Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

Today, Peter made two posts to the blog. The first is http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…levant-document-with.html

Peter devotes this issue to this "document." The subject appears to be a lawsuit, from 2007. "Anselmo Rubinaldi, Michelangelo Ltd. vs Timothy Durrell, COMMWARMgem". Rubinaldi is allegedly an inventor of artificial diamond technology and the defendant is allegedly a company that was selling the diamonds. According to Gluck's introduction:

Quote

The Defendant has started an extreme intensity Web campaign against the inventor and has hired an army of trolls (troll-gangs exactly as bordellos never have lack-of-workforce problems).The document shows how COMMWARMgem has instructed this army, principles, tactics, elements of strategy- a school of targeted misinformation.

First, I'll assume the document is genuine. The situation it relies on a network of web supporters of the company, which the company seeks to harness to "demonize" the plaintiff. The introduction talks about "hiring an army of trolls," but the document itself includes insertions that appear to be internal company comments saying what, of course, would not be said to the supporters. There is no promise of payment.

The document begins with:

Quote

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US! We have to work in an organized concerted way; if
we win on Google/Web our chances to win in the real Trial will be increased.

So the purpose is to win at trial. However, this is utterly insane. Trials in the U.S. and in most places are heavily insulated from public opinion. Even highly organized protest, which happens (demonstrations in front of the U.S. Supremen Court!), is probably ineffective.

The matter in red is for "insiders" such a document would be unlikely to be prepared. If there were an insider commentary, it would be a separate document. It includes this:

Quote

It is our long term advantage that our people are recruited mercenaries (financial or moral) while the opponent we are fighting with, is mainly honest people unfortunately and honest people are intractable, all you can do is to stop and destroy them mercilessly

The opponent, here is more than one person. It includes the plaintiff's supporters. A plan to "destroy" the "honest people" is completely insane, over some diamond sales? this is not how any company concerned about profit would behave. Not even if they were totally greedy bastards, as this document makes them out to be.

So, the open message, presumably sent to people who say they want to help:

Quote

Mix facts with toxic lies and try to kill them, if you have limited quantities of poison give priority to fountains and wells, metaphorically speaking.

Someone is quite confused here. This would totally alienate any actual supporters of the company. The document in general gives no real practical advice as to how to coordinate these attacks in the enemy.

No. This is not a genuine document from the defendant in a lawsuit. If it came from anyone involved with that lawsuit, it would be more likely to come from the plaintiff, as an attempt to discredit cricitism.

However, the entire document appears to be fraudulent. Supposedly the defendant had an internet presence. There is no sign of it. None of the names or other possible search terms turn up anything related in Google searches.

Further, the document contains anachronisms. It uses "Planet Rubinaldi." "Planet Rossi" was coined by Dewey Weaver, if I'm correct, as a way of referring to "believers" in Rossi. "FUD" as a term is quite old, but usage was rare. The company would not use that term, generally, though it is not impossible. In the Rossi situation, this is coming from Sifferkoll's ravings and his idea that FUD is the business of APCO.

The Wikipedia article on FUD covers examples of FUD. They certainly exist, largely in business (to influence the public against a competitor in buying decisions), and in politics.

The definition given is, "FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear." All the examples I've seen of historical FUD< there was a plausible function that might increase profit or produce a win.

The claim in the present situation is that APCO has been hired by Industrial Heat to publicly discredit Rossi, and that criticism of Rossi is "paid FUD." None of the examples of FUD, aside possibly from the political, involve "internet armies." In politics, yes, there are memes. Yet such a campaign could not possibly have any influence on the lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden. It could possibly affect Rossi's business prospects, no doubt. However, he could very easily overcome that with a real product, with new investors being allowed to test it. What he is less likely to be able to do is sell licenses, etc., based on only his own "demonstrations" and claims.

Ah, memes. Another word used in this "document." Ten years ago, not so likely!

This is a recent and crude forgery, promoted by Peter Gluck in pursuit of his own paranoia. Does he know? I'm reluctant to think he would deliberately put up a forgery. If he does not know, he has been thoroughly duped. There have been trolls feeding Peter compliments for his paranoia, one can be seen above.

The only comment on that blog post, at this point, congratulating him, is from Anonymous. It refers to "the cadre of Rothwell."

Rothwell is not paid, that would be almost like saying Bill Gates was paid to donate to Texas Tech. Okay, Jed is not quite that wealthy! But he is obviously a volunteer, and has invested money in LENR and, in fact, apparently supported Peter Gluck at one point. I'm not paid to write on this topic, though I might be provided expenses at some point, and I cannot predict who will donate, I definitely do not write with any gain other than the benefit of the field and humanity in mind. I'm old enough that I could die at any time, and, in fact, I just discovered that I have a cardiac condition making this quite real. There is no way that I would trash what is important to me by deliberately presenting dubious or false information.

(Some more: consider "Planet Rubinaldi." For that term to have any meaning, there would need to be a community with high communication, likely open. Like "Planet Rossi." I found no sign of it. Discussions would not disappear even if Rubinaldi did. Now, if I missed something, please, show me!)

(There is not the least sign of any recruiting for a "campaign." I've communicated directly with Dewey Weaver. There is no campaign. There is Dewey Weaver, an investor in Industrial Heat, with his opinions. There is no clue of there being any money in "attacking Rossi." The very idea is stupid. If I get any money, it will be for supporting and furthering LENR research. Someone *not involved at all with IH* has offered to pay my PACER fees (and I make those files available to everyone). That's about it.)

Peter has gone completely over the edge, which is an event of great sadness. Goodbye, old friend, "debate partner." Paranoia gotcha.

Peter made a second post today, plus his regular "news." I'll copy it here:

Quote

A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE ROSSI "ZEROERS"
The term "birther" is well known, in LENR we have an analog of it, those people who are convinced that Andrea Rossi has not achieved any excess Heat in the 1MW 1 year Test- I coined the word: "ZEROERs" for them. I ask now the technology literate Zeroers who are able to do a simple thermal engineering calculation not the usual blah-blah ers the following:we have got the very plausible mean values of measurement ERV Report mean values for 10 month: flow -1398 kg/hour, feed water- 68.7 C, steam produced 102. 8 C.Heat is flow X enthalpy difference - in this case (enthalpies in kJ/kg);[1398 ( 2679.61-288.84)]/3600 = 928 KWh produced per hour-as Rossi claims, and a COP of 928/20= 46.Zeroers say "20kW in 20 kW out- and that means 72000 kJ/hour or a flow of 72000/ the enthalpy difference of above i.e. 26.76 kg/hr. Easy to observe sucha difference. The zeroers would say it is o steam but only hot water- absolutely implausiblebecause the Hot Cats work well over 800C - but even in this case the enthalpy difference will be ( some 140 kJ/kg and the flow 72000/140= 514 kg/hour smallersmaller than the measured value.Irrelevant stories as half full pipes or 1MW not consumable do not change anything of these simple calculations Zeroers are zero themselves.

For the international readers, "birther" in the U.S. is a reference to the theory that U.S. President Obama was not born in the United States. This was really be as a conspiracy theory a few years ago, and the present U.s. Presidential candidate Donald Trump was a birther and supported this. He finally sort of admitted that, okay Obama was born in the U.S., but why didn't he prove that immediately! (This is a variation on "I was wrong, but it is your fault!")

I was banned from vortex-l for confronting a "birther there." The problem was that this guy was filling the archive with inflammatory and blatantly false material, the kind of material that was, at the time, getting people put in jail -- military personnel refusing lawful orders because the President (who is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military) was ineligible for the office) And other things this fellow was saying where highly inflammatory, again, the kinds of things that, real world, sometimes get people killed. So I both confronted it and asked the moderator to intervene. He was irritated and banned us both. Thanks, Bill!

Now, to Peter's issues.

We were discussing some of this here. The cause of some of the disagreement was exposed. Peter ignored it and bailed from the conversation, since he now believed he was discussing with liars.

Peter sets up a straw man, "zeroers." People say different things at different times, and people often use hyperbole. Nobody could possible know that there was no heat ("zero") at Doral. However, people can use circumstantial evidence to infer a possibility, and then assert this as a fact. It's not exactly scientific, and people do this all the time. There are many people who think Rossi was a complete fraud from the beginning. There are others who thing maybe he had something, and lost it or has greatly exaggerated it. Given that Rossi managed to obfuscate results, in the Doral test and in many others, there is no way to know for sure, but we can and do make operating assumptions from it.

Peter recently started, he says, to actually study the Rossi v. Darden case documents. Here, he thinks he is quoting material from the "ERV report." No. These are figures from Exhibit 5, a note from Murray, the IH engineer, quoting preliminary reports, not the final report. We have not seen the final report. We only know a little of what Rossi has claimed from it.

Further, that Murray note calls into question some of the measurements and parts of the report. Some of the data is implausible. Penon was not independent and was not selected to be ERV for the Doral Power Plant. Alan Smith, here, has claimed Penon will show up. So far, no response, and if he were planning to respond, he missed a deadline that would have given him more time for a formal response. But, yes, he could still show. Bottom line, IH is accusing him of fabricating data, both for the Doral plant, but also for the original Validation test. They have good circumstantial evidence that the Doral plant was set up so that Rossi could create a Guaranteed Performance Test while he had total control and could then, plausible, create fraudulent conditions.

The preliminary data would, under this, be set up to create an appearance of passing the GPT.

It actually does not matter how it was done. It is probably impossible to verify. Rossi, on the last day of the test, removed the fuel. Murray points out that the system was flushed. Equipment was removed by the ERV, all with "plausible excuses" that actually make no sense if this was a GPT.

I am not bothering to go over those numbers. Peter imagines that critics have some responsibility to come up with exact errors. No. Not with that test, under the conditions that Rossi set up and enforced.

If he has a real effect and if it was really a megawatt plant, there is also the problem of the heating of the warehouse, but assume that this can be solved in some way. Rossi still is not going to get paid, because of what he did, and we then must ask why he would do all this if the plant was real. He had so many other options, even if, as he and his followers claim, IH were a bunch of greedy bastards just trying to avoid paying. He made a series of extremely poor business decisions, if he had a real reactor.

Almost certainly he does not. The same units were tested by IH, apparently. If the technology works, it still requires some secret that has not been disclosed. Or "Rossi grease." I.e, Rossi's physical presence and control.

As part of his argument, Peter provides non sequiturs. For example:

Quote

The zeroers would say it is [not] steam but only hot water- absolutely implausible because the Hot Cats work well over 800C

This is a ridiculous argument, because

• We do not actually know the working temperature of the Hot Cats.
• The coolant apparently never rises much above boiling. There is some disagreement about how high it rises, and what the pressure is, and Murray raises issues about this.
• So the "800 C" would be internal reactor (fuel) temperature and this must be buffered in some way, there must be thermal resistance to the coolant, or .. the coolant would shut down the reaction.
• Given that, the coolant temperature will vary with the flow. If the flow is high enough, the coolant might not boil at all.
• There are many possible problems. In general, Rossi never addresses the possible problem of overflow water, where there could be water running under steam that is above boiling. It is unclear that the steam, if there was steam (we don't really know without accurate pressure measurements), was dry, and there was no measure taken to detect overflow water, as far as we know.

My position is that we cannot tell how much power was generated at Doral because the engineer measuring it was not neutral at all, and cannot be considered reliable. As well, even an engineer could be fooled by certain fraudulent setups, particularly if there is no attention paid to the other side: dissipation. Had the customer actually been independent, measuring the power that they were paying for, relatively easy to do, this would have provided an independent check. If the plant had been installed and run in North Carolina, IH would have had full control over that. Rossi in his Complaint makes it seem that IH was unable to arrange a test in North Carolina. In fact, Rossi refused an installation that IH suggested, we know this from his own email.

Peter has been duped and is very reluctant to see it. It is one thing to hold out hope, but quite another to assert that those who are making reasonable conclusions from available evidence are "zero themselves," i.e, stupid.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I thought Peter Ekstrom coined "planet Rossi". I am fairly certain he used it before Dewey, here.

Maybe so! I simply noticed it first with Weaver. My actual point is that it implies some substantial number of people demonstrating affiliation of views on the internet. One does not say that about an isolated individual or two or three people.

Okay, found it. Apparently, first mention on lenr-forum.com is Dewey Weaver, April 29: Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G) It was in long use before Peter Ekstrom ever used it, if he used it at all. It might have been coined elsewhere, though. First occurrence I found relating to Andrea Rossi was April 25, by nckhawk on Lewan's blog. Apparently this was not Ekstrom, and I haven't found an example of Ekstrom using it.

Quote from Alan Smith

'nchawk' was a former IH staffer. The 'nc' part of the name is a clue.

My understanding is that this was Dewey Weaver. If that is incorrect, what's the evidence? apparently I forget to mention this. Dewey appears to have been the first to use "Planet Rossi."

This whole topic has been created to harrass Mr. Gluck and character assassinate him in the hope that he stops supporting Rossi's tech (and LENR in general ofc), or to make him look like a fool

What does this say about this "Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax"?

What would this "Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax" deserve, in a world where truth is upheld and lies despised?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I guess Peter referred to "Rossi's planet", April 28. Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)
Perhaps the idea was ripe in the universal conciousness.

The term had already been used by Dewey or "nckhawk." The specific trope is "Planet Rossi," not quite the usage by Peter, who simply meant the "world according to Rossi," which is somewhat distinct from "Planet Rossi," which means the entire community that tightly believes what "Rossi Says." This is distinct and broader (because it may include Rossi himself, whereas the Peter usage was only about Rossi himself.

The term is not pejorative, in itself. Once used, it has an obvious function as shorthand. Hence it did catch on. I think there are about 440 hits on lenr-forum.com, though many of these would be quoted. I searched for "Planet Rossi" which is why I did not pick up Peter's mention. In any case, "Planet Rossi," by nckhawk on Lewan's blog, predated the Peter usage.

Peter replied today to the comments here, in a relatively brief post that continued to demonstrate that he is clueless, misrepresenting what was written here. If someone cares to give him some guidance, fine. Not me, not today.

(That is, brief aside from his coverage of LENR News, which was normal.)

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…ne-comment-some-info.html

Ah, one point: Gluck has not given any provenance for the "document." He says that "the Document is dated 2007 however more things had been added ..." This is an acknowledgement that what Peter published was fraudulent. For a writer, outside of clear satire presented as such, to present a fraudulent (or materially altered) document is the equivalent of a scientist presenting fabricated data. He has been carelessly accusing others of lying.

He lied.

What would lead him to do that is what I've claimed about him, which he vehemently rejects. In this case, I suspect a troll fed him the document, someone who wants to discredit him. There are trolls encouraging him in his reactivity, reactivity that has isolated him from much of the CMNS community. These are not his friends, but he accepts what they are telling him, because it feeds his developed paranoid world-view.

Fear and hatred, sometimes combined with arrogance (I'm right, they are bad and wrong), clear signs of paranoia.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is a grotesque distortion of what I and others have said. Gluck wrote: [...etc]

Gluck has been doing this for quite some time. I don't think it is deliberate. He has actually lost it. We have reached an age where this can happen; if not managed -- it could be managed, or damage could be limited -- it can become truly tragic.

We tend to avoid talking about it, but some CMNS researchers are getting on in age, and function in some cases is declining visibly. We all hope for the best. If the decline is not accompanied by paranoia, the connection with the community can be maintained. A loss of rapid comprehension can be compensated by patience, taking more time, repetition, etc. A person with high experience may still have a great deal to contribute, and active contribution will help preserve function. We are social animals, and when that breaks down, we tend to die.

Mild paranoia may show up as peevishness, complaint, and a movement toward despair.

(What could Peter do? Well, does he have anyone he trusts, who would be honest with him? Once paranoia sets in, the trusted circle will narrow, and that is a sign. I sincerely hope that if I become paranoid like this, someone will tell me. I hope I have the sense to at least listen carefully and consider it. I was, in fact, to some degree, going down this road, complaining, thinking of myself as a lone voice crying in the wilderness, etc. Some of you knew me then. I would not call it "severe," but it was there, and it was disempowering. With a lot of help, I was able to recognize what I had been doing that was causing me to fail to communicate, and shift the balance. One simple way to say it was that I started taking responsibility for outcomes I was creating. If people did not understand me when I attempted to communicate with them, it was my failure. So ... here, I failed, since the outcome was not what I desired and attempted.)

Quote from Alan Smith

Showing the evidence would require doxxing. However, it can be revealed that this poster was a former intern at IH (for 2 years a decade ago) currently living in California.

Uh, Alan, IH did not exist a decade ago.

I will look for myself, but this is a side-issue here.

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Jed. You are right of course- it was Cherokee Investments.

And nckhawk was Dewey Weaver: https://animpossibleinvention.…i-ih-affair/#comment-5336 . This is conclusive, not at all doubtful.

There is another person who posted as Guest, Dewey has some conversation with this person. https://animpossibleinvention.…i-ih-affair/#comment-5376 has

Quote

Hi, just a quick clarification – I am NOT an IH insider as Alan Smith writes.

I do have connections to a few IH insiders though which has given me opportunities to ask a few questions (certainly not all of the ones I have) and hear of a few developments in real time, but I do not know anything first hand and am still confused about many of the developments and moving parts in this story.

Personally, I agree that there have been some poor decisions (particularly around speed to action) on the IH side given what has been made public, but knowing some of the people I think their motivations are pure and I believe they have integrity (that is my bias). I understand most people don’t have the benefit of having met the folks involved and being able to personally judge character, so theories on both sides are certainly justified at this point (though vitriol shouldn’t be).

It is possible that Alan has confused this with nckhawk and Dewey Weaver.

The above is a very interesting post that appears to reveal early IH internal process and thinking. There were differences of opinion. IH demonstrated high organizational function by moving to resolve them, instead of one "side" dominating the other.

Reading that Lewan blog discussion now is completely fascinating. All the standard internet discussion meshagas is there, but there are also highly knowledgeable people revealing what they know. It was too much for Lewan, but instead of getting help (he certainly could have!), he shut it down. For a short time, this blog was revealing more about Rossi v. Darden than any other site on the internet.

Lewan does not yet know how to share responsibility, to involve a community, to delegate. He could have moved the discussion to a better forum and format. Lenr-forum could have been used for this, easily.

I thought Mats was admin or mod here, but if so, that has been changed. I'd certainly support him being given mod privileges, with the understanding that he could use them to moderate certain topics of his own. He could also delegate this to someone else.

(In some public access software, users are moderators of what they create. On WMF wikis, users may generally manage their own User and Talk namespace (where they may create essays that otherwise would not be allowed, say, on Wikipedia) and will, by tradition, be supported by administrators, as long as they stay within certain guidelines. On Wikiversity, the originator or maintainer of an educational resource will be given some freedom in managing it, and there are devices that can be used to provide total freedom -- by creating a neutral top-level resource that links to "owned resources" as subpages.)

(On Quora, users may block any other user from commenting on their Answers, and may also freely delete comments on their own answers.)

It is as if Lewan thinks of LENR and Rossi as a hobby of his, not really all that important, not worth a major investment of his time. In fact, of course, he has his life to live and family to support, but it is actually quite easy to identify one or more trustworthy people and rely on them and only intervene on occasion.

Lewan could still do all this.

Now, back to the present: Alan, here, presented "private information" that he could not ethically reveal because it was "doxxing." Occasions can arise for this restraint. It is best, though, that if a comment is based on private information that this be disclosed initially. I write extensively, and some complain about that. One of the reasons for my prolixity is that I present evidence for my ideas or conclusions, instead of just stating them. Can statements based on private information be trusted?

Sometimes. What is the reputation of the person for caution and sanity? Here, Alan has provided a negative piece of evidence on that. He has also predicted that Penon will appear in Rossi v. Darden. Will he? I am perfectly willing to think that Alan has seen something, it might even be from Penon, but is this information reliable?

Nevertheless, I consider LFH an excellent activity and wish Alan spectacular success with it. "Success" does not mean "Lots oF Heat." It means that learning takes place. What is missing in general is full reporting. Too often, only positive results are reported, leading very strongly to the file drawer effect, making it quite difficult to assess the positive results that arise. This is a general cold fusion problem, which is addressed by researchers who do experimental series, not just one experiment or a few, and who report all results. And who are then confirmed by others who do the same. LFH could facilitate and encourage this, and the process would stimulate more sales.