy, when individual reactors didn’t have thorough reliability and MTBF testing. This was pure showmanship, this comes out in the Marianne Macy article, how Rossi had a keen sense of publicity and creating public image.

THHuxley wrote:

Peter,
I’ll deconstruct your various points, indicating why I evaluate it differently from you.

Peter did not understand “deconstruct.” It’s an academic style, taking something apart, and looking at it piece by piece. It would be an element in consensus process, but that probably requires a facilitator trusted by the parties. That’s missing here. (Though there are many I trust, the problem would be finding a common one. Is there anyone Peter still trusts? That is a question, not an accusation.)

I would not necessarily write in the same way as THH writes here. I don’t necessarily start with the “differently,” I just look at each piece and respond to it.

Be realist (I know it is not easy) it was a plant working for a lot of time,

How can we know that? I’d expect that it was working only in the sense Rossi uses the word. His measurements, or those approved by him, of his setup show it working. That is putting the cart before the horse. If you think these measurements adequately tell whether the plant is working then you know this anyway.

Again, this is the question I am always asking (of myself as well as of others), “How can we know that?” Here, THH is pointing to the incorporated assumption in what Peter wrote. Peter assumes what he is attempting to show. With some definitions of “working,” it might be true or arguable. The plant was ostensibly in operation for more than a year. What does that mean?

it was fisrt a design supervised by engineers,

The question is how competent were these engineers, and did they have the power to demand that a better setup be used. For your point to be valid you’d need both that they were competent steam plant engineers and that it was their remit and power to correct a bad setup. I can see neither at the moment.

Peter is fuzzy as hell. What engineers? Before that, what design? There are a series of designs involved. There is the E-Cat design, and there are a series of those. There is the “Plant” design, how multiple E-Cats are arranged and operated to function together. There is the “Customer” design, whatever was behind that wall. And there is the “test” design, the method set up for measuring energy release.

Who designed these? Who was the responsible engineer for each, the one to sue if it blows up?

Remarkably, the E-Cats used for the “test,” were apparently built by Industrial Heat. The IH engineer at that point was T. Barker Dameron. When, apparently, some design element used in the Lugano test had been contributed by Dameron, Rossi exploded. It was his design, nobody else’s! The point here is that Rossi was apparently in charge, of all of this, except for one piece, perhaps. The test protocol. However, for years, test protocols had been what Rossi set up and were accepted by others.

In this case, Penon stated a protocol that matched exactly what Rossi might have done. What was missing from it was what was missing from all Rossi-related protocols: independent verification. Instead, single measures were used. From Mats’ blog: [according to Rossi]

IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.

It had no importance because the “ERV” was not interested in independent measures confirming the single-measure set-up. That was clearly incompetent, as to understanding the role of an engineer in that context. Back to THH and Gluck:

Rossi was not alone in that plant, not there all time., IH people also there, visitors not all ignorants in plants
– the professional rules had to be respected, safety rules also, Rosssi was not ubiquituous and omnipotent there.

I have no information about whether professional and safety rules were respected. Rossi is not renowned for either nor does his history of demos make that seem very plausible. But, if they were, nothing yet noted by you rules out a bad test setup. And we know Rossi tends to have these. I’d expect no-one else in that setup to be willing (or, I’d guess, able) to go against Rossi’s wishes: so that is a type of relative omnipotence.

As to safety rules, a megawatt of steam is incredibly dangerous. I’ve studied the Florida regulations. The Plant almost certainly did not follow them. It is possible that an approval could have been obtained by pretending that only the electrical input was the power input; I doubt that the Fire Marshal would have allowed this unless deceived as to intention. As to going against Rossi, everyone involved knew that challenging Rossi on anything was to be shown the door (or Rossi would walk). Lewan pushed it by attempting to explain to Rossi how his power input measurements for the Hydro Fusion test were incorrect. There were visits, but tightly controlled by Rossi, apparently. The IH engineer who objected, mentioned above, at the end of the test, was Murray, denied entry by Rossi, which Rossi has explained was because he believed Murray to be a spy. Damn straight! Someone looking to collect real information for Industrial Heat, not filtered through Fabiani and West. (West was almost certainly instructed to not rock the boat in any way.)

The chemical plant engineer was apparently also Rossi, I think he wrote about that. Bass was fake (i.e., not the actual designer) and that’s obvious from the Rossi emails.

And the plant as normsl hsd problems, as all plants have I remeber a few in which I have worked in 3 shifts, surprises come all the time according to the rule of Pareto – 80% bad.

I accept that. I don’t see it is relevant to the matter at hand.

I.e., THH saw what I later saw in review.

I do not ask you for empathy just for realism.

Well I have a deal of empathy, no doubt not as much as some, but I don’t see that as relevant to this matter. However I feel about Rossi, or you, or IH, I try to make my search for what is the likely truth here the same. Maybe if I did not feel some empathy for IH and a sense of the injustice done to them and others by you and others, I would be less motivated to set the record, as I see it, straight. But you may be sure that when I’m commenting on your arguments I’m not thinking about that, purely about the arguments.

That was straight-on.

What actually happened in some situation does not depend on how I feel about the consequences and implications. I trust reality, I do not trust my own reactions, necessarily. I need to notice them, so I can watch out for reactive bias infecting my assessments. It will happen, to some degree, it is unavoidable, though people can become quick at self-recognition.

Peter Gluck wrote:

I can follow your modus cogitandi.

I don’t think he does. If he did, he would acknowledge some level of agreement (at least on the level of “I can see how you can think that,” with details being given showing that he actually can see it.)

Would you please offer your variant- an equivalent of Jed’s [quadrupling flowmeter + only water COP=1) technically speaking?

So, once again Peter repeats Jed’s expression of a possibility as if it were a claimed fact. The possibility is actually obvious, it is the fact that could be elusive. Without having established and acknowledged communication, agreeing where possible, and delineating remaining disagreements, he wants to address what cannot actually be resolved, except through speculation and inference, with the assumptions on which inference might be based not being mutually accepted. In other words, he prefers to fight.

Have no idea what is your profession, I am engineer and we engineers do not need to be overly smart to see something is rotten in a plant, we are no more corruptible than other people. But working for one year in [a fake] plant as you suggest is too much. Penon plus X made the deign was it a design for a perpetuum stabile? (You know the opposite of the perpetuum mobile)

THH’s profession is known. I have no idea why he wants to conceal his identity, but it seems he does, and I’ll respect that unless a necessity shows (which is unlikely). He has a PhD, and his specialty is electronic engineering, I hope he doesn’t mind that being said.

Penon did not design the plant. Everyone was paid to be there except Rossi, who used the time as he chose. Peter likes to convert everything to black and white, perpetuum mobile or stabile. I.e, perpetual motion or perpetual immobility, as if that had something to do with the matter. Perhaps Rossi occupied his time with fantasies of what he’d do with the $89 million. Or, what could be the same, how he would help children with cancer.

Anyone who paid attention and realized the implications of a “1 MW Plant” knew, visiting it in operation, that something was off. Rossi is quoted by Lewan:

The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.

Heat is “consumed”? Not in most chemical process, not most of the heat. They could be melting ice, that would do it, but, then, one would need to move a lot of ice. This is pretty simple. If I wanted to repeat a question to Gluck, as he has done with the “system diagram,” it would be “How did Rossi manage to move all that heat out of the warehouse, so that it was comfortable inside?” This is math, actually. Estimate the size of vent, consider internal and external temperature, and look at how much air must move to move a megawatt. People have done this, I have not reviewed the math, but I have seen nobody go through the calculation and come up with “yeah, makes sense!” If I’m wrong, someone point it out, please, I’ll look at it. Back to Peter:

Just a question- WTF do you want to DECONSTRUCT what I said (pleasure, duty?) , better accept it and then evaluate it objectively. And imagine you are part of the plant, one of the negineers operators.

Basically, Peter doesn’t understand what he said he could follow. Deconstruction requires accepting the material as-it-is. Then one looks at each point. Who was in the position Peter is imagining? Rossi and Fabiani, apparently. Fabiani was paid over $10,000 per month plus an apartment, as I recall, to be there. Rossi may have imagined he’d be paid about $250,000 per day. Enough?

A constructive appraoch is better for you, I do not want to convince you.

Up the creek without a paddle, Peter.

Forty-Two wrote:

I think Abd misunderstood the purpose of the “internal” and “external” tank

Forty-Two’s idea is plausible. If this is correct, the condensate return is to the internal tank. The external tank is simply a device for maintaining level if it falls due to any leaks or vented evaporation. In this scenario, the lowest point in the system would be the main pump. There is no room in the Penon description for the flow meter being after the main pump, in the distribution line that then splits up to all the individual metering pumps. The flow meter, according to Penon, is in the return line, between the customer’s heat exchanger(s) and the internal tank. The pump does not need to be lower than the internal tank as long as the water level in that tank is above the pump, but it would be easiest, dealing with startup conditions, if the pump is, in fact, lower than the bottom of the internal tank.

THHuxleynew wrote:

Peter […]

Have no idea what is your profession, I am engineer and we engineers do not need to be overly smart to see something is rotten in a plant, we are no more corruptible than other people. But working for one year in [a fake] plant as you suggest is too much.

Only a steam engineer would worry about FM position. If only everyone were as independent-minded as I’m sure you are. A lot of people do what they are told even if this is clearly immoral (you remember the Milgram Experiment?). It is clear that Rossi will select such. Ignoring a dubiously placed FM is much easier! I find your certainty here very unrealistic.

As we will see, Peter did not understand the reference.

Forty-Two did:

Very true, in particular when the job is well paid and easy going

The discussion diverged some, following the Milgram experiment red herring, which was intended simply to point out that many people will do what they are told “even if this is clearly immoral.” It was not a claim that anyone did anything immoral! Rather, it is about “going along,” something that, as an example, obviously happened in Lugano.

Peter Gluck wrote: [to THH]

I am asking for your permission to add you to the list of Economic friends of Industrial Heat.

Ecionomic Friend is defined as “With such friends you do not need enemies” The DeJAvu Enclave leaders are already there doing real harm to IH. As Dewey stating his aim is to blackpaint Rossi to the Court in perpetuity.

Dewey has not stated that. Dewey has been, as well, writing mostly in public fora like LENR-Forum, not “to the Court.” Peter has never gotten this straight, apparently having  read too much Sifferkoll mind-rot. There is no “DeJAvu Enclave.” There are a number of writers following a general scientific approach, or simply being honest (which is the better half of the scientific method). Rossi actually pointed out that a coincidence of results did not imply copying. In fact, in the context where he was pointing it out, his claim was highly misleading, missing the point, because he was using a plausible argument (coincidence of results could follow from documenting the same phenomenon) to make a deceptive point (covering up that normal variation was missing, the kind of variation that would occur with independent recording of results).

Some people have established influence and can be called “leaders” as a result. But there is no organizational structure, no chain of command, and no central authority. Speaking for myself, I accept nothing merely because, say, Dewey Weaver says it. I check his claims against evidence. When I report from it, I state “according to Dewey Weaver.” Only if I can independently verify his claims, which is occasionally possible, do I then state them as fact. But someone who hasn’t looked at the evidence — Peter, apparently — can claim that one is following another. Peter continued:

You seems to be more inofenssive. BTW have yu ld me about your basic profession?

Friendly – but not economical, greetings,

THH seems relatively inoffensive because it’s his style to be non-reactive. There are others who, because of what they know, have seen, or believe, who are outraged by what they read. Dewey Weaver has personal knowledge, often, of the matters on which Peter and others have only belief, and he’s being called, routinely, a liar. Ya think he might sometimes not take that in a friendly manner? Peter has been calling people liars who, as far as I can see, have devoted time and risked their reputation and financial well-being in order to learn tell the truth on LENR. And then if someone tells him how they feel about this, he is horrified that anyone could be so rude. As to tell him the truth of how they feel. Peter spent way too much time under a brutal dictatorship.

That’s not his fault, but he is responsible for how he now conducts himself.

ps Milgram Experment not relevant- we are not doing [sadistic] bad things you can easily find a site with the 10 most famous such experiments and choose a better one

I recognized it immediately, so it worked for me. That’s the purpose of language. He made his point with it, which was not about “sadistic.”

Bottom line, Peter avoided the substance and turned the conversation into “DeJAvu” and irrelevancies. Where is the flow meter located? That was the only topic Jed brought up, that the location is specified in the Penon protocol.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

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

9 thoughts on “Peter Gluck and the Temple of Doom”

  1. Abd,
    Again you are on fire. You write faster than I can read. You have an amazing gift.
    There wasn’t a place (that I saw) on the Quack Rentals for a reply.
    I am sure you knew or know by now he was saying summa cum laude.
    This fellow (Penron sp?)is not the fool that TTH made him out to be. Alan has a hard job to do whether you agree or not. Would you do it differently with a different approach. Sure!

  2. Abd – it’s been obvious for a long time that Peter ignores evidence he doesn’t like. I’ve tried to show him that the evidence for 1MW doesn’t exist except for what Rossi’s metering shows, and I’ve given him calculations of how much water would be required to put that much energy down the drains (to both keep the locked room suitable for life and to avoid a heat-plume being visible and measurable by an IR survey), yet he still thinks that Rossi will provide an explanation that will be physically possible. As an experienced industrial engineer, he should be able to do the calculations himself and recognise that the claims are absurd as they stand. There comes a time when it’s not worth the time spent analysing the claims since Peter will not accept the results if they show that Rossi does not have LENR+. Of course, that’s what any sober analysis will show.

    I’ll take Jed’s word that he’s acquired a diagram, but though it agrees with the Penon description there’s no guarantee that it is correct. Though Jed’s story fits the evidence, we really don’t know for sure how everything was connected and the only thing we can say for sure is that the stated measurements were wrong. Arguing about the pipe layout is not useful, since unimpeachable evidence isn’t available.

    The interesting point for me is that Rossi obviously made no provisions to be able to remove 1MW of heat (at around 100°C) from the locked room. Such cooling would be visible, audible and very obvious (and also would have shown on an IR survey). The “industrial process” that went on in there also seems to not have needed any deliveries of raw materials or the export of finished product since again that ought to have been visible and noticed, and also JMP would have had invoices and bills for the materials sold and bought. It also did not need human supervision, since no employees of JMP turned up to work each day and JMP did not employ any such staff. The inescapable conclusion from these observations is that Rossi didn’t expect to need to remove 1MW of heat at the time he designed the test, and that the metering was designed to produce inflated figures when it was set up. This is not a simple error in measurements, but was designed that way. JMP was simply a shell company that didn’t have a secret process or a product, and did not sell anything that was worth the power bill. With all that evidence of fraud, it’s very hard to keep believing that Rossi has LENR+ and will Save The World, but somehow Peter keeps his faith.

    Bob – discussions here are much more civilised. It’s true that you may get your response dissected but that does help you in considering the basis of your opinions and thus change them if needed. In the end what matters is the truth, and whether the truth agrees with what RossiSays or not is another matter. If ECW wants to be an echo-chamber that insists that Rossi Is Right no matter what the evidence says, that is their right, but it is a good reason not to spend much time there.

  3. It is amazing! It has become a religion to some and “the message” or “idea” is more important than the truth!

    5 year ago, I posted occasionally on Ecat World and was a “supporter” of Rossi. Not having as much information as I do now and excited about the wonderful possibilities the Ecat could bring, I was willing to give a fair amount of leeway to Rossi.

    That has changed and thus my posts on ECW changed as well. They also changed to were I seldom posted anything. Probably not more than 1 per month. When I did post, I can honestly say I never was derogatory to anyone, not mean spirited nor did I “make up facts”. As a matter of fact, I almost exclusively used only Rossi’s statements as the foundation of the comment. Such as “Rossi stated multiple times that the satisfied customer purchased 3 plants. What is the status of these?” etc.

    Anyway, today, I was going to make a post about the latest court documents and received a message stating I had been banned from ECW when attempting to save the post. I did not receive any notification from Mr. Ackland nor did I receive any warning about any transgressions I might have committed.

    I sent him a private email asking if there had been some issue and he responded later in the day stating “Yes, I took that action based on your posting history on E-Cat World. ” It continued stating that E-Cat World was not a place for skeptics and that “it seems you are firmly convinced that the E-Cat is simply fake”.

    I was quite shocked since I really do not post much and when I do, the language is mild compared to many. However, I do almost always quote Rossi’s own words and I think this was too much of a threat to Frank. So I am banned at E-Cat World per Frank himself! If any one questions my posts, I encourage them to search ECW and read for themselves to judge if they were unreasonable.

    However, as apparently with Mr. Gluck as well, reason is not a qualification to post at ECW. The only qualification is do not question the master!

    Anyway, your article about Mr. Gluck and my experience with Mr. Ackland have a common thread. It seems they both refuse to even consider that Rossi is fraudulent. A saying comes to mind as to their reactions to those that pose hard questions…..”you MUST be wrong because the alternative is unthinkable!”

    It is sad.

    1. Welcome to the club of the banned Bob.
      In honor of that momentous occasion, I ordered two E-Cat teeshirts and two coffee mugs. Frank took my money three months ago but has yet to delivery the goods. The “Rossi Effect” is deep and wide.

      1. LENR Forum was founded to be a place where supporters of LENR could communicate. In theory, it was neutral, but, in fact, it was dominated by believers in Rossi. Alan Smith’s comment history is stunning. He retreated a lot, of late, but attempted (with Barty’s support) to suppress discussion of Rossi v. Darden on LENR Forum. The topic I started was closed to new comments and a new one started by Barty for reasons that made no sense, except as an attempt to remove my profile from the active thread display. It now has way over 2000 comments… ECW was explicitly Rossi support, but always did allow some level of criticism. The problem is that there is no clear boundary and no warning when one has crossed an invisible boundary, and here, if Bob is correct, the boundary only exists in Frank’s mind. Banning without the intermediate option of moderation — which Frank has — is extreme. However, this is not uncommon among site owners. They may make noises that they are serving a community, but they are actually serving themselves and their own opinions, and someone who doesn’t think like them is unwelcome and to be excluded. I’ve seen it again and again over about thirty years on-line. Dewey, you called it “amateur hour.” Yes. This is highly unprofessional behavior, but, of course, these are rank amateurs, people lacking communications and community project training. They could become experts … but, instead, and I’ve seen this many times also, they reject advice from those with experience and knowledge.

        Cold fusion community, right now, looks like my personal blog, but the domain was purchased with the intention to use it to create community consensus-building and decision-making. It is not to control, but it is to advise (i.e, the community advises itself), and the best advice is highly inclusive. Anyone who wants an adviser wants the adviser to filter information, organizing it, but not to censor points of view.

    2. Thanks, Bob. Administrative behavior on cold fusion-related blogs and forums is of high interest here. Jed Rothwell seems to believe that he is banned on ECW, because posts “disappear,” but I’ve asked him to show deleted posts (i.e, I think the Discus profile still shows them), and he has not done so. Point to any post of yours and it should be possible to see all the Posts, including deleted ones. My posts are at https://disqus.com/by/abdulrahmanlomax/? Dewey’s are at https://disqus.com/by/nckhawk/? (you might have to click on the Comments link.) Very few of my comments have been deleted, out of 556, very few, less than three or so. I’d like to see Acland’s actual full email, with headers, but that should be private at this point, absent necessity. The user name abd at the domain lomaxdesign.com is a direct email address for me.

      It is normal for a forum administrator to ban a user who is frequently generating posts that need to be deleted (in the admin’s view). What is remarkable is that, from what you quoted, you were banned because of your inferred belief, not because of offensive posts. That is close to shunning heretics. Peter apparently believes that people are being attacked because of their beliefs, a common kind of reactionary position (true or not). We have a user commenting here who has openly stated his belief that Rossi has a real technology. Nobody would ever be banned for that. If the user flooded the forum with garbage, he’d be put on moderation, but not banned. What you described allowed you to put work into a post that was then rejected automatically, and I find that highly offensive. That’s happened to me in the past — on completely unrelated topics. The end of that was that the forum in question died. And there, because it was a mailing list, at least I had copies of what I’d sent — because I’d submitted by email, not on a forum. My objection to LF moderation was to posts being deleted without notice or any availability of the post. It’s totally rude to any writer, but those who use fora simply as bar conversation — they don’t care. They have little invested.

      I have not yet been banned on ECW. I was put on moderation, and wrote to Acland that this was wasting time, because of the high percentage of accepted posts (over 99%). I got a reasonably polite response, but … I’m still on moderation. Acland is in trouble. He sells advertising on a site that is very likely going to crash. Banning unbelievers is not a good sign. Banning someone like Mary Yugo, who fills forums with useless pseudoskeptical garbage, not surprising (though I’d not ban Mary unless there was nobody willing to moderate the posts — Mary has complained that “she” was censored, but, in fact, that did not happen — on newvortex, where I was the founder and one of the moderators). But banning Dewey Weaver would be like banning Rossi, banning someone with a high level of inside information, someone whose stated positions (even if lies!) would be news. Obviously, as an involved person, one would want to be aware of the possibility of a conflict of interest, but … ECW seems to have no problem with high COI information from Rossi. This is a formula for creating a walled garden, a “Planet.”

      1. It is interesting and that is why I included my point about “using Rossi’s own words”.
        To my knowledge, I have never had a post deleted. I knew all my posts were moderated as they never appeared automatically. There would be the message something like “your post is under moderation” displayed. Usually 3-4 hours later, the post would appear. Again, I never had any deleted. So none of my posting content was heretical enough for deletion.

        Frank made it quite clear…I was banned simply because I was convinced the eCat was a fake.
        I have referenced the email as there were no stipulations in it about privacy, however I am hesitant to forward a copy. I guess I consider emails sent to private address’ to be assumed protected to some extent unless otherwise specified. I would say that Frank was polite, not derogatory and seemingly honest in his email. But yet, in many eyes, the email could paint him as not only biased but possibly paranoid that dissenting views were a threat.

        What I was most disappointed in was that I was given no notice, no warning (private or public) and that I was always extremely careful not to be rude or derogatory to any other poster.

        Frank always seemed like a fairly “upright” guy. It is his website and I can respect that he does with it as he pleases. While I personally would not format it as such, if he wants it to be “the praises of Rossi” site, so be it. Let’s face it, if you do not allow dissenting views, it becomes “the praises of Rossi” site by default! So I privately responded that I encouraged him to stand by his convictions. Do not be a “closet true believer”! I told him he should put clearly on the front page that no dissenting views are welcome and that the site is for support of Rossi only! What I did not support was to present a false pretense of an open forum when behind the scenes, people are banned for only the occasional and polite dissenting view.
        I am not holding my breath that he will do so.

        I suspect that Frank obtains some measure of remuneration from the site. Possibly something he depends upon. I know once a year, he conducts a “PBS” style campaign asking for contributions from the posters. I imagine that he probably is as concerned about managing the income function of the site as much as the “truth” component. However, as you stated, once you start excommunicating the marginal dissenter, normally the crowd leaves.

        Again, just another sad chapter to this Rossi saga.

        1. Thanks, Bob. The ban is disappointing, to be sure. I thought Frank might be a bit bigger than that. However, the “E-cat World” is falling apart. That must be distressing, and if he blames this on Industrial Heat, and believes there is a war on against Rossi, he would then see people who “left the fold” as traitors. Heretics who will mislead the flock with fake news. I’m a bit surprised he hasn’t banned me, given what he did to you. However, who knows what he’s thinking? One of the most distressing aspects of the situation at LENR Forum was the secrecy and silence. No administrator is talking about administrative policy, and I suspect this is coming from the Owner. Who also is selling advertising.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield