Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

Quote from Eric Walker

Jack Cole is a real person. You can see his site here. His postings on LENR go back to 2012.
He has been on Vortex for a long time, where I first saw him. He has been doing real experiments. I wouldn't blame him if he no longer replied to you.

Wow that'd be so sad.
Thomas Clarke and Jed Rothwell are real persons as well. Don't they have an agenda though, that is heavily supported by others? For example, look at our friend Doobie flying to the rescue of "Jack Cole".

Very interesting his site nonetheless. That so much effort is put in pretending only convinces me further of the reality of the Rossi effect.

This information warfare is fascinating as well as frightening.

Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint) by Jed Rothwell, refers to today's "EGO OUT" post by Gluck. It's off topic there, my apologies for contributing to that. Here it is on topic. I see I started this thread, I had forgotten about it.

The blog title is SEP 21, 2016 LENR WHY I DISLIKE SHODDINESS?

Gluck, as might be expected, ignores the major pieces of evidence provided by Industrial heat, the smoking guns, more or less, and focuses on fluff for pedantic reasons. Let's go:

Quote

a) Answering to accusations, accusing Exhibits of shoddiness

My Editorial of yesterday has got some attention here:
Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)
Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)
page1

and it was not treated well in my opinion; therefore I am answering. Not answering on the Forum where my answer would be sabotaged- opponents attack in packs one of them using tsunamis of wording- so there to the usual Forum illness, Dilutitis it will be added a dosis of deadly Drownitis. This is my Blog made to let me say what I want, in proper circumstances. The Forum is organized for lynching.

One of my conclusions about Gluck is that he became paranoid. It' is likely an extension of what might have been less blatant when he was younger. "Tsunamis of wording." That is likely about me. He could easily block my account here, it takes a moment, is easily undoable -- unless a profile is hidden, I just discovered that a user I'd blocked now has a hidden profile -- so I cannot unblock!

"Opponents attack in packs." So? I sometimes get downvoted here by a series of users, a clear set of them. This harms me how? Some users comment derisively about my writing -- as Gluck has done often on his blog.

It is part of Gluck's self-image that he doesn't censor comments on his blog. I think. What he really does is to generally ignore them and continues as if nothing was said.

So, a bit about why I write about Gluck. He started attacking Jed Rothwell in various fora. It was intemperate and often just plain wrong. I advised him to stop, privately, semiprivately, and then much more openly. He considered it an attempt to censor him. Ultimately, he began attacking me. That part is not surprising, since I was exposing identity issues for him. It is never popular, or, rather, people who understand and respond well to it are rare. So this is no longer for him. He is a case in point of the disease of Planet Rossi.

Quote

First about me- who I am, how I am and what I think and why is not misunderstood, it is intentionally misinterpreted by my opponents. Some of them- to be polite do not excel in fairness.

He isn't polite. Accusing others of bad faith is very, very impolite. I personally guarantee that I have never intentionally misrepresented Peter. That doesn't mean that I have never erred. But Peter is highly reactive, yet seems to expect others to accept direct attacks on their integrity. He has also regularly presented, often with apparent approval, Sifferkoll, who is a true attack dog. He really believes his targets are Evil. He takes the thinnest thread of resemblance, draws conclusions, and presents them as facts proving that there is a major conspiracy. And it's contagious, others use his memes. Including Peter.

Quote

It was said am "totally confused". No, I have a very clear, well formed opinion that differs from what they want to impose upon everybody.

Notice the mind-reading.

Quote

Why no "in error". "not well informed" "not intelligent enough to understand the situation?"

Because the regular presentation of ignorant error warrants the label "confused." As to intelligence, that is not the problem, though as paranoia continues, it ultimately has a devastating impact on functional intelligence.

Quote

Because confused, totally confused is more offending and works for them. Choose the worst variant- the most aggressive!

Now, I'm 72. I can easily get confused, it comes with age. Peter is reactive to "confused." That indicates to me that he is resisting normal aging, probably considers it a disaster. In fact, if we accept that we can be confused, we can factor for it, and overall intelligence can continue to increase. At least I think so! That is, while individual ideas can be confused, depth increases, and reality sorts itself out.

Quote

Why should I be confused I can remark simply - what the opponents do not like, cannot accept and will deny up to the end: actually IH has NO real proofs against Leonardo Corp., the 27 Exhibits are nothing else than a bunch of totally (I borrowed the word) irrelevant documents and fabrications. See what Abd says about Exhibit 5 which was thought and presented by Jed as a mortal weapon. (Jed says here a new enormity about the closed circuit) Now Abd tries a clumsy diplomacy- this shows only Penon's lack of communication. Is this manipulation. explaining away, honest? And why for Jed's sake does IH not make public the ERV Report if it is such a hyper-strong proof of the lack of excess energy? I tell you why -because it is NOT.

What Peter totally fails to understand is how lawyers work. Peter has not engaged on the Exhibits, focusing almost enirely on Exhibit 5, which is mostly part of their claim about Penon, that he was incommunicative, and did not respond to what might be serious flaws in the test. Or not. And it really doesn't matter. Yes, Jed is quite assertive, and what he is assertive about is actually reasonably clear, but Peter is in utter and complete denial about it, starting with misrepresenting what has been said by others, and continuing to make completely ignorant claims, such as, effectively, it being impossible to "fool" a flow meter, when, in fact, as Jed points out, there are many ways to abuse a flow meter and some of them can even produce drastic errors.

But we do not actually know what methods were used to create an appearance of 1 MW. That the MW was real is extremely unlikely because of the heat dissipation problem, and Gluck dismissed that by claiming that we had no knowledge of the Doral warehouse, when it is known very well. Many photos, Google maps from satellites, some users have investigated this ad nauseum.

But all that is very unlikely to get to display in a trial, because of what Peter thought was preposterous. It was never a Guaranteed Performance Test, and that's quite clear. The only confusion comes from Rossi referring, over and over, in his complaint, to the Doral power plant installation as a Guaranteed Performance Test. The GPT required, explicitly, written agreement of all the parties to the start date. Yes, Rossi could claim estoppel, but this is much stronger than the issue over delay. Estoppel would require a clear act of acceptance and Rossi has not revealed one. What Rossi did was to assert the elements of a GPT, including the presence of Penon, and claimed that the assent of Darden to Penon's measurement plans was approving Penon as ERV. However, it is highly likely at this point that GPT was never mentioned at least until after the "test" was under way, so assent to the start of the test was missing. They could have retroactively consented, but, as I say, it is highly unlikely this happened. It would have been phenomenally stupid, turning what was intended orignally as a test in the IH facility, under their full supervision, into a test totally controlled by Rossi, who even excluded the IH. In setting up the Doral move, Rossi avoided any mention of "test."

He does, however, mention the IH proposal to install the Plant in a former facility of theirs or a related company. So Rossi's story of not being able to operate the Plant in North Carolina was ... let's just call it a delusion at best. And Gluck pays no attention to all the evidence for this, and instead focuses on whatever "incorrectness" he can find. It's transparent.

What is the "enormity" about the closed circuit? Jed refers to a return water tank, open to the air. I'm not sure of that. But why "enormity"? This is Gluck's paranoia, which dramatizes everything. I have never seen Gluck actually engage in a discussion and complete it. When he is called upon to focus on an issue, his assertions become more and more dogmatic and rigid. He has spent months in these issues which, in fact, have almost no real-world impact.

The Exhibits which Gluck calls "a bunch of totally (I borrowed the word) irrelevant documents and fabrications," are enough, if entered formally into the record (which requires attestation under oath, i.e, penalty of perjury) to establish fraud by civil standards, and in a criminal trial, Rossi would be in trouble. "Beyond a reasonable doubt " is a strong standard, but that is not the standard in civil trials, and as the pleadings stand now, Rossi is vulnerable to Summary Judgment. He may fix that. Or not.

To the point, which documents specifically might be "fabrications." I don't see any candidates. Gluck has vented most of his spleen on Exhibit 5, which is just a memorialization in March of questions asked of Penon in February. I presume that Murray did actually ask those questions then, but if not, he asked them in writing in March. Gluck's positions is that the questions are so totally idiotic that of course Penon woudl not answer them. It's a very weird idea of how a consultant would work. Take their money, but reject their questions as stupid or worse. Yeah, right.

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

It was discussed, in psrt quite nicely if I am a "humble and kind" man or st least i was prior to this Rossi vs. Darden affair. I do not spire to humbleness I consider it a pseudo-virtue but functionally I am indeed polite and kind. Just I answer to offenses.

So what happened in the R v D affair" It's pretty obvious. Before that, Peter was raving about "LENR+" and how ordinary LENR was impossible, and it had become clear that he was desperate to see clearly accepted LENR before he died. Hence Rossi v Darden would have come as quite a shock. "I just answer to offenses" is what nearly every asshole says. It is like Peter never really understood life.

Quote

... Therefore I will never(not a long time in my case) forgive Jed for what he has said about cheating with flowmeters- and I responsibly declare that I am not obsessed in anyway.

That is an oxymoron.

Quote

Why the Exhibits are such a shoddy work, a bunch of scientific papers, fragments of
from Rossi's blog, etc., etc. Which of these gentleman is the best, most convincing, the star? I had a re-revelation with Exhibit 18- it is about the money JM paid to IH for energy- some days for 1MW other days 0.75 MW. OK, any good accountant would present here the global situation for 12 month in chronological order, IH throws in the invoices for
JULY 1, 2015
AUG 1, 2015,
OCT 12, 2015,
SEP 8, 3015
JAN 4, 2016

What is the logic? Payment made only for these months? Is there some proofs that actually all payments were made for zero energy? Conspiracy? Shoddy formally shoddy in content- and typical.

Display More

this is not presented by an accountant, and what an accountant would render would not be usable at all. Peter truly does not understand what is going on. He's reading the Exhibits, probably, in isolation. Rather, to understand the Exhibits, read the IH Second Amended Answer and then look at Exhibits when they are referenced. That shows the relevance which he complains is missing. Yes, they are not in order. They are not about the money paid to IH by JM. We do not know if any such money was actually paid. My opinion is that it was paid, probably. But look at the first page, it shows the phony JMP letterhead. An accounting would be a secondary report. These were documents that actually came from Johnson. And it's possible they lost some! It happens. Someone, scanning them, got one out of order, that's all.

Now, consider the Complaint, Exhibit B, the Agreement, which is, for starters, a total sloppy mess, Rossi's notes written all over it. A $100 million agreement.... At the end, there is a document signed by Johnson. It's not dated, but we know that this was two years later. That paper was just accidentally tossed in with the Agreement to scan. Those errors happen. This one caused some damage for Johnson, revealing his name much earlier so that the internet was all over him. And then the Second Amendment, crucial to the Rossi case, missing signatures. Blatant. Fixable ... until it was filed without them. Peter doesn't see all this, because it is on "his side." Instead he sees some "sloppiness" that is of absolutely no consequence. The purpose there was not to make an accounting, and, as noted, we don't know if JMC was ever actually invoiced by IH, or if JMP actually paid. My sense is, probably. but ... it's not important, except that if payment was made, then you can be sure the dogs are all over it. Follow the money. Where did that money come from? If your answer begins with R, I would say, "lucky guess!" (But, of course, I do not actually know, this is merely reasonable surmise, given the very high likelihood at this point of "fake chemical plant.")

Jed Rothwell commented on Peter's blog:

Quote

Jed RothwellSeptember 21, 2016 at 11:59 AM
Do not flatter yourself. You are not humble or kind. You are a pain in the butt, and you have been for as long as I have known you. When I bought you computer equipment and gave you money years ago, you paid me back then with a kick in the butt. I learned to expect that from you. You talk as if you were humble, but in fact you are egotistical, and a damned ingrate.

If anyone other than Rossi had told you that he has a machine that produces 1 MW but the room does not get hot, and he has a secret endothermic process that swallows up all the heat, you would say that's a ridiculous lie. You are an engineer; you know it is impossible. Yet because it is Rossi who tells you this, you slavishly believe it. You are disgrace to engineering.

This was harsh, to be sure, but ... I've been watching Jed for many years and then the attacks on Jed from Gluck, and never before did Jed mention that he'd provided support for Gluck. I have never seen him pull this out in a dispute with anyone (and I think he has supported many.) This is not about some mere disagreement. I have disagreed strongly with Jed -- he can certainly be strongly opinionated -- and nothing like this ever arose.

Quote

Peter Gluck September 21, 2016 at 12:38 PM
I guess you are angry with me, but you are the fault of our conflict you have insulted people and told horrible things.
I regret but I am answering to insults.
As regardibnnd the Rissi technology, if you are so comnvinced about its non-existence why you make so much noise and try to convince anybody ? Rossi will lose the Trial and the story is over. etter focus on classic LENR, ICCF20 coming, IH funding so many good works. Be more positive.
And for the last time please retract the half full pipes idea!

Peter is displaying classic dysfunctional response to a bitter complaint. I find this utterly tragic. Peter has totally trashed his reputation in the CMNS community. He could recover. I told him months ago what it would take. A single word: "Sorry." Without then following it with an explanation that completely erases the apology. "Sorry, but I was just doing the right thing," or "Sorry, but I only did it because you were such an asshole." No. Just "sorry."

I notice that Peter totally avoided the challenge presented by Jed about the MW reactor heat and the secret endothermic process. Well? What does he say to that? This is a question being asked by many. It's not just Jed!

It is easier to focus on the only factual substance here, the "half full pipes" idea. Let's see if I understand it.

In Exhibit 5, Murray asked Penon:

Quote

The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]. 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. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the pipe volume was far less than full?

"Exhibit A" would refer to a photo attached to the document in March. The "Exhibits" from that document are not part of the court filing.

This was just a question, though a pointed one. There was extensive discussion on lenr-forum about flow meter issues and possible artifacts. The meter used was apparently not appropriate for the test, it was being operated below its minimum recommended flow rate, which would impact accuracy, for sure, how much, we don't know yet. Peter attacked all this as if blasphemy, truly, with that level of intensity. Peter basically claimed that in a sealed system, a closed loop, there could be no half full pipe.

Someone correct me, please, if I'm not fair to what Peter has claimed.

Murray, however presented evidence, which, though not "proof," is far stronger than a theoretical impossibility argument! And that argument makes no sense to me. Strongest in Peter's favor would be that the flow meter may have been installed at the lowest point in the system. Was it before the main pump or after it? The Tigers apparently had a main pump and then each subunit within a Tiger had its own "topping off" pump. It is difficult to imagine the pipes going up to the topping off pumps being "half full." However, if the flow meter was installed in the line from the reservoir -- if there was a reservoir, as Jed has claimed (and I think there is some confirmation of that) -- to the main pump, it could easily be half full. It would depend on flow rates and conditions that we do not know.

As well, one of the possible fraud modes would be that the "customer area" feeds steam back to the plant. This would be a mixture of steam and some water flow below it. It is even possible, I think, for the steam to be hotter than the water, as long as the duration of that condition is not long. (Steam does not efficiently transfer heat to water below it.) This idea does not allow an open reservoir with a bottom outlet to the pumped system.

So, what is so outrageous about the "half full pipe idea"? That some error mode could be possible does not prove that it happened.

Murray saw evidence of improper usage of the meter, and questioned it. That is precisely what is driving Peter's outrage: the presentation of actual evidence (the photo, which presumably IH would supply if this came to trial), and the description by Murray would be evidence as well if presented under oath. This particular bit of evidence is not a major part of the case -- at least the defense --, so why does Peter focus so much on it?

Probably displacement. It distracts him from the truly devastating evidence, that has turned his world upside-down.

Peter has quoted a lot of great sayings on his blog. If he would practice them, he could find his way through this. Blaming Jed, or me, or others, is not the way beyond the dark place he's fallen into.

I hope to meet him on the other side, smiling.

See source thread in original post

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed,
it hsppens I have some time before eading and answering to the new Siegel paper so I am telling you the followings:
a) read EGO OUT definition or the first posting on my blog, you err...the name was inpsired by Arthur C Clarke's EGOGRAMS,

from the blog first post:

Quote

Definition of ego-out :. (ē'gō-out). 1. (n.) The quantity of information, knowledge and wisdom lost by the death of an individual. ...

Yes. this is different from the meaning asserted or implied by Jed. However, it's fascinating what it implies. It's quite different from Clarke's EGOGRAMS.
The last EGOGRAM: http://www.newforestobservator…19/the-last-egogram-2008/ , a little more than a month before he died. He was obviously having difficulty, but what is remarkable in that Egogram: no complaints. Conditions, yes. Not a trace of paranoia or hostility or the fear that underlies them.

The loss of ego, i.e., the sense of self, or identity, is not the loss of information, knowledge and wisdom. The loss of identity is not death, that is the loss of perception and, we think, specific memory. But we can live well beyond that, in many ways. Fear of loss of identity is one of the most disempowering conditions possible. We would often rather die than become something else than what we have invented as identity. And, yes, we invented it, out of early conditions and reactions. When ego is inactive, there remains consciousness, but no longer attached to the individual, even though it may be functioning through that same brain. Something larger appears.

I work with this constantly. It seems that every "mistake" -- things that I might regret -- I make comes from attachment to myself, my belief in my rightness, (or, on the other side, shame) etc.

Quote

b) I like that you aare attacking in packs, pairs,

Paranoia alert. I have no coordination with Jed. We often disagree, and you can even see that in this thread. I simply recognize Jed for what he has done, support LENR for a ridiculous number of years, with his hard work and personal funds. If you attack Jed, expect me not to be tolerant of it. Even though Jed can make mistakes and can be wrong and convinced he's right. He has a fully paid-up right to respect. Jed also, even if I have severely criticized some of his expressions, has never turned that into personal animosity. He has remained unfailingly cooperative as the lenr-canr.org librarian.

Quote

c) What are facts for you are not facts at all,

There is no fact mentioned in that statement. There are some assessments by Peter: "facts for me" (what alleged facts?) and "not facts at all," which is simply another judgment, not a fact.

"Fact" is distinguished from opinions, judgments, assessments, impressions, reactions. If you are reading this, you are seeing words. If we want to get picky, there are no words, there are only letters, and there are no letters, only pixels on a screen. We translate all those as interpretations. But for routine speech, that there are words here is a fact. That such and such a document has been filed in Rossi v. Darden and that it says such and so, if specified, would be a fact. Then there are alleged facts. There is a continuum, sliding down to interpretations, predictions, declarations of possibilities, and on into sheer nonsense (which can be fascinating, by the way.)

The distinction between what happened (fact) and what we make it mean is fundamental to transformation. The limitations we experience are all in the realm of "meaning," and we invent meaning. A crude way of saying it is that meaning cannot be cut with a knife and is not the movement of what can be cut with a knife. It appears in the mind, not in the "world," and then there is a zone of overlap, the events of the mind. I just thought the word "rutabaga." I can tell you where it came from. (Cal Tech! Vegetable Riot, probably 1962. Ah, the internet: http://caltechcampuspubs.libra…25/1/1962_04_05_63_22.pdf)

In order to distinguish fact from interpretation, we need to pay close attention to specifics. A general statement about someone or something will nearly always be an interpretation, invented. We call those "stories." Stories are not bad or wrong, it is just that they are not what happened. They may or may not describe it well. Our strong tendency is to collapse memory of what happened into interpretive stories, and then the stories can also shift the sensory memory. This is all well-known.

Meaning exists in the realm of story, and stories with emotional import (i.e, remembered emotions) can easily dominate. And all this is part of what creates identity.

Quote

First will you swear that the warehouse had no ventillation, are you sure that photo is authentice?

"Swearing" here means what? Absolute certainty? Where would that come from? I am not absolutely certain that "I exist." Something does, or appears to. Even then, when I think of absolute certainty, "arrogant asshole" comes to mind. Just a fact. Observable as such because, obviously, it did come to mind! Notice the distinction between fact (something came to mind and I wrote it) and what we might make it mean, like, "That Abd is an idiot who says whatever comes into his mind! Logorrhea!"

We could then argue about whether that is logorrhea or not, and this argument could continue forever without resolution. I will say that I don't write "whatever comes into my mind." In a way, I wish I could. Finnegan's Wake?

Okay, on the issue. The warehouse has ventilation and it is typical of Gluck that he takes what is said and converts it to a straw man. What is accurate is that it's claimed that the ventilation of the warehouse was inadequate without major ventilation support, if a megawatt, or even much less, was being dissipated in it. It would take more movement of air than would occur naturally with what was there.

Peter wants Jed to "swear," which would normally, in a court, be an affirmation that is based on personal experience, and is truthful or not. Generally a witness will not be allowed to interpret the experience. Some interpretation is necessary in order to convert experience (sense memory) to language (and this has often already occurred, what is remembered being what we made our experience mean, i.e., how we translated it to language, much more compact than full sense memory. But legal process does not go the full length of ontological analysis. Bottom line, a witness cannot relate hearsay. Jed could say, "I saw that photo," but he did not see the warehouse. He is working with "information and belief," and as to that, yes, I assume he could affirm it, but there is a possibility of error there. The information is incomplete. In Rossi v. Darden, he could not be asked this question.

The possibility of the photos not being genuine is so remote that we may as well disregard it. This is the legal bottom line: There is no visible special ventilation in the photos. There are witnesses that will likely testify that they saw no special ventilation. And, so far, we have no allegations, even, from Rossi that touch on the ventilation (that I have noticed.). Instead, Rossi asserted "endothermic chemical process," and then, when pressed with a leading question, said, yes, a combination of methods. In court, that would not fly. What was there; Rossi will be asked, and will be legally compelled to answer, or his case could get tossed immediately. And if he is not truthful in his answers, he could face criminal prosecution.

This is the ventilation situation: There is no sign of the special measures that would be needed. The "chemical plant" was enclosed within a wall that would somewhat impede air flow. There is no ductwork to conduct heat to a roof vent or to through the back doors. The room has general ventilation through the large doors in the back, but there would need to be something to facilitate massive movement of air, otherwise this would be like an long oven with a door at one end. (The "customer area" is on the side away from the back door, which is the opposite of what would be done if designing for ventilation. Further, the Plant operated 24/7. They would need to keep those back doors open at all times. A security problem. Instead, sanity would be to install some major fans and duct work, which could certainly have been done, and not at great expense. No jury is going to buy the Rossi Story here.

Quote

and whgy it has no ventilation, what is the reason?
The ventilation zone is ismply missing from the photo, old cheapo trick..

Sure. It could be done. But then, at trial, IH would look awfully silly when Rossi introduces photos showing it. Peter does not understand that the evidence we have is essentially at the level of allegation, which would then be supported by and would support testimony. Quite a few people saw that Plant. They would notice major active ventilation, it would be noisy. What is diagnostic here is that Peter is insisting on an improbable story as if anyone who asserts the opposite is some sort of vicious liar.

One of the effects of paranoia is a loss of understanding of soc ial impact. If Rossi were not paranoid, he would understand why people are suspicious of him. I often have things to say that people are not going to understand. I don't blame them for not understanding, because they don't have the background. If I want them to understand, I need to create language that will reach them. Their lack of understanding can be, to me, a sign of my failure of expression. But that is not the only cause for lack of understanding. It becomes very, very clear, sometimes, that a person doesn't understand because they don't want to, because the understanding would threaten their identity.

(This is aside from lying about what one understands. I'm talking about what is actually experienced as no-understanding or worse, and often, direct disbelief. It is not just lack of understanding, the latter, but a claim of error or worse.

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

Secondjust because you do not know how was the energy consumed and you will not know till it will be revealed in the trial and you will be surprised, this does not mean that the energy was not consumed

Peter would, I'd imagine, know better here, that the idea of energy being "consumed" is problematic. Setting aside mass-energy conversion, energy is conserved, it's one of the most basic principles of physics. That heat does somewhere, it is not "consumed." An endothermic process stores heat, effectively, and there are limits to such storage.

Peter is confidently asserting here what he likely does not know. He does not know that there will be a trial. He knows and I know that one is scheduled. However, Rossi v. Darden is very likely to be dismissed or settled without trial.

Gluck apparently believes that there are hidden facts to be revealed at trial. If Rossi does not reveal enough fact (or specific alleged fact) to counter what IH has presented, the complaint will be dismissed without trial. He cannot reserve some "secret killer fact" to reveal at trial. That is not how the system works. In the discovery process, there will be many questions asked (by both sides and of both sides) that must be answered under penalty of perjury. While sometimes something comes to light during trial, it's unusual.

There are fundamental and simple questions that have been raised by the Darden pleadings, and Rossi has avoided responding to them, other than with avoidance of the real issues. Annesser's complaint about the "logical error" allegedly made by IH in their assertion of possibilities is an excellent example of that. Darden said there were "only two possibilites," and Rossi made a big deal that there were more "logical possibilities." And, of course, there were, if one included possibilities that no defendant would assert. Darden was presenting the possibilities that appeared to them, and the possibility that they were compete doofuses who didn't know an anal thermometer from a thermocouple, or that they were deliberately trying to defraud Rossi is not going to be asserted by them. That they would use "defective materials," when they actually made the 250 KW Tigers is a ludicrous possibility. I'm sure that if we wanted to recount all the possibilities, we could have the court ROTFL.

Quote

Third- it is very difficult to answer to this without ugly words (and I take them from more languages)

We are human and have emotional responses. however, if it is difficult to set them aside, it is characteristic of paranoia or obsession -- or some other reactive disorder.

That a discussion of fact and interpretation as to what happened at Doral triggers such a strong response in Peter is diagnostic of his attachment, his strong belief that is not confidently grounded in fact. How, indeed, does he know what he claims to believe?

Quote

It is absolutely norml that the reservoir is open to air the level of water is varaibale in it and a headspece is necessary an elastic layer of air above the level.

The level would be variable, because if it is open (I really don't know that), there would be evaporation. If there is a float valve, feeding water, though, there would be less variation. "Elastic layer of air" would refer to a closed tank, I'd think. But Peter might mean something else.

Quote

HOWEVER the flowmeter is not there, it is after the pump were it is forced circulation and YOU KNOW THIS OR YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE DIAGRAM?

Now, this appears simple to me at this point. Where is this diagram? What authority does it have? It is not in evidence in the case as any exhibit (and Exhibits are not yet fully evidence, they have not been attested under oath). I saw a diagram at one point drawn by Engineer 48. I have no idea if this was correct or not. One thing becomes obvious here, from later discussion. Jed has one diagram, he claims came from Rossi (and that could create a problem for him in actually showing the diagram), and Peter Gluck apparently has another, and has not revealed his source. Yet continues to assert his position as if any other position were idiotic.

When I have private information, I would never conclude that someone was idiotic because they disagree with me about it!

Quote

Do you believe murray has SEEN those rust stains, was the flowmeter open? Do not repeat the XXXy that it is esy to open it.

From Exhibit 5:

Quote

The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]. 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. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the pipe volume was far less than full?

Peter wants to know if Jed "believes" that Murray has seen the rust stains. Has Jed talked with Murray? Maybe, I don't know. But Peter is converting all this into he-said-she-said. "Whom do you believe" is the classic internet go-nowhere flame war.

I believe in Reality, not my ideas of reality, "believe" to me means "trust." It can also mean "presume," as in "rebuttable presumption."

Now, what do I presume here?

I trust that Exhibit 5 was filed in the Answer filed by Darden in Rossi v. Darden. On the face, this is a memorialization of a meeting between Murray and Penon, February 16-17, 2016, at the Doral Plant. By February, Rossi and IH were already dealing with each other through lawyers (Annesser and Jones Day!). I would have preferred to see an immediate, dated memorialization, but wishes are not horses. This is, nevertheless, Murray's recollection of the issues. We do not actually know when it was written, we only know that it was given to Penon on March 25. The document clearly anticipates what Rossi is going to claim when it attempts to set aside the issue of "ERV" on the last page.I think IH knew this much earlier, but I don't know when. Had Rossi properly negotiated this, there would have been no issue.

Then there is a legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Murray clearly claims to have seen the "static vanes" of the flow meter.

So, based on the legal principle regarding testimony, and taking this as a form of testimony (and it will have to become formal testimony under oath or it is legally meaningless), yes. I "accept" that Murray saw rust stains, what he wrote. What does that mean? Murray asserts a possible meaning. There are others, but this is prima facie evidence that the water level spent a substantial amount of time, at least, at a reduced level. Pipe only partly full. It is not "proof."

This is one piece of a puzzle that, for Jed, fits together. I see a similar fit. However, we are not the judge and we are not the jury. We are simply writers with some level of experience and study, and some level of opinion, which we express.

Against this evidence, It seems that Peter thinks it would be impossible to see the vanes. I do not know how he could be sure of that, enough to make his very strong statements about this, other than to ascribe it to psychological forces.

Quote

Regarding my professional career it is past- 40 years
in the chemicl industry, 10 in websearch other people have judged me and I have worked in many plants, pilot plants and labs. I was Scientific Researcher Ist degree then equivalent of professor in Romania, Not you will judge me, I ama not speaking about your profession but what you insist here on is lack of elementary intelligence and of common sense. I feel ashamed to link your name to this half full crazyness, sorry.

There is fact there, but only about Peter's history. There is no substance on the matter under discussion. This is, indeed, tragic.

Quote

I will abstain telling you what to do with your facts.

I hope to live enough to see them discussed t the Court. And your reaction to the results.

Peter, I'm 72 and facing some cardiac symptoms, which I will need to handle, I'm having a stress test next week. We never know how long we have. However, I do assure my daughter that I'll be around for at least ten years. Peter, why would you care to see his reaction? This is characteristic of obsession, to want to see someone else, say, humiliated at being so wrong. You don't care about him at all in any positive way. You don't seem to regret the loss of friendship from some who did support you. You have not acknowledged that at all. Is it not true?

And when this is pointed out to you, you run away. Okay, so you want to spend time with your family. There is nothing wrong with that at all. You are not obligated to engage in discussions over this. But when you do engage, you can expect some frank response. That is life now, and certainly on the internet.

Quote from JedRothwell

To reiterate: the flowmeter is in the gravity return to the reservoir, as I said dozens of times. That's the only place it could be, as you see from the meter specifications.

Jed, will you be explicit about how you know where the meter was placed? I don't see that Peter has specified this either, and the matter is obviously crucial to what is under discussion.