Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom

Okay, the title may be meaningless. So sue me.

Because the recent IH disclosures have revealed the contract between Industrial Heat and Dewey Weaver, there has been much blogviation over this. Aha! they proclaim. We knew it! He is Paid by Industrial Heat!

But that has been obvious for a long time, that Dewey was working for Industrial Heat — in addition to being an investor in it. This has nothing to do with whether information from Dewey can be trusted or not, other than the obvious necessary caution. It means that the man probably knows some things that the rest of us don’t know. Anyone who will take all statements from someone in Dewey’s position as Gospel Truth would be foolish. Dewey makes mistakes, among other things, and then much of what he has written is clearly not factual, but judgment. Judgment is conclusory in nature, and it’s not difficult to tell the difference between testimony from knowledge and the expression of conclusions, though sometimes circumstances may be confused. I.e., I might say that X is true, but the reality — and I’d say this if asked — could be that So-and-so told me X is true, and I trust So-and-so. That is why it must always be possible to cross-examine witnesses, to tease out fact from conclusions.

In a legal matter it is up to the judge and/or the jury to come to conclusions. Witnesses provide fact as grist for that mill, and judges and juries assess the probity of testimony and its implications, and attorneys may present arguments for this or that interpretation, advancing the interests of their clients.

This — and the other blogs — is not a court, a brilliant observation which has been made by many. We are the peanut gallery. However, some people who read these blogs might be makers somewhere, somewhen, somehow. We are interested in and discuss Rossi v. Darden because it’s there, or because we have some axe to grind, or some critical interest to protect. What I find hilarious, in particular, are those who say, “this is all useless to discuss, because the court will decide,” and who then argue strongly for some position, often in ways blatantly contrary to the evidence available, and full of contempt for other views.

What’s true is that almost none of this discussion will have any influence on the outcome of Rossi v. Darden, but it may help us understand it.

(It is possible that some of us may come across something that was overlooked by the attorneys. It can happen. )

Most of the issues are already laid out well enough to make predictions. Such predictions are not certainties. There may be a Wabbit. If we are so lucky as to see a Wabbit, our entire perspective on life can change. But we don’t expect to see one when we get up in the morning, do we?

So, Dewey Weaver is being discussed on LENR Forum, and Peter Gluck, who wrote he was going to abstain from comment on LF, didn’t. We are not surprised.

Eric Walker pointed to the Industrial Heat Memorandum of Law that provided so much information about Deep River Ventures, i.e., Dewey’s LLC … so I’m starting with this, a rock tossed in the river. Splashes? Ripples? How deep is the river?

Not as a response to the Memorandum, Peter Gluck wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

Yes, this is exactly what I have been describing. Notice how the problem can be fixed with the raised pipe at the end. You can also make a U with the flow meter positioned at the bottom of the U. As far as I know, Rossi did not have this kind of plumbing.
I added a comment to this article in June.
ADD: The instructions for the meter are here:
Concluding sentence: […] Google translate:

N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance).

Again, that is what I have talked about. Peter Gluck is convinced there is no such thing as a half-empty pipe. What does he think happens when water flows slowly in one section of a pipe, and swiftly in another section?

Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex:

This was the Vortex post. (it can be seen in context there.)

An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the Trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)

What Jed claimed is common knowledge. The error can be created deliberately or can happen accidentally under some system conditions. Peter has vociferously and at length complained that this is impossible. Here, he backs off slightly, claiming instead that the conditions necessary for such a failure did not exist in Doral.

The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.
The main differences to the Doral plant case:
a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe

Peter looks for flaws and differences in order to deny the obvious: the error is possible if air is allowed to enter the pipe. Does the Plant have the ascending pipe? Where? Peter has essentially insisted that it must have that pipe, and the best reason I’ve seen him give is that it would be a problem not to have it. We do not know that the pipe and flow meter are below the return tank. That is, the return tank may be the lowest water in the system, we cannot rule this out from the information we have. Jed may have additional information, he has claimed some comments from observers, and Jed does have confidential information. However, my position is that we cannot depend on private information like that, it’s hearsay and could be misinterpreted somewhere, this simply is not uncommon. Rather, personally, I’ll reserve judgment. Peter, who has started to say that we need to wait for the trial, doesn’t reserve judgment and claims that what others say is preposterous, which boils down, too often, to a claim that they are lying.

b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.
You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.

While this is true, it also misses the point. There is no issue here from instability of conditions. However, it would be trivial to create conditions that could fool a flow meter with that rising section of pipe. Peter’s claims of impossibility boil down to a lack of imagation. I’ve mentioned a possible air compressor in the “customer area.” It could blow air through that pipe. By controlling the proportion of air to water, the flow meter could be made to overstate water flow by whatever ratio is desired. Peter would never have seen anything like this in his experience, so his common comments about having experience with flow meters would be inapplicable. He may never have seen anyone deliberately attempt to create false flow meter readings. Dewey, he claimed, was experimenting with flow meters at the IH Raleigh lab. Perhaps he tried something like this trick. There are others possible, depending on details that we don’t know.

However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant.

Peter said, before, that it was impossible, and did not qualify his answer, and he has not actually acknowledged the explanation necessary, or if he did, I missed it. (I.e., it’s not that it is impossible, it would not happen under the conditions in the plant. He did argue for those conditions, that is true, i.e., he made many statements about where the return pipe was located which appear to be different from what he now states:

Now there are two cases possible in principle:
A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible

This would measure flow into the reactors. This would be sensible. However, this is not what Penon described in his proposed protocol of 2/9/2015.

B. Setup according to Jed
FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.

it’s not just “according to Jed,” though Jed says that he’s seen a diagram from Rossi himself. However, the Penon protocol has this:

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.

While there is confused language there, this was written after the start of the Penon data, on 1/31/2015. The Plant was in operation when this was written, then. This was a description of it, as it was, presumably. There is no external pump, the pumps are inside the Shelter, pumping water from the Internal Tank into the reactors. There is a float valve, in the internal tank. The flow meter is explicitly in the return line, where Peter claims it could not be, because it shouldn’t be.

The flow meter was quite insensitive, showing only one digit per 1000 kg of water, at a claimed rate of 1500 kg/hour . It is not clear that stable conditions in the return pipe would show any irregularities even with a more precise meter (say, one as had been used by Defkalion).

The meter is not after the pump(s), period. This is a gravity return system, as described, all the way to the internal tank.

I would suspect that this design was deliberate, was found by Rossi to create high “COP” numbers. Why should he fix it? Just to satisfy Peter Gluck’s idea of “professional setup”? Continuing with Peter’s comment:

Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale’s calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

This is beyond the pale. Luca Gamberale is a hero, who blew the whistle at personal risk, in spite of an NDA. To Peter, this is a “calumny paper.” I’ll disclose my personal response and immediate emotional response: Burn in Hell, Peter Gluck, you have earned it by how you treat those who made personal sacrifices in the name of truth.

What Luca experienced and reported was his truth. It was the end of the company that was employing him, Defkalion Europe. If he had erred, Defkalion could have responded and corrected the errors. They did not. They elected to disappear and to say nothing about it. I was sorely disappointed in Yiannis Hadjichristos, who had been polite and informative, until that point. He hasn’t said a word since. Yeong Kim ended up with egg all over his face, though he seems to be surviving, having been funded by IH. Hundreds of attendees at ICCF-18’s time was wasted watching paint dry in that demonstration.

THHuxleynew pointed out some of the same considerations as I do above.

SSC responded with Standard Stupid Cant, straight out of the Planet Rossi Playbook. “Why didn’t IH complain”? As if he knows they did not complain, and as if whether they complained or not re the preliminary reports would actually prove something important. Maybe they were busy watching paint dry somewhere else.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear THH,
Let’s use a professional, systematic approach- it helps me too.
Make take the list of technical issues you disagree with me so we can discuss methodically.
Possibly step by step, problem by problem.

What a great idea. Only one problem: I have been doing this for months and longer, i.e., point by point examination of issues covered by Peter. Peter then complains it is too long, but any point by point examination is likely to be long. It takes time to write such comment, and I’ve put in the time. It would take Peter much less time to read it, but still he complains.

THH has also written similarly, as I recall (and, in fact, the comment to which Peter was replying was far more detailed than Peter’s reply, which basically ignored all that work.) So Peter is asking him to do what he has already done, but Peter did not respect it, then addressing each point in turn, which he could easily do — say, on his blog. It can also be done on LENR Forum; however, as discussions become detailed and it begins to appear that Peter doesn’t have an effing leg to stand on, instead of acknowledging his incapacity, he bails and leaves for a while, then comes back as if nothing had happened.

What could cause that? I’ve mentioned it and some think me cruel for telling Peter the truth. I have to face all these issues myself, I am almost Peter’s age, and I certainly hope to face them with courage and trust in reality — and trust in my friends, and especially those who are honest enough to tell me what they see. I’ll still make my own choices until I die, as long as I can….

more fluff descended from the heavens, there must be a fluff generator up there …. imagine pink fluffy candy floating down, like snow, only sticky.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear THH,
The great problem is the missing information.
Can we discuss privately?

THH’s answer was totally predictable. This was a private question, why ask it publicly? I will say that THH is welcome to communicate with me privately, he is an extremely valuable contributor. I also know who he is in real life, so he would lose nothing by contacting me. He could use an anonymous email address, but ….

Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex: […]

And here is my response to this damn nonsense:

Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)

Jed has a recognizable writing habit. Once he is certain about something, his communication practice, that would, to be effective, become careful and more precise, goes to black and white polemic, cartoonish, not measured. Attempts are being made to nail him in this thread and elsewhere about incautious and incompletely specified claims he has made in the past. He’s repeating that here. It’s not that he is “wrong” as to overall impression. It is that his expression invites disagreement, with some basis having been created. He is certainly not the only one to do this.

Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.

Let’s put it this way. His comment is off by an infinite number of orders of magnitude. I might even use the W word, “Wrong.” The flow was not zero. It was small enough that pressure oscillations in the boiler, bumping, could reverse flow momentarily, and that type of pressure meter simply counted the number of times a magnet on the rotor passed a sensor (as I recall). Instantaneous flow through the meter did pass through zero, but the average flow was positive, and it went negative only momentarily. However, the error was much more than would have resulted from simply thinking that negative flow was positive. Each time the magnet passed the sensor, the software interpreted that as a full revolution. (Again, that’s how I understood it. It could also be that there are many magnets around the flow vane, which would reduce that error, which would become the proportional volume each magnet pass was designed to indicate.)

Now, Jed could come back and say “that’s what I meant.” But what he wrote, read by someone who thinks he must be wrong, will seem wrong, confirming that belief, reducing the possibility of coming to agreement. This is why in contexts with high controversy, facilitators are generally needed. Have we hired any? Do we care about consensus? Or do we prefer to duke it out, in an arena where nobody actually wins, but we can pretend that we won?

The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.

No, it is not “perfectly plausible” that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power company supplied. That is not “perfectly plausible”; it is outrageous nonsense.

Jed is objecting to what Peter wrote that was correct. “The paper” is talking about the paper Jed had pointed to. So, we had what could have been considered some kind of progress: Peter was acknowledging that some kind of flow meter error can happen. Flow meters are not infallible. Then we can talk about conditions where this might occur. Jed confuses principles with facts, in what follows. Peter generally refuses to be nailed down to facts … but Jed is doing more or less the same, in the other direction.

Some of this comes, I suspect, from knowing more than he can disclose. He still wants to express what he knows, which has become, for him, relatively certain, and so he expresses it that way, which then, in Peter’s world, confirms Peter’s opinion that something has gone wrong with Jed. In fact, Jed has always written this way, I’ve been observing this since I first encountered him, in 2009.

The main differences to the Doral plant case: a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe

That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe, according to Rossi’s schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that schematic, since you do not believe me.

As I point out above, we have more than some Unobtainium schematic, we have the Penon proposed protocol. Jed is correct: the Penon protocol, written as a description of the plant when it was already in operation, per the Final Report, explains that the flow meter is in the return pipe. It is not clear whether or not there is an “ascending pipe,” i.e., a section of pipe that will cause the meter to fill before further flow occurs. Omission of such a feature would cause a possible flow meter error, which could be substantial.

b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.

That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the water runs.

Peter’s statement was confused. Parts of it may be interpreted as correct; a consensus-seeking discussion would narrow and identify what is correct by consensus, and then identify the actual points of difference. “That is incorrect” rarely results in any improvement in the state of agreement, it only does so when the allegedly incorrect party identifies their own error and acknowledges it, (or acknowledges an incomplete communication allowing a misinterpretation) a sign of a sophisticated participant.

You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.

Completely wrong.

Jed is so focused on Peter’s overall stand, and the preposterousness of it, that he calls “completely wrong” a statement that is easily and literally true. However, then, Peter means something other than what he said. He is making an analogy, and the application of the analogy is in Peter’s mind only, it actually makes no sense to the rest of us in context; this depends on Peter’s confusion about flow meter errors only occurring during start-up.

Now there are two cases possible in principle: A. Normal professional setup: RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible

No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked at it saw that immediately.

Jed, then, is drawn into making statements that are not only unverifiable, but likely wrong in some ways. Let’s take this apart.

  1. The flow meter was installed in an empty pipe, not a “half empty” one. However, Jed may mean by “installed,” “existed.” He must be writing about steady-state conditions, after flow is established, and there is an assumption here (unverified and very possibly incorrect) that flow was uniform. The Report claims uniform flow, but that is averaged or cumulative over a day.
  2. There is evidence that the pipe was, for some unknown period of time, only partially full. This comes from Murray’s observation documented in Exhibit 5. It does not say “half full.” This is an expression Jed may have used to mean “partially full.” And it does not claim this as a continuous condition. What is actually said is this: “The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid. See Exhibit A.” 
  3. Jed may have additional testimony from one or more other observers, but … in operation, which is what they would have observed unless they came during those final days, when the flowmeter was removed and visible (I assume Exhibit A was a photo of the flow meter vanes) … the evidence of partial filling would not be visible, unless there were a transparent section of pipe (which would be a great way to confirm this one way or another in an real test, to be avoided at all costs in a fake test, and this issue of flow is really an old one with Rossi, though possibly a new variant on it. There may be observers who concluded that the pipe could be, from the layout they saw, only partially full, and with other evidence visible to them, such as a nice comfortable room in spite of an alleged megawatt being dumped into it, concluded that this was the “trick.” That, however, would be conclusory, not observed fact. The facts would be the layout and the room temperature.
  4. Jed could not possibly know that “everyone who looked” saw “half-empty.” In fact, even Murray did not actually see that. What Murray saw raised the question, it did not conclusively answer it. Jed is creating certainty where it does not yet — as to what we can see from the peanut gallery — exist. Realize that Jed’s testimony would not generally be admissible in court. Murray’s would be admissible.

B. Setup according to Jed

The setup is according to Rossi, not me.

There really is no controversy over the set-up, except for those unfamiliar with the evidence, such as Peter. “According to Jed” was true (Jed is indeed asserting the flow meter is in the return line, before the pumps). The problem here is that Jed does not or cannot cite where Rossi provided this setup. I have not seen anyone point to it, but we have the Penon protocol as a definitive document, with no reason to doubt it other than Peter’s complaint that what it describes is not “professional.” And we agree with him: it was not professional. It was a blunder, made by a nuclear engineer probably missing the necessary HVAC experience, overpaid and undersupervised, whose experience with Rossi (and IH!) had led him to expect that sloppy work was acceptable.

FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.

There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:

We all, interested in cold fusion, should love the Richard Garwin comment to CBS News: “They say there is no doubt. But I doubt.”

Q.E.D. My answer to Garwin is, “They say there is no reasonable doubt. You left that word out. Q.E.D.”

“They must be doing something wrong,” another Garwinism, is pseudoscience. It depends upon a held assumption of impossibility that is far from adequately specified to have any verifiability. “There is no doubt whatever” denies what is obvious: there is doubt. This is, as I’ve been pointing out, Jed making dramatic and hyperbolic statements. And, again, if I qualify those statements properly, they become simple facts of Jed’s experience and understanding, it really means that “Jed has no doubt. Jed is certain.” I expect he would agree. My own position is that what he is claiming is shown by the preponderance of the evidence, which is obviously conclusory, but is stated as my position, not as absolute truth.

In the trial, if it comes to that, “preponderance” is as assessed by a jury (or sometimes by a judge, though rarely will a judge rely on mere preponderance, but something closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the jury decisions, there can remain “reasonable doubt,” but a piece of property must go one way or another, and the outcome remains in doubt only if there is a hung jury. (In a federal civil case, the jury must be unanimous or the judge will send them back for more deliberation or will declare a mistrial, and then … we have deja vu all over again.)

There is a great deal of evidence, of high interest, we have not seen, I’m sure. We have hints of some of it from Dewey — how about an IR survey of the building with the Plant in operation? I would be astonished if IH did not do that, after it had become clear, by early December, 2015 at the latest, that Rossi was claiming “GPT” and “ERV” and $89 million. The Plant continued in operation until mid-February, 2016, so they had plenty of time. For a helicopter based-survey, this would have been fairly cheap. I have seen a hint that they used a satellite survey. This 2oo5 article indicates that adequate resolution may be available. (If building shadows interfere with imaging, as the article notes, a megawatt from a warehouse should be quite visible. Dewey was ridiculed when he claimed that the heat would be “visible from space.” Those ridiculing simply had not considered what was possible, and ignored a major hint. This might have been cheaper than hiring a helicopter, unless they needed to point the satellite, which could be expensive.)

1. The pipe was half empty.

Jed is repeating what is really a conclusion supported by his general conclusion. It’s inaccurate and inflammatory, saying this to Peter.

2. It was the wrong kind of meter.

Well, not necessarily the wrong kind, but the wrong capacity, i.e., for a plant with design flow of 1500 kg/hour, a meter measuring increments of 1000 kg was too insensitive to provide good data. With other controls, this could have been an adequate meter, but … using it was setting up possible doubt. Bad Idea unless the creation of doubt is the goal. Which is more or less Rossi’s history.

3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.

Jed is depending on the sum of the individual reactor pumps. I don’t have this in front of me. Those were metering pumps. There was an overall system pump. If those metering pumps prevented flow from the overall pump, i.e, if they were actually flow controllers, then Jed’s argument would be cogent. I don’t know the fact here. This is circumstantial evidence. It’s put together with the pressure evidence, and is quite cogent as to “something being off.” To have any hope of getting through to Peter, this must be taken one small piece at a time, and I’d want to see interaction on individual issues (which Peter is more or less asking for now). What happens instead, is that there is a battery of arguments which are, to some extent, interconnected, and a foundation of agreement is not built. I’m not blaming Jed for that, Peter has not taken opportunities for such interaction and has generally rejected detailed discussion, claiming overwhelm. Peter becomes overwhelmed because the combination of complexity of issues and age creates new conditions that require patience. “Overwhelm” is a product of rush, an insistence on immediate understanding and an intolerance of ignorance.

Various other reasons such as —
4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source.

Missing qualification: if there were no means of cooling the building, such as very substantial fans and ductwork. Those are missing, apparently, and Rossi clearly argued that normal convection through some relatively small roof vents would be enough. However, flow through those vents would be calculable, and it appears that it would not be enough to reduce the warehouse temperature below the boiling point of water, so Jed’s argument is cogent. (I have not verified those calculations.)

Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.

This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.

Well, there are some incredibly dumb stories on the Internet. There is no doubt that Rossi accomplished something remarkable. If he is not massively delusional (and he might be), he probably expected that, as before, there would be no close examination, and being approximately okay, if one squinted, would be enough. What is really amazing to me, and it is human behavior that is of the highest interest to me, is how many people are clinging to rapidly thinning threads, most of which have broken, hanging on, and blaming everyone else — i.e., most observers — for FUD.

BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale’s calumny paper. Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the issues raised by Gamberale?

Peter went through the same denial about the Defkalion case. I had extensive communication with Hadjichristos, and to me, he seemed relatively open and reasonable. Jed had a very different experience with him, and lost money when he bought a nonrefundable ticket for a planned visit to Defkalion. Hadjichristos promised to pay that, but apparently it never happened. And the Defkalion imploded when the Gamberale report not only showed a probable artifact (evidence for it had been observed by others, from a display of the flow rate, but the cause and source of the anomalies had not been identified until Gamberale) but also signs of deliberate fraud. I held as possible an alternate interpretation, that Defkalion had, in at least some of their work, discovered the setup conditions that “produced the reaction,” when, in fact, they were finding setup conditions that created the artifact. Defkalion could have admitted error in that demonstration, could have backed up and evaluated all their evidence. If they found that it was all contaminated — or possibly contaminated —  by this error, the responsible thing to do would have been to admit it, and retest with care, and acknowledge failure to replicate the “Rossi Effect” if that’s what they found with increased precision and care. Instead, they made a bad smell about Gamberale (and so does Peter, here) and vanished. Hadjjichristos, the Defkalion CTO, is working somewhere else and nobody has reported any comment from him.

Defkalion offered disclosure under NDA. I considered signing one, but the embargo period was far too long, unnecessarily long for some product allegedly close to market. So I never signed. Peter, however, might have, and so if he has post-fiasco communication, he might not be able to reveal it … or would think so. My own opinion is that clear public welfare trumps NDAs, and this is a basic legal principle. Standing for public welfare is “whistleblowing” and it’s risky, always. I have no legally enforceable NDAs outstanding, only informal agreements which I have not violated, and I have no intention of violating them, but I doubt that this would ever be tested by “clear public welfare. ” If someone disclosed to me clear evidence that they were continuing to defraud others (this is much more than merely making false claims), I’d have to face that and I would probably consult counsel. I have faced similar issues for years in personally counselling people. I once broke confidentiality because someone I was counselling revealed he was suicidal and he told me where the medication was. I called his mother, because his life trumped any expectation of confidentiality. The same thing is true of mandated reporting laws over child abuse: the welfare of children trumps the expectation of confidentiality. In Rossi v. Darden, we can see that it takes extraordinary circumstances to penetrate attorney-client privilege. Attorneys are officers of the court and may have a responsibility to prevent clear additional harm to others.

These can be difficult issues, boundary cases.

Without facilitation, Gluck v. Rothwell is going nowhere fast.

Ascoli65 jumps in with apparently independent FUD.  Before I was banned on LF, I had marked Ascoli65 as “banned,” which meant that his comments were not normally displayed unless I pushed a button. I did this to discourage myself from responding. Too often, this was useless noise, designed to provoke others by accusing them of this or that. Ascoli led with a response to Jed’s admission of a momentary confusion:

OK, I know, this is your personal way to pay homage to the genious of one of your heroes: Machiavelli.

That was grossly and corrosively uncivil, blatant trolling. I would, seeing this on a site where I had administrative responsibility, warn Asocoli that such comments were prohibited, I would have redacted the comment itself (keeping a copy of the unredacted comment, which might be in a public log somewhere, unless it contained intrinsically harmful information or allegation. I would also, if needed, take steps to require moderation of comments from the user.)

THHuxleynew wrote: (about D.E. 143 connecting a lot of dots).

Well, Rossi alleging that Dewey is paid by IH to assassinate his reputation is understandable – though if so I’m pretty sure Dewey could find more profitable assignments and IH could find more effective assassins. So like many RossiSays it has blog plausibility but looks flaky when closely examined.

I prefer Dewey’s story that he is here unpaid to defend his friends against the monstrous allegations of a known liar whose cause is nevertheless championed by many here. Either way I don’t think Deweys’ posts win any hearts and minds – but they are good fun!

Deweys’ story is plausible. What was revealed in 143 is not different from what was already known, reasonably well. The agreement does not include any public commentary (see SCOPE OF WORK.) Remarkably, Mats Lewan reported rumor, in his blog post, April 20, 2016, this way:

At least one person [Dewey Weaver, see update below] with close connection to Darden, also financially, is contacting key persons around Rossi, trying to convince them that Rossi is a fraudster and that they would be wise to stop collaborating with him or at least be careful not supporting him in any way. The message also includes claims that IH through its investigation continuously discovers deceptive behaviour by Rossi.

This comment is a reasonably clear example of how Lewan lost his journalistic balance. Lewan does not attribute the information to anyone, he simply states it as fact. If Lewan directly observed something, I would assume he’d say so. So someone told him this, very likely. Who? Most likely, someone Lewan considers a “key person around Rossi.” Most likely, one or more of the Swedish scientists. Then, this is a rumor and exact language is not quoted. Instead, it is interpreted, inferring intention and purpose of contact. As to the final statement about IH investigation, that is now confirmed, amply. Yet the way Lewan presents this, it appears as a campaign of character assassination — which is the Planet Rossi story. Instead, there is an obvious alternative explanation.

The advice Lewan reports Dewey as giving would be very much the same as the advice I gave — on the semi=private CMNS list — to CMNS scientists in general, in 2011, as I recall: that Rossi claims had not been confirmed, so beware of supporting them, because, even if they were real — and that could not be known — an specific enterprise could go south from many causes, and the field did not need another black eye. We knew, from many evidences, that LENR was real, but this did not bear on the reality of Rossi claims, especially since they were so far outside the envelope of what had reasonable report and confirmation.

What the Agreement with DRV did engage Dewey to do, first and foremost:

… maintaining relationships with inventors and others in the field known as low energy nuclear reactions (“The Field”)….

The Agreement we see is a continuation of an Agreement dated May 1, 2013. Shortly after that, two events occurred: ICCF-18, and Dewey was there, meeting people. And the 1 MW plant was delivered to IH, and Dewey has claimed that when he had a heat gun, Rossi claimed the reactor was about to run away and, Everyone leave the room immediately! And then asked T. Barker Dameron to not let “the lawyer” in. Dewey is not a lawyer. but simply wanted to check some reported temperatures. Not allowed, not even by an IH consultant, on IH premises. Dewey did not conclude from this that Rossi was a fraud. I assume that IH and Dewey were thoroughly aware of Rossi’s paranoia.

I met Dewey and ICCF-18, but I have no recollection of what we discussed, in the fifteen or twenty minutes (my guess) that we might have talked. I have, since, spoken with Dewey on the phone. Dewey is possibly the most informed person on the planet as to the state of LENR research. That is his job. As part of that job, he maintains “relationship,” which means communication. From my experience, he discloses his opinions in those communications. Again, from my experience, he did not tell me what to do or not do. Certain topics came up where he kept the conversation shallow, basically, he’s under NDA, possibly more than one.

On the blogs, before Rossi v. Darden, he did not attack Rossi at all. After the lawsuit was filed, he began making derisive or sarcastic comments about Rossi and those who “believe in” him, i.e., “Planet Rossi.” As pointed out by THH, this is not how a professional P.R. agent would go about creating FUD. It was, instead, open and honest — if obviously with a conflict of interest, which was quickly revealed in April 2016.

IH makes almost no public announcements, confining themselves to pleadings and the presentation of evidence. They actually do what Rossi claims to do: not discuss the case outside of court. At the same time, Rossi claims massive propaganda is attacking him, paid for by IH or APCO (which would be IH, not the other way around, if APCO is involved at all at this point). I’ve been accused of it. It doesn’t matter how improbable such accusations are, on Planet Rossi they may stick if they support The Story. I’ve been attacked with racist and other insults, and the one attacking was not sanctioned, but who is banned? Not him! Reading back, I see just how wrapped up in Planet Rossi a prominent LENR Forum moderator was.

Very involved.

The only other major banned user on LENR Forum is HG Branzell. HGB was a pseudoskeptic, but not as annoying as, say, Mary Yugo. Who banned HGB? When and why? I have never seen any account.

Back to today’s story:

Alan Fletcher wrote:

I have long wondered why Weaver has leaked so much information (or hints of information)., compared to Rossi’s “In pursue of precise directions from my Attorneys, I cannot comment on issues that will find due evidence in Court.”

This is straight from Planet Rossi. Rossi’s comments, as quoted, are formal, often repeated in a context where one of his socks has made a statement, asking him about it. Rossi fills his blog with these, but deletes other comments and questions that he does not want to answer. In other words, even if these were not him with a mask on, he is selecting them for impression. Rossi is a principal in the case, an actual party. Dewey Weaver is not. Dewey is not an official spokesperson for IH. He is under a confidentiality agreement, but that is between IH and him.

I am in the process of compiling what Dewey has “leaked.” If he has confidential information, from discovery from Rossi or a third party, marked “confidential,” when disclosed, and he discloses it, he or IH could have some legal difficulty. Much of Rossi’s “cannot comment” is overstated, but Rossi has a history of sticking his foot in his mouth and it’s obvious that his lawyers have told him to STFU. This page covers related issues, but this was about a lawyer considering an interview with the press. The fact is that any of us can be sued for defamation. That is a mixed bag. However, Rossi simply answering questions, factually, would have only one down side: if he gets it wrong, he could harm his case. If someone asks him what the water return pipe size is, he could answer, if he is sure about it!

I have no idea the level of approval that Dewey has with IH as to his blog comments. I take none of them as official IH announcements. They are merely the comments of a person with some level of inside information. Most of them are not factual in nature, but are conclusory. There are, however, facts included from time to time.

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for “dissemination” of company information.

I never understood Dewey as merely an aggrieved investor. I knew he was heavily involved in communication with the LENR community. “Paid operator” sounds far more directed and supervised than the Agreement requires. He is an independent consultant, not an employee. Dewey talks with people directly, and commonly, and IH, Jones Day, and APCO are not in the room, I’m reasonably sure. Dewey is trusted by IH. We don’t know for sure that Dewey is still working for IH in that capacity — as a communicator with the inventor/scientific LENR community — but I do expect that he is.

I still don’t see the reason for all Weaver’s FUD : the jury won’t see it.

It’s conversation, Alan. This is part of the LENR community. He communicates with the LENR community, as a person, not as a FUDbot, nor as a public relations agent. His goal would be to connect with the real researchers. But he’s also interested personally in people. That’s long been obvious. Attempting to understand Dewey from the point of view of “how does this help IH” will not go far. Dewey’s activity here only helps IH to the extent that Dewey’s reputation with the real community, i.e., the active researchers and those who support them, is enhanced. Planet Rossi does include a few people who might qualify. It also includes hordes of trolls, Rossi socks, and other fluff, and Dewey tends to be rather impatient with these. It can be tricky. I have or will be advising him to back off on the “OMG another Rossi Sock!” claims. Let someone else say that, because people will. Even if it is true, it can be, ah, “politically incorrect.”

If Dewey defames anyone, he’s open to a defamation action, but if there is no actual harm, this would go about nowhere. Defamation is not alleged anywhere in Rossi v. Darden except for that Chaiken comment that was rather obviously based on Rossi Wanted (it had nothing to do with what they were before the Magistrate regarding.)

Edit: it’s a bit ironic that with all IH’s complaints about Rossi submitting un/incompletely-signed documents, Appendix B itself is not signed by IH.

OMG! Unsigned! This comment shows that Alan is clueless as to the significance of the incompletely signed document in the Complaint. The important one was the Second Amendment, and to be valid, that explicitly required a signature of all the parties. However, there may have been a collection of copies, what was weird there was that Rossi was alleging this was operative, submitted his copy, and had not completely signed his own copy. He did not allege that the full set was signed (i.e,. this was an agreement executed in counterparts, and it was enough that somewhere in that collection all parties had signed.) Each individual copy would be incomplete. Rossi never remedied this, but it’s probably moot now, unless IH, say, alleges that Ampenergo never signed.

The DRV Agreement is not here presented as a document to be enforced, it is simply shown as a description of Dewey’s duties and agreements. The copy was signed by DRV, so this would be what Dewey faxed back to them, probably. Dewey has their copy, signed by them. Fletcher’s comment is legally fluff.

Had Rossi alleged that a complete set existed, the IH claim about that, part of a Motion to Dismiss, would have had no standing at all. Rossi also did not claim estoppel in the complaint, but the Judge cut him some slack and invented it herself. There is absolutely no consequence here from that alleged lack of signature.

But Planet Rossi is convinced, ab initio, that Something Is Wrong.

Alan Fletcher wrote:

The legal case may have no relation to whether the ecat works or does not work, or even whether Rossi lies or does not lie.

While there is a truth to this, what’s “the legal case”? There are really two, with a combined trial, if they both go to trial. The first is the Rossi Complaint against Darden. I expect that it is likely, if IH files a Motion for Summary Judgment, that Complain is dismissed before trial, and it is obvious that this would not be based on any finding that the “ecat works or does not work.” However, the second “case,” the counterclaim, largely hinges on lies and deception and fraudulent representation. Alan seems to be ignoring that.

Peter Gluck wrote:

Dewey has and has not written this:

The crux of the biscuit is slowly revealing itself. One who writes lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses puppets to demean others and perpetual partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc…etc…etc…. clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth.

This is about IH supporters, masters of insulting.

Once in a while Peter does link to original comments. Mostly he doesn’t. Has Peter quoted out of context? Here is what Dewey wrote, as amended, by the way, yet another reason why linking to an original should always be done where possible.

The crux of the biscuit is slowly revealing itself. One who blogs lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses sockpuppets to demean others and perpetuate partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc…etc…etc…. clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth because only Planet Rossi’s version of “truth” is useful. Everybody on Planet Rossi thinks that everybody else is lying all the time anyway. Well that gig is almost up. This guy picked a fight with the wrong people and chose US Federal Court as his battlefield. The pleadings are closing shortly, discovery is wrapping up and there will soon be no where else to spin and hide. Bring it!

Peter’s quotation is fair enough. However, Peter entirely misses the point.

Dewey has told us here the aim is to let the Court know in perpetuity what a dreadful individual Rossi is.

Dewey most certainly did not “tell us here” what Peter claims, and this is what I notice: flame warriors become so attached to their own story that they read it into what others write, when it flat-out is not there. Dewey’s comment was not about the Court at all. He was making a comment about how some think, and some actually do think that way. The paranoid often accuse others of what they do, and the psychological reason is fairly obvious: they are their own model of a human being, and what they do and how they think must be how others think.

It was a Pareto relationship- 80% painting Rossi in black, 20% telling no excess heat.

Peter here has indicted the vast majority of the CMNS/LENR community — which “supports IH,” rather obviously, as “masters of insulting.” However, what is “insulting”? Is telling the truth insulting? Is expressing what one believes to be factually true, setting aside conclusions, “insulting”? Peter has been insulting, vociferously, corrosively, certain LENR supporters — not necessarily “IH supporters” and receiving no benefit from IH — for a long time now. He just called Gamberale’s document blowing the whistle on Defkalion a “calumny.” Was it?

The crux of the biscuit  is slowly revealing itself. That is, evidence is becoming public as to what was only previously circumstantially inferred by some, including yellow journalists, pseudoskeptics who asserted it as if proven, and others, more careful, who pointed out the possibility.

One who writes lies,… I am starting to document this on Rossi lies. For a quick example, see the Rossi email to Industrial Heat about the Hydro Fusion test. Compare it with what Mats Lewan has about that incident in An Impossible Invention. If Peter doesn’t have a copy of the book, I’ve written about it and could find references, plus someone should send him a copy.

slander, libel,libel is written or published defamation, slander is spoken. I have no example that springs to mind of slander from Rossi, but plenty that are libelous, including claims Rossi made about me. In context, it might not be actionable or worth attempting to action, but it was still libel. There can be a difficult line between defamation and legitimate expression of belief, I’m not exploring that here, but Rossi has definitely crossed the line, this could be explored.

uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses puppets to demean others and perpetual partial truths, … It is a common understanding that certain users on LENR Forum — one in particular stands out — are actually Rossi. That same user name showed up on Lewan’s blog in 2016, suggesting that Lewan ban … nckhawk, who was Dewey Weaver (quickly admitted). Again, this could be more carefully studied. It is difficult to conceal socks, long-term. The usage of “aliases” on JONP is quite obvious, Rossi makes little effort to conceal it. This term “puppets” can be problematic. It can refer to mindless followers. Is Rossi using them, or are they independently supporting Rossi? Dewey meant “perpetuate” not “perpetual.”

dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc… That would be a reference, first of all, to Mats Lewan. Rossi granted access to Mats. There is no evidence of any other serious “plying” that I’ve seen. However, Mats has clearly been duped, he’s fallen away from journalistic objectivity, that’s plain to see. I mostly attribute this to Mats simply not having the time to continue following the matter, combined with it being a damned nuisance that Rossi is as he is. Then it would refer to lots of bloggers who repeat what Rossi has said, uncritically, as if truth, and that’s been going on for years. Then there would be scientists, starting with Focardi, possibly, continuing with Levi and Kullander and Essen, and then Essen, again, and the other “independent professors” who made up the Lugano team. There are blatant examples in the Lugano report, supposedly independent, where the Rossi line was uncritically stated as fact. The errors made in the Lugano report are puzzling, unless we assume some odd influence was at work. I attribute it to not wanting to rock the boat. Rossi was granting access to what may have been, it looked to them, like the discovery of the century. That could be intoxicating.

etc…etc…. clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth.

Hence everything that is said by “supporters of Industrial Heat” is “lies,” and Rossi does claim that.  Dewey’s thesis is plausibly about Rossi.

So Peter attempts to turn it around. “This is about you and yours!” It’s transparent and displays a phenomenal naivete about social reality. Those claims are plausibly made about Rossi, and often with direct evidence, and are commonly accepted (including by some who still support Rossi). There is no such situation with “supporters of IH,” who have no central focus like Planet Rossi has. THHuxleynew is not affiliated with IH at all, as an example.

Alan Fletcher wrote:

A forum search of “dewey investor” is interesting.

He was certainly happy to let everyone think he was just an aggrieved investor (and friend of Darden). And yes, I do think it’s important whether he is an investor, or a paid insider.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Alan has his head in a dark place. I knew, quickly, that Dewey was a consultant to IH, in addition to being an investor, so “happy to let everyone think” is highly. I never asked, but I assume that consultants to a company like IH are paid, though some may volunteer their services (and we do not know how much Dewey was actually paid.). In either case, investor or consultant, paid or otherwise, there is a potential conflict of interest that is best declared. Wikipedia requires it. “Investor” vs. “Consultant” is here a distinction without a difference that actually matters. Again and again, I wrote about Dewey as an “insider.”

So Alan quotes an unimpeachable source, my congratulations on his good sense.

Here’s Abd asking him a direct question Jun 7, 2016:

Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Dewey, back up. Correct me if I’m wrong — if you can, I fully understand that there are things you cannot disclose. You are an investor (in Cherokee Partners?) — something like that. As such you may have some access to inside information. But you are not an officer of IH or of Cherokee and do not represent them, and may not know every detail.

In June, 2016, I did obviously not know that Cherokee had not invested in IH. I stated that, AFAIK, Dewey was not an officer of either corporation, and that he may not know every detail.

and his answer :

Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Abd – I hate to keep repeating this but I can only share so much detail at this stage of the legal battle with Rossi. First of all, Cherokee and IH are separate legal entities. Second, I’m a shareholder in IH, not Cherokee. Third, I’ve been involved in investing with Darden for over 16 years and know the man very well. He is an incredible visionary, a great leader and a cause-oriented investor. He puts everything that he has into solving big problems.

Dewey clarified the factual matter. He also wrote a great deal more, that shows the depth of his feelings.

OK … he didn’t actually lie …. because Abd didn’t ask the right question.

So, is the idea that had I asked the “right question,” Dewey would have lied? I very, very much doubt that. He would have answered honestly, would have explicitly refused to answer, or would have ignored the question, and none of those are lying. Did anyone ask him the “right question”? How about Alan Fletcher?

This is what I see here. Alan had a mistaken impression that Dewey was not paid anything, “only an investor.” I knew and Jed knew that Dewey was more than that. But he still was not an “officer” of IH, and only their representative in a loose sense. Basically, for people in the Field, he’s an open channel to IH. If I wanted to take something to the attention of IH, I’d send it to him.

So when he finds out that there is a consulting contract, with Dewey being paid — which was utterly no surprise to me, I already assumed it — he is thinking that there was some deliberate deception. It’s like Steve Krivit and ITER. Because Steve Krivit did not understand the ITER claims, when he found out that there was a way to make them wrong, he then claimed that all the ITER spokespersons had been misleading and that Congress had been misled, but he showed nothing more than some imprecision in some statements, actually exceptions. Krivit applies his own idiosyncratic definition of “fusion power” to make others wrong. He actually does this with “cold fusion” as well. Krivit’s theme: Krivit Right, Others Wrong. Unless, of course, they agree with Krivit.

Our category: New Energy Times

Here’s THHuxley (or whoever) on May 4, 2016

Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Well Dewey claims to be an investor and therefore privy to more info than us – but not an IH super-insider. And his very imperfectness, for me, is plausible. Take what he says with a pinch of salt as always, and ignore his speculation, as always. But while you can make a story for the facts he has brought to the table being lies the simplest case (usually true) is that they are more or less true.

.. but not an IH super-insider ..

Happy to let that slide by, too. He IS an IH super-insider.

This was not a claim from Dewey, this was a THH understanding. I have no idea what the difference is between an insider and a “super-insider.” Apparently this has Big Meaning for Alan. The janitor is paid. Does that make him or her a Super-Insider? Dewey is a clearly independent consultant, charged with communication with the LENR community, being the eyes and ears of IH in that respect. He is not an officer and does not have authority to speak for the company in any binding way. However, he would have the ear of Darden and Vaughn.

Alan could be more useful if he learns to do deeper research. he could try searching for “dewey weaver insider” to see that at the time, Dewey was being called a “so-called insider,” and Alan Smith called him (as nckhawk) and “Guest” on Mat’s blog, “IH trolls.”

“dewey weaver consultant” is more interesting yet. It comes up with these, here, posted before the revelation of the actual IH-DRV agreement.

January 30, 2017: Dewey is an investor in IH and a consultant to them. I suspect he is a major advisor there about where to invest.

December 14, 2016: Dewey Weaver, for those who don’t have a playbook, is an investor in — and advisor or consultant for — Industrial Heat; Industrial Heat itself never gets involved in internet discussions. Dewey is not officially representing IH, but only his own opinions. But that’s his real name and he is an insider, often with insider information.

On LENR Forum, quite explicit, September 24, 2016, I wrote:

IH is not about to reveal what they have in store, outside of court process. So what IHFB “pressed” is irrelevant. Dewey Weaver is not IH, though he is an insider, basically a consultant and investor. Dewey hinted at IR evidence. I am not depending on that, though I generally trust him and everything he has written — as to fact, distinct from conclusory statements — has, so far, checked out.

Dewey was commonly, then, called an “insider.” he was and remains an “investor,” so he had, from long ago, a financial conflict of interest similar to being an employee or consultant. Alan Fletcher was making a mountain out of a molehill. Nothing changed other than Dewey having slightly more reputation, now, as someone of import.

A new Planet Rossi troll appeared (though, in fact, he had four posts in 2016).

Rionrity wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

Sad though it is, the answer for many here would appear to be yes.

That is meaningless without context. THH was responding to:

Again with the paid poster idiocy? Could somebody explain to me why anyone would spend money to have posts made on a fringe website impugning the character of either a free-energy scammer or a shell company that invests in cold fusion? What is the payoff and to whom? Do people think that this childish infighting will affect a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in any fashion? Will it affect the course of science? Do people here actually think that the petty squabbles on this website are important to anyone but those who hang out here? That strikes me as delusions of grandeur.

Rionrity proceeds to confirm THH.

This whole idea of spreading FUD is big business today and professionals are hired regularly at great cost by politicians, businesses and people involved in court litigation just like this. It is a growing new industry in the age of the internet.

 “Court litigation just like this”? Any examples? This is stated as if clear fact.

There are political movements, involving many, many people, where social media comments are sometimes coordinated. The examples I know of don’t involve anyone being paid. There normally must be some clear benefit to the payer. There is no clear benefit to IH from these discussions, such that they — or APCO, if APCO is currently involved with them — would pay. However, there is a clear benefit to Rossi if the IH claims can be sufficiently discredited that Rossi has some backup should he lose the lawsuit and counterclaims. There will then be a population that is disgusted by the obviously unfair result. After all … (repeat a few Planet Rossi memes).

The examples of FUD in the Wikipedia article involve commercial products, where there is actually major market activity, involving billions of dollars, perhaps. I find this kind of naivete about business reasonably common on Planet Rossi.

There was, again, a decent analysis from THH.

Some cogent — and even inspiring — discussion followed this post by sigmoidal.

Nigel Appleton asked Dewey:

Dewey, can you give us any hint as to whether, in your opinion, any radical new method of extracting usable energy from mass is currently showing any sign of promise, to the point of being replicated in independent tests (or even controlled tests)?.

“Radical new method” was not explained. Is LENR a radical new method? LENR has been confirmed in “independent tests,” but LENR engineering is not to the point of generating confirmed reliable heat — unless there is something secret or unannounced, and I would not expect Dewey to be able to announce it if he knows about it. To my understanding, at this point, this is beyond the state of the art.

Dewey answered:

Nigel – I can say that we are reasonably encouraged but have a long way to go before we’ll know with confidence what broad steps to take next. We’re talking years at a minimum in my opinion.

In mine too. The Rossi affair was clearing some wreckage out of the road. (If Rossi has something real, it will come out, almost certainly, unless he keeps anything real a secret to his grave. Some inventors do that. If not, it will be entirely of Rossi’s making. IH did not go after him, he went after IH.)

Peter Gluck wrote:


with mutual sympathy I understand what your words say however if the Rossi Effect is non-existant- nada, WTF should it be “studied for years”?

The problem is with your formulation- here self -contradictory [–] and with your stereotipies.

Peter did not understand. Dewey was not writing about the Rossi Effect. Peter, for years, deprecated the most solid aspects of LENR in favor of “LENR+”, something he made up out of a belief that the Rossi Effect was a major, spectacular breakthrough. Dewey is talking about the real science, which is nascent and still not understood. I expect to see some major scientific results this year. They will have no direct impact on practical applications, but will clear the way for increased and broader funding.

Shane D. wrote: [to Dewey}

You mentioned “summary judgement” also.

He did. You also noticed, Shane. I’ve been talking SJ. First time, I think I’ve seen Dewey mention it.

It baffles me that IH has not yet requested one, based on what is almost certainly a fact that Rossi lied about JMP, his role in it, production, customer…all that. I know Rossi denied those allegations in his response, but he has not provided any proof to back his assertions, so I wonder if he is telling the judge verbally he has proof, will show it at trial, and she is accepting him on his word? That is the only reason I can think of why this has not been tossed yet, or IH has not submitted the SJ. Or maybe they are about to do that? Confusing, but hey, I am not Abd.

You noticed.

This is not difficult. Given the factual issues raised and the history, the time for Summary Judgement here is after Discovery is complete. That’s not yet. The Judge is neither accepting nor rejecting Rossi’s claims. Faced with an MSJ, she will consider if the evidence available is sufficient to support Rossi’s primary claims enough to warrant a trial. If not, summary judgment will be issued. The other stuff, about his deceptions, as to the counterclaims, it is much less obvious. I don’t know.

Update, February 20, 2017:

Meanwhile, those who believe in DeJAvu, the Industrial Heat Ministry of Disinformation, through which critics of Rossi are paid to assassinate his reputation (which I would call an example of paying someone to beat a dead horse), overlook how clumsy and unprofessional these FUD’ders are. Jed Rothwell obviously did not read the memo, so

Jed Rothwell wrote:

JedRothwell wrote:

Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.

Abd thought I made error here, and the flow rate was never zero. Gamberale stated it was zero at times. Quote:

“One can get an erroneous measurement of flow as large as 1 lt/min (close to the flow rate measurement obtained by SA during demonstrations of the reaction) while having the upstream valve completely closed (thus corresponding to a null real flow) and this has been actually observed by us.”

As commonly happens when defending what we have written, Jed did not read carefully. A helpful policy for self: always start by assuming a critic is correct, and read the critic in that way. Then one can back up and tell the other side, if there is one.

First of all, I did not say that “it” was never zero. What’s “it”? Imprecision in reference creates many conflicts and controversies. Jed and I both know what Gamberale reported, particularly the essence of it. What I wrote, above, was about the Defkalion demonstration flow rate, during the demonstration. I explicitly stated that it must have been zero instantaneously at times, because it went negative, turning the impeller backwards. So “never zero” was totally incorrect, a misreport of what I’d written.

It is part of my role with the LENR community to point out details like this, to avoid being a “cheerleader” for all persons who support LENR, but to be the “loyal opposition,” which supports LENR research and education by helping maintain essential skepticism.

What Jed quoted does not confirm what he wrote. Gamberale says that he observed apparent flow with the “upstream valve” closed, i.e., a condition where average flow would be zero, first approximation (in fact, there could still be some very small net flow for a short time because of pressure changes). Gamberale played with the system when he had the opportunity, and observing apparent flow with the valve closed was part of that. He did not state, nor did he intend to imply, that flow was zero during the Defkalion demonstration. It was merely a possibility for that setup. I don’t doubt him. Zero flow could be maintained for a time, but the backflow was caused by bumping, and if boiling continued with zero flow, the boiler would partially empty and the larger pressure variations would stop. The demo conditions were not with zero flow, but with flow low enough that bumping pressure could reverse flow momentarily.

Confusing possibility with actuality is a common critical error. It is possible that the flow reported in the “ERV Final Report” is off, even far off. We can infer that some error was made, even if we accept the temperature measurements and the pressure as being inadequate to raise the boiling point to that temperature, because of the “room calorimeter” information problem. So we can infer some error source, and flow error is a ready possibility, consistent with what we know. But it is not proven. Nor is “zero excess heat” proven, and that would probably be impossible to accomplish, unless Rossi writes a full confession, say; what can be done is to notice possible misleading inferences from evidence.

“Believers” in Rossi (i.e., “Planet Rossi”), those who trust IH or even “believe in” IH, genuine skeptics, and pseudoskeptics, may be able to agree on what the evidence is, i.e., what we know. We may be able to identify areas where there are gaps in knowledge, and even agree on this. Consensus starts with identifying agreement, by backing through disagreements into foundations.

Trolls will avoid this process. Believers might also avoid it, for various reasons, mostly boiling down to despair.

There are two kinds of writers who appear as trolls. Anonymous trolls have nothing to lose, and may participate far beyond any reasonable limit. Real-name trolls may behave differently, and I treat them differently. In real process, some real-name trolls will disappear when the process takes them to the point where they might need to agree with something that contradicts their mission. (“Mission” here does not mean some conspiracy, it might be “showing how smart I am,” for example). Someone who will admit what defuses the conflict is not actually a troll, merely someone who was taking an unpopular position that might appear as provocative.

It is possible to negotiate high consensus, if there are participants who care. It takes patient work.

Update, February 21, 2017:

Peter Gluck took high offense to this post. As is common, he ripped what I wrote from context, as if context were irrelevant, and he invented his own context and ascribed it to me. What I wrote was about his treatment of Gamberale, a hero in my book, and this was only more or less the last straw on the back of a camel carrying a huge load of deep insults he has hurled at many of those who have made major sacrifices in the service of reality.

At the end of his response to this, he has:

I hate any form of censorship but from ethical and sanity reasons, from now on and till I am converted in fuel, the CFC blog is ‘blogus non-gratus’.  Non vu, non connu, as the French say.

“Out of sight, out of mind,” is the English expression. Peter claims to hate “any form of censorship,” but actually hates, even more, honest expression of personal reactions and feelings, stated as such. When the reactions he triggers in people with his hateful foam are expressed, he drops a LANCB message, though he hasn’t stayed gone in the past. When the extremity of his writing was pointed out to him, he behaved as if an attempt was being made to censor him, and this started with relatively private communications.

His motto for the day he shows as Aquila non capit muscam. Nice. Misspelled. I only found his spelling in an embarrassing place: Women's Boy Brief

It’s “muscas.” This meme is a Planet Rossi trope, often used (though I hadn’t seen the latin phrase before) to explain why Rossi does not respond to criticism, though, of course, he actually does, even to quite minor criticism that isn’t even criticism, such as my noting his idiosyncratic KWh/h as a unit of power. He went ballistic, beginning with a misquotation by one of his obvious socks, and ultimately emitting a foam of deeper error, demonstrating his lack of depth.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


10 thoughts on “Dewey Weaver and the Temple of Doom”

  1. Abd – some useful updates, but unless I’d been checking I wouldn’t have known they were there. Maybe a note in the header that there’s an update could be helpful.

    It should be possible to come to a consensus of what data is available and at least to some extent as to how trustworthy it is. There are however a lot of words to go through, and I’m not going to go through the blogs to weed out the real information from the flames and misinformation by now since it hardly seems worth the effort. If Rossi really wanted to convince us that he’s got a device that does what he claims, he’d have done things in a different way. I’m not sure why Planet Rossi is so intent on insisting that the system works as claimed, since the proof of that particular pudding won’t be delivered any faster no matter how many people believe in it. Delaying the good Dottore by asking him questions when he has so many court documents to go through seems counter-productive. The time spent answering them could be more productively spent developing the Quark-X, after all. Not that I’m sure what sigma-4 and sigma-5 mean in this particular case, but it sounds science-y so must be good.

    Still, the next design will really work this time…. Like the last several working designs that were proved to work and then consigned to history as if they’d never worked at all. A bit like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown to kick, this time she won’t pull it away so he falls on his back.

    My point here is that Rossi’s demos only seem good on the surface, and when you start to dig out the details and look for the corroborative evidence they don’t stand up. If you believe Rossi, then you can ignore the failures in the evidence, and if we point out the failures then the believers feel personally attacked. If we point at the previously “delivered” devices and ask where they actually are, they seem to have just evaporated without trace. There’s too much emotional involvement, and this should be science where the data stands or falls on its accuracy. I’m sure, however, that if the believers had a similar obvious inaccuracy in their electricity bill or water bill they’d be somewhat quicker at questioning the meters. If the meters weren’t at fault they’d be looking for leaks to explain the water bill and cable faults to explain the electricity bill. If they bought a 1kW set of solar panels and found it wouldn’t even charge their phone they’d be annoyed.

    One sad point is that Peter Gluck was right when he said that it would be a crime to delay LENR+. The trouble is that Rossi’s shenanigans are indeed doing just that, with resources diverted from other projects to try to replicate Rossi’s claimed results. People have also used the transmutation data from Rossi to develop theories as to what is happening. You don’t get far in theory if you’re using fake data as your starting-point.

    Of course, I’ve moved from the stance of “maybe Rossi has something” to “he’s faking it” over the last few years. It’s not absolutely certain that Rossi has nothing, but it is certain that he’s lied and has overstated his results if he hasn’t created the whole cloth from lies, bad measurements, and made-up data. I’ve also moved from “IH must be crazy” to “IH took the best route” along the way. IH got the available Rossi IP, tested it and found no significant excess heat. Opinions have to change as new data comes in, otherwise there’s no point in discussions.

    Where to from here? There’s not much point in discussing Rossi ad infinitum, so we’ll wait for the other shoe to drop in the court case and hope that *somebody else* comes up with good data for the theoreticians to consider. Plan B, in other words.

  2. Abd – a nitpick. The flowmeter minimum flow-rate was 1000kg/hr AFAIK, and the measured flow was 1500kg/hr, not 1.0kg and 1.5kg. Feel free to delete this message, otherwise it will self-destruct in 10 seconds….

    1. Yes. I’ve listened to it, though I dislike audio and video without transcripts. I may write a critique, there are parts which are useful, but parts which are appalling. Lewan acknowledges that he may be biased, but expresses an opinion that the IH presentations may be cherry-picked (which is true) in a way that ignores what the full body of evidence as we have it shows. Rossi v. Darden may settle with no more evidence being revealed. What have we learned? Lewan has obviously learned almost nothing. It is not clear that he has actually read the evidence. I’ll be inviting him here, I hope he will accept an opportunity to discuss this in depth and at leisure. He may find it far more useful than what he’s been doing.

      If anyone wants to make a transcript, that would be quite useful.

  3. You wrote, regarding Defkalion’s test: “The flow was not zero. It was small enough that pressure oscillations in the boiler, bumping, could reverse flow momentarily, and that type of pressure meter simply counted the number . . .”

    The flow rate was zero at times. Quote:

    “One can get an erroneous measurement of flow as large as 1 lt/min (close to the flow rate measurement obtained by SA during demonstrations of the reaction) while having the upstream valve completely closed (thus corresponding to a null real flow) and this has been actually observed by us.”

      1. You have confused the issue. You wrote: “He did not state, nor did he intend to imply, that flow was zero during the Defkalion demonstration.”

        Neither did I. I wasn’t talking about the demonstration. I have no information on it. I was pointing out that you can make the flow rate look positive when it is actually zero. That’s what Gamberale said. If the upstream valve is “completely closed,” there is no flow, although water may be sloshing around triggering the meter.

        1. That was your intention, Jed, but not clear in what you wrote:

          “Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.”

          “They” — i.e., Defkalion — did not “show the flow was high,” rather Gamberale reported that there was a flow indication even when net flow was zero, because of a completely closed valve. Someone who believes that your overall thesis is wrong will then seize on the “error.”

          “That is an error of infinity.” Strictly speaking, that is a possible error of infinity, not an actual one, since the Defkalion claims were not made — I imagine, because of the duration — when net flow was zero. Their actual error, we think, was high.

          Your overall point is completely correct, and we agree on the facts, I think. Do we?

Leave a Reply