Quack rentals?

In discussion of Rent-an-Expert Penon (Actually Rossi v. Darden developments), it was mentioned by Dewey Weaver, the only actual IH informant in LENR Forum discussions, that “Penon has proven that he doesn’t know beans about much of anything,”

So Alan Smith wrote: (my emphasis)

Which is why he graduated from University with the highest possible honours. ‘Summer comes Laundry’ as they say.

I won’t go into how inane that “factoid” is, in context. No sirree. I will not mention the word “idiot” once. Stealing a line from the RvD documents, the post speaks for itself.

However, what is this “summer comes laundry” thing? And AlainCo picked it up and made it huge: Summer comes Laundry

So, WTF? I googled it and the top hit was to this:


’nuff said.


Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

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

6 thoughts on “Quack rentals?”

  1. Here’s a snippet of information from Dewey at https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=50880#post50880 . Confirmation of your speculation on Tom Darden’s game-plan and also a hint that the current IH work is all Pd/D and no Ni/H.

    Meantime, Peter is still asking for photos and data that aren’t so far in the available evidence, but has (finally) admitted that if it’s a 40mm steam pipe then the data in Penon’s report must be false. There’s been a lot of talk about that pipe-size, and the gauge pressure, with examples being given of how a high-pressure 1MW steam system could use a 40mm pipe and still work. Doh! If the pressure was high-enough (6-16 barg) that the pipe could carry the steam, then at the 104.2°C stated it would be water and not steam. It’s a game of pick-and-choose what bits of the available data must have been written down wrongly every day for a year. Several pages of that argument from around page 87. Of course, if this had been a high-pressure steam system, then there should be legal documents of permits and official inspections from the Florida state.

    Columbo would have been good here. “Just one more thing….” The coat would have been useful too on a cold day in the Doral warehouse, where despite the large amount of heat going into it, it appears people still needed to dress warmly. There are references to a photo showing this over-dressing, but I haven’t found that photo yet.

    1. It’s mind boggling. Peter thinks the “40 mm” issue is a deciding factor, when it’s a minor detail that he keeps harping on. Murray’s letter stated the pipe was DN40, but did not state how he knew it. The language, in spite of claims both ways, was ambiguous. The pipe size was part of a calculation. Calculations can contain errors. Peter complains about people attacking Rossi and people attacking him, but has, for the last year, freely attacked many. I first began to criticize Peter — other than minor disagreements about some interpretations of research (which he presented as friendly debate, with which I agreed) — when he went beyond the pale in libelling Jed Rothwell. He then complained that people were attempting to censor him. It got worse and worse….

      There are many, many posts in that LF thread that are off, compared to the case record and the law. Jed sometimes overstates matters, though he is correct in round outlines. IHFB and Peter have left all sensibility behind. As to one issue, Rossi is not legally obligated to present his argument to the court at this point. If IH files a Motion for Summary Judgment, Rossi may present evidence; presumably at that time it will be based on discovery. (He would not be allowed to produce a previously undisclosed Wabbit.) We cannot assume from the case documents that Rossi has no case. However, I can say that it appears unlikely, that’s all. Many things are stated as if uncontroverted fact, most often based on Rossi Says. It’s a mess.

      The “operating evidence,” call it, may be irrelevant. However, within that, the pressure issue is important. Constant pressure of 0.0 bar is, of course, impossible, and that Penon used “bar” was a glaring error, but not of major legal significance. If it was barG it is still extremely unlikely, indicating a malfunctioning pressure gauge. Were there operational calibrations or confirmations? If pressure wasn’t 0.0 barG the whole Test is junk. Then there is the flow meter. There is no sign of a U joint that would have created accurate function. Peter is now claiming that an “oversize” flow meter was a good choice, because of reliability, even though the difference in reliability (MTBF) with a more precise meter would have been negligible. This is all inventing arguments.

      In fact, Rossi has said, many times, “wait for the trial.” But Planet Rossi, following Rossi himself, doesn’t wait. They keep making unsupported claims, many of them. This is all of more psychological significance than scientific or technical or legal significance. “Public opinion,” with a case like this, is very unlikely to make any difference to Rossi’s prospects, as to the lawsuit. LENR scientists, for the most part, have a positive opinion of IH, that’s obvious. Rossi’s stock with them was never high, there have been a few exceptions. I can’t write about them, specifically, because this is based on CMNS posts, which are confidential. Unless I ask for permission, and I haven’t done that.

      (Rothwell does make unsupported claims, but has, in fact, supported some of them or explained why, he simply doesn’t necessarily repeat that. IHFB has claimed that an issue was resolved with a pointer to a prior discussion that did not necessarily resolve the issue, but IHFB had made a claim. He is remembering his own ideas, not any group consensus. IHFB has become completely stuck in a belief, and convinced that any other opinions must be wrong, and that this has already been proven. That kind of certainty is manic, to a degree, and is why I’ve mentioned that there is a manic current underlying much discussion in the field. To Peter, of course, this reminds him of Communist rule. But so far, nobody has been grabbed and tossed in the looney bin. Peter does not actually understand free speech, the quid pro quo involved.)

    2. It is a good news IH goes to PdD, as it is the most known avenue, and this mean they are looking for understanding and not stright for application.

      I’ve evolved from a LENR+ Gluckian way of mind, to a Stormian position (you can consider I have no self opinion, I chose one’s opinion, eventually mix many).
      Recently out of Rossi/IH tragicomedy I have seen many interesting things, and few cares of them…

      I wait for the execution. Opinion vary on who will be hanged, but we really need a hanging to end the controversy and start working on PdD to drive theories, and from theory maybe to make NiH works reliably.

      There are evidence NiH can work, but who cares today, we need first theory, and this mean data.

      My position is that LENR actors should work with the labs working on batteries nanotech. They are well funded, have astounding imagery available including con-focal microscope, X-ray, electronic microscopes, real-time imagery… They could rent/lend hours of their labs to analyse a LENR lab-rat, and I suspect that in few hours they could put their wealthy fingers on the key of LENR…

      1. One step at a time. First priority is the Reality question. As long as this is unclear, research will be greatly hampered — even assuming the effect is actually real. Having an ideal lab rat is not necessary for that, and agreeing on a lab rat will be difficult. With NiH, we don’t know the ash, the Rossi-provided samples cannot be trusted (and the results are weird, not seeming to vary with length of operation or net energy production). With PdD, there is a relatively clear and settled observation, heat/helium correlation. So that was the number one priority I identified, and the work seems to be under way. I’ve been told it’s going well, but I don’t have details beyond that. Beyond that, what is there? I proposed, in my Current Science article, the Letts dual-laser findings. IH is working with Letts, so check. Storms has reported some phenomena of high interest that show a path forward, and I don’t know who is working on that. From Storms I derive the suggestion of running PdD electrolysis at elevated temperature — and, with pressure, perhaps even above 100 C. Eventually, though, I’d expect to see the field move toward gas loading. (It could be possible to design infinite COP with what Storms has claimed, using high insulation and controlled cooling; however, this is not necessary for basic scientific studies.)

        Some level of NiH research will proceed, I’m sure. The additional Texas Tech investigation into exploding wires was intended to characterize materials. I would suggest to MFMP that they attempt to clean up areas of investigation. One of Greenyer’s ideas was worthwhile: Vysotskii replications.

        High temperature NiH should either be confirmed or found to be unlikely — absent some “secret.” Me356 is noise. If there is something real there, it will come out — or it will be lost forever, and tant pis. Life will go on.

        The main lesson of the Rossi affair is to pay little attention to secret commercial claims, absent actual products. For science, confirmation is fundamental, for commercial claims, Rossi is right about one thing: properly, the market is the judge. Not adoring fans, nor scientists who approve of what are really demonstrations with poor controls and lack of depth.

    1. Ah. Yes. Very Alan Smith. I think that Laude to Laundry was too much of a stretch for me. I got a pile of such awards when I was young, but still didn’t pick up on it. Literally, highest honors. It would not be, however, “comes.” It would be “come.” And Summer come loud (or loudly) which would be a much easier malaprop.

      I tried to find evidence on the honors. Apparently Penon had a CV up at one time, on cobraf. It’s gone, and that would not be confirmation, only Penon’s claim.

      Part of what I’ve done is to look at old contributions of Alan Smith. He was very Planet Rossi, clearly so. More recently, he just brings up a fact, that just happens to be a fact asserted as part of Planet Rossi argument. Then he denies the obvious import. Just a fact. He does this over and over, each action with some level of deniability.

      The mention was essentially irrelevant. Whether or not Penon graduated with high honors, that would be many years ago, and that, as well, would be academic performance, not professional proficiency. In the present case, there is evidence of something off with Penon, and in the context of a DW mention of that — in DW style — Alan inserted this “highest honors” and “Summer Come Laundry.”

Leave a Reply