FUD on E-catworld

I've been posting on e-catworld. I have over 500 posts there, I think for almost two years. I am still on moderation, so my posts sometimes don't appear for hours. I have, I think, a total of two posts deleted out of all that I've written. I wrote Frank and he was polite but noncommittal. The delay suppresses my participation, maybe Frank wants that, I don't know. I rarely see any appreciation there.

Many posts on ECW are just plain ignorant, the authors obviously don't know the history and the facts, and then there are some who, in theory, might know more, but appear to have an agenda. I'm writing this because I have received a pile of response notifications and it's annoying to keep answering in discussions where it's obvious the goal is not sharing of information or, even more, finding agreement. It's about make-wrong, and defending fixed positions.

So I'm starting this thread about ECW, to discuss and analyze posts there, distinct from the specific issue discussions that are found elsewhere. This thread is about ECW and the ECW community, or members of it.

About the Penon protocol document:
http://disq.us/p/1d40a48 .... I responded and then Ged responded to me:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecw/e_cat_plant_test_plan_fabio_penon/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_date#comment-2970012502

Quote

Ged Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 5 days ago
We still await the evidence of the December letter and what it said, though. Be interesting to see.

Also, the return pipe is the lowest pipe which we can see and could never be half full. That would require no water anywhere above that pipe (water is heavier than air), or if water was being forced with air, one heck of a ruckas. A lot of people saw this baby in operation, we now know. Also, being in the feed pipe coming in to the container prevents any changes inside the container from messing with the flow meter.

First point, the December letter. We do know some of what it said, because Rossi asks about it in his hearing request document (70.1) It appears possible that the December email was provided to Rossi from the first Rossi request for production. The email was attached to the request, but is not attached to the response (nor would it be) so we may not see it. This is what Rossi says about it in his Request:

Quote

REQUEST NO. 30: Any and all documents which support and/or pertain to your claim that “Neither IPH nor IH ‘engaged’ Mr. Penon to serve as the ERV for the Guaranteed Performance process, which is a requirement under Section 5.”, (sic) as stated in the letter of December 4, 2015, which has been attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

REQUEST NO. 31: Any and all documents which support your position that “The project on which Leonardo is currently working cannot be the Guaranteed Performance process set forth in the Agreement”, as stated in the letter dated December 4, 2015 attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

This is all we need to know right now. IH did object to an apparent Rossi claim that the Doral plant was the GPT and Penon was the ERV, December 4, if not before then. While it is not explicitly stated, this was very likely an email to Rossi. Rossi claimed on his blog that IH only complained once it was time to pay. So that was false. It would be quite interesting to see any correspondence between Darden and Rossi after Rossi denied admittance to Murray. My sense is that it got quite frosty. Maybe that is how they cooled the plant.

There was only one visit after that, according to the IH list, in August, with Darden and Vaughn both, and with the two Woodford representatives who were apparently coming back. I suspect that Woodford wanted to see what was going on, so asked for this visit. They had already invested in May. We don't know what actually happened, but some on Planet Rossi think that Woodford invested after that. No. It was in May, the IHHI records show that. (If Rossi did not know about the May investment, he might have seen the two visits and thought they were truly impressed.... hence what he's written about it might indeed be what he thought. The Snakes! They used my Plant to impress them, and get all this money, and now they claim it wasn't working!)

It appears possible that Rossi also refused to allow McLaughlin, the former APCO associate, to visit with Darden, sometime before the May email from Rossi shutting down visits. That visit is mentioned in the Rossi mail, but it is not actually stated that MacLaughlin was admitted, and it might even be implied that he wasn't. The visit is not listed in the IH provided list in 70.1.

The Penon document does refer to him as ERV, and it mentions that the "test" is 350 days; however, this is too weak to establish the Section 5 requirements for written consent to the starting of the GPT, and to weak to establish estoppel, i.e, by some sort of clear consent other than the written form required.

We can see in how people write about this case and these events that people read something, interpret it, and then remember the interpretation as fact. Everyone does this, it is every human, but if we want to move above and beyond the limitations in ordinary thinking, recognizing how we substitute interpretations or stories for what actually happened is a major step.

The second point is about the pipe in which the flow meter was installed. This has generated more heat than the 1 MW plant, most of it based on speculation.

I have stated that it is possible that the flow meter was not full of water, given what we know, but that whether or not it was actually full or not is not clear, it is speculative. Contrary to this is the Murray comment in the infamous Exhibit 5, that he observed rust lines in the meter indicating a period of partial fill, not full. This is a reasonable indication of a problem, though not completely conclusive. Definnitely something that Murray would have wanted Penon to answer.

On the other side, there is Peter Gluck and, here, Ged, asserting that the pipe must have been full, that it's impossible for such a pipe to be only partially full, and he has gone to lengths in this argument, piling up what is irrelevant as proof (sets of facts that can be misunderstood to create an impression of impossibility. For example, a DN80 pipe at 1.5 m^3 per hour, a nominal flow rate for the test, indicates a water volume per hour that would be contained in 300 meters of pipe. But I'll come back to this.)

Here, Ged is asserting that the meter is installed in the lowest point in the system. That is obviously false! The return pipe empties into the internal reservoir, so that reservoir would be lower, unless the water is flowing under pressure, not by gravity. He then makes a general statement that there can be no water at any higher elevation. I understand his point, but it is simply not true for piping systems.

Imagine a long pipe, straight, with an incline, such that water introduced into one end of the pipe flows down and flows out the other end. The input end is substantially higher than the outflow end. Now, if the flow of water is low, the water will run in a trickle down the pipe. The pipe will never fill at any point. There is always water at a higher elevation, but it takes time for it to flow through the pipe. Yes, if you close the end of the pipe, the outflow end, water will then back up and fill the pipe. If the end of the pipe is immersed in water in a reservoir, water will back up in the pipe to the level so that it is the same in the pipe as in the reservoir. If the flow meter is above that level, it will not be full (assuming low flow rate matched by outflow from the reservoir).

So whether or not the flow meter is full cannot be determined without more information. The only piece of evidence we have at this point is the Murray report about rust marks.

There is then circumstantial evidence. I.e., from other evidence (the problem with warehouse ventilation), a megawatt was not being produced. If so, then some error is implied. Flow meter over-reporting from not being full is quite a decent candidate. There are other possibilities, and all of it would be irrelevant if this had been a true independent test, carefully monitored and transparent to IH.

None of this is proof, but there are some who are grasping at straws to preserve what they believe.

One point of agreement: yes, it was a good location to measure water flow; this does require an assumption that the only source of water coming into the Plant was condensation from the delivered steam or other water flowing out of the Plant. And that is why nobody sane would approve of a GPT with the "secret customer area" setup. It was fine for a sale of power!

What Ged wrote about forced air was irrelevant. At some point I mentioned a question about the flow meter passing air. Ged interpreted this as outside air, which was a preposterous reading. I was imagining a much more complicated flow meter, a brain fault. The meter will allow air passage, I'm sure. It is not a one-way valve that allows no fluid or gas flow. It is probably not directional at all, but is quite free-wheeling, a little paddle-wheel. If I'm wrong about that, someone will correct me.

This one is fun. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecw/new_exhibits_posted_in_rossi_v_industrial_heat_case_8212_includes_list_of_plant_visitors_and_test_pl/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read_more#comment-2969536455

Quote

Timar LENR G • 6 days ago
It's a remarkable pattern isn't it?

So far, each and every bit of factual information surfacing via the court docket supports Rossi's reprensentations of the events. Many allegations raised by IH's filings, Dewey, Rothwell and other IH shills or trolls have been consequently proven wrong by information released in the court docket (including the assertion that James A. Bass is not a real person, many of Jed's allegations and most of Dewey's initial FUD).

What I find kind of scary is how none of this seems to affect the majority opinion over at LENR-Forum. Poeple who once were on a mission to critizise "groupthink" in regard to LENR now eagerly indulge in the their own brand of groupthink, to which they have become completely blind, cleverly initiated and sustained by IH/APCO by buying (in one way or another) some well-respected LENR voices.

Heck, one of the most verbose of IH's shills, who also regularly writes here, even literally boasted about being paid for what he writes on LENR in social media on several occasions in the past. Yet he has managed to become one of the most acclaimed voices there. It is mind boggling and a sad example of how even a group of people well educated on a subject can easily succumb to concerted propaganda efforts.

Display More

Timar makes a pile of allegations without references. It is as if he lives on a different planet, and Dewey's Planet Rossi comes to mind. Might be unfair to Rossi. I see in the filings massive evidence that Rossi lied or misrepresented events. The "factual information here" is that there were visitors. Yes. Rossi said there were visitors and there actually were. So ....

I asked; Timar did not answer, but another did.

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax Timar • 5 days ago
Who boasted about being paid for what he writes on LENR? Link?

Michael W Wolf Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 3 days ago
Talk to sifferkoll. That is where I first heard it.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax Michael W Wolf • 2 days ago
Actually, you probably read it as a comment on Sifferkoll's blog, from Timar, who is the one who repeats this claim above. This is that comment: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…-on-repeat/#comment-33664

Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

There is nothing there about being paid. There is a mention of a lawyer who suggested I study the case, because he was interested in my impressions. He is not associated with any of the parties in Rossi v. Darden. I have not been paid a penny for writing on this case. I've been promised reimbursement for my access fees on PACER, that's all.

Display More

What can we call misinformation like this? "Lie" is tricky, because these people may believe what they write, so dizzy are they. However, there is a clue: when the truth becomes clear, if they discover that what they wrote was wrong and especially if it was offensive, do they acknowledge the error and apologize? Hence, I'll use "lie," allowing them, if they choose, to convert that to "error."

They freely accuse others of lying and spreading misinformation and deception, i.e., "FUD." Pot, kettle, black.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I have a more than 2 deleted just in the past week. I give up.

I am not even being combative. I just want to know what that fellow "Engineer" has to say. I recall he said he would judge Rossi after analyzes the equipment used to measure steam quality, but he was confident this equipment was fully professional and up to snuff. There is no such equipment, and no procedure. As far as I can tell, it is impossible to even vent the steam. So I would like to ask him whether he now feels like reevaluating.

Based on his comments I do not think he has reevaluated anything. Anyway, I cannot ask him. My messages are deleted.

Display More

Thanks for the report. Allow me to suggest this. I believe that deleted posts show in your E-catworld forum profile. That is how I found that the two of mine were deleted, they were there, marked as deleted. I could then copy them. They were not, in my case, important enough to do anything about. If you find that a post of yours was unfairly deleted, how about putting it here, with a link, if possible, to show context.

Sometimes they may take quite a while to approve a post, and one might think it was deleted. Apparently, though, the Disqus software does retain the post for your review.

I don't think that respectful questions of Engineer48 would be deleted. So I'd like to see what you wrote. If you look at your profile, you will see all your posts, and ones deleted will show it, and ones pending will show that. The "Pending" is truly irritating, though not as bad as deleted.

Actually, there are two records of posts, an E-catworld profile and a Disqus profile, and I'm not sure right now which one shows deleted posts. It might be the latter.

Quote from JedRothwell

axil wrote:

Actually, Axil wrote that to me. Axil does not know or understand my ontology, which does not recognize "should" as meaning much of anything unless standards have been defined and accepted. However, it was a great list. In fact, here it is:

Quote

Maybe you should be more diplomatic, supportive of Rossi, tactful in your attracts, sensitive to the feeling of others, delicate in your language, polite in your attitude, discreet in your opinions, thoughtful in your style, careful with your words, judicious in your judgement, non-confrontational in discussions, prudent on offering opinion, politic, clever in response, skillful in your suggestions, encouraging in your answers, caring, sympathetic, reassuring, understanding, concerned, helpful to others, and kind.

Not sure what "attracts" means. Was "attacks" intended? Attacks are not tactful, period. Perhaps "tactful in pointing out errors"?

The "should" comes from my mention that I rarely see appreciation there. So the assumption would be that I want appreciation and am complaining about the lack of it.

Let me put it this way: that's not how I see it. I do not continue to spend time where I'm not appreciated unless I have some critical interest. I see no purpose to it. I do have a duty to convey what I know, under some circumstances, but that duty does not include insisting. It simply requires clear expression, and, where possible, such would be described by Axil's list. And I do not mind the reminder.

It is also a fact of life for me that I sometimes confront my friends. Sometimes they get mad at me. However, the norm is that they calm down and get the point, and the anger turns into appreciation. That's in real life. Can I do this with more skill? Yes. There is always more to learn, more to practice, there are always new dimensions to explore.

So Jed then responded for himself:

Quote

Surely you do not expect me to be supportive of Rossi! I have concluded that he is a criminal, and his claims are completely bogus. I have given my reasons. You disagree with my reasons, but I hope you recognize that I mean what I say. I am not lying or kidding. Under the circumstances, it would be absurd for me to be supportive.

If the people at Ecat-world do not want any opposition to their views, that's okay with me. I will not participate. But if they want to hear from people who disagree with them, they cannot expect us to be "supportive."

I have lived a very different life. I was a prison chaplain, so I was "supportive" of real criminals, even murderers. I did not support their crime, which was basically not my business. Sometimes they told me, but I never asked. I have also faced raging violence, and defused it in a way that was quite how martial artists are trained to do, though I was never trained that way. I see miracles, routinely. So ... Rossi has attacked me as a shill. So what? He is fighting for his life.

What I see on e-catworld is a mixed community. There is moderation that excludes expression hostile to Rossi. It is, after all, e-catworld and not a debunking site. However, sober critique does not seem to be excluded. Our Paradigmnoia is Obvious there, and is cogent and certainly not singing the praises of Rossi. Your comments have appeared, but I don't know if what I just saw was what you thought was deleted or something else. There is more than one moderator there, I think, and one of my own deletions was, I think, a simple mistake. But I have many hundreds of accepted comments.

I also intend to cover Ecat-fraud.com, another kettle of fish.

I have found this over the years: I'm a skeptic, but, hopefully, a Truzzi-style skeptic and am fully willing to reserve judgment. I have also seen too much to think that life is as limited as some think.

Nevertheless, when it comes to naive believers and strong debunkers, I vastly prefer the company of the former, except when they become so fanatic that they are hostile to anyone who does not agree with them. When they do that, they actually resemble the debunkers, for both believe they are right and that is more important to them than ordinary civility and that list of stuff that Axil wrote about.

Quote from Engineer48

Would also point out that measuring the reactor outlet steam temperature and steam pressure would enable steam quality or dryness to be determined.

This is, of course, correct as to steam quality, however, it is not a showing that there is no liquid water in the outlet pipe. This all came out in broad discussion in 2011. To be clear for others, wet steam is steam that is carrying small droplets of water. If the evaporated water ("steam") is above the boiling point, which is determined by the pressure (as well as water purity), it can be assumed that any suspended droplets will very rapidly evaporate. (At the boiling point, suspended water and steam may be in equilibrium). However, there could be liquid water flowing beneath the steam, which would not be heated so rapidly. It would likely be at the boiling point, not above.

To detect this, more is needed than was described in the test procedure. To me, given how much criticism there was in 2011 over this issue, it's appalling that this wasn't considered. The harm of stonewalling as to questions about reports could be great: Kullander and Essen were asked about this in 2011 and never responded. Had they responded, it is likely that the issue would have been addressed.

(Consider: suppose what I've written is wrong. That error would then have been discovered. We are not talking about something mysterious and unknown. Steam technology is fully mature. However, Rossi never allowed anyone expert with steam to see his reactors, as far as we can tell. He rejected Jed Rothwell, apparently because he wanted to bring some of his own instruments. He wrote IH in 2013 that having independent experts present at the Validation Test would make "big problems" for him. A moment of candor?)

Those emails from Rossi are amazing. I pointed one out to a long-time friend of his, who was astonished. "He actually wrote that?" Yes. He did. -- this was about the Hydro Fusion test.

I wonder what Cassarino (of Ampenergo) is thinking. Ampenergo received payments, apparently in the millions of dollars, for releasing the U.S. license to Industrial Heat. My guess is that they made money on their investment. They own stock in IHHI, some of that may have been in lieu of cash.

Quote from Engineer48

Jed,

Believe the ERV list is what was proposed. It may have changed. We need the list of the installed instruments and where they were installed to make any comments on the instruments actually used & where installed.

From what I have read, the ERV was to have had all the instruments calibrated by the manufacturer at the intended operational temp, flow & pressure range before and after the 350 day test. If that was done and the calibration certificates presented then we need to accept the operational conditions were appropriate for the instruments installed.

Would also point out that measuring the reactor outlet steam temperature and steam pressure would enable steam quality or dryness to be determined.

Don't get to the forums very much at present. Got sucked into a large contract when one of the other consultants came up short. Very busy.

Display More

One thing I have come to expect concerning the "eCat Saga".... is that Rossi disappoints every time. Certificates are not what is expected. Customers are never revealed. Tests are always very subpar. The reveal of the QuarkX was a photo of a fuzzy blue light. No customer production at the plant site.... The list goes on.

With that in mind, after seeing information from the Docket, I have to apply this to Engineer48's "we need a list of equipment" thought. His point is absolutely correct when applied in most situations. However, in this one, I fully expect the list to be extremely subpar with what one would expect, as it seems always has been the historical case related to eCat testing. The test protocol was extremely weak and full of holes. Measurements were left up to Rossi and appear to be cut and paste. I fully expect that there will be no manufacturer calibration certificates nor possibly even a list of equipment. It is how things seem to work in this drama. Disappointment.

If Rossi does provide a data log shown to have integrity, used a list of applicable instruments that was calibrated and calibrated again afterwards and Penon appears and answers questions about the test, then all should be good! What is the odds of this happening?

Quote from Alan Smith

Since those with an interest in this topic have probably had their say at some length, there is probably no real need for further posts.

This was written a few hours after this thread was begun, and I knew there was some risk that Alan would shut the thread down, as he has done this with others.

I don't like to make threats. However, if this thread is shut down by Alan, absent some clear consensus, I will cease direct participation in this forum, other than to protest, here and elsewhere, and to seek a clear resolution from Forum administration. I will continue commentary on the topics, but simply elsewhere not subject to Alan's censorship. (And I expect it would be likely that someone here would link to that.) I think he showed good sense in not acting on his idea, assuming that he did not act. Previously, he simply shut down topics. (This forum does not apparently have public admin logs, so we cannot tell who did what unless they display it. I would hope that, eventually, forum administration will establish clear policies and procedures.)

The activity of other fora has frequently been a topic here, but spread through other topics. The fora and fora management are "Players," so I put this thread under this general topic. I intend to start another topic on ecat-fraud.com. It's relevant. If people don't want to read about it, nobody is obligated to look at it. Except, unfortunately, moderators, but they could divvy up that burden.

Engineer, thanks for responding here. It's appreciated.

Quote from Engineer48

[(I)] Believe the ERV list is what was proposed. It may have changed. We need the list of the installed instruments and where they were installed to make any comments on the instruments actually used & where installed.

From what I have read, the ERV was to have had all the instruments calibrated by the manufacturer at the intended operational temp, flow & pressure range before and after the 350 day test. If that was done and the calibration certificates presented then we need to accept the operational conditions were appropriate for the instruments installed.

Yes. This was a proposal, not a description of the actual installation.

There is a missing qualification. This should be obvious. We can make comments in total ignorance, if we want. We don't have the "need" described.

We have evidence. It is incomplete. It might remain so, easily. I have seen Engineer making plenty of comments about the E-cat based on incomplete information, or on Rossi says (maybe in direct communication). We all do this, we think and write based on what seems true to us, or possible to us. A few of us might be writing according to impressions we want to create, such as Rossi himself. If there were "paid APCO FUD," -- there is no sign of it other than lunatic rants -- that would be similar.

I find it unlikely that the pressure gauge was calibrated by the manufacturer at the operating temperature. They would require a different gauge to be used, I'd expect. When a device is used outside of specifications, it might work for a while, then fail. There is a safety margin built into specifications. To adequately test the gauge outside of specifications would require a major test program, it could be extremely expensive. No, almost certainly, it did not happen.

Not just one, but two of the important instruments were planned to be used outside of specified range: the pressure gauge and the flow meter. This was unbelievably sloppy. This is in addition to the lack of attention to the possibility of less than full evaporation of water.

So why did IH accept the Penon proposal? First of all, we don't know that they did. However, I will assume they, at least, did not object to the point of disallowing Penon to serve. Why? If one has been following my understanding of this as it developed from going over the evidence again and again, they had decided to allow Rossi to do what he wanted, "within reason" is how they later described this in talking about how they treated inventors. Rossi had set up a sale of power that allowed his customer to effectively pay the costs of Fabiani, West, and Penon, probably. If there was a problem, it was between Rossi and the customer.

Did they suspect that the customer was fake? Maybe. From how I read the Terms Sheet, this would indeed have been an opportunity to observe Rossi doing his thing. There was nothing in that agreement about "secret customer area," and full access to IH was guaranteed. We see Planet Rossi saying things like "there is no proof that Murray was their employee." That is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. It would be the same with the refusal of a McLaughlin visit. Who was Rossi to say who was a "customer or IH personnel"? That is not "employee," it includes contractors, clearly. That language was so broad that it gave IH total freedom with regard to visits to their Plant. If this had been abused, okay, but the list of visits showed that it was not. During the period of plant operation (when did the "test" begin? Was February 9 during or before the "test." I will assume before, and that has a consequence), there were two visits only. The "Chinese investors," though I have seen no confirmation of Rossi claims that they invested. The Woodford representative(s?) visited on February 9, accompanied by both Darden and Vaughn. There is only one other visit where both Darden and Vaugn were present, and that is the visit in August, again with the Woodford reps. I suspect this was a shaped charge, designed to fully test Rossi's refusal to allow visitors. Would he have the cheek to refuse to admit the Woodford reps when accompanied by both Darden and Vaughn. Vaughn was the operations manager for IH, apparently. Darden was not so much hands-on. For Darden to show up was a big deal. We don't know if the Woodford reps were admitted or not. Probably they were, my guess. Rossi was outnumbered, and that has a social effect.

This is the fundamental problem. The Doral plant was not set up as one would set up a Guaranteed Performance Test, and that is blatantly obvious, from so many evidences that I take the leap and say that it's impossible. It didn't happen; if it did, Darden temporarily lost his mind. Okay, maybe he lost his mind. If a responsible officer loses his mind, and says something really stupid and contrary to a written Agreement, does that void the written agreement? I don't think so. Rossi has so many barriers to overcome to prevail in Rossi v. Darden that the outcome, in round outlines, is certain.

Yet on Planet Rossi, almost every day, the "brilliance" of Rossi's lawyers is being lauded and they are almost ready to break out the champagne over the certain victory. Yes, Dewey. "Earth to Planet Rossi...."

There are people who still Believe, and that does not bother me. It takes all kinds, and it's important, in my social ontology, for people to stand for what they believe. However, when this is combined with contempt for anyone who thinks differently, even when that person is reasonably polite and simply points to evidence, it has gone beyond limits, it is just another manifestation of attached hatred, our ancient collective enemy.

Again, Engineer, thanks for showing up here. We need better communication.