Posts by Peter Gluck

Quote from THHuxleynew

He's just doing PR, like you but cleverer metaphors...

Dear THH,

I was contrariated seeing nobody defends poor Dewey;

DeJAvu Enclave attacks usually in packs.

I like metaphors- these are simply infantile.

What are the functionalities of these metaphors- expressive, explanatory, exegetic and exploratory? (see my blog)

English is a wonderful language deserves to be protected against vulgarisation.

As you see, Rossi Planet can also attack in packs.

Let's be more serious let's rise the level of conversation here.

Peter

Quote from THHuxleynew

Peter. An eccentric inventor who is unreliable and deceptive, while unpleasant, is not necessarily evil. You go from painting Rossi an angelic saviour, to supposing him evil, when in reality he is just one of many inventors with vapourware. He is dangerous because so capable of convincing others - a rare and valuable talent. And he is pretty certainly fraudulent, and possibly criminally so. Evil though? That gives him more than he is worth.

As for how IH could keep the contract with Rossi, knowing his defects, it is quite simple. There are actually multiple plausible reasons and I don't know which is true:

(1) The Lomax sting. (First suggested by Abd) IH needed to get Rossi to show his goods properly in such a way that if they did not work he then would be exposed and unable to continue a scam distracting money and good people from Pd/D LENR towards Ni-H LENR. If the stuff works, however deceptive Rossi is, however bad his demos, IH can stand that to get working LENR 5-10 years before they expected.

(2) The Uncertainty game. IH gambled on the possibility that Rossi's stuff might work, in spite of the known problems and the fact that very likley it would not work. A high stakes gamble for very high but very uncertain return. Having started, and paid $10.5M, they lose nothing by keeping Rossi on good terms, even though they have secret very very large reservations, because he might help them to get something to work, as the contract obliged him to do. Why alienate him? If the test ends up working, regardless, they will be happy to pay. If it does not work there is no way, given the legal deficits, and the fact that there is no customer, and the fact that the test can be shown not to work, that they have to pay. They maybe did not expect Rossi's irrational "I'll sue the snakes" reaction.

Display More

Dear THH,

It was about the slandering campaign. You can easily see this today, if somebody puts in doubt IH's narrative instantly becomes some inferior being from the Rossi Planet.

Say IH is absolutely right- then why on the Earth should it attack so wildly the opponents. This is horrible prestige management for IH.

Say we two good friends for 4 years, than i sue you for not paying me according to a valid contrct nd not breaking contract in time, you immediately debunking my mafioso past. So, then you had such a friend?

Est modus in rebus, a style, elegance- are compulsory.

We are not rowdies (is this word still used?)

And some people tried to scare, intimidate me- what i dislike.

peter

Quote from Dewey Weaver

RiRi - lets clear something up. Planet Rossi unleashed a slander, defamation and misinformation tidal wave last Spring that just happened to coincide with the launch of his litigation. I was outraged at this and started posting to counter their lies. IH asked me to stop as they wanted to let the smear campaign from Planet Rossi cycle out on its own. I tried standing down for a little while but couldn't stand-by while Planet Rossi twisted stories and fabrications against some of the finest men I know. The onslaught of garbage that came out of several bloggers was so outrageous that I couldn't sit back any longer and decided to make a stand. First on Mats blog until the truth got too hot (with the accompanying Planet Rossi call for moderation) and comments were turned off, then over to E-Catworld until Planet Rossi called for moderation to stop the heat rounds. I was effectively banished there both as nckhawk and Dewey Weaver. The last remaining forum for exchange was L-F where there initially was a lot of bias towards me (and IH). That has calmed down dramatically as more folks have realized that Rossi might be wrong and operating from a 4 decade old pattern. This has actually been a great distraction from my work but I think that it has been a useful exercise. I do look forward to being able to focus on progress / the hunt and will rejoice when that day fully returns.

Dear Dewey,

Take please two statements:

A. early during the 1MW test IH has informed the world that

the 1MW plant does not work and it is zero excess heat;

B. a campaign slander, defamation and misinformation

was unleashed after the start of litigation;

There are differences between A. and B.

- A. is untrue, B. is true;

- A. cannot be proved, B. is easily provable.

Just exactly the contrary of what you say is true- IH's outer supporters have started the campaign targeted on Rossi as person, the plant was attacked slowly, step-wise simultaneously with retro-writing of the history of the Test.

What you call now Rossi Planet was just asking howcould IH keep a valid contract if the Plant is not OK, or how they tolerated non-functional equipment and bad instruments used for faulty measurement, how could they collaborate

with such an evil man?

Those who dared to ask such things were punished verbally

going up to their intelligence and mental sanity being put in doubt. The questions were about IH's strategy, not laudatio's of Rossi.

I remember an ugly episode when IH loyalists have invaded the site of Mats Lewan stopping it.

I will not speak about my experience- everything is on the Blog and in e-mails etc. Demonizing of Rossi, demolishing the plant. Shouting and insulting

My grandfatherly advise to you is to not insist on this, it is perfectly documented that your part has started the defamation, character assassination campaign. You know why-insteAd of focusing on the technical proofs.

I am no historian and have better things to do than disputing this. It happened, happens, OK, it was your decision, it will be your responsibility and your merit, positive or negative.

peter

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Peter - Rossi is a great inventor alright - a pioneer in many regards who does have his place in history.

Regarding 20 questions - game over. Thanks for playing.

Best of luck moving forward,

Dewey

Game over for today, but it was my pleasure. Always ready to help you with information. This includes the LENR program

lead (?) by you.

But to be correct- you owe me 2 answers- 1 riddle, 1 quote by Andrea Rossi- you made me curious.

Wish you a fine weekend.

Peter

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Okay Peter - I realize what you're doing but we'll play one more round of this game. The "Rossi Effect" will have its roots in mind-control, belief systems, separating well intentioned folks from their money, manipulating the narrative using digital tools (he has a soon to be famous quote about that from several years ago) and, one day, might just also be a psychological study across more than segment in that field. We'll get around to naming the fields after summary judgement or the trial, which ever comes first.

Sorry, your last sentence is fuzzy.

You seem to be a greater expert in Rossiology than me, I

no idea about the quote- and my collection is well over

150,000 quotes in English only.

Rossi is interesting for me as inventor. invention can be considered a special form of problem solving.

As naming the fields- I think you are familiar with FLOW

of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi then you could use HALFFLOW EFFECT- being given that the half filled pipes explain what happened in the Doral Plant- I will try to make it sound more scientific- old Greek, Latin?

peter

Dewey,

with mutual sympathy I understand what your words say however if the Rossi Effect is non-existant- nada, WTF should it be "studied for years"?

The problem is with your formulation- here self -contradictory

and with your stereotipies. When my grandchildren use a too narrow language i ask them to read the 'Nose' monolog from Cyrano de Bergerac. I sincerely fear you are a quasi- monolingual, that, paradoxically is bad for clarity.

BUT what is essential you are coordinating an ambitious LENR- real excess heat WW program and my question was about this. Please answer and do not try to show that I am a stupid savage comng from the Rossi Planet ( Iam living in a different place, that is sure)

Peter

PS some friends here are discontented with my English.

It was the 5th language I met in Timisoara my native town, - after Romanian, Hungarian, German (Schwabisch), Serbian (I forgot it fast when the Serbians all emigrated in Tito's times), Russian (at school) English I had teachers at home for many years. As researcher I had to read in a few other languages, see what i wrote yesterday about information.

I repeat - not getting what Dewey wanted to say has NO linguistic roots- at least not in my case.

Dear Dewey,

What you sa is more than interesting- and has not to do directly with RvD.

So you start now to accept some theory of the excess heat effect that is not fusion, not LENR. I guess you have met a young personality with a new theory and approach to the problem.

Something like hyper Widom Larsen. BTW have you read Steve Krivit's books?

Better focus on this , what you say or what I say will not influence the verdict in the Trial, it is already written in the stars.

Excuse my distraction/senility , what do you consider a riddle i have to solve?

peter

Quote from Dewey Weaver

For those keeping score - I vote that THH gets the nod for writing the rest of the story on the "Rossi Effect".

Can you please explain this in more detail?

What exactly are your expert predictions?

thanks,

peter

The insults were extended to the supporters of Rossi

living on the Rossi Planet. Useless, IH's scenario was and is not convincing. Valid contract not paying, stellar results now bad later fake etc.. Be rational.

A company certain it is right, restricts its activity to the Court and wins,.

peter

Dewey has and has not written this:

The crux of the biscuit is slowly revealing itself. One who writes lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses puppets to demean others and perpetual partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc...etc...etc.... clearly thinks that everybody else must do that as well. They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth.

This is about IH supporters, masters of insulting.

Dewey has told us here the aim is to let the Court know in perpetuity what a dreadful individual Rossi is.

It was a Pareto relationship- 80% painting Rossi in black, 20%

telling no excess heat.

peter

Dear Dewey,

You are amazing, but how old are you? My 11 years old

grandchild is more mature than you.

Or is this a joke? Do you know my S-definition of humor/

This was a shock, I reckon,

peter

Quote from THHuxleynew

Dear Peter,

I'm afraid private discussion would be difficult because I value my anonymity, and therefore would disclose private details only to those I could trust to preserve it.

No problem I will answer you tomorrow, now I compose my blog. Alternatively we could speak on Skype my address is

<peteregoout> fixing in a diplomatic way when..

peter

Dear THH,

The great problem is the missing information.

Can we discuss privately?

peter

Quote from SSC

That's right, Peter. Why IH did not protest when the first report of Penon was received, if it was so obvious that the data were absurd?

Why they complain to the judge that they lost so much money in Doral if they really had suspected a bluff from the start?

It would have been enough to stop everything at the first suspicion, and would have saved a lot.

I have already asked this questions several times, but the answer has been always the same: "You and all your alien friends from Planet Rossi will be sweep away by the violence of IH's revenge!!!! Ahahaha!!!!" ...... Obviously someone can't do better than this......

Dear SSC,

Courage amigo! I am a four time winner of black belt 8th Dan

in verbal karate and will protect you.

Just I will ot fight against genuine proofs if/when they will come.

Peter

Quote from THHuxleynew

Peter: I have disagreed with all your other arguments : and I notice you have not answered. However, this is an argument from you that no-one here has yet addressed. In the case that the flowmeter is wrongly positioned, and therefore in a pipe half-full of water, you might expect readings to be erratic. That would make achieving the apparently constant flow shown in the data difficult.

This argument has merit, in that it is not obviously wrong.

But nor is it obviously right.

• The given flowmeter readings are in 1000kg units! So there is no "jumping about" possible. And to achieve the miraculous constant flow noted all that is needed is to get within 500kg of the desired answer, once per day.
• Rossi seems to have spent most of his time in the box, with the system controls, for reasons that remain obscure. So he could quite easily have been adjusting flowrate manually as needed to get the once per day checkpoint come out OK. (Someone will correct me if we have data on resolution better than one sample per day - I don't think so). And such correction does not even require Rossi to be deliberately spoofing the test. He can claim he is just keeping it running correctly.
• The complex control system Rossi boasts about could easily be modified to keep flowrates constant. Trivial bang/bang negative feedback. In fact that would be a reasonable thing to do for anyone not thinking had about error mechanisms and such issues.

Suppose however that the flowmeter was accurate. In that case there is still the possibility that either the inlet or out;let claimed temperatures are wrong. We know nothing of the outlet TC siting, and if flow there is unmixed with water + gas it could easily be totally wrong. We know nothing of inlet TC siting except that it is claimed to be in a tank. That is fine if the tank water is well mixed with the inlet water stream, and useless if not.

You are arguing that this data leaves no room for the results to be, as Jed claims, null. So that this proposition is absurd. You have not achieved that. In fact there is lots of room, as well as a whole non-existent customer worth of circumstantial evidence and lies from Rossi.

This is a slightly artificial conversation. Jed claims (and it seems pretty likely) to have additional information he is not allowed to disclose that would help elucidate these matters. We get bits of this from Jed's comments, but we cannot weigh them properly because of what he cannot disclose. it is a shame but entirely understandable. Jed must be sorely tempted to release more than he is allowed to, but I am confident he will not do that, nor should anyone ask him to do so. IHFB seems to think that Jed should behave with superhuman resolve and give no information in absence of complete disclosure. That is silly. It would no doubt be the politic thing to do. But Jed is no politician.

Regards, THH

Display More

Dear THH,

Let's use a professional, systematic approach- it helps me too.

Make take the list of technical issues you disagree with me so we can discuss methodically.

Possibly step by step, problem by problem.

I am just in the middle of my news, papers hunting activity for my blog.

Thanks,

Peter

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, this is exactly what I have been describing. Notice how the problem can be fixed with the raised pipe at the end. You can also make a U with the flow meter positioned at the bottom of the U. As far as I know, Rossi did not have this kind of plumbing.

I added a comment to this article in June.

ADD: The instructions for the meter are here:

https://gsvit.files.wordpress.…tori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf

Concluding sentence:

N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione).

Google translate:

N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance).

Again, that is what I have talked about. Peter Gluck is convinced there is no such thing as a half-empty pipe. What does he think happens when water flows slowly in one section of a pipe, and swiftly in another section?

Display More

Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex:

An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the Trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)

The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.
The main differences to the Doral plant case:
a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe
b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.
You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.
However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant.

Now there are two cases possible in principle:
A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible

B. Setup according to Jed
FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

Peter

Dear Sigmoidal,

I regret mking you ngry, but tell me what do YOU think about ths story with visitors in the Plant and finding that terrible thing about the flowmeter. Finding out- can you explain

how? In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factotry I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

However I thought i would be healthy to not contribute to this thread more

peter

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. As I have said several times, I have a diagram of the plant, from Rossi. It shows the flow meter was installed in the gravity return pipe. You do not believe that so you should ask Rossi for a copy of the diagram.

Jed,

Yesterday you made a blunder oversized even for you-

claiming that your friends have established that the flowmeter multiplies real flow 4 times and obviously you cannot prove this incredible story. Unprovable, how do you define a lie?

You claimed Rossi gave you the ERV report, then once told it was from IH (Mendacem esse oported memoriam)

Now you come with the diagram also donated by your admirer Rossi to you.

Some people still believe you here, you are not responsible for what you say. You prove nothing because you have no proofs

I will not ask Rossi about the diagram,he is busy with the real litigation; this ghost game here is just an imitation of the real thing.

I simply cannot understand why you do these kitschy tricks.

Any game has some rules. Are you rewarded as an entropy generator, chaos source?

Peter

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Peter also ask yourself how Penon reported more electrical energy going into the reactor than was being supplied from the utility company FPL?

The crab is a little red fish that goes bckwards- it was Fabiani not Penon, he reported less not more (normal energy is used for other actions too) and this issue is in Court already.

WTF should he report a greater denominator of COP ratio?

re you searching for vulnerabilities of the Plant?

peter

Quote from Malcolm Lear

I can assure you Peter from practical experience the empellor type flow meter most certainly can be fooled into overstating flow by 4 times, indeed I've seen nearly 10 times with one badly placed device. All in takes is placement where air can occupy the pipe such as an outflow or where a syphon effect can occur. Please just accept this as fact.

I have worked with flowmeters some 40 years, gas and liquid. So please send me technical details to [email protected]

Has no vistor remarked the meter is in bad place? Do you have the real diagram? (Y/N)

I think we must be responsible and accountable for what we say here too. It exists a Goddess of Technology

peter