August 30, 2016 hearing transcript now public

Over three months after a hearing, the transcript becomes available on PACER. This is the first one to appear, and it reveals much about the personalities involved, as well as some of the issues. At the time, there were was much speculation on what was happening. Now we can know.
Continue reading “August 30, 2016 hearing transcript now public”

3rd Party Motion to Dismiss

Today, the 3rd party defendants filed a new Motion to Dismiss. I have not yet reviewed it to compare it with their original motion, however, some of the arguments were familiar to me. I had predicted that the original motion would be denied, but when IH amended their Answer as required, the original MTD was mooted, and the 3rd party defendants had 14 days to refile, i.e., today was the deadline. To review the history:
Continue reading “3rd Party Motion to Dismiss”

Rossi Blog Bloviation

On Rossi’s blog:

We see comments on the Rossi blog, frequently, with single-name users that show up nowhere else, asking him questions that say what he has been instructed by his attorneys not to say, and most of us suspect the obvious. This one is face-palm nuts. The filings in the case — so far — are the direct opposite of what “Shayne” says.
Continue reading “Rossi Blog Bloviation”

Rossi answers the countercomplaint


This was three days late, but that is now legally moot. (But see Better late than never, or better let sleeping dogs lie?)

I have compiled a merge of the IH Counter-Complaint with the Rossi Answer paragraphs, so that they may easily be seen together, and I added links to exhibit files, again for convenience. This now outlines the counterclaim case.

Those who have been looking for a Wabbit won’t find it here, the Answer is mostly formulaic denial. (But something is described below that is truly remarkable, amazing that Rossi counsel let this by. It’s not a Wabbit but a Toad, as in “I toad you so.”

There are some claims of interest, but almost no specific evidence is indicated. There are no attachments.
Continue reading “Rossi answers the countercomplaint”

Sympathy for the Devil, part 1

This is a DRAFT. I’m publishing it in case some corrections might appear, but this has not been put into final form, necessarily.

In this case, the “devil” is the late Douglas Morrison. I have seen a cold fusion advocate express the opinion that Morrison is roasting in hell. However, of course, if Morrison is the Devil, he would simply be sitting beside a fire at home…. or in it, and not suffering, since Satan is made of fire.

I don’t wish hell for any human, because … what if I make mistakes myself? What if am as stupid as a flounder? We all can be seriously stupid when we become personally involved, the attachments make us stupid.

I’ve read that discussion before, but I found it confusing. Why? Idiotic ideas can be confusing, to be sure, but did Fleischmann’s arguments stand out as the soul of clarity, clearly visible against the backdrop of Morisson’s alleged  stupidity? Apparently not. Why not? Is it because Fleischmann was wrong? I don’t think so. I think there were other causes, and that’s what I will be looking for, here.
Continue reading “Sympathy for the Devil, part 1”

Trolling on lenr-forum

One of the common afflictions of internet discussion is trolling. Trolling is behavior that generally seeks to irritate or enrage participants, it is a move in a social game that seeks to win by upsetting the opponent. It is possible, at least in theory, for a troll to be ‘sincere,’ but merely ignorant. Having no mind-reading crystal ball, I assess trolling by effect, both actual and inferred.

A characteristic of trolls is that argument is endless. No matter what has come before, the troll will assert that his points have been completely established, and that resistance is futile, and stupid.

When trolling is allowed, discussion quality declines. There is, however, a strong anarchist bent to internet communities, and so trolling may be permitted. There is an audience that loves to see the conflict.

Lenr-forum traffic appears to have declined, there are fewer comments than I was accustomed to seeing. However, today brought these, so far. I will examine them from the point of view of trolling.:
Continue reading “Trolling on lenr-forum”

Commentary: Details matter

Kirk Shanahan is the last critic of LENR to be published on the topic in a peer-reviewed journal. Jed Rothwell is a long-standing supporter of LENR, an editor of scientific papers and translator from Japanese.

A post on lenr-forum from THHuxley looks at conflict between Jed Rothwell and Kirk Shanahan and draws conclusions about LENR. First of all, the participants:
Continue reading “Commentary: Details matter”


I have been “permanently banned” on, a major LENR discussion site. I have already been commenting here on some issues raised there, this is now a necessity, if I’m to comment at all. Criticism and commentary is welcome here or there. I am continuing to watch at this time.

So this first post on will cover the ban. What preceded it?
Continue reading “Commentary:”

Scientific American hoaxed

Krivit is a co-author of this Scientific American article, but this is mostly about Krivit’s point of view. Ravnitzky is relatively unknown, he is an editor for Krivit’s new book series. The new books are published by Pacific Oak Press. I find no books other than Krivit’s published by this publisher. All it takes is money.

It’s Not Cold Fusion,…But It’s Something

This is a review of the article.
Continue reading “Scientific American hoaxed”

Critique: Widom-Larsen Theory

Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces

This is a Widom-Larsen paper, published on arXiv in 2006, last version 2007. From comments by Widom and Larsen on New Energy Times, the intention was to submit this to a refereed journal. That apparently never happened.

This is the beginning of a review of that paper.
Continue reading “Critique: Widom-Larsen Theory”

Discussion on C&EN

In Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society.

Cold fusion died 25 years ago, but the research lives on

Scientists continue to study unusual heat-generating effects, some hoping for vindication, others for an eventual payday

Original article and comments. … Krivit reaction. … And more from Krivit.

Reaction on lenr-forum … and more on lenr-forum.

My interest being community process, always, I decided to study the comments on this article as they stand today. I may update this. Italics indicate quoted material. I have quoted the comments in their entirety, because cherry-picking (even if motivated without intention to bias) could create bias.
Continue reading “Discussion on C&EN”

COP is a red herring – what matters is reality of an effect

This was written as a response on, but became long and I decided this is worth a post here.

AlainCo wrote: If you came with 1% error, and an anomaly of 10%, a skeptic will bash you as “you have unaccounted error sources”, which is probably right, but not by 10%.

I consider it necessary in this field to stop worrying about skeptics, be skeptical oneself, and design controlled experiments for testing hypotheses, including exploring the parameter space, not for proving things to skeptics.
Continue reading “COP is a red herring – what matters is reality of an effect”

On Observation, Experiment, Theory, Trust and Belief

A discussion on lenr-forum led me to this musing. Eddington was quoted there.

“Never trust an experimental result until it has been confirmed by theory.”.

This led me to look at a 1978 New York times article, For a Nobel Math Prize, by Paul R. Chernoff, a mathematician, of course.

Continue reading “On Observation, Experiment, Theory, Trust and Belief”

Financial Times slapdash knee-jerk reaction passes for journalism

I guess I give it away by the post title. This later was the subject of a reaction: The most bizarre article

Kadhim Shubber

So, Neil Woodford invested in a cold fusion company

Continue reading “Financial Times slapdash knee-jerk reaction passes for journalism”