Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

Peter Gluck does a great service for the LENR community by maintaining his blog and posting daily updates.

When it comes to the debate about his support of Andrea Rossi, I only wish there were more people willing to open their minds to a middle ground.

In my opinion, IH has not proven their bold assertions about the one year test and a whole host of associated issues. For example, that James A. Bass is a fictitious actor, there was zero manufacturing going on of any kind, there was no customer, JM Products was a fictitious entity, etc. What they have been able to do is point out a great deal of high strangeness, suspicious behavior, lack of responsiveness by members of Rossi's team, and questions that deserve comprehensive detailed answers. We do not know what this means yet. As someone who is convinced the E-Cat technology works, my guess is that there could have likely been less than open and cooperate behavior on the part of team Rossi. But I'm not going to go further than that without some solid evidence.

Pete Gluck is entitled to his opinions. Overall, I agree with him. But when we know so little, it's "easy" but also "ridiculous" to get highly emotional and angry at others with different view points. For example, I think that it is HIGHLY likely some level of excess heat was produced, some type of manufacturing was taking place, James A. Bass was a REAL engineer, and that the test was indeed real. But I could be wrong. After all this time, IH and Rossi have yet to "go at it" and try all out to prove their case. There is a possibility that tomorrow, next week, or next information supporting or condemning the reality of the one year test could be revealed. Or, the truth could be somewhere in between: a very real test but without open, honest, and sincere communication to the company that OWNED THE PLANT.

But regardless what happens with the lawsuit, it will have zero impact on my opinion of the technology.

Peter Gluck is mostly incomprehensible and amazingly wrong in his support of Defkalion and Rossi, long after they have been shown to be frauds. This undermines all his other claims. If anyone can even understand them.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Peter Gluck does a great service for the LENR community by maintaining his blog and posting daily updates.

When it comes to the debate about his support of Andrea Rossi, I only wish there were more people willing to open their minds to a middle ground.

There are always middle grounds. Sometimes assessments of probabilities run to one side or the other.

Quote

In my opinion, IH has not proven their bold assertions about the one year test and a whole host of associated issues

.
It should be understood that everything we have from IH, aside from a little from Dewey (who is not, strictly speaking, "IH") and one laconic press release, is defense and counterclaim in a lawsuit. At this point, they have no burden of proof. It is enough that they make claims that have a little more weight than mere conclusions, but not much more. Enough to show that there is some hope of establishing the claim upon actual evidence.

Quote

For example, that James A. Bass is a fictitious actor, there was zero manufacturing going on of any kind, there was no customer, JM Products was a fictitious entity, etc.

That is correct. At this point it is almost entirely circumstantial, though, I'd say, strongly so. That could easily be reversed by Rossi. Rossi is taking his sweet time with what he could do if the Bass was real, there was manufacturing going on, and the customer was real. JM Products was not a "fictioous entity," it is a real corporation. However, it was almost certainly not as represented. But, gain, Rossi could easily establish his claims about this if it were so.

Quote

What they have been able to do is point out a great deal of high strangeness, suspicious behavior, lack of responsiveness by members of Rossi's team, and questions that deserve comprehensive detailed answers.

We do not know what this means yet. As someone who is convinced the E-Cat technology works, my guess is that there could have likely been less than open and cooperate behavior on the part of team Rossi. But I'm not going to go further than that without some solid evidence.
You are not facing a lawsuit alleging $89 million in breach of contract damages, and triple damages for fraud. Further, to consider this from the IH perspective, they spent a lot of money on a best-effort basis to confirm Rossi claims, he have obtained no actual value (i.e., license or other sales), there is no other company producing LENR products that could be alleged to be from them revealing Roosi IP They are looking at, with the Rossi technology, a dead loss, with the only value being the hedge. And so Rossi sues than and adds in more expense. "less than open and cooperative behavior"? Yeah. Definitely less!

Quote

Pete Gluck is entitled to his opinions.

He is. So are we. There is an edge when it comes to libel.

Quote

Overall, I agree with him.

Overall, you are also entitled to your opinion.

Quote

But when we know so little, it's "easy" but also "ridiculous" to get highly emotional and angry at others with different view points.

If you have watched the history of Gluck interactions over this affair, they have been "highly emotional and angry," going quite a way back. Before Rossi v. Darden, Gluck was "difficult," but not disruptive. (Basically, he had a firm conviction that he repeated over and over, not taking on and integrating other points of view, but it was possible to discuss with him.) It all shifted when the suit was filed. His hopes for the future had been heavily pinned on Rossi, and he often presented "LENR+" in those terms. Ordinary LENR was useless, a waste of time. He had left science behind and moved into fuzzy and wishful thinking. But it wasn't actually offensive. That changed.

Quote

For example, I think that it is HIGHLY likely some level of excess heat was produced, some type of manufacturing was taking place, James A. Bass was a REAL engineer, and that the test was indeed real. But I could be wrong.

Indeed. Now, other than Rossi says (and including the President of Leonardo Corporation, Johnson), do you have any evidence for those claims?

The first contradicts what IH has said, many times, that they were unable to verify any measurable heat. It is never possible to rule out "some level of excess heat," this is classic with cold fusion. But people with full access, a high motivation to find real heat if it is there, who are experts or are hiring the best they can find as consultants, who can't find it? With devices that are supposedly commercially-ready? What is the probability that there is significant excess heat there?

If there was significant excess heat but not a megawatt, then the technology would be promising, but not what Rossi was claiming when the 1 MW plant was sold. And it is very clear -- I consider this proven at this point, though that could be rebuttable -- that Rossi was deceptive about the Doral plant. Put that together with the other evidence .... it is not absolute proof, but it's getting close to that.

Quote

After all this time, IH and Rossi have yet to "go at it" and try all out to prove their case. There is a possibility that tomorrow, next week, or next information supporting or condemning the reality of the one year test could be revealed. Or, the truth could be somewhere in between: a very real test but without open, honest, and sincere communication to the company that OWNED THE PLANT.

Well, something could come out. So far, Rossi is being cagey in court. I would not call it, though, a "real test," because such would include independence and verifiability. I could say "real heat." The JMP "invoices" were obviously based on Rossi Says, and were not based on measurement, which indicates this was not arms-length. This was not merely a failure to communicate openly. It was a set-up to allow Rossi full control, and that's a near-certainty.

"Going all-out" is expensive. On the IH side, there are arguments, including one crucial one, that they have not emphasized. It appears that they have supporting evidence that they have not revealed (and they are not obligated to do that at this point, except in discovery). If this gets to trial, there should be, in theory, no surprises sprung on either side. However, circumstances can create surprises.

However, at this point, it's not going to trial, unless Rossi provides more, probably much more. His basic case is inadequately established in the pleadings, and I could see that before IH Answered. All one has to do is to read the Agreement and Second Amendment and then notice there is no allegation of a written, signed consent to the GPT start, as explicitly required. Rossi attempted to allege estoppel without admitting the necessity of it. The judge actually allowed it. Temporarily, to give more time for more to come out.

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

But regardless what happens with the lawsuit, it will have zero impact on my opinion of the technology.

I have said this before: Rossi v. Darden is not a trial of the "Rossi Effect." However, it can have implications. Conclusions from these, at this point, are circumstantial.

Back up. Most of us began watching Rossi in 2011. I am in communication with people who dealt with Rossi much earlier than that. It is all consistent: Rossi avoided independent confirmation. He acted to prevent observers from making their own measurements. The excuse was ready: he was afraid they would steal his secret.

However, he said that he would sell the secret for $100 million. Hence what I see as the IH plan: create the independent tests by buying the technology. There was no way they could raise $100 million without independent tests. So they offered an "installment plan," buying a plant for $1.5 million and offering $10 million for IP transfer and full Rossi support with the manufacture of devices for test, with another payment of $89 million due on a "GPT."

Had Rossi actually set up a GPT as required by the Agreement (which would not have looked like Doral), and if the Plant had passed, they would have had enough evidence to raise the hundreds of millions necessary to move forward, including paying Rossi.

What we have as a direct IH claim is that none of their own testing revealed measurable excess heat. This is, to my knowledge, the only extensive and independent (from Rossi) testing of "E-Cat technology."

At this point the preponderance of the evidence is clear: there is no standing independent evidence that the "Rossi Effect" is real. But it is worse than that. Rossi has shown that, without doubt, he is deceptive. This defeats the normal assumption of good faith.

I am aware of reasons advanced to believe that the effect is real. Lugano. Parkhomov. The Lugano reactor was made by IH, and IH claims that they were unable to confirm that heat from the same reactor design in their own testing. As well, there are cogent critiques of Lugano that call the results heavily into question. And, remember, this was one test of one reactor, not a battery of tests (which is what is really needed for strong evidence).

As to Parkhomov, when Parkhomov announced, I was quite excited. People who were following the CMNS list may remember. However, something odd was pointed out by one of the major scientists. I looked. He was right. Something was off about the data. I looked more closely, spending days analyzing it. Definitely, the temperature data contradicted the calorimetry. I asked Parkhomov, vetting my questions with McKubre first. I wanted to make sure I was properly polite and respectful. Parkhomov sent a quick reply that he didn't have time to respond. For a long time, his work did not get better. His results were presented in ways to make them look better (which is sad), but the actual claimed heat was declining. His latest report looks better, on casual perusal, though.

But this is not a "Rossi confirmation," even though he calls it that. This is really general NiH work, and Parkhomov's results do not come close to validating the Rossi claims. And the "Parkhomov effect" may be entirely error. This work can be very difficult, with unexpected and surprising artifacts.

Another common reason is some variation on "he'd have to be crazy." I'll agree, but I'm very, very aware of just how crazy people can be, even "ordinary people," and Rossi is not ordinary.

Hello Abd,

That was a very well thought out response. Here are a few of my thoughts.

You are right about Andrea Rossi not being willing to allow totally independent confirmation of the effect, if you consider that to include sharing his IP so the third party can build the reactor to be tested themselves -- so they know its construction details and the exact composition of the fuel. I think IH was the first party he disclosed such information to. After the initial transfer of "the licensed patents" it seems such transfer ended, but I wasn't involved so I don't know for sure.

I was very frustrated with Rossi about his extreme secrecy for years, although I respected his need to protect his intellectual property. Now, however, I'm not so upset. I've came to the personal conclusion that he was so secretive because his effect, although sometimes FINICKY and UNSTABLE, was overall very simple. A massive binder full of detailed instructions isn't required: only a series of methodical tests using the information in Focardi's patents to build up experience. Once someone learns how to pre-treat the nickel (not rocket science but may require some trial and error), measure and document hydrogen absorption, and learn to utilize triggering mechanisms, a COP of 2-3 is pretty easy without any catalyst whatsoever. With lithium added, the excess heat can go up even further due to the great energy release of p + Li compared to p + Ni.

He had a reason to be paranoid -- especially because the great majority of required information was available in plain site. We even had evidence of the presence of lithium in his fuel YEARS before the Fluid Heater patent was made public due to a fuel analysis. Of course almost everyone ignored it except for a few individuals. Andrea needed to be cautious and careful. Because you're not crazy if your paranoid when you REALLY have something to worry about. But I feel he let his paranoia combine with his need for financial support to make some bad choices. However, so far, he has continued to move forward despite these mistakes.

Amazingly, the "Rossi Effect" isn't the topic of prime time network news because most replicators are incapable -- for a variety of reasons -- of performing the tedious work to follow the trail, that to me at least, is obvious. After having more of Rossi's IP at their disposal than anyone of us, I don't understand why I.H. has not tried to follow this trail and start a all out research and development program. Or maybe they have and we'll learn more later on.

When it comes to Peter Gluck, I understand why he is so angry. There are some of us who deeply and passionately want to see this technology emerge. We see this technology as one of several that could be used to make the world more like the one we want to live in. Anything that gets in the way of that happening is almost maddening. But the truth is that jumping to absolute conclusions when there could possibly be contradictory evidence emerging in the near future is foolish. And when there are signs and indications of dishonesty and deception (for the record I refuse to state there is proof or hard evidence at this time), getting into a rage filled arguments with people who think differently is even more foolish. Such arguments won't change anything and only serve to make everyone feel worse.

In regards to replications proving the Rossi Effect, I think the combination of replications from Parkhomov, Songsheng, Stepanov, and the few other teams that have published results provide confirmation that the technology is real and works. While I disagree with you about Parkhomov's first experiment being less than solid, I totally agree with you that his following tests were less convincing than his first. In my opinion, he should have improved his original setup in a number of different ways (for example, including a longer neck for steam to flow through to ensure that water wasn't escaping). Then we have Me356's claims which seem spot on, reasonable, and logical. He used the "shake and bake" method in 2015 with marginal success. Then he went back to Focardi's papers, incorporated the knowledge into new experiments with nickel/hydrogen alone, produced higher COPs, and then incorporated lithium to boost the output higher. In addition, I have been confidentially made aware of a few other replications that are claimed to produce excess heat. So I'm personally convinced.

What I deeply desire now is for a recipe to emerge with an appropriately strict set of guidelines and protocols that will allow the effect to become consistently reproducible. The work needed to produce such a recipe may be significant, requiring a long series of tests trying out different fuel treatments, hydrogenation methods, and different brands/qualities of LiAlH4. But it is perfectly doable. This initial effort will make the following replications by other parties much easier and have a far higher success rate. Once this is out, the effect can be tested in a hundred different setups.

The above is far more important to me than the outcome of Rossi's court case.

I think this is worth a little more attention

Quote from MrSelfSustain

In regards to replications proving the Rossi Effect, I think the combination of replications from Parkhomov, Songsheng, Stepanov, and the few other teams that have published results provide confirmation that the technology is real and works. While I disagree with you about Parkhomov's first experiment being less than solid, I totally agree with you that his following tests were less convincing than his first. In my opinion, he should have improved his original setup in a number of different ways (for example, including a longer neck for steam to flow through to ensure that water wasn't escaping).

What I did with the first Parkhomov report was to first estimate his power steps. They were a rational sequence. Then I looked at temperature vs. power in. It is quite a smooth curve (noisy but overall regular). There is no increase in the temperature of the reactor corresponding to the very substantial increase in power as shown by evaporation. This analysis could not show that there was no XP, but rather that it could not have been as great as claimed. I spent a lot of time with that data.....

As to what Parkhomov could have done, my idea would have been to modify his original experiment, one step at a time, with a few iterations at each step. Some of his experiment was not readily replicable as to exact heat flow characteristics. That could have been fixed, easily. His calibrations were inadequate, largely because he kept burning out reactors. (Almost certainly from overheating or structural failure from pressure.)

However, he kept changing his configuration and protocol, which meant that every experiment was new, with new possible artifacts, etc. Data from one experiment could not be compared with data from another. Someone else is doing work like that and I was asked, and I suggested keeping conditions exactly the same but changing fuel in a controlled way. (Find OOPs!) Many, many iterations. Parkhomov was a pile of anecdotes.

Here is a document I wrote on Parkhomov's first experiment: https://en.wikiversity.org/wik…hydrogen_system/Parkhomov

SS, I strongly suggest you consider carefully the file-drawer effect. The experiments we hear about are filtered for "success," for the most part. That's fine for initial reports and finding leads for investigation, but not fine for establishing solid results.

Quote

Then we have Me356's claims which seem spot on, reasonable, and logical. He used the "shake and bake" method in 2015 with marginal success. Then he went back to Focardi's papers, incorporated the knowledge into new experiments with nickel/hydrogen alone, produced higher COPs, and then incorporated lithium to boost the output higher. In addition, I have been confidentially made aware of a few other replications that are claimed to produce excess heat. So I'm personally convinced.

Here is the problem. "Reasonable and logical" in a report can mean that the report was designed that way, to feed your expectations.

Science does not advance through anonymous investigators. Personal reputation (at risk!) is very much a part of science. If you know Me356 personally, that's a different matter (for you, not for me). Without that kind of information, I neither accept nor reject his work.

Hello Abd,

I don't know Me356 personally, but I've been told a good bit about him: his personality, daily routine (run his business all day and then test all evening day after day), and steadfast work ethic. From what I've been told about his testing mentality, if he was to ever provide PROOF of his claims, he may be the most credible replicator yet. He does as you suggest: make one small change at a time to a system before jumping to a completely different setup. I agree with you completely when it comes to Parkhomov changing his setup in huge ways instead of improving his original one.

What do you think about the fact that he performed many control runs with his original setup that seemed to result in unity or a little above (about 10% over max)?

I don't see how sometimes twice the water could have boiled away in active runs if there was not a significant quantity of excess heat being produced. I don't remember any mention of changes being made to the system during these control runs except that LiAlH4 was not added to the fuel.

Just so you know, I've heard of MANY unsuccessful tests of the Rossi Effect. For every major success reported there are probably twenty or more total failures and maybe one or two that resulted in very low levels of excess heat. The success rate is probably between 1% and 5%.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Hello Abd,

I don't know Me356 personally, but I've been told a good bit about him: his personality, daily routine (run his business all day and then test all evening day after day), and steadfast work ethic. From what I've been told about his testing mentality, if he was to ever provide PROOF of his claims, he may be the most credible replicator yet. He does as you suggest: make one small change at a time to a system before jumping to a completely different setup.

You state rumor about Me356 as fact. However, you are explicit about this, which is fine. I simply do not rely on rumor as being other than rumor. It can be of interest, but verification is required before coming to important conclusions.

Quote

I agree with you completely when it comes to Parkhomov changing his setup in huge ways instead of improving his original one.

I don't know why he didn't seem to understand this. I suspect that he was taking this on as a hobby, not seriously as a scientist. His little gaffe with fake data shows that. I don't condemn him for it, it simply shows that he was unaware of the implications, of world-level attention being on him.

Quote

What do you think about the fact that he performed many control runs with his original setup that seemed to result in unity or a little above (about 10% over max)?

It's been some time since I looked over those after-the-fact control runs, but I was not satisfied. There were not "many." I think there was only one at max input power, and the reactor burned out after a very short time, so his error bars would have been wide. Notice: he was claiming a COP of over two, but his reactor burned out with presumably no XP. Often workers on this kind of experiment think that the reactor burning out shows that they must have gotten some serious reaction.

No, it shows that they are operating on the edge of what their materials can handle. Songsheng Jiang was pushing beyond the functional range of his thermocouples.

Failure to fully investigate the conditions of an apparently successful experiment, but working to "improve it" by changing conditions has been a common error in LENR research since early on.

Quote

I don't see how sometimes twice the water could have boiled away in active runs if there was not a significant quantity of excess heat being produced. I don't remember any mention of changes being made to the system during these control runs except that LiAlH4 was not added to the fuel.

Here is what I recall: the apparent XE appeared at high temperature. The reactor was in a metal box immersed in water in a pot with a loose-fitting lid. The heat would mostly be transmitted through the floor of the box, and as boiling started, there would be bumping, which could easily toss liquid water out of the pot. Liquid water was observed on the lip of the pot by a visitor. Parkhomov's method of measuring evaporated water appears to have been that he peeked in and added water in specific increments to restore the level. I worked out the increments and this was very crude. This was fine for a quick-and-dirty exploration for fun. But it was not ready for prime time.

Again, the control experiment only ran for a few minutes at full power, where it would have been most important. There are other minor possibilities, that the fuel affects heat distribution in the reactor, etc. Parkhomov was dealing with massive electrical noise, I believe. His data gap that he filled in with fake data was caused by his laptop running out of battery power. Why was he running the laptop on battery power? He did not explain. My understanding: the reactor is a nice little transformer, with the input winding being the heating coils and the secondary being the thermocouple wires. So, to be able to read the thermocouple in the presence of such massive noise, he floated that entire circuit. (Dangerous, by the way, but that is another issue. After all, he's Russian, hence this or that stereotype could be displayed. Let's put it positively: Russians are courageous!)

The thermocouple in the first experiment appears to have failed. The short period of major COP at the end was almost certainly thermocouple failure, at least this was the opinion of experts on the CMNS list.

The idea about evaporative calorimetry error is speculative. What I know is that when I looked at temperature vs input power, I saw no anomalous temperature rise. That is isoperibolic calorimetry, in an experiment not designed for that. I had some major researchers yelling at me over that. But it should still give at least some estimate, and it certainly should have displayed COP 2. Evap calorimetry is "first-principle" and should be good, but there are some details to attend to! Loss of unevaporated water is one. Precision of measurements is another.

And most of all, clear and sane response to critique is crucial. That was missing. The best response would be to continue the experimental series paying attention to and testing for possible artifacts. This wasn't done. Parkhomov rushed ahead. Now, maybe he didn't have time. But that is where engaging with MFMP or the like would be great, but the focus should not be "getting some spectacular result," but carefully recreating experimental conditions and then testing one change at a time, with multiple tests. Probably developing reliable reactors (i.e., the little pressure vessels, pressurized with Lithal-generated hydrogen) would be priority, because,while an exploding Bang! is exciting, it is mostly a waste of time. Besides the harm that could have been done if they hadn't thought to put up the shield a few minutes before Bang!

Quote

Just so you know, I've heard of MANY unsuccessful tests of the Rossi Effect. For every major success reported there are probably twenty or more total failures and maybe one or two that resulted in very low levels of excess heat. The success rate is probably between 1% and 5%.

That you are aware of this places you head and shoulders above most "believers." That level of "success" is in range for what could be random artifact, and artifacts abound, these are conditions not well-known and well-explored.

My saying "file drawer effect" is not a rejection, merely a ground for caution. There will always be unexplained results, they prove almost nothing.

The most useful data is correlated across many experiments. It may help to understand why I have focused so heavily on heat/helium, when it is useless for "improving" results. It is because this is a measure that can be correlated across many experiments, even if the individual experiments are "unreliable." In fact, no-heat cells become excellent control experiments. No heat, no helium (and that is practically a universal result in the heat/helium work. Obviously, that doesn't generate a value for the ratio! but ... given enough results with heat and helium, it shows correlation and if the ratio is consistent, especially, it shows that leakage of helium is an unlikely explanation.)

NiH work is not there yet. First experimental protocols that develop significant XP a reasonable fraction of the time are necessary. Then these deeper explorations become possible.

("significant XP" does not mean "high COP." It means measurably and significantly above noise, and then, ideally, consistently so, or of not so, then finding other correlations that show reality.) The desire to satisfy skeptics with high COP is counterproductive.

However, consider this experiment, in thought. Storms has recently shown an experiment where he shut off the electrolysis, but maintained the cell temperature as elevated significantly with a heater. Really, all he was doing with the heater was creating a controlled temperature environment. Within that environment, what happens? He found that significant XP continued, with no decline, even though the cathode was deloading. If this is confirmed, this shows that XP does *not* depend on high loading, but on something else. His results match his theory: High loading was thought to be correlated with heat because it is, in many experiments, but now we can suspect that high loading correlates with the formation of cracks that Storms considers to create NAE, nuclear active environment. Once that environment is set up, much lower loading appears to suffice. That creates many interesting possibilities, but a skeptic may look at the thermostatic heating of the cell and think, "that's input power." And a lot of time can be wasted. Yes, eventually, one may create "demonstrations" where COP becomes infinite for a time, which might even be extended. But first things first. Is there an effect? how large is it? Can it be controlled?

Yes, it is input power to the cell, but not to the apparently active element. It is not really different from maintaining the room temperature, and this experiment could be very explicitly designed for this. With high insulation, that power could also be reduced greatly. Etc.

Storms deserves to be confirmed. We'll see what happens.

Quote from Alan Smith

Peter Gluck wrote:

Peter says "removed." I started this thread and I recall no removal. To me, and in this context, I see little difference between "Rossi" and "Rossi Technology."

[quote]Peter- you have your wish, I have added 'technology' to the thread title - as you are the titular person I don't see any problem with that- Alan

So I have no objection at all to Peter's request, nor to your satisfaction of it. I would have done the same, if I saw this request before you handled it. I checked and it looks like the originator of a thread may edit the title.

Thanks.

Quote from Peter Gluck

As a continuation of the editorial of before of yesterday about Orwellian features in the behavior and language of my opponents, today I want answer to some wrtings of Abd, mainly in this thread. Pedagogical ones most, he wants to taech me the truthT

Peter does not know my "wants." His comments, then, relate to his fantasies.

Quote

But first- the name of this thread is based on verbal dishonesty- the most important word was removed from it tendentiously:

Peter imagines himself to be polite and civil. Yet, here, since I started this thread, he has accused me, not of error, but of dishonesty. This conflict did not start with me. I intervened when I saw Peter attacking others, accusing them similarly, not of error, but of major moral defects. As often happens in such intervention, Peter then turned his complaint toward me. That intervention began privately, and then on the semi-private CMNS list.

Quote

It could be "Peter Gluck- blogger supporter of Rossi Technology"

It coulld be, certainly, and had I seen this request before Alan Smith, I'd have changed it. The difference is not terribly meaningful to me. On the face, it seems less personal. But if we look at what Peter has been doing, his attacks on others have been very personal. Over what he complains about as completely ridiculous technological error, so egregious that to assert it is is a moral failing. And he's often just plain wrong. Or he has a point, but it is off, orthagonal to the discussion. We will see that here, where he repeats arguments he has made many, many times.

Quote

I do not remember making apologetics or contributing to a cult of personality of Andrea Rossi.

I don't recall anything specific on that point. But Peter has reinforced and supported the tropes and memes of Planet Rossi, and especially the paranoid ones, that talk about "paid FUD" and an "APCO campaign to ruin Rossi."

Quote

I just refused to participate in his sytematic demonization

A "refusal to participate" is very simple. Don't participate. Peter is not in any trouble for what he did not do, but for what he has done.

What "demonization of Rossi"? Some people are quite angry with Rossi, and for cause. Some people think Rossi has damaged the cause of LENR, the cause that Peter believes he is supporting. Notice that Peter's language here is not about "Rossi technology," but Rossi. "Systematic demonization" would refer to some plan to destroy Rossi. Whose plan? If someone with assets really wanted to destroy Rossi, he'd be dead. Gluck is manifesting the paranoia of Planet Rossi, which is natural, given Rossi's paranoia. Peter will complain that I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not, he's correct. However, that paranoia is obvious. Mats Lewan wrote about it. And Peter's emotional involvement with this affair is obvious.

Emotions are not "bad," but if they run us, we can make serious errors, even fatal ones.

Quote

which has descended to extreme forms as Rossi tearing out instruments from the Plant.

The language of "tearing out instruments" is emotional-reactive. It is claimed that Rossi removed instruments from the Plant that had been placed there by IH before delivery of the Plant (there are really two plants, by the way, installed in Doral). Did he? How would this be "extreme" as a claim. He did or he didn't. I certainly don't know. I don't think there is evidence on this in Rossi v. Darden, but Jed has long, in this case and many others, had inside information because many people have trusted him with it. So at this point it is a rumor, through Jed. Dewey Weaver might have confirmed this, also an insider. I think Rosssi may have denied removing any instruments.

But how is this so extreme? It is believable that Rossi might remove something and it does not make him a '"demon." It may or may not have been a problem. When it happened, if it happened, could be an issue.

Peter's emotional reaction makes it impossible to discuss. As is typical, Peter does not refer to any specific statement, so we are left guessing what he is talking about. This lack of specificity is, again, characteristic of upsets. Being upset never makes us smart. If one is in a literal fight with an enemy, if one can upset them, victory becomes likely, and not so only if one is upset oneself or the opponent has overwhelming power.

Quote

Conspiring to the use of only the half of the pipes in the plant (lower or upper half?) ( see the Orwellian editorial till now ignored)

Gluck has been ranting about the pipes for some time. Recent discussion brought this out. Gluck claims that it is impossible for pipes in the system to be "half-full." As Jed acknowledged, this is true in some parts of a closed system. In particular, if a flow meter is placed after the main pump, from where it is "uphill" to the distribution pumps (the situation with the Tigers), the flow meter piping must be full unless there is no flow to the distribution pumps. The lower part of the pipe must fill first, and if there is no backflow (another possible issue which I won't address here), it would stay full. That is what Peter is talking about.

However, Jed claims to have seen a system diagram, provided by Rossi to someone Jed trusts, that shows the flow meter as being in the return line. I think this idea has it in the return from the condenser (in the customer area) to an open reservoir. Depending on details, it could be possible for this pipe to be only partially full. Under some conditions, the flow meter could also be in the line from the reservoir and be partially full.

At the extreme, conditions could be manipulated in this way to create flow indications much greater than actual flow.

But how would we know? What is the actual layout of the reactor? (and which reactor?) Peter assumes his understanding and concept is correct and then rejects Jed from within his understanding, considering Jed's comments to be so preposterous that they must have evil motivations. Peter is freed to deny this and disown that "evil" connotation, but this is certainly how it appears.

In that discussion, Peter did not disclose where his idea of meter placement came from. The discussion clearly brought out this issue. But Peter did not respond. Why? My sense is that the upset was far too great, he walked away in frustration and disgust.

Quote

In the Leonardo-IH conflict I want now to compare the essence - my motivation with the motivation of my motivation.

I'm not sure what that means, but maybe it doesn't matter.

Quote

MY MOTIVATION

My approach to LENR is that of a technologist and of a problem solver.

Great. Is there a problem here? What is it?

Quote

The Rossi party claims the plant has worked well, multiplicative excess heta, ERV reports are correct real description of the situation, their history chronology has logical consistence and a good technical background.

This is partly fact and partly an assessment that does not match that of other experts. Peter has not sourced what he is talking about. It is not specific. But he is pointing to something complex. He has not participated in discussion of the details, the "chronology," and generally has not shown knowledge of what we know of it from evidence. Rather, he is likely referring to a specific story, say the chronology given in the Complaint in Rossi v. Darden.

That history has been heavily cherry-picked and is highly misleading in parts, from the preponderance of the evidence at this time.

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

IH's approach is the opposite, anachronistic, with proofs tht I find as weak and unconvincing.

Peter does not understand the legal process. IH has not yet attempted what would be called "proof." They have laid out a defense and counterclaims, outlining it with a few examples of evidence. Peter, in general, does not understand the essence of the IH defense and counterclaims. He is expecting something that is not there.

Quote

Therefore I am motivated to see thee trial as showing the Technology works, the LENR problem IS solve already

When we are motivated to see something, we will see it. Unfortunately, reality reveals itself to those who look with detachment. At this point, because Rossi has not addressed the IH claims other than on narrow (and defective) legal grounds, the preponderance of the evidence is clearly that
The Doral installation was not a GPT, for a series of reasons, the strongest of which was that the GPT required the written consent of the parties to the start date. That does not exist, apparently.
The customer was not a real customer, but a sham.
There could not have been a megawatt of power because of power dissipation issues.
Rossi previously created a sham test to deceive Hydro Fusion (it was allegedly sham-negative, but probably Rossi was lying to IH, and the test actually failed, based on Mats Lewan's account of that test. In other words, Rossi lies.
Rossi set up the Doral Plant under false pretenses, pretending it was a sale of power and an opportunity for demonstration for IH guests.
Once the plant was fully under his control, he excluded the IH engineer and other IH guests.
IH has evidence indicating fraud on the part of Penon. It has violation of contract evidence for Fabiani.

None of this, at this time, needs to be "proof." However, if Rossi does not allege contrary evidence -- and, so far, he has not -- Rossi v. Darden will be shut down with prejudice. The countersuit will then proceed, and in the countersuit, the issue of plant performance may come up, unless the parties settle before trial.

Otherwise will will not learn about plant performance from the trial, and we only have circumstantial evidence. I.e., if he had real performance, and assuming IH was somehow blocking him, why did he set up this charade instead of simply taking the technology to Sweden where he had open doors? No. Rossi lies (or is so seriously deluded that he doesn't know the truth). That is not demonization, it is a sober conclusion from evidence.

This is just fact and my legal assessment. Rossi could allege evidence that would postpone the day, but unless that evidence can become admissible testimony and exhibits, the result will be the same, just later and with more expense. By that time, he will be facing paying the costs for Industrial Heat, plus his own. Plus judgments, which could bankrupt him. He is in serious trouble, Peter.

Quote

I care for LENR.

Great. So do I, but I care about people, humanity, the most.

Quote

If I say i want to see the verdict because I am both curious and motivated, Abd will use an other verbal trick saying I am obsessed but I am not. I am rational, I have my opinion and this does not make me disruptive.

I do say that Peter is obsessed, but not because he says what he just wrote! Being curious does not create obsession. Being motivated may but it is still not likely, unless one is not merely motivated, but attached to something. Attachment can create obsession even if what one is attached to is "good" and "true." In fact, that can be the most difficult obsession to deal with. It is highly disempowering.

Quote

What motivates you, Abd and Jed in this affair?
They know what their motivations, priorities and desire are.

Are you talking to us or grandstanding?

Jed can speak for himself, I will let him here, if he cares to. He is not obligated.
So for myself, I am motivated by several things.

1. When I see someone who has earned respect through years of hard work being attacked because he disagrees with Peter Gluck, I may defend him. I have previously posted a link to DefendEachOther, a long-standing internet concept; in this, it is not our responsibility to defend ourselves, and it is often counterproductive to do so. It is our responsibility to defend others. I defended Rossi against intemperate attack from Steve Krivit, and I don't regret that at all. It was noise, distracting from the real situation. What critics like Krivit and Mary Yugo point out is often obvious, but reality is more complex than the models they are attached to. Criminals, as an example, can be more trustworthy than ordinary people, sometimes. I've been a prison chaplain, I'll testify to this.

2. CMNS is a scientific field and requires a scientific approach. Science approaches "fact" with caution. Law is actually similar, but law is perhaps more socially developed. Science is also social. When I have knowledge that is uncommon, I consider I have some obligation to share it. Right now, I have uncommon knowledge about Rossi v. Darden, because I have studied those documents over and over to write about them. I have uncommon knowledge of the history of cold fusion (not unique knowledge and Jed Rothwell and Peter Gluck have been around a lot longer than I have, in the field as to being active. Nevertheless, I came in and approached the field with some new perspectives, and so I saw things that had sometimes been missed. I write about them.)

3. Because it's there. Because I am involved with LENR. I see things and write about them. To an extent, this is an addiction. As an addiction, I may engage in it out of balance. Hence this is all a topic of discussion with counselors and therapists, friends and family.

4. I want to see Peter happy for the rest of his life, and the way he writes, he's not happy. He is far too attached to conditions that he cannot control. For some years before Rossi v. Darden, it was obvious that Peter had identified "LENR+" -- which can only refer to Rossi's work because Peter's idea was this was "stronger" -- as the hope that he might see successful LENR before he dies. Peter is only a little older than I. I'm not worried. What I see is that I have already been successful, and LENR is on its way. How far it will get before I die does not matter so much to me. I have already reached goals that are satisfying. There may be more -- maybe even much more -- but it's not a necessity for me.

5. If I become peevish and start doing what Peter started to do, I sincerely hope that my friends will warn and restrain me. So I am doing for Peter what I would want my friends to do for me, hoping he will recognize what is being said to him.

back to the beginning. about "teaching the truth." That cannot be done. Truth can be shared, sometimes, that's about it.

Quote from JedRothwell

2. Murray and others pointed to rust high water marks in the pipe and meter, which confirms item #1.

Gluck discounts eyewitness testimony in favor of wishful thinking and interpretation of Rossi Says. Your idea of a partially-full pipe is not a pipe dream, it is a possibility; so far, Gluck has not acknowledged the problem of pump location -- that I've seen.

Certainly Murray could have seen something that misled him, but Gluck treats this as lies. In the end, the truth will come out. Many people saw the Plant. I think Murray photographed the static vanes of the flow meter. (It is probably "Exhibit A" attached to the original Murrray document, not included in the filing. That will be available in court, if needed.)

The point of Exhibit 5 is not as Peter thinks, to attack the results and Penon, but to show the result of questioning Penon. Penon had apparently not responded to Murray's verbal questions in February, so Murray put it in writing and it was allegedly delivered to Penon March 25. Penon apparently ignored it. This is the real issue IH is raising there. It is not intended as proof of no heat. IH does raise the heat dissipation issue, the lack of ventilation. Again, these are reasonable questions! They have no responses from the Rossi side, so far.

Various activities have given Rossi some more time.