Ele mental my dear

Well, I’ve been reviewing Planet Rossi tropes, minding my own business in my “little blog,” — actually it’s a community blog, we get there one step at a time — and apparently I attracted the attention of ele, possible Rossi sock or likely Rossi insider (taking the place of randombit0), on LENR forum. It’s not quite the honor of being noticed on Rossi’s own blog, JONP, but there he did not use my name. Here he did. a poco a poco andiamo lontano.

Summary: to avoid facing his own lies, ele asserts that Cherokee is Bad, but, of course, attributes this opinion to a probably anonymous (fake name) poster on his blog, er, Rossi’s blog, which he just happened to notice. Purely coincidental, mind you. My ass.

ele wrote:

THHuxleynew wrote:

I raise this only because you have made so many documented false statements here…

THH or the statements are false or are documented. Tertium non datur

There was a clearly false statement that ele made, documented in detail in the place THH cited, which was this blog. Tertium no datur is the excluded middle, a reference to a logical fallacy; the use of this here is unclear.

However, I will assert a middle to the proposition that ele is Rossi, or not. The middle is that Rossi writes things and then gives them to someone else with better English to edit — and maybe to post. The sign of this is that the English is better, but the density of Rossi tropes is high. An alternate explanation is someone who is a thoroughly dedicated fan of Rossi and who is writing to please him. Maybe.

I inserted that link just because it could be interesting for many readers here to at least know that there exist a version of the fact published by Rossi himself.

Someone criticized the link because it was Rossi asserting the history. There was nothing wrong, in itself, with giving that link; however, first of all, this was in response to a request for evidence, and someone with sense would know that RossiSays would not be considered much evidence, yet, what RossiSays is indeed some level of evidence. Mats Lewan gives a little more; the problem here is that what Rossi said on that site did not support what ele claimed, but actually contradicted it, and so did Lewan’s account, which was quoted.

I am completely ruined by watching the dead parrot sketch today, which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with this. See the Macaw post here for details of that nothing.

Abd was banned from here because of his insults. Is quite an honor to be personally insulted on his personal little blog.

Liars consider the truth an insult. Here, ele asserts his first lie in this post. What insults? I was banned here because I declared I was boycotting the site because of posts being deleted without warning, notice, or adequate cause. So I was banned by the moderator who was deleting posts. So I just called this a “lie.” To be sure, it is possible that ele believes what he wrote, which would make it not a lie but simply an error. However, ele has a pattern of making such “careless” mistakes.

As to the honor, no problem. Enjoy it in good health.

Surfing the net I have also found some interesting link about Darden gang criminal behavior.

Perhaps two lies here. The second is clear: the links he will show do not establish any criminal behavior, and contain many falsehoods, Planet Rossi tropes echoing what the Man himself has written.

Seems provided by a guy who published a long comment in the JONP. I normally do not read Rossi’s blog but found that googling through a site called Rossi Blog Reader.

That’s incoherent and probably made up to explain away what someone might think, all useless and a waste of data.

I propose here the full original post:

Rossi-ism, using propose in this way. A colloquial English writer would not say it that way. It’s understandable and not wrong, but more standard would be, if one is going to use “propose” at all, it’s a bit archaic, “I propose for the reader’s consideration the full original post.”

And of course he proposes it, it is what he wants to say…. but why? What does this have to do with anything here?

The connection is common on Planet Rossi, and I recently covered it, I think Ahlfors brought it up.

Hugh H. Maguire
May 8, 2017 at 9:11 AM


Dear Andrea Rossi,

I’ve been following your tracks on and off for more than two years now. When the news of your lawsuit with Cherokee Investment Partners and their subsidiary Industrial Heat reached the public scene, I was not all that surprised. There are at least two known instances in which Cherokee Investment Partners, acting through companies they controlled, were involved in bankruptcies after being funded for reclamation and development programmes they did not complete. Main links may be found here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10…ew-jersey-style.html?_r=0) and here (http://www.postandcourier.com/…63-a818-6c0a67cdfa5f.html), but there are others, as the stories are well known.

The claim about “not surprised” is almost certainly false. “Hugh” would have had to know about those otherwise obscure Cherokee “facts.” This “news” was all over the blogs once the lawsuit was filed and people like Sifferkoll started dredging the net, looking for dirt. Rossi tropes here: the claim that Industrial Heat is a “subsidiary” of Cherokee, which was a critical allegation in the Rossi lawsuit, and because Rossi asserted that — it wasn’t true at all — his suit against Cherokee survived the Motion to Dismiss. That will come back to bite him.

I had written extensively in the past about these stories, last year, on LENR Forum, as I recall. These same claims showed up on E-Cat world, and, May 13, I was asked a question here on the blog about them. That question gave four news sources, actually. In my answer, which follows that comment, I tracked down far more information than had been alleged, so I’m not repeating that here.

And none of this is relevant to Rossi v. Darden, because Cherokee Investment Partners is not and was not an investor in Industrial Heat (in the cited bankruptcies, Cherokee was an investor, a relatively large one (which means they lost money), but the claim that Cherokee controlled those LLCs has not been substantiated and seems to be possibly incorrect. But to fully research this would take time, and nobody is paying me to do this….

At this point I ask myself: is it possible that IH’s refusal to pay you the agreed fees for licensing your technology, after running an undisputed test for over one year (during which its employees were always present, subsequent to taking part in the construction of the power plant itself), and paying the relevant fees to Mr Penon as consultant on the operation of the plant, is part of a long-term plan targeted from its very inception not just at yourself, but at outside investment partners?

First of all, the description of the nonpayment is totally Planet Rossi and very unlikely to be sustained at trial. The descriptions match quite closely what Rossi wrote on his blog until he started getting flak from his attorneys. Making the point about “employees present,” for example, claiming that the “test” was “undisputed” — when we now know that there were disputes and complaints. Penon was paid, yes, even when they were disputing the report. They had agreed to pay and that payment was not conditional on their trust in the report. What does that have to do with the claims here? This is all Rossi grandstanding.

We, as the public, are now aware that the Doral site was visited in February 2015 by Woodford, well-known in the UK as a high-profile investment management company, and that Woodford was apparently convinced of the technology, to the point of investing approximately £32m in IH.

We now know that the Woodford investment ($50 million US, quite exactly) was already assured in 2014, see the Ampenergo notes. While the Ampenergo notes report what Vaughn was saying then, these notes are uncontradicted and consistent with much other evidence, including emails and depositions. Woodford was impressed, not by Rossi technology, but showed, by where they put their money, trust in Darden, not Rossi, who apparently did not impress them personally. Rossi’s stories about that visit are no more reliable than the rest of RossiSays.

But I’m sure they were polite, IH was dedicated, at that point, to not upsetting Rossi. They told Cassarino of Ampenergo what was going on, and Cassarino apparently attempted to negotiate something with Rossi about the ERV or other “test” issues. It was understood, according to Cassarino, in his deposition, that IH would not be paying Rossi more, unless they could replicate, proving that the IP transfer was complete, something the Doral “test” could not accomplish. They all knew — and Rossi acknowledged that he knew — that the Second Amendment allowing the Guaranteed Performance Test to be done later had been “cancelled,” because Ampenergo refused to sign.

Planet Rossi simply refuses to accept obvious fact, but relies on vague understandings and imaginations that will not fly in court.

It stands to reason that, if the issue of litigation turns out unfavourably, IH might be tempted to file for bankruptcy, just like EnCap, Ashley I, and Ashley II.

They might not simply be tempted, if they were facing a large judgment, they would file for protection, at least, (Chapter 11), and possibly for full bankruptcy. That’s how LLCs operate! (The name means “Limited Liability Company.” That is how corporations operate!) This is utterly generic, and not actually related to Cherokee. The only reason for bankruptcy here would be that Industrial Heat invested their entire initial share offering ($20 million) and more, in Rossi, who gave them nothing useful in return (i.e., something they could sell without themselves committing fraud), and who then is suing them for $89 million and triple damages for fraud. If he ends up with a mouthful of hair, it would be totally just and fair. If he could penetrate the corporate veil and obtain judgments against Darden and Vaughn, and more so against Cherokee, there might be no bankruptcy (I don’t know about the personal wealth of Darden and Vaughn). However, I see absolutely no basis in the evidence adduced so far in Rossi v. Darden that would support a claim of fraud on their part. Fraud in the other direction is a practical certainty, or at least fraudulent representation.

When Woodford invested, they deliberately placed their funds out of Rossi’s reach. They actually committed up to $200 million, so if Rossi had actually done what Ampenergo wanted him to do, actually satisfy what IH needed in order to be able to move forward, the money was there not only to pay him but to push commercial development forward. Voluntarily. That point is made by Cassarino.

(If readers don’t know who Cassarino is, he is a principal at Ampenergo, Rossi’s major long-time supporter and his U.S. Licensee before IH. Ampenergo was paid millions of dollars by IH to compensate them for their License, and was to be paid much more if Rossi obtained the $89 million. Cassarino obviously trusted IH, and knew how difficult it was to deal with Rossi.)

Let’s put it this way: if Rossi has a real technology, which is not looking at all likely at this point, he completely blew it, shot himself in the foot, sawed off the tree branch he was sitting on.

And yet somehow remain in possession of the know-how related to your technology, which may have already been leaked to other companies involved in LENR research: the ones Cherokee or their subsidiaries have reportedly (Brillouin?) invested in.

Rossi is massively confused on all this and the comment reflects his confusion. Rossi would have major claims against IPH (which holds the License). IPH would not be able to profit without it going to Rossi.

At this point, it would be just a matter of window-dressing on the patent market. 
I am by no means a conspiracy advocate, but I find these facts extremely disturbing.

What facts? There are two kinds of statements made here, fact and implication. The facts are simply about how businesses operate, and how Cherokee has operated, albeit presented in ways that show no understanding.

Corporations have no morals, no matter how appealing their public facade might appear.

And what about the morals of anonymous blog posters, who libel others as if immune and above it all? Corporations are legal fictions, and legal fictions don’t have morals. People do. Some people routinely lie, some don’t. We are each responsible for our own behavior.

When one is willing to charge even one’s own inside clients for unjustified expenses (http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…ners-reaches-100-000.html), there are no limits to the extent of possible malversation.

The “unjustified expenses” is covered at Misc Mash, search the page for “Cherokee.” There was a rule change, there were compliance expenses, and Cherokee incorrectly charged those expenses. The expenses were not “unjustified.” They were simply allocated incorrectly to managed funds, as I recall. They settled with the SEC. Cherokee is involved in complex projects and these things do happen.

When one makes a minor accounting error, it indicates no limits to “malversation”? (I don’t know what malversation is, but it sounds Really Bad. Okay, looked it up. “corrupt behavior in a position of trust, especially in public office.”) The newspaper account cited by Hugh does not consider this any kind of scandal, and the story is actually that Cherokee settled. Because all the improper transactions were reversed, the only harm was that $100,000 of Cherokee assets went to the SEC. I wrote that this was like me being fined a nickel.

What may be relevant, Rossi asserted the SEC documents on this in his exhibit list, number 111. There is no way that would be allowed in court, but, obviously, this is very meaningful to Rossi.

Sincerely, Hugh H. Maguire.


Nice material . I think that a full read of the proposed links will be quite interesting.

I had already studied these articles in detail. If there are any questions, ask! If I don’t know answers, someone else might. The main thing here, as to Planet Rossi, is Rossi’s long-standing distrust of corporations, that is, in my opinion, what allowed him to fall into such difficulties in Italy, because when trouble came up, he had no backing. That is, of course, assuming that he was not a pure con, assuming that PetrolDragon was a real technology and not just a scam. PetrolDragon certainly could have been real. But how did Rossi conduct business in the real world?

More on JONP:

May 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM


What I mostly can’t stand is that Cherokee & Partners use charity organizations as a cover for illegal operations…and there is more upon this side of them.

This is evidence-free innuendo. What charity organizations are being used by Cherokee as a cover for illegal operations? How? What illegal operations? (No illegal operations were asserted in all those articles, unless we want to call an accounting error an “illegal operation.”)Evidence?

And then there is:

Ing. Antonini
May 16, 2017 at 5:23 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
The puppets of the ventriloquist of Raleigh are continuing to talk in the blogs of your past, which makes two considerations pop up:
First consideration: they use your past because they have not real evidence against you for the litigation, otherwise they would not lose time for archeology (they cite events of 25 years and more ago)
Second: you have been completely cleared from your taxes issues in Italy and from all the accusations that caused you to go in jail and they know it, but pretend not to know to try to assassinate your character with fraudolent biased journalism
Third: being the ventriloquist Tom Darden and the pious JT Vaughn so obstentatiously gracious guys, they should read the Gospel where Jesus says “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”: I invite the Ventriloquist and the Pious to read the comment sent to this blog from Hugh H. Maguire about a week ago, where are reported the links to the criminal customary activity of Cherokee, that is the mother of Industrial Heat: there we can see that also the “charity” organizations of Cherokee are covers for criminal activity. I am sure that more investigation on this specific issue could reserve stunning surprises.
And to them who want to know the real story about your past, I suggest to go to http://www.ingandrearossi.com
Ing. Carlo Antonini

I had not noticed much discussion of Rossi’s past. Ahlfors made a reference to claims about Rossi being convicted, but he was actually making a point about Joe Pike (which ele completely did not understand, or pretended not to understand, Rossi certainly met Pike), and my own involvement here was simply to note the deceptive statement, the lie, which in this case means a claim, persistent, that the claimant would reasonably know was false. Rossi was not found “innocent of all crimes,” and he served time for his five convictions. That’s just fact, even though the contrary has recently been repeated.

I never accepted the idea that Rossi’s past meant it was impossible for him to have a real technology, nor did it show that he must be lying now. I claim he is lying now because he is contradicting clear evidence, he cites evidence to defend himself that contradicts his claims as well, he misrepresents what others have written, he is either careless about it or really doesn’t care about truth, only about the Rossi Story, the impression he wants to create.

Rossi is obsessed with his past. IH effectively trolled him by raising the tax issue. He obviously went ballistic, wasting a great deal of lawyer time fighting the obvious. He doesn’t want it mentioned that he had tax difficulties in the past, and if he had fulfilled the License Agreement provisions about taxes, it would have been quite enough to simply assert that with no fuss. Instead he accused Jones Day of misbehavior, etc.

Rossi seems to have a big problem handling, ah, paperwork. There is example after example in the history. People with the money he had would normally hire someone to handle it all. What happened? And how is it that the License Agreement was with Leonardo New Hampshire, while Rossi v. Darden was filed by Leonardo Florida, but the alleged merger was not revealed in the Complaint, Leonardo New Hampshire still exists, the evidence cited by Leonardo for the merger was the original incorporation of Leonardo Florida from 2011, well before the License agreement.

The word that comes to mind is dementia.

Mats wrote that Rossi seemed to want to be seen as a con artist. He succeeded. The reality? God knows it best.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

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

13 thoughts on “Ele mental my dear”

  1. Comments here may be jumbled, it appears that a bug collapsed two posts and then comments were merged. To recover the original post, I copied it here, then copied what seemed be relevant comments to this post, here. Simon Derricut ends up with my avatar, and I see no way to remove it. I suppose I could log out and then later edit the posts to his name, which would leave him without that avatar.

    I now have a plug-in that will move comments.

  2. Abd – no title here. May I suggest Ele mental?

    I think Ele is not Rossi himself, but he/she is obviously someone who is close to him. What happens on the blogs will however not affect the court case, but it may have an effect on the support Rossi gets after it’s over and he’s trying to sell the next amazing invention (if of course he’s not incarcerated). I have seen such scams continue after the dust settles a bit and the “inventor” gathers a new cadre of supporters to finance the “important work” that will Save The World. I thus think Rossi is looking beyond the end of the court case and is fully intending to continue the cycle of a new device every year or two.

    This is somewhere of the order of the “Nigerian prince” emails, with enough spelling-mistakes that the gullible people self-select and the sender doesn’t have to deal with smarter people. In Rossi’s case, any success in any of the LENR projects that IH now have a finger in will be claimed to be “stolen Rossi technology” and this may result in some nuisance court-cases down the road a bit.

    With all the information we now have (and I haven’t delved it so deeply as you have) I’ve gained the impression that Tom Darden and company are good people to do business with. I see nothing where they’ve acted immorally or have broken their word. Even the point of Tom Darden mixing the fuel himself and not showing others what he was doing says that he tried to keep to the letter and the spirit of the agreement to keep the fuel preparation a secret. As it happens, that was pointless since it didn’t work, but the integrity is important anyway. I feel that we could do business with Tom Darden on a handshake, but that I’d count my fingers after shaking hands with Rossi.

    I’d however disagree with the dementia idea for Rossi – it seems to me he was always that way. Maybe he’s not been quite as good as before in covering his tracks, but then there has been a lot more information made public this time and the cracks in the story are more easily visible.

  3. Abd – the actual post 3116 (IIRC) that you renamed “Ele mental, my dear” seems to have gone AWOL, though this one is in its place with my reply to 3116. Overwritten accidentally or a database error?

    1. Accidentally overwritten in the editor. That is not easy to do, so there may have been some bug. I’ve restored it, but now the replacement post is lost, and the editor is acting up. Most comments here are to “Believers have their heads wedged.” I think I may be able to get it back, then figure out how to sort the comments. Thanks for mentioning it.

      I’ve fixed things, but the avatar for your posts is now mine, even though I edited the new comments to give your name. There may be a better way to do this. External links to the original “ele mental” post may be broken. There were more and longer comments on the Believers post …. I still have no idea how the original ele mental post came to be the believers post, I’d have to edit the name, not easy to do accidentally. I’m betting on bug right now. Yowzer. I’d just updated the WordPress version…..

      1. Abd – since you can’t accidentally overwrite in the editor (it would show the original post and you’d need to delete the text) then I’d say it’s a bug. Maybe it assigned the same underlying post number and thus overwrote the original 3116. The avatar problem seems to be on this post only, so unless this post comes up with your avatar it’s not worth trying to fix. Software updates can easily have unintended consequences, since these days there is a lot auto-generated and thus difficult to trace all the dependencies or to guarantee that all variables are correctly used. I don’t know whether you’ve looked at the underlying code, but it’s pretty impenetrable and uncommented as well. I’m somewhat surprised it works as well as it does.


        1. I installed WordPress on the advice of my son, who is an expert. Maybe it is spaghetti code, but, on a beer pocketbook, it’s spectacular. My latest problems have been with Updraft Plus backups. They are failing, apparently due to the attempt to back up the large media file directory (all those case files!). Backups were failing to complete, timing out, a scheduling problem, so there was a workaround. When I followed that, then the backup completed but with zip errors. That large zip was not being completely written. On-line advice was that this is the host running out of disk space or restricting the account. The host, GoDaddy, denied that there was any such restriction, this was an Updraft Plus problem. Classic. If we could gain energy from the finger-pointing loop, we’d be filthy rich. So I backed up that directory directly, but it’s a PITA.

          There was occasional I/O restriction, based on hitting a resource limit, but Updraft Plus works around that, slowing itself down.

          Meanwhile, I now have a plugin to move comments, which can occasionally be useful. I may install activity log and admin log plug-ins (looking to the future: LF needs this if it is ever to monitor admins. Who watches the watchers? We do. Yes, there are watchers with root access, those are highly trusted. If the site owner cares about integrity and the appearance of integrity, these will be carefully chosen. On WMF Wikis, these are Developers. Oversighters are the highest community-elected watchers, but any oversighter can monitor others, because oversight does not remove data from the database. It takes a developer to truly remove everything. And then there are database backups, they used to be public, but they became so huge that I don’t know present status.

          It is possible to make a site transparent. It is also possible to create off-site mirrors that automatically update, so the arbitrary deletion problem lessens in significance. The biggest protection against abuse is a watchful community, that has alternate communications media. Again, the biggest problem is that communities often don’t care, and perfectly happy to leave the heavy lifting to others — and then to complain when the others don’t straighten up and fly right. If someone complains, they are “troublemakers,” better get rid of them as quickly as possible. I watched this happen over and over on Wikipedia, with others, before they came for me.

          This problem (post overwrite) almost certainly had to do with my renaming. I still don’t understand it. Fortunately, the original post was in the new post history. Then there was the comment mess to clean up. If this happens again, that will now be easier.

          There are some spectacular plug-ins I have not enabled. For example, how about post and comment ratings? I don’t think we are yet at the activity level that needs this.

          1. Abd – again off-topic, but it’s easy to get diverted from your prime aim by the complexities of setting up the site. WordPress is a good choice and should allow to use what’s available rather than roll your own.

            For this amount of data, backing up over the net will be a problem. I’d probably want to put it in a zipped tarball on a local drive using a program like Midnight Commander that can treat FTP sites like an attached disk (long time since I last needed to do this, so available programs may have moved on, but *nix in general will have a lot of programs to do this job). Otherwise, a site-scrape batch command could automate it with sufficient throttling to not overload the server, and produce a mirror on your local machine. I don’t know the Windows equivalent, but there must be something standardly available.

            I suspect that post and comment ratings could be counter-productive. Sure, it’s nice to see those upvotes but this isn’t really a social site where strokes are important. Short, snappy expressions with emotional content aren’t really the style here, and they stand on the usefulness of the information. Once you’ve read someone’s comments for a while, you know whether it’s going to be worth reading what they’ve written today.

            1. Key in an upvoting scheme is the voting population. It is possible to use rankings to make content more or less prominent. Quora uses this, and, while the system has some clear (and well-known problems), it is also basically sound. I would not allow anonymous voting. It might only be Authors and above. The other approach is explicit polling, which has a problem with the necessary attention. In my view, the goal is consensus, full consensus, with careful attention paid to minority opinion. This was the Wikipedia goal, actually, but they never figured out how to implement it and basically gave up, instead attempting to exclude users with a Point of View to “push.” Which included, of course, experts. I developed concepts on how to approach that. Jimbo was interested, but in the absence of those structures, factions within the “community” could dominate, with predictable results. I took due process as far as I considered personally possible. The structure was defective, possibly irremediably.

              I just rejected the first comment from a writer. I emailed him the text and invited him to allow me to edit the comment, because most of it was good, but it descended into unnecessary incivility. It’s all understandable. The the goal here is consensus, and the path is to seek it, and that requires civil discussion, even though it can be frustrating to repeat what one has written a hundred times. It has not been written a hundred times in the presence of facilitation. Generally, not even once. There is no rush, no demand that anyone waste their time repeating arguments. I deliberately have kept all threads open, turning off the default that shuts then down after a short time. Before this community issues any “consensus statement,” there will be plenty of time to complete discussions; the goal will be that all civil arguments will be considered.

              Structure for that was set up on Wikiversity, by me, years ago. What is remarkable is how little it has been used, while many who would have much to contribute spin their wheels on discussion fora where nothing is ever decided. That’s part of what I saw as I came into this field in 2009. Nearly everyone was focused on being right, instead of discovering agreement and building on it. When we take on a task, the tools appear. So in 2011, it was practically demanded, in my life, that I go through intense training….

              At 67, learning new tricks, or cleaning up the old ones, mastering them.

  4. Abd – I’ve noticed that you enjoy taking the piss, and that you’re having fun with this as well as digging deeper. The Monty Python quotes are symptomatic…. So if she weighs the same as a duck… She’s a Witch!

    The LF moderators should know who are socks and where they come from. Maybe they just leave them as known, since removing them will simply mean they turn up under another name. They do however give some insight as to which subjects get under Rossi’s skin and are seen to be needing a counter-post. As with Dewey, it’s a contact with the source.

    It is true that we cannot force people to accept reality. I have a similar problem with the loophole in thermodynamics – most people won’t see the logic and will not agree there’s a logical fault until I have a physical device that proves it beyond doubt. That should happen in a few months – it’s not easy, just manufacturable with the right kit.

    For the dementia question, I’ve thought that Rossi thought he had something initially, but probably got the measurements wrong. On the other hand, with the Doral test he didn’t even put in anything that would have been able to dissipate 1MW if it had been there. He knew it wouldn’t work before the “test” started, in other words. Maybe he’s become drunk on the fame and the number of real followers, and that he can take up so many peoples’ time in trying to replicate his magic tricks. The court case, unfortunately, won’t prove anything scientifically, so believers will continue to try to replicate some form of x-Cat or QuarkX or whatever the next version is, and waste their time and money. I can’t calculate the balance – is it better that people are interested in LENR because of Rossi or worse because he’s lying about his results? It’s possible that some experimenter gets it right while trying to replicate what Rossi has revealed, since Rossi has collected ideas from a wide range of people who are trying to help. Some of them may be correct; most will need tin-foil. It has however been pointed out that Rossi hasn’t got a working technology, so it’s up to the experimenters as to whether they try to replicate him.

    I also notice that my brain doesn’t work as well as it did 20 years ago. Some things elude recall, but then I also trained myself to use a large amount of information by forgetting the details and only needing to remember where to find it again. Finding the right spec sheet is a few clicks away, so why memorise it when all I need right now is the principles and the gotchas, and by the time I need precise details they will probably have changed. The reality in electronics design is that knowledge has a half-life of around 18 months (maybe less now), so getting back to where I was then would be a steep climb. Luckily I don’t need to do that and achieve that intensity of concentration again. Still, we have in common that need to use the time that is available in a way that is useful to the world.

    I can see the reason for wanting to see Rossi in action. Since that will also most likely give you an insight as to whether he believes what he’s saying, and thus improve your analysis, it is good if you have the resources to be able to go there. IIRC Rigel offered you bed and board once you get there, so it’s mainly the travel and incidental costs. I’m sure you’ll find it a good use of your time. And fun.

    I’ll be remaining peripheral to CFC for a while, since there are various energy-related projects I’m involved in and only a set amount of time. I see cheap (and non-polluting) energy as the key thing to sort out ASAP, and that the consequences from achieving that are far-reaching. Apart from recycling energy, we’ll need some form of nuclear power that is cheap and safe. If we can work out why LENR happens then that covers the larger energy uses and makes recycling materials more economical than mining them. To get to a working LENR, we need a theory that explains it, and the theory probably won’t arrive until it’s generally accepted that it happens. Catch-22.

    Physicists tend to produce their new ideas fairly young, while they don’t yet know what is impossible so attempt it anyway. They then tend to spend the rest of their lives tuning the ideas. To solve the LENR puzzle, we thus need fresh minds who don’t know it’s impossible. Even better if they have widely-accepted proof it’s not impossible (Plan B).

    1. Thanks. Rigel’s offer was for Washington, D.C. where I might stop along the way. I’m planning to take the bus, but don’t yet have enough information. I don’t have accomodations in Florida yet. I don’t yet know who else might be there. As to Plan B, this was, in fact, the recommendation of both U.S. DoE panel reports. So … why wasn’t that done? My general explanation leads to a question: “What is missing, the presence of which would make a difference?” Identifying and supplying that became my mission, coinciding with the training (2011-2014) that has that as a standard distinction.

      (Plan A was, more or less, Rossi will save us with a commercial product! More generally, “commercial product,” but that didn’t exist. So we should all work like crazy to make it happen. “Crazy” would be a quick summary. If it hasn’t been done in 25 years, why would we think that mere perspiration would create it? But, if course, it might. We could not rule out Rossi Reality. Hence the brilliant plan of IH. They did what it took to test it.)

      1. Yes Abd I hope you see this. I will be glad to put you up and drive you around.
        As always your writings are on point. Depending on what you want you can have your own place (I am selling a house) or can come fishing. Summer is a time to get out and enjoy. The traffic here is miserable though.

    2. LF mods have claimed to not have IP information, but that may be a matter of admin level. Alain and Barty and the owner might have it. But the most complete information is in the raw access logs. MediaWiki provides access to that through the Checkuser extension, but anyone with root domain access can see those logs. It is generally considered private information, not to be casually revealed.

      In Word Press, here, anyone with the power to kill spam would have IP information and claimed email address. For the user agent string, which can identify the particular computer involved, one needs the raw logs. I can read them, but it’s a PITA without tools.

      I do not casually reveal this information, absent necessity, which I have not yet seen.

    3. Post title accepted, added “my dear,” creating multiple allusions. Fun. Thanks.

      I think that the matter is more complex than ele = Rossi or not = Rossi. Rather, there are many circumstantial hints that the first draft of ele’s posts came from Rossi, but they have been heavily edited by someone with much better English. I see the same pattern recently in JONP posts. There is a higher density of Rossi tropes in these posts than in supporter posts on E-Cat World. If it truly mattered, admin at a blog could easily determine the fact. On Wikipedia, the ability to examine what is called, there, “checkuser data” is confined to specially trusted users, who must identify themselves to the WikiMedia Foundation (though those identities are still secret, and … the evidence that must be provided is destroyed after being seen by WMF staff.) If a user violates policies, the ordinary right to privacy is lost. LF, as one example, has no sock puppetry policy. I have three four LF socks; I simply don’t use them as classic “socks,” to pretend independent presence. One would be very obvious if I used it, it was accidentally created. The other two, one is obvious from post history. The other is not. Any admin with access to raw logs could detect any recent identity of accounts — as far back as the raw access logs are kept. On Wikipedia, even looking at a site can create information that checkusers can use. In fact, because of global log-in, logging in to any WMF site can create records on other sites, and I’ve seen users blocked for alleged “sock puppetry” when they did nothing on the site where they were blocked, and I saw users globally banned merely for account creation. Rarely (very rarely) this was checkuser error. In a few more cases it was steward abuse, but I only saw one steward, out of many, abusing the privilege. Damn near got globally banned for pointing it out. The real problem there: the stewards protect each other, tools were abused to “oversight” evidence compilation, i.e., to delete it so that even administrators cannot see it — completely violation oversight policy — and then the community did not care when it was pointed out. Only the community can watch the watchers, and if it is burned out or prefers to believe that the watchers are all honest and straightforward, reform becomes impossible. I gave up at that point. I had done my job, and if people don’t want it, it is no longer my problem. “innamaa al-balagh.” (Qur’an) It is not our responsibility to force people to accept reality, our responsibility, if we see, is only to point to it.

Leave a Reply