Posts by kirkshanahan

    So I was having a little trouble with the latter part of IOs message and did some Internet lookups. Thought you all might benefit too. IO's words in double quotes--

    “The early attempts to construct a sufficiently robust spiral decommutator”

    (commutator (plural commutators)

    1. An electrical switch, in a generator or motor, that periodically reverses the direction of an electric current.
    2. (group theory) A binary map in a given group G, given by [g, h] = ghg−1h−1, where g and h are elements of G, which yields the group's identity if and only if the group operation commutes for g and h.
    3. (ring theory) A binary map in a given ring R, given by [a, b] = ab − ba, where a and b are elements of R, which yields the ring's zero element if and only if the multiplication operation commutes for a and b.

    Thus a ‘de’-commutator reverses the action of the commutator.)

    “failed largely because of lack of appreciation of the large quasi-pietic

    (typo, forgot terminating ‘a’ –

    (Italian Noun [– honors Rossi]

    pietica f (plural pietiche)

    1. A device used to hold tree trunks that are to be sawed )

    “stresses in the gremlin studs;”

    (gremlin (plural gremlins)

    1. A mythical creature reputed to be mischievously inclined to damage or dismantle machinery.
    2. (by extension) Any mysterious, unknown source of trouble or mischief.


    1. plural of stud
    2. (plural only) A pair of shoes or boots which have studs on the bottom to aid grip.

    He wore his studs to play soccer.

    1. (plural only) Tires/tyres with metal protrusions used for improved traction on snow and ice in winter.

    Many US states have outlawed studs due to the damage they cause to paved roads.

    In technical context it means devices used to prevent failure…from stresses…)

    “the latter were specially designed to hold the roffit bars”

    (Another typo probably, should be “roffia”.

    (Italian Noun –

    roffia f (plural roffie)

    1. scraps of tanned leather”)

    “to the spamshaft.”

    (Obviously supposed to be ‘camshaft' given the obscene meaning of what was written…tsk tsk)

    “When, however, it was discovered that wending “


    1. present participle of wend


    1. first-person singular present indicative of wenden
    2. imperative of wenden

    wenden (third-person singular simple present wendeth, present participle wendende, simple past and past participle wended)

    1. to travel; to go 

    “could be prevented by the simple addition of teeth to socket, almost perfect running was secured.”

    “The operating point is maintained as near as possible to the HF rem peak by constantly fromaging” (cheeseing)

    “the bituminous spandrels.”

    (spandrel (architecture) The space (often triangular) between the outer curve of an arch (the extrados) and a straight-sided figure that bounds it; the space between two contiguous arches and a straight feature above them

    1. (architecture) The triangular space under a stair; the material that fills the space
    2. (architecture) A horizontal member between the windows of each storey of a tall building
    3. An oriental rug having a pattern of arches; the design in the corners of such a rug, especially in a prayer rug
    4. (evolutionary theory) A phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect of a true adaptation )

    “This is a distinct advance on the standard nivelsheave”

    ( nivel

    1. (anatomy) A joint.
    2. (robotics) An articulation (a joint).


    1. A wheel having a groove in the rim for a rope to work in, and set in a block, mast, or similar; the wheel of a pulley.
    2. A sliding scutcheon for covering a keyhole.

    Implies nivelsheave is a joint wheel )

    "in that no drammock" (an uncooked mixture of meal, usually oatmeal, and cold water) "oil is required after the phase detractors have remissed."

    (Remissed could possibly be past participle or past indicative of remiss, had remiss been a verb. However, remiss is an adjective, so there is no past tense (eg. remissed or remised). What does remiss mean? The word remiss is applied to a person or people, and means having been careless, negligent or slow in performing a duty, lacking in attention to duty etc.

    Implies remissed above means ‘have gotten sloppy’)

    “Undoubtedly, the turboencabulator”

    (turboencabulator (plural turboencabulators)

    1. A fictional machine used to humorously point out the perils of excessive jargon in technical writing. )

    "has now reached a very high level of technical development. It has been successfully used for operating nofer trunnions."

    (Probably a typo for “noder” -

    Latin Verb


    1. first-person singular present passive subjunctive of nōdō

    Latin nōdō

    From nōdus (“knot”).


    nōdō m

    1. dative singular of nōdus
    2. ablative singular of nōdus


    nōdō (present infinitive nōdāre, perfect active nōdāvī, supine nōdātum); first conjugation

    1. I knot, make knotted, tie in a knot

    trunnion (plural trunnions)

    1. One of the short stubby bearings on either side of a cannon; a gudgeon.
    2. A similar rotational bearing comprising a rotating arc or ring sliding in the groove of a stationary arc, used in machinery to allow a workpiece to be moved relative to a fixed tool.
    3. A similar rotational bearing used in automotive suspensions. )

    Implies ‘knotted trunnions’)

    “In addition, whenever a barescent”

    (Vulgarization of “bare escentuals”, relates to “beauty enhancing”


    ( Swedish (obviously)



    1. indefinite plural of sko



    1. present tense of sko.


    sko c

    1. a shoe (on foot or on a horse)
    2. a lining (of iron on a wooden tool; similar to a horseshoe)

    “motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm”


    dingle (plural dingles)

    1. A small, narrow or enclosed, usually wooded valley.

    Employed technically in a figurative sense to describe an arm (often wooden) nestled between two very large parts, that is usually very hard to get to, requiring dingle arm tools to repair or replace.)

    “to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.”

    (See: How to Reduce Sinusoidal Depleneration


    Jed has posted a couple more comments that reveal how intractable he really is on the 'bucket' issue, and in fact on anything I write. It is hopeless trying to change his mind. All you have to do is look back to 2002 and see he is saying the same things and refusing to listen to reason then as well. He is a true cold fusion fanatic. I am stopping the bucket thing here, unless someone besides Zeus, bocijn, and Jed have serious questions. I believe there really won't be any but I'll check back on Monday to see. Holidays are coming up, lots of time off. Have fun all!

    Again you assert that hot object is not a heater. This is crackpot. They are one and the same.


    Jed doesn't understand the need for clarity in explorative calculation. That's because he's not a scientist. As I mentioned elsewhere, the terms were clearly defined in the computational results I reported on. If he doesn't follow the methodology, sorry, nothing I can do. Time to drop the issue. Move along folks, nothing here to see.

    What the hell does all this mean?!?

    The speadsheet data I posted is from this year, 2017. The heat-after-death event occurred in March 1991. That's what it says in the book excerpt. The "hot object" that Mizuno plunked was a stainless steel electrochemical cell, in 1991, as noted. The swimming pool data applied to the water that evaporated during that event.

    Room temperature, humidity and other factors cannot possibly make 15 liters of water evaporate overnight. That is absolutely, positively impossible, so it makes no difference whether this data was supplied or not. Demanding this information is an attempt to derail the discussion with nonsensical objections. However, anyone can make a reasonable extrapolation of the temperature and other conditions by looking up the weather in Sapporo in March, and by knowing the building and the room were not heated. Japanese National University labs were never heated in those days, except when someone was in the room, and no one was in the room, as noted in the description.

    What other "scads" of data could be missing? What else do you need to know when a bucket of water evaporates? Shananhan cannot tell us how this can happen under any conditions for any reason other than the fact that a hot object was in the water. That has been the common knowledge of mankind for millions of years. It is preposterous -- it is crackpot -- to argue that you need "scads of data" to know that water evaporated because the object was hot. This is like saying we need more data to be sure it actually day and not night. Seeing sunlight everywhere and the sun in the sky is not enough. We need a millisecond reading from an atomic clock to be sure it is midday and not midnight. ANY SANE PERSON in the last 2 million years, since the discovery of fire, knows that a bucket of water with a hot object will evaporate, and it will not evaporate if the object cools down.

    OK, so I guessed wrong. Jed is more confusing than I thought. So what we have is 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' data, and unrelated data from Mizuno's recent work. OK, got it.

    To summarize my position...Mizuno's 2017 data is unreliable, thus his conclusions and paper are unreliable...check the other posts on this for the reasons. 'Mizuno's 'bucket anecdote' data is incomplete, as is usual with anecdotes, and we can't be sure whether the cell was a 'heater' or a 'hot object' (aka a 'heated object' which perhaps helps someone catch the difference).

    Now as to some of Jed's comments above...Jed consistently assumes the only reason the water disappeared is because of heat from the 'hot object' or 'heater'. That is a false assumption. At least some water would evaporate just because it was open to air. Yes, that will not account for all of it, but the point is that Jed has a one-track mind that can't handle complex situations. In the bucket anecdote, the problem is that there could have been many other things going on, above and beyond just evaporation, but we will *never know* what they might have been. Jed just refuses to consider this. In the end though, this is why researchers repeat experiments, to prove *they* are in control and not something else. A single, uncontrolled experiment like this will *never* do anything but excite curiosity (think "Rossi"). We here have played around a bit exploring parameters, but ALL of that was supposition because critical information is missing. Most notably ventilation in the lab. We need to put the 'bucket anecdote' behind us.

    "April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced 1.2 H 107 joules since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water. "

    So, the cell was at 100C when placed in the bucket initially (per Mizuno/JedR). Assuming it cools to 16C and does not stay at 100C as asserted by Mizuno/Rothwell,

    As Zeus46 says:

    "What you assert only applies if you mix up the two sentences of the April 26 entry, effectively reading them backwards."

    Let's see...April 25...cell at ">100 deg C.", (don't know how much greater so we assume just 100C, admittedly could have assumed anything)

    April 26..."Cell temperature has not declined."

    So, if I drop a 'hot object', not a 'heater', into a bucket of cool water and let it sit, what happens to the water temp? How about "It raises up, the returns to ambient." What was ambient T? Don't know, assume 16C. Nice winter temp. Of course, as not4ed Jed/Mizuno claim it was a heater, not just a hot object.

    But how does reading it backwards invalidate what I assumed??? Reading it backwards actually wouldn't change anything per what Jed/Mizuno said!

    So the point here is that both Zeus and Jed are making no sense.

    (Hey! Is Zeus an alter ego of Jed? Ditto bocijn?)

    Yup, same thing. That was the conclusion of a one-year study. It was an abrupt, unplanned conclusion. As I said, he did not know heat after death can occur, and he wasn't planning for it. The calorimetry performed during the months before heat after death was conventional, calibrated and more precise. The heat release before heat after death far exceeded the limits of chemistry.

    (By the way, it was an experiment, not an anecdote.)

    The studies in the year before that were in collaboration with the people in the underground lab, doing particle detection and tritium detection. To some extent, that degraded the calorimetry. You have to choose whether you are going to measure neutrons or heat. You can do both, but the accuracy and precision in one or the other will be degraded.


    I'm pretty sure Jed is doing his usual here. Yes, Mizuno tried to use the 'hot object' he plunked into the bucket in immediately preceding CF experiments. But the data I and bocijn and Zeus discussed using 'swimming-pool' equations is that data from the bucket anecdote, not the prior work. Which *was* an anecdote, since room temp, room humidity, room air flow, room incursions, and probably scads of other data are missing.

    I'm guessing the data Jed is thinking of is that from the spreadsheet he posted, and that was from the bucket cell prior to the trip across campus to get dunked, then I don't believe that either as noted elsewhere.

    But the bucket data is inconclusive because not enough critical information is known. And my comment about using the Pd in a real experiment still stands.

    Perhaps 'inaccurate' would be a more proper choice. Untrustworthy suggests (as you know) something more nefarious than poor record keeping or uncalibrated instruments..

    You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes... (Hmmm...doesn't work well in print does it?)

    'Inacurrate' to me means the data is off target. It could be very precise though. Like a zero offset problem. What I saw and posted was an abrupt change in the character of the data. That suggests electrical interferences or some such to me, which seemed to be unpredictable. Likewise, I disliked the abrupt change in the base temperature for the calorimetric calculations as shown in the Figures, a concern also expressed by the 'gsvit' Italians. That means unreliable or untrustworthy to me... And I am not considering a nefarious source. It is likely ground loop problems or such.

    I didn't change the meaning... Without proper context, you failed to understand the correct meaning, hence it was necessary to clarify it.


    Crying about how I supposedly twisted my post to a new meaning belies the fact that I added the 'edit note' to be upfront about this...

    Adding the quote clarified the reference. I did assume the quoteless comment referenced other points. I didn't delete the response to that post because the points I made in it were valid. Your attributing particular emotions to me just proves you don't have ESP. I wasn't 'crying'. I was explaining why the second post. Read it assuming all I'm doing is documenting the 'why' of the second post.

    ie... You claim you didn't ignore any of Marwan et al's arguments, and I claim this is merely your opinion. Do you disagree with that? I doubt even you are that delusional!

    I am stating that I believe there is a 95+% chance that you are wrong in stating that I ignored something Marwan, et al wrote. Now to be perfectly clear, I do NOT feel it is necessary to rebut their strawman, as it has nothing to do with what I wrote, and I even agree with their conclusions, the effect is not random, as I stated 4 times in print before they invented the 'random CCSH' and illegitimately tagged it to me. I certainly do make mistakes, and I have asked you to substantiate your claim, if you can, then I will admit my mistake (unlike JR).

    And if you still think it was some kind of attempt to make you look stupid or ridiculous, please note that I feel you do a fairly good job of this without my help. You might not be a crackpot in the normal sense of the word, but you sure do a great impression of one, as you share a fair few of their traits: a love of hand-waving arguments, an unfailing certainty that you are correct and everybody else is wrong, and an obsessive desire to espouse this.


    Marwan and Co's only saving grace is they don't endlessly and hypocritically bitch about this behaviour.

    But in fact they do. In 2015 Hagelstein and Swartz quoted my 2010 paper in a section of their 'MIT' course discussing how CF researchers are suppressed and hindered by 'the establishment'. But when Hagelstein was asked what I said, he couldn't answer and had to go look it up and report back the next day. In 2017, Melvin Miles published a manuscript attributed primarily to Fleischmann in Infinite Eneregy, vol 132, that said it was the 'best' rebuttal of my claims. However, what that manuscript said was not significantly different from what Szpak wrote in 2004 (with Fleishmann, Miles, and Mosier-Boss as co-authors, the same co-authors on the Fleischmann version), which I rebutted in 2005. In addition, I have two incidents under my belt that I can't talk about where the same kind of thing has happened. And then there's all the derogatory comments from you, Jed, Abd, PCarbon (Wikipedia), Alain, and others made on forums whenever my work is brought up. I have one voice on this (with some occasional help from THH and MY (thanks)), you guys have many. Your view on this is badly warped.

    And I'll document your bullshit when I feel like it - It may surprise you to know that I don't feel the need to reserve space in my long-term memory for two lengthy technical arguments, which are ultimately mostly pointless, as both parties ignore and talk past certain important points made by the other.

    Again, I assert you are wrong. *I* haven't talked past any point. On the other hand you are correct regarding the 'group of 10'. And that is a point in and of itself.

    So, until you substantiate your claims, we'll all just assume they're not correct. your opinion

    It's not an 'opinion' to note that they did not comment on the systematic CCS/AETR proposal. To 'deal' with my proposal, they have to discuss it, at the very least.

    Also, it's not an 'opinion' to note they assigned my name to something I never said and would not agree to.

    Seriously, it is convincing...

    @MY - No it isn't. There are multiple problems with it. The biggest being that Mizuno supplied part of the data underlying this publication to Jed who posted it here. Examining the data showed drastic changes in behavior which are unmentioned in the paper. Those changes suggest that his data is untrustworthy. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

    My overriding memory of the previous reading was amusement at the fact you later made/still make such a song and dance about the other authors ignoring your arguments, despite having done exactly the same in your response to them. You are right that they do ignore parts - but that's no excuse for hypocrisy.

    They most important thing about the paper that Marwan, McKubre, Tanzella, Hagelstein, Miles, Swartz, Storms, Iwamura, Mosier-Boss, and Forsley wrote is that it demonstrates they have no argument of any kind to counter my CCS/ATER proposed cause of CF excess heat results. Their continued promotion of the idea they 'rebutted' my proposal shows they are pseudoscientists. And yes, whenever they or their supporters denigrate me and my idea, I may take the opportunity to respond. You certainly do when your ideas are challenged. Why do you think I don't have the same right as you?

    P.S. As I already said, I didn't ignore any of their arguments.

    Kirk /alterego" $6K is absolutely trivial compared to the money which could be made


    Please stop trying to confuse MY with me. I am not MY.

    I see the preprint apparently got published. I scanned it rapidly and didn't note any changes from the preprint posted in this forum (please correct me if I am wrong), which means it's loaded with errors and based on suspect data.

    The second link appears to go to a defunct page.

    Kirk "But the water was indoors"

    It was shifted outdoors and still kept giving out heat for several days

    Kirk wrote "News to me."

    since you've spent so much time commenting about it.

    Why not read the actual anecdote rather than making up your own

    Here is an extract from Jed's book. He posted this ( here previously. I have extracted the info on the Mzuno bucket anecdote:

    "Here is a chronology of the heat-after-death event:

    April 22, 1991. Electrolysis stopped.

    April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced

    1.2 H 107 joules since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water.

    April 27. Most of the water in the bucket, ~10 liters, has evaporated.

    The cell is transferred to a larger, 20 liter bucket. It is fully submerged in 15 liters of water.

    April 30. Most of the water has evaporated; ~10 liters. More water is added to the bucket, bringing the total to 15 liters again.

    May 1. 5 liters of water are added to the bucket.

    May 2. 5 more liters are added to the bucket.

    May 7. The cell is finally cool. 7.5 liters of water remain in the bucket."

    I see no mention of the bucket being outdoors.

    There was a lot more info posted on spf in (or before) April, 2002. What I say these days is the same as what I said then. Ditto for Jed.

    Kirk "the reported results can be obtained several ways."

    Summarise please in short sentences

    Do not include ,please, the exothermic heat from palladium hydride.

    I suggest you go back and re-read the threads here on this. Also you can check out the 2002 discussion on spf. Takes a bit of work these days. Here's a leading link:!searchin/sci.physics.fusion/mizuno$20cracked$20glass/sci.physics.fusion/RgilKJxQEh4/0yxN5jiMpEYJ

    "I used a much lower humidity because it was winter" There was snow on the ground."

    Lets use 2 degrees for the water...otherwise it would become ice.

    Sapporo is colder .-4C, 3hours of sunshine average .but the average humidity is 72% in January.

    But the water was indoors. Using the outside temp may or may not be right. This is what happens when you try to analyze anecdotes. I used 20C for a final temp, but it is as much a guess as your numbers.

    I'm not going to revisit the calcs. It's an anecdote. Useless scientifically.

    $6K is absolutely trivial compared to the money which could be made from a successful demonstration of a reproducible, potent and sustainable LENR reaction.

    BTW (also to bocijn), the Pd didn't disappear. He could have easily used it again. CF mythology says that active Pd stays active in most cases.

    Oh, and I suggest you leave out the vermin part. That is the most absurd excuse the skeptics have come up with. You make yourself look even nuttier than usual by repeating that nonsense.

    So you can prove there wasn't any right....

    In my first job assignment after getting my degree, I heard a story over the lunch table about a guy who worked there. He had bought a fancy new 'high mile per gallon' car and he was constantly bragging about it. annoyed some folks. So they started sneaking out to the parking lot and adding gas to his tank. He ended up with one of those '100 mpg carburetor cars'. Then they started to siphon back the gas they had added. He quit bragging. Do you think something similar might have happened with Mizuno? Prove it if you don't (or do!).

    I suggest you stop pussyfooting around and say, clearly, once and for all, that you don't believe this and you think Mizuno is lying. That is what Mary Yugo says. All of your blather, double-talk and bullshit does not tell us what you really think, or it tells us you don't know what you think. "Might or might not depending on what happened" makes no sense when Mizuno and I told you what happened, and when what happened is very simple.

    I have been perfectly clear. Everyone gets it but you (and maybe bocijn and Zeus46). I say "It's an anecdote. Not enough info to make any decision."

    What actually happened was, the water all evaporated. There was an internal power source: palladium deuteride undergoing the cold fusion reaction. No wires, no kerosene.

    That's what happened.

    Except you can't prove that because too much critical information was not recorded. And it was never replicated. As I have noted, the reported results can be obtained several ways.

    If Shanahan were to say something like that, I would have no argument. What I object to is his double-talk about a heater not being a heater, followed by his denial that he said what he said. Followed by more double-talk and nonsense about a DoE web site showing that bucket of water will evaporate overnight and blah, blah, blah.

    As far as I can tell from Shanahan's incoherent and ever-shifting blather,

    More libel from Jed:

    "double-talk" - untrue as shown in my previous post right above

    "nonsense about" - complete misquote of what was said.

    "incoherent" - to Jed, definitely

    "ever-shifting" - lie, multiple possible times - Jed would have to specifically document what he is talking about to reply

    Right here:

    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    In that message you wrote:

    In my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object. A 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source. A hot object only has the energy it contains at the nominal 'start point', no additional. So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.

    [ the 'you' above being me, note that I include a Jed quote in that]

    So, we need to re-read the link Jed supplied. In it you will see the debate where Jed misunderstands and misconstrues what I said previously and I try to correct him by defining what a heater is to my way of thinking vs. 'a hot object'. Now it's true an active heater is contained in the class of objects called 'hot objects', but I was clear that was not what I was considering.

    Even though this object stayed hot for days, you say it is not a heater. Why not? Why is this not a batty thing to say? Plus you say that "maybe even" an LENR heater would cause evaporation. Why "maybe even"? Why would a LENR heater be any different from an electric or kerosene heater when it comes to evaporation?

    Are you saying this is not a LENR heater? What else would it be then? It can't be electrical, because it wasn't connected to any wires. It can't be kerosene; there was not chemical fuel of any kind in it. Saying it is not a LENR heater is batty.

    Elsewhere you said that calling it a heater is "wishful thinking." That's also batty. (And, no, I will not bother looking that message up. Feel free to deny you said that if you like.)

    If you did not mean that a hot object is no heater, I suggest you explain that the hell you did mean, because what you wrote is batty.

    If you are saying this incident never happened, or that Mizuno lied, you should say that. That would not be batty, but what you did say will make people think you have a screw loose.

    If it truly stayed hot for days, it might reasonably be called a heater, IF. I doubt it did, and that was why I was tinkering with the calculations, to examine the thesis that the temperature measurements were off. As I concluded:

    What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened, and then compare that to what was claimed to have happened. In my analysis of the situation, I found that the missing information on air flow and humidity was crucial to judging the what caused the reported amounts of evaporation. So I concluded, as it normally turns out with anecdotes, that while there might have been a heater in the bucket, there might not as well.

    Note that what I concluded was that the object might have functioned as a heater (with an internal power source) and might not, depending on what actually happened.

    Now, what you said I said was:

    I am also saying that your repeated statements that a hot object is not a heater are flat-out delusional. No doubt you disagree, but that is my opinion.

    If you don't want people to think you are crazy, stop saying crazy things. If you don't think "a hot object is not a heater" is crazy, that's because you are crazy. I can't help you with that.

    As can be seen from the very post you referenced (if read correctly), I separately defined the terms 'heater' and 'hot object' and discussed the Mizuno bucket anecdote within those definitions, exploring the various possibilities, and using the equations (this time) that bocijn supplied, which I recognized as at least similar to those I used several years ago. (Bocijn, did you realize Jed called you a crackpot too, because you used 'swimming pool' equations like I did?).

    You on the other hand in your never-ending campaign to libel me, deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote, and then misquoted it in as a derogatory way as possible.

    I love the way you shoot yourself in the foot all the time.

    whilst having done exactly the same in your response to them

    Make sure you substantiate that. Note also that as *I* recall, I only answered *their* comments, not the whole field's, but 10 of the prominent CF authors is a large chunk of them :) in the section on the answer to the 10 authors' Reply. Now the other parts of the whitepaper actually address other issues, like errors in the F&P calorimetric methodology, errors in their HAD claims, errors in Kitamura, et al's claims, and errors in Krivit's commentary on my J Env. Mon. comment. It will be interesting to see what you think I ignored...

    I don't know if Jed's statement was actionable

    Exactly. His comments haven't affected me a whit. However they could have if I had for example submitted a proposal for funding and had it denied due to the 'questions' Jed's comments raise about my reliability. But I'm primarily an industrial chemist, so I don't do a whole lot of that, and what I do is not based on my experience with CF. So no libel suits upcoming...(Darn, I could really use some extra tune up my Lamborghini that I got for fighting the CFers...(not))