Deletion of 16 posts by Alan Smith

Notes 12/25/2016:

I counted 16 posts originally, but later counted 15. It is possible for a moderator completely delete a post, which will cause subsequent posts to be renumbered, I have seen an example of this. I see that I never published this page….
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax – Thursday, 12:58am
Replied to the thread Industrial Heat’s James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products.


Deletion of 16 posts by Alan Smith


I asked about deletions. Now I see them. We are not notified of these.

First of all, Alan Smith posted something here that was very much off-thread-topic. [<-link]

He later hacked up what came next in the thread. Next page, [<-link] 12 posts deleted.

and Next page, [<-link] so far, 4 posts deleted.

This is intolerable behavior for a moderator. He allows himself to talk about whatever he wants, off-topic (but relevant to the overall social context, perhaps) but deletes what others write.

There is a problem with off-topic discussion on lenr-forum, but unpredictable and arbitrary deletion by a moderator who himself offends on this is not a solution.

I believe that there are administrative options, much better, and have attempted to suggest them. Alan is obviously deaf and hostile to such.

As a writer, who often writes ad-hoc, sometimes incorporating research, etc., deletion without notice is chilling, it is not tolerable. Deletion on ecatworld still leaves the posts in the author’s contributions coverage. Deletion on WMF wikis is almost always with notice, and content is almost always recoverable on request. There is no excuse for this kind of censorship here. The lack of deletion notice now makes me realize that there might be much content being hacked up. How would we know? Is anyone watching?

Accordingly, I am now boycotting until this is addressed, and I urge others to the same, vocally, please contact me if you are doing this. All sincere participants here are welcome on, and anyone who cares and who decides to contribute here can post links to CFC, as AlainCo has been doing.

The only administrator who has engaged in systematically abusive behavior, as far as anything I have seen, is Alan Smith. Alan could continue to make positive contributions here, including as a moderator, but without restraint, he’s far too dangerous. I may discuss possibilities further on


Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax – Thursday, 12:58am
Replied to the thread Rossi blog comments.

Rigel wrote:

I would tell you why people do not use real names, but my comment was a joke and would be off topic. I try to avoid PM for my own reason. I know you would trust and care for my info IRL. I will see if I can get the comment in the playground thread. You do good work here. I keep mentioning that driving off Thomas Clarke was the worse thing I have seen here. I will recreate the comment in the open thread if possible. It’s trivial and was joke and off topic.

Thanks. I now see what happened and from that, I’m boycotting I will explain in another post here in a moment.

The issue is not the specific post. The issue is even treatment of contributors and respect for authors. There are ways to handle “off-topic” and they are not being used, instead a blunt instrument is being used, while allowing the moderator’s own off-topic comments. Rules for users should not be announced in threads, where the rules are themselves off-topic. This is all basic stuff.

Keieueue wrote:

Dewey Weaver wrote:

K – I met Abd at ICCF18 and ended up sitting beside him by chance on the bus ride over to tour the Mizzou research reactor. He is interesting, smart, hard-working, honest and curious. As do many others, he wants to see LENR become a useful tool for our planet in his lifetime.
While he can be wordy at times, I think that he is doing an amazing service for the community by interpreting LENR events and developments. He might have missed his calling in the legal profession as his analytical skills there, based on published court docs, are exceptional.

Since the private interests you work with control, directly or not, the bots operating here and elsewhere, I’m gonna have to ask for a much more unbiased source

It is ironic that users who steadfastly refuse to reveal their real-life identities then accuse others who are open of being “bots.” Nobody that I know of is “controlled” by “private interests” that Dewey “works with.” Dewey is an investor in Industrial Heat, which I probably did not know when I met him at ICCF-18 in 2013, but the accusation certainly comes up, over and over, ad nauseum, without evidence. For “certainly,” I first typed “cretinly.” Freudian slip.

Nobody has any obligation to provide a troll proof of anything, but it occurred to me to provide a little piece of evidence. I was very well-known on Wikipedia, being a named protagonist in two Arbitration Committee Cases (which, by the way, confirmed the position I was taking, but … Wikipedia very commonly shoots the messenger, if the messenger blows the whistle. It’s a corrupt organization, unfortunately, and an example of how such can arise in spite of major good intentions, if the structure is naive.)

This is a comment by a Wikipedia administrator who was interested enough in what I was doing to invite me to a seminar he was giving in Boston. So I went. He was much more supportive after that meeting, because he could see the present reality. Face-to-face meetings are very different than “social media” pale imitation.

My global WMF user name is Abd, and the only place where I am blocked is Even there, email works, it was not blocked. It’s trivial to verify my identity. I was an administrator at for quite some time and have been very active there at times.

I have met, face-to-face, many of the major living figures in cold fusion, I attended a one-day seminar at SRI International in 2012, where I met Violante, Godes, and others. I visited Storms in Santa Fe, went to two MIT conferences organized by Mitchell Swartz — there is a photo of me at one, and there are also photos of me put up by coldfusionnow from my attendance at ICCF-18 in 2013. I also have met, in person, many other figures in the field, and have spoken on the phone with more.

Now, WTF is “Keieueue”?

Post was edited 1 time, last by “Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax” ().

JedRothwell, Malcolm Lear, DNI and one other like this.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Replied to the thread Parkhomov’s replication of the Rossi Lugano Reactor not less than 1,900 times power density of the best batteries..

Rigel wrote:

May I ask anyone here at all to address kshananans consideration that the A.P. ash results were “not salted” but could be contaminated by the testing device? We agree A.P. is an honest man, that had a battery issue. Does this happen with high temperature (e.g. IMS and one other device if I remember correctly) so I wonder with these expensive element analyzing devices, that are done by different labs. How can this happen?

This is all coming as report from one man, we must remember. Transmutation results, unless correlated with heat or some other measure of the reaction, are quite iffy. Real study takes much more than a single sample, even if that sample is then divided and sent to different labs. (I haven ‘t studied the specific transmutation report, this is general about LENR transmutation results.)

My root question is, if this (high temp contamination) is a known artifact of a testing a specific particular analysis device? But A.P. ash went to different labs that use different methods.

Every method has possible artifacts. The issue is not necessarily “contamination,” but could be fractionation, i.e,. that conditions in the cell — which are “rather unusual” — might cause isotopes to move differentially, leading, then, to samples that differ in isotopic abundance. Steps could be taken to avoid this possible problem, but it is pretty likely that they were not taken. Those precautions were not followed at Lugano, plus there was the additional issue of possible salting by Rossi. That Rossi was allowed to handle the samples was one of a list of things that the Lugano team did that demonstrated terminal cluelessness as to possible problems. I do not accuise the team of deliberate fraud, I’ve seen no sign of that. But of “undue influence,” yes. These things were not particularly subtle and some of them were immediately obvious on review. Other errors took more time to uncover.

How could multiple fundamentally disparate devices still show transmutation? I still cannot explain the latest ash. I should say, I just want to know if it’s not possible (sure anything is possible, I get that) but how probable?

That is difficult to assess. Is there a sample population to compare with? Much of the flap about Parkhomov and other similar work is that it simply is shallow, a few tests, not the array of systematic tests that would be needed to be clear about results. This is all work that can be appropriate for exploration and for “hobby science,” but that is inadequate for confirmation and depth.

This is not pro/anti ,just part of my understanding of this knowledge base. My view has been stated on Ni and Rossi. If the ash evaluating devices can be compromised, how are they? Barty has a saying “I want to believe” but I want to understand also. Me dumb, and mumbling on this point. With unknowns you question results.

This is not necessarily a compromise of “devices.” Rather, we would need to look carefully at each device, and at an array of samples, including single-variable controls. The work is much more complex than it might seem at first. A great fuss is made over single measurements or single experiments. No, no, and no. Don’t do that!

JedRothwell and Rigel like this.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Replied to the thread Rossi blog comments.

One more comment about Theranos. Gizmodo.

In an open letter to investors on Wednesday, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes announced that the company was shuttering all of its labs and wellness centers, “impacting” around 340 employees—presumably by putting them out of work.

“We are profoundly grateful to these team members, many of whom have devoted years to Theranos and our mission, for their commitment to our company and our guests,” wrote the CEO of the beleaguered blood-testing startup.

Unfortunately for those devoted team members, federal authorities banned Holmes from operating a lab for two years this summer due to allegedly unsafe practices under her leadership. Theranos, given a choice to keep either its laboratories or its founder, evidently picked the latter.

An obvious solution to the problem is not mentioned. Theranos could have spun off a division to do the work that Holmes wants to do, the main company keeping the labs but complying with the federal ban. Or the lab business could have been spun off. It is possible that it was worthless, but a spin-off would have been cheap. Except obsessives cannot give up control. The goal is not actually the excuse and rationalization (“helping humanity”) but personal power, a very old story.

The stories of employees threatened with lawsuits is diagnostic, I’m afraid. This wasn’t about disclosure of trade secrets, this was about a cover-up for issues that, if they had been addressed, would have avoided the whole subsequent mess. Of course, by that time, Theranos may have been too committed to back up and retrench. I’m all for confidence, but not for blind attachment to stories of success.

Leave a Reply