Age, the New Age, Believers, and Peter Gluck

After the new software version was installed on LENR Forum, the number of comments per page was increased to 30. This, of course broke all incoming links to comments as paged (sometimes done when there was a series of comments of interest at some point). More about this below. In my last post, I wrote about Planet Rossi; some users protesting about being identified with Planet Rossi are objecting to it as rude. However, this is a classic case of calling a spade a spade, i.e., pointing out the obvious. “Planet Rossi” does not mean, in itself, “collection of idiots.” However, there appears to be a high density of those willing to continue expressing preposterous positions, as if they were perfectly reasonable, while objecting to others pointing this out.

Here, Peter Gluck writes in response to Dewey Weaver. This is a long-term blogger on LENR arguing with someone who has actually supported LENR research with his own money, time, and effort. I find it of interest to review. Peter is, of course, welcome to comment, even though he normally rejects detailed, evidenced comments as being too long.

Before the new software was installed, the first iteration of the Rossi v. Darden developments thread on LENR-Forum was shut down at 428 comments, including the shutdown notice, December 20, 2016

Barty wrote, starting “Part 2”:

For better clarity I splitted the long previous thread. So this is part 2.

For earlier developments visit
Rossi v. Darden developments – Part 1

The curt documents are shared by @Eric Walker here in his google drive (Thank you!):…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

Barty’s first language is not English and it shows. It’s been pointed out to him that “curt” and “court” are very different words in English. As well, the past tense of “split” is not “splitted,” the word “splitted” does not exist in English. It’s just “split.”

Barty doesn’t find and fix his usages. Probably too much work. But, of course, those are tiny issues. The big issue here is that “splitting” could create clarity if the split were dated, and if the original thread is not shut down, becoming confined to responses to old posts, with the new thread — in this cases — covering new developments. However, Barty did not merely split, he locked the old thread, which suppresses comments.

Because the stated reason is preposterous, and because of the stonewalling of LENR-Forum administrators and moderators on what actually happened with my ban, I have concluded that the motive here was to reduce visibility of my work on LENR-Forum. I had started the original thread, and it was the most active thread, so my user profile was being displayed for anyone looking at new posts. That was disliked. As well, before Barty split the topic, I was maintaining the neutral Rossi v. Darden information page here, at Rossi v. Darden case files. Anyone who is researching the case, and especially writing about it and wanting to cite case files, will find this far more useful than Eric Walker’s googledocs page, which is not annotated, dated, etc. I use that page, myself, when I see new case files on PACER, because if Eric finds a file before me, I then do not need to pay for it from PACER. Every little bit helps. However, for research, for finding that document readily and quick linking to it, if Barty cared about readers, he’d have pointed to that page.

Instead, his motive, I infer, was to suppress notice of my work. Before then, LENR-Forum had created access control that caused incoming links from here to fail. That was recently fixed, but …. this was a deliberate action, not some accident, and it took high-level access. It is almost certain that Barty did it. Dewey Weaver has called LENR-Forum administration “amateur-hour,” and he was correct. I have long experience with on-line forum administration, and commenting based on that experience was not welcome.

As I was about to be banned, it was being said by a Forum “super-moderator” that the whole Rossi v. Darden topic was irrelevant and a nuisance. RvD threads were arbitrarily shut down, forcing all comments in to open threads, increasing the dilution of on-topic comments by off-topic ones. Moderator activity was making the situation worse, not better. And pointing out gross errors, very much not welcome. This is classic when fora are started by the inexperienced, it is not surprising, though the general public, also, often, inexperienced, may not realize this. Forum owners do have the right to do whatever they please, within limits. Legally, they have an almost-absolute right, but not as to what the public would tolerate if it knows. Usually it does not know, unless someone points it out. Ahem.

Now, the new thread has reached 1278 comments, and no split. Why not? Well, it’s obvious why not: splitting, in the sense of locking, does not in any way increase clarity, it reduces it. Barty, by splitting and locking, created more attention for himself and reduced it for my work. Some users have complained about the ban, others praised it, but … no moderator or administrator has explained it. Moderation on LENR-Forum is a star chamber. Recently, bans have been explained, though there is no coherent way to access the explanations. One would need to look at the banned user and their last comments and then responses from moderators. With almost all bans, it can be seen, and most users would agree with the bans. There are only two which seem mysterious, mine and another. I looked at this on  So who is banned on LENR-forum?

Now, Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Dewey,

Syurely you know what a F.A.Q is- however in the discussion with you A N.A.Q – list of never answered questions is also necessary.

Yesterday (see p 41) here you avoided to tell about showing to LF a diagram of the 1MW plant or some relevant photos so the discussions could e based on documented facts and not on hearsay, gossip or toxic imagination (see half full pipes, 40mm steam pipe not insiulated, supersonic steam and so on)

Do you want truth even here – the Court gets it anyway.

Peter Gluck is an old man, though only a few years older than I. At our age, people often begin to become dysfunctional. Those who recognize it can factor for it. It becomes essential to be open to critique, or one is likely to become locked in the past, and, increasingly, incoming information and communication will not be understood. In this and his next post, Peter shows that he has not followed prior presented material. Again, with age, we frequently will overlook what is right in front of us, because a normal part of aging is an increase in tunnel vision, which is not merely about optical phenomena and may not even involve them. Every day, many times, I need to compensate for this. The process opens me up in ways that deepen my experience, so much that I appreciate it, instead of resisting and denying it. Peter may be having difficulty reading, so longer posts may be difficult for him. But “difficult” does not mean “impossible.” If he wants to learn, he will become patient with the time that it takes. I read the Rossi v. Darden case files over and over. My familiarity and understanding of them is not instant, necessarily, though as my grasp of the overall arc of the case and the background increases, understanding tends to pop out more quickly. I also research, when it seems appropriate, all the legal terms that I am not already familiar with. I look up cited cases, to understand the legal principles, so much that when the Judge rules, it is generally already obvious to me from precedent.

The mean trick of asking absolutely irrelevant question as in my case about the St. Andrew’s Jewelry works only with children- it was used by some nasty Party propsgsndists in the old time and surely in the Tammany Hall too. It is inefficient and not very honest.

Peter does not know when what he writes will be incoherent on the face. “St. Andrew’s Jewelry”? What? He is using the Forum for what is actually a personal comment. It’s commonly done, but … without a citation, the reference will be obscure, meaningless to most, gunking up the thread, because this is not about Rossi v. Darden developments. It’s about Peter’s reactive opinion about Dewey. Here is the reference:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

Sorry Peter – you may have to wait on the court disclosures for any diagrams. No confusion on pipe size either – all of that information is documented, photographed and in hand. Have you been able to resolve Rossi’s heat conundrum for the Doral site? How about the deafening noise from the supersonic “steam”. Rossi has much larger basic problems though.

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

The first paragraph said what was obvious to anyone following the case in detail. I have seen no authoritative diagram released by Rossi, nor relevant details from him. Nor is there such provided by IH. IH, however, would have, among other evidences, the testimony of Murray, and Murray refers to the pipe size as DN40, which then leads directly to some strong conclusions. Murray was there. The pipe was heavily insulated, so its appearance in photographs is inconclusive. However, Murray easily could have determined the true pipe size under the insulation — unless it were prevented, and he could have quickly done this, probably impossible to stop him without physically throwing him out. Give me a few seconds with a screwdriver and I’d have it. My action might not even be visible.

A basic legal principle is that testimony as regarded as truthful unless controverted. At this point, we only have the testimony of Murrray as to pipe size. If IH has additional evidence, they have not released it, and we suspect — from what Dewey has written — that they have much that they have not released. DN40, though, is released. Rossi has not contradicted it. His lack of contradiction is not probative. As to the other evidence, whatever IH has has probably, by now, been revealed to Rossi. Rossi, with his Rule 11 Motion, attempted to obtain sanctions against the IH lawyers for taking a legally indefensible position. In filing such a Motion, I’d assume that the strongest evidence Rossi has would be asserted. Yet it was terminally weak and the whole exercise was so weak that the Judge tossed it out without any need for an opposition to be filed.

In objecting to the Saint Andrew’s Jewelery reference, Peter is himself avoiding a question. (Dewey did not avoid an answer, he declined to answer. He did not reveal if he has an answer, and I’d expect him not to. He stated what many have stated about some facts in this case: we will need to wait until a trial. This is the same thing that Rossi is saying, by the way. Does Peter object to that? There is a difference, though: there are many facts from case that are, already, a matter of record, that create an appearance of fraud by Rossi, both presently and in the past. And that is what the St. Andre’s reference is about, the past, but it is relevant in that it may reveal character and disposition for Rossi, along with other evidences that have been presented.

Peter wants to avoid that, instead of simply answering, perhaps something like, “yes, I am aware of the accusations but do not consider them proven,” or something like that which would be the truth for him. Peter perceives himself as embattled, unfairly criticized, and in general has adopted Planet Rossi paranoia.

It has been suggested to me that I ignore Peter. Because I am aging, because I am subject to all the vagaries of age, I do not, in general, consider any of the LENR scientist who are showing signs of senile dementia (and Peter is not the only one) as being beyond recovery. So I do comment. It is part of the justice of the situation that hostile rejection may arise; this makes the rejector, as I understand the matter, fully responsible for what they are doing, because we have been warned. When Peter began attacking Jed Rothwell, quite intemperately, I warned him. He rejected it, he consider this some kind of censorship. But he was never censored.

This is what Dewey was referring to: Rossi Twice Handcuffed (this is the translation of the original on New Energy Times; Krivit often errs, and sometimes misrepresents sources, but it not known by me to deliberately lie.) I have the impression from Dewey that IH has investigated the Italian charges and found some substance to them, and they may attempt to introduce this at trial. This is relevant; whether they will be able to introduce the evidence is unclear. They were able to keep the tax evasion claim in the AACT in spite of Rossi efforts to strike it. The gold charges were over tax evasion. “St. Andre” was apparently the name of Rossi’s gold company in Milan.

Peter continued:

This reminds me that Jed has added to the N.A.Q- he has not given his word of honor that Murray is right with the 40mm steam pipe. Notice that if this is true, proven, then the ERV data cannot be right the pipe MUST have a much greater diameter (pleaseShow the diagram) and answer. If not you will be at least two of; coward, lyer, dishonest.

“Word of honor” is a Planet Rossi theme. Rossi has given his “word of honor” about certain things. It is unclear what this actually means, because testimony must be to personal knowledge, otherwise it is hearsay and conclusory, something that must be understood to understand Rossi v. Darden. Jed probably could not possibly give “his word of honor” — this basically means sworn testimony — about the pipe size, because it is unlikely that he has personal knowledge. Even Dewey Weaver is not known to have visited the Doral Plant and so could not testify to it. The truth can be known, it would take court process, and that might happen, but at this point there is one piece of evidence that could become sworn testimony, if truthful, and that is the infamous Exhibit 5, written by Murray. If the piping has been removed (this is possible), this could be spoliation of evidence, as with the removal of the test instruments by Penon. At this point, my strong sense is that IH, with nothing else than what they have shown they have, establish DN40 as the probable pipe size, and facts in the case, if this goes to trial, will be decided by the preponderance of the evidence, not “proof,” i.e., proof beyond a shadow of doubt.

Dewey just pointed out that jury findings, in federal court, must be unanimous, otherwise, if the jury cannot come to a unanimous finding after substantial effort, a new trial will be ordered with a new jury. Under these conditions, and given what we have seen, Rossi faces a series of large obstacles to prevailing. I can imagine that Rossi, with his skills, might be able to convince some jurors. All of them? However, the IH case has far more substance than his, so the trial failing on his claims would not prevent a ruling on the IH claims. Again, all this is subject to the possibility that some very important piece of evidence comes out that causes extensive reassessment of what has already been presented. It’s unlikely, but certainly not impossible. If, however, Rossi does not reveal this to the IH attorneys before trial, he may be estopped from presenting it at trial. That does not mean that we would see it before trial, unless IH decides to take the matter to the Judge or Magistrate for review.

Dewey I wonder why you have difficulties in discussing with the Rossi Planet knuckleheads- I think you can easily find a common modus parlandi:

Dewey doesn’t have any apparent difficulty discussing. He is opinionated, but … he paid, extensively, for the right to have strong opinions, he does have a level of actual and personal knowledge, unlike Peter and, for that matter, the rest of us. He is the only IH insider known to have commented on the case. However, unlike what Peter claims, he is not a representative of IH, and is himself, very likely, bound by an NDA. He is apparently trusted by IH, that’s about the most that can be said.


a) you belong to IH more or less;

That is completely rude. Dewey does not “belong to IH.” Rather, he was an early supporter, apparently, and does do some consulting for them. However, this does not make him a bought and paid-for sycophant. He is mostly commenting about Rossi’s deceptions, about Planet Rossi — i.e., certain phenomena common among continued supporters of Rossi, often based on Rossi Says — and about the case, but it’s obvious that he is not telling us all he knows. As to what he knows, he does not necessarily have full information and it may be second-hand, from people that, perhaps, he trusts. Jed is somewhat like this as well.

b) Re the ERV document discusssed now, Jed has dstated tha any half-brainer can see for sure in less than 5 minutes that it has NO value;

Jed commonly uses hyperbole like that. It is not a completely unreasonable position. There are obvious problems with the so-called “ERV document,” they are coming out in discussion, but some were already pointed out by Murray, based on preliminary reports. The final document does not appear to address the Murray questions. Peter has commonly ridiculed these objections, but without the solid information that he now demands from others. Without Penon testimony, the document is essentially useless. It was irrelevant in the filing where Rossi placed it, because the issue addressed by the Exhibit would be a matter of fact (utility usage), and the issues were matters of law (had IH asserted a specific contract violation?). The Judge did not even refer to it in ruling against Annesser’s argument.

That document, I conclude, was put up because Rossi is realizing that his evidence-free case, so far, was causing damage on Planet Rossi, people were starting to wake up. So he decided to release part of the “ERV report,” having sufficient excuse to create plausible deniability if accused of revealing private information. Maybe that would work. Annesser was playing with matches when filing a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. It could come back to bite him, badly.

c) IH has not seen this and paid for it

Not seen what? Murray claims to know the pipe size. It is most likely that he measured it. He may also have obtained information on it from West or Fabiani. The exact meaning of the Gluck statement here is unclear to me.

d) = a)

Peter is raising a completely irrelevant argument. Dewey is clearly associated with IH, and obviously has been an IH supporter from at least 2013. Dewey attended an early Rossi demonstration in the IH facility, probably in 2013, at least by his account. Nobody else has been writing on the blogs who actually saw demonstrations, beyond Mats Lewan, and Mats did not see any of the U.S. activity.

But I do not dare to call you a knuclehead because I would not risk to e exiled from LF for iinadequate language.

Lots of people have written worse, and Peter being “exiled” would be very unlikely. By the way, this was a device for calling Dewey a knucklehead while maintaining plausible deniability. What could happen would be that the comment would be redacted in some way or Peter could be warned. LF administration is quite erratic on this matter, which is a problem.

I also will not ask you if, with your gaffes you are not secretly preparing moving to Planet Rossi? No.

It must be a limit in everything.

Again, he raises the question while he can pretend that he did not. The idea that IH or someone like Dewey Weaver are just pretending to reject the Rossi technology is a Planet Rossi meme. The fact is that IH was the first organization that had the cojones to do what it took to allow independent testing. It cost them perhaps $20 million. They succeeded in the overall goal, which was to discover what would happen if someone called Rossi’s bluff on selling his secret for $100 million. If Rossi really had a secret, and really honored his Agreement, he’d have gotten $100 million. Does he really have a Secret? How would we know?

The Planet Rossi meme — there are alternate memes — is that Rossi didn’t trust those snakes and decided that he wanted out of the Agreement, because they only wanted to steal his secrets. They support this position, approving it, showing how Planet Rossi will overlook utter malfeasance on Rossi’s part, while being ready to believe any story about others, that they are up to something nefarious.

(Some Rossi supporters take intermediate positions, “Planet Rossi” is simply an associative term, relatively neutral in itself, though it can be used pejoratively.)


PS O.K., this was a bit of chat, BUT where is the Diagram?

We have none. Should Dewey invent one? If he has one, where did he get it and does he have permission to release it? There was a speculative system diagram published on ECW. It has no authority.

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

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

The LF masses need the Digram not…mass manipulation.

LF users will comment based on what they have, and some will comment based on their imagination. “Mass manipulation” requires a manipulator, and there is one manipulator with many followers, and it is not IH and it is not Dewey Weaver. Peter Gluck is one of these followers, and has been for quite some time. Before Rossi filed Rossi v. Darden, his position was somewhat respectable. It went downhill, fast.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Eric Walker,
thanks- in professional life you need rhetorics too.
I like this art.

This was about Eric pointing out what I pointed out above, the raising of arguments while pretending not to raise them.

OK, continuing this long discussion now intensified due to the ERV core document without the Diagram of the plant is waste of time and creativity but it is convenient for those whohave no real proofs, believe me.

The obvious problem here is that there is plenty of evidence but not what Peter would call “proofs,” but Peter is relying heavily on interpretations of his own where there are no proofs. He is criticizing others who are following evidence, which they know and understand far better than he. Given the conditions he faces, he would best tone himself down, display far more gravitas. He can, and I would encourage, continue the study of LENR and this case, if he wants, but he will need to learn to stop his attacks, or they will take him down. He needs to have friends who will tell him what he’s doing, not to censor or dominate him, but to help him remain more useful.

QUESTION to you:

From the Miami Court Pacermonitor we could learn that at least 2 new documents, 133 and 134 are on the docket but can not be seen if you do not have paid for subscription.

Do you can see them? Have no idea how it works.

Something is off about what Peter states here. First of all, he has long referred to the “Miami Court Pacermonitor.” There is no such thing. There is the U.S. Federal Court PACER system, which covers all Federal Courts, including the “Miami Court,” which is actually the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. Eric and I have PACER accounts and use them to obtain court documents, which we then publish for everyone to read freely. I have been partly supported to do this (not by IH, by the way), and every little bit helps. I appreciate that Eric puts the files up, but I have them arranged in a way that makes them far more accessible and useful, on Rossi v. Darden docket and case files.

Sometimes Eric checks and obtains case files before I do, sometimes I get them first. We often have the files before Pacermonitor does.

Pacermonitor is a commercial site that sells access to the files, for more than it would take to get them from PACER. I use their free docket, which only shows maybe the last two weeks of files, if that. Now, there are some files that Eric and I cannot download, and the PACER system has a defect: it does not discriminate between a missing file (i.e., doesn’t exist yet) and a docket entry that cannot be downloaded without special permission. Today, in response to Peter’s question, it looks like Eric downloaded the PACER docket itself. I checked it myself for any filings for Friday. So I paid ten cents for an empty page…. There were no filings on Friday. I have seen a few filings show up on Saturday morning. These would not show on pacermonitor until they run the Monday evening run (as I recall, they don’t check PACER at Sunday midnight). It appears that court personnel do work on Saturdays. However, right now, there are no documents 133 and 134. How did Peter get the idea that they were “on the docket”? Nothing shows, either on pacermonitor nor on PACER. Now, it’s not impossible that such documents were uploaded by attorneys. Such documents are not published until vetted by a court clerk. But where would Peter see them?

After Eric showed the docket from PACER with no such files, and pointed out that pacermonitor gets their information from PACER, Peter wrote:

OK, I understand now.
It is written there:
Docket last updated: 02/03/2017 11:59 PM EST

The pacermonitor page, being updated periodically from PACER, shows the update time. The time shown is a minute before midnight Friday. This is routine for pacermonitor. They do not update Saturday or Sunday evening. So occasionally (I think I saw it once), they don’t show a filing that was approved by the clerk on Saturday. Pacermonitor still shows, today, Sunday, that same update time.

and it was an other updating after doc 132

Pacermonitor is updated every day at about midnight, Monday through Friday. The update does not mean that the docket changed. The last change was on Wednesday. Basically, anyone who has been following the docket would have seen these things. As we get older, though, we miss stuff that might even be obvious if we look. And then sometimes we see stuff that we missed when we were younger. Some of that, for me, below.

Now the documents start to add technical data to the legal verbiage- in part.

Peter has very little patience for the “legal verbiage,” but Rossi v. Darden is a lawsuit, and cannot be understood without following the legal arguments. Some technical data has appeared in various filings, but it is very little, because most of the case does not depend on technical data, it depends on provisions in contracts and how they are interpreted and enforced. The recent technical data that appeared was put up by Rossi in an attempt to negate the IH request for permission to amend their complaint. The request was based on the Judge’s acceptance of a claim that they had not shown a cause of action in the matter of their claim of a breach of contract by Fabiani. My opinion is that this was an error on the part of the Judge, but it was not outside of reason, and it was well-supported by the attorney for Fabiani, Nuñez. IH then made, in their amended complaint, specific allegations.

At this point in the suit, it is not necessary for a party to prove their claims, but only to make them including a claim that indicates they have evidence, that the claim is more than mere suspicion. The claim could still be false, but fact would be determined later, as late as trial, if it even happens there. IH claimed a discrepancy between Fabiani’s reports of electrical power usage and reports from Florida Power and Light.

Rossi’s attorney argued against the fact, here, by presenting two pieces of evidence: data from the “Final Report,” which appears to be the “ERV report,” and it showed input power data, and then monthly billings from FP&L for power. This was just tossed up, not actually analyzed. It was not legally relevant, this would be evidence that might be used to contradict the IH claim, but that is not what is done in motions to dismiss. The claims, if made, no matter how wrong they are (unless this can be demonstrated with uncontrovertible evidence, typically involving some internal contradiction that is plain and not merely inferred), are adequate to keep the case alive, and to allow Discovery to proceed, which will develop the evidence needed to distinguish reality, perhaps, from appearances.

IH then responded with a plot showing daily JMP power usage, apparently having obtained that data from FP&L (who knew this could be available? Apparently IH!), compared with the daily Penon and Fabiani data. All that Rossi showed with the “ERV report data” was that Penon and Fabiani’s figures match (almost completely). But the FP&L daily data shows some anomalies, enough to raise doubt about the Penon/Fabiani data, and that is all that was necessary for now.

Meanwhile, some of the best analysts on LENR Forum are pouring over the new data. If Peter wants to understand what has happened and what is going on, maybe it would be time for him to put in the effort to understand what is being revealed by actual evidence, instead of just reacting to appearances and what he likes and doesn’t like.

Now, some fun. I am personally exploring some new territory, discovered recently, very close to him. Like in my own eyes. I had pieces of this long ago. I had noticed images of the blood circulation in my eye during eye exams, when a particular form of light was shone into the eye. As early as maybe fifteen years ago, I noticed I could see a dark patch in my vision under certain lighting conditions, and figured out that this was the central scotoma, and I could actually watch it fill in and disappear in “adaptation.” What I have seen recently has more or less blown my mind, not that there was much left to blow anyway.

See The Reality of vision

We see what we expect to see, generally. We overlook the unexpected it can be practically invisible to us. Unless we look carefully and closely or at least openly, and seeing entoptic phenomena can be … disconcerting. The nice, stable, safe reality we “see” is a detailed and maintained construct.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


Leave a Reply