Posts by Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    I asked about deletions. Now I see them. We are not notified of these.

    First of all, Alan Smith posted something here that was very much off-thread-topic. [<-link]

    He later hacked up what came next in the thread. Next page, [<-link] 12 posts deleted.

    and Next page, [<-link] so far, 4 posts deleted.

    This is intolerable behavior for a moderator. He allows himself to talk about whatever he wants, off-topic (but relevant to the overall social context, perhaps) but deletes what others write.

    There is a problem with off-topic discussion on lenr-forum, but unpredictable and arbitrary deletion by a moderator who himself offends on this is not a solution.

    I believe that there are administrative options, much better, and have attempted to suggest them. Alan is obviously deaf and hostile to such.

    As a writer, who often writes ad-hoc, sometimes incorporating research, etc., deletion without notice is chilling, it is not tolerable. Deletion on ecatworld still leaves the posts in the author's contributions coverage. Deletion on WMF wikis is almost always with notice, and content is almost always recoverable on request. There is no excuse for this kind of censorship here. The lack of deletion notice now makes me realize that there might be much content being hacked up. How would we know? Is anyone watching?

    Accordingly, I am now boycotting until this is addressed, and I urge others to the same, vocally, please contact me if you are doing this. All sincere participants here are welcome on, and anyone who cares and who decides to contribute here can post links to CFC, as AlainCo has been doing.

    The only administrator who has engaged in systematically abusive behavior, as far as anything I have seen, is Alan Smith. Alan could continue to make positive contributions here, including as a moderator, but without restraint, he's far too dangerous. I may discuss possibilities further on

    I would tell you why people do not use real names, but my comment was a joke and would be off topic. I try to avoid PM for my own reason. I know you would trust and care for my info IRL. I will see if I can get the comment in the playground thread. You do good work here. I keep mentioning that driving off Thomas Clarke was the worse thing I have seen here. I will recreate the comment in the open thread if possible. It's trivial and was joke and off topic.

    Thanks. I now see what happened and from that, I'm boycotting I will explain in another post here in a moment.

    The issue is not the specific post. The issue is even treatment of contributors and respect for authors. There are ways to handle "off-topic" and they are not being used, instead a blunt instrument is being used, while allowing the moderator's own off-topic comments. Rules for users should not be announced in threads, where the rules are themselves off-topic. This is all basic stuff.

    Dewey Weaver wrote:

    Since the private interests you work with control, directly or not, the bots operating here and elsewhere, I'm gonna have to ask for a much more unbiased source

    It is ironic that users who steadfastly refuse to reveal their real-life identities then accuse others who are open of being "bots." Nobody that I know of is "controlled" by "private interests" that Dewey "works with." Dewey is an investor in Industrial Heat, which I probably did not know when I met him at ICCF-18 in 2013, but the accusation certainly comes up, over and over, ad nauseum, without evidence. For "certainly," I first typed "cretinly." Freudian slip.

    Nobody has any obligation to provide a troll proof of anything, but it occurred to me to provide a little piece of evidence. I was very well-known on Wikipedia, being a named protagonist in two Arbitration Committee Cases (which, by the way, confirmed the position I was taking, but ... Wikipedia very commonly shoots the messenger, if the messenger blows the whistle. It's a corrupt organization, unfortunately, and an example of how such can arise in spite of major good intentions, if the structure is naive.)

    This is a comment by a Wikipedia administrator who was interested enough in what I was doing to invite me to a seminar he was giving in Boston. So I went. He was much more supportive after that meeting, because he could see the present reality. Face-to-face meetings are very different than "social media" pale imitation.

    My global WMF user name is Abd, and the only place where I am blocked is Even there, email works, it was not blocked. It's trivial to verify my identity. I was an administrator at for quite some time and have been very active there at times.

    I have met, face-to-face, many of the major living figures in cold fusion, I attended a one-day seminar at SRI International in 2012, where I met Violante, Godes, and others. I visited Storms in Santa Fe, went to two MIT conferences organized by Mitchell Swartz -- there is a photo of me at one, and there are also photos of me put up by coldfusionnow from my attendance at ICCF-18 in 2013. I also have met, in person, many other figures in the field, and have spoken on the phone with more.

    Now, WTF is "Keieueue"?

    May I ask anyone here at all to address kshananans consideration that the A.P. ash results were "not salted" but could be contaminated by the testing device? We agree A.P. is an honest man, that had a battery issue. Does this happen with high temperature (e.g. IMS and one other device if I remember correctly) so I wonder with these expensive element analyzing devices, that are done by different labs. How can this happen?

    This is all coming as report from one man, we must remember. Transmutation results, unless correlated with heat or some other measure of the reaction, are quite iffy. Real study takes much more than a single sample, even if that sample is then divided and sent to different labs. (I haven 't studied the specific transmutation report, this is general about LENR transmutation results.)


    My root question is, if this (high temp contamination) is a known artifact of a testing a specific particular analysis device? But A.P. ash went to different labs that use different methods.

    Every method has possible artifacts. The issue is not necessarily "contamination," but could be fractionation, i.e,. that conditions in the cell -- which are "rather unusual" -- might cause isotopes to move differentially, leading, then, to samples that differ in isotopic abundance. Steps could be taken to avoid this possible problem, but it is pretty likely that they were not taken. Those precautions were not followed at Lugano, plus there was the additional issue of possible salting by Rossi. That Rossi was allowed to handle the samples was one of a list of things that the Lugano team did that demonstrated terminal cluelessness as to possible problems. I do not accuise the team of deliberate fraud, I've seen no sign of that. But of "undue influence," yes. These things were not particularly subtle and some of them were immediately obvious on review. Other errors took more time to uncover.


    How could multiple fundamentally disparate devices still show transmutation? I still cannot explain the latest ash. I should say, I just want to know if it's not possible (sure anything is possible, I get that) but how probable?

    That is difficult to assess. Is there a sample population to compare with? Much of the flap about Parkhomov and other similar work is that it simply is shallow, a few tests, not the array of systematic tests that would be needed to be clear about results. This is all work that can be appropriate for exploration and for "hobby science," but that is inadequate for confirmation and depth.


    This is not pro/anti ,just part of my understanding of this knowledge base. My view has been stated on Ni and Rossi. If the ash evaluating devices can be compromised, how are they? Barty has a saying "I want to believe" but I want to understand also. Me dumb, and mumbling on this point. With unknowns you question results.

    This is not necessarily a compromise of "devices." Rather, we would need to look carefully at each device, and at an array of samples, including single-variable controls. The work is much more complex than it might seem at first. A great fuss is made over single measurements or single experiments. No, no, and no. Don't do that!

    One more comment about Theranos. Gizmodo.


    In an open letter to investors on Wednesday, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes announced that the company was shuttering all of its labs and wellness centers, “impacting” around 340 employees—presumably by putting them out of work.

    “We are profoundly grateful to these team members, many of whom have devoted years to Theranos and our mission, for their commitment to our company and our guests,” wrote the CEO of the beleaguered blood-testing startup.

    Unfortunately for those devoted team members, federal authorities banned Holmes from operating a lab for two years this summer due to allegedly unsafe practices under her leadership. Theranos, given a choice to keep either its laboratories or its founder, evidently picked the latter.

    An obvious solution to the problem is not mentioned. Theranos could have spun off a division to do the work that Holmes wants to do, the main company keeping the labs but complying with the federal ban. Or the lab business could have been spun off. It is possible that it was worthless, but a spin-off would have been cheap. Except obsessives cannot give up control. The goal is not actually the excuse and rationalization ("helping humanity") but personal power, a very old story.

    The stories of employees threatened with lawsuits is diagnostic, I'm afraid. This wasn't about disclosure of trade secrets, this was about a cover-up for issues that, if they had been addressed, would have avoided the whole subsequent mess. Of course, by that time, Theranos may have been too committed to back up and retrench. I'm all for confidence, but not for blind attachment to stories of success.

    This kind of info is helpful and here in context is informative. I mentioned this last night but my post was off topic and deleted, so I will not repeat.

    Deleted? How? Post here? (PM is fine.)


    You're point of view here is well known.

    Yeah. We got it, like, years ago.


    I had forgotten moletrap and will need to review so this was helpful

    Moletrap is a combination of self-congratulation society, for being smart as distinct from all those fools out there, and mob that will "rip a newr one" for anyone who shows up and disagrees. Or that imagines it has done this. It's like a bar brawl. In the middle of all that, there might be some information, but it's totally unreliable.


    For example (being helpful) you and I are certainly on the same page with regards to Rossi. I may be wrong but the "Wizard of Miami" quote which I thought you originally made, on another website caused me to laugh. Everyone needs a good laugh once and a while. My question to you is why not back down on the vitriol around people who know your position. Disagreement is not a necessarily a threat.

    But what if the stupid people don't see the wisdom from Mary?

    Um. If someone really cared about that, they would use a real identity to add credibility from laying personal reputation on the line.


    Anyway to give you back your laugh. I hope you went to the polywell-talk website that ShaneD mentioned. Rossi talking to Rossi and upping his self-quotes his english is getting better. And it is pretty hilarious. Maybe not to the tune of 11 million dollars, but hey I will talk to myself if someone will give me 1/10 of that.

    I've been meaning to mention polywell-talk because Peter Gluck referred to a discussion there. The collection of people discussing there includes some genuine and knowledgeable skeptics (after all, these are people interested in some real science that is not exactly fringe, definitely emerging, polywell technology, i.e, hot fusion). And they were highly negative, not to LENR (where they have some level of interest and acceptance of possibilities), but about Rossi and a certain fanatic and highly acidic believer, and it was the fulminations of that believer which were most visible in what Gluck linked. I looked back. This person made a series of confident predictions in 2014 that didn't happen, and called the main user there discussing with him a "liar," for simply telling him the obvious. And then the obvious became stronger and stronger, initial high suspicion turned into a definite declaration of fraud. That is either a product of increased knowledge -- this person is totally up to date on Rossi v. Darden -- or is a reaction to the extreme "believer" position, which is actually a kind of fanaticism, not simple trust.


    Regardless of your position that he is a ($%@$#%^) you got to admit, he is amazing at spinning a tale, plus working with educated people at the same time. If he was not (regardless of IH) and his (WoM) motivations. Getting that kinda of cash kinda rates up there with scandals.

    Yeah, the pseudoskeptical story of Rossi probably bears a resemblance to truth, but ... drastically oversimplifies the affair.

    There was reference to Theranos. I researched it, here is what appears to be a good article.

    Recent Wall Street Journal article.

    This story (also in the WSJ) is amazing.

    Holmes' idea was actually great. It might be possible. The red flags are two-fold: lack of independent confirmation that the idea was actually realized (as distinct from being possible), and obsessive personal control leading to obsessive secrecy. There is, then, a resemblance to Rossi. But Holmes was dealing with much more money!

    Well after the obvious manipulation of his early data I feel little reason to believe anything from this guy.

    In context, that was, in my view, forgivable, more about naivete than anything else. It was not material to the results of the experiment. I have other reasons for distrusting his conclusions, but expect that he is honestly reporting his data, factoring for what might be expected from someone not being totally careful and thorough. His first report included plenty of information that was enough to show there were problems.

    At this point, Parkhomov's results must be considered tentative, and only the latest have some reasonable strength. Calling his work a "confirmation of Lugano" is crazy, and actually weakens any impression of probity.

    not sure about your Kim/Hagelstein timing. I seem to remember (correctly??) seeing Kim at the April 89 ACS meeting in Dallas when this first broke. I do not remember seeing Peter until the first ICCF (actually called then First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion) in 90.

    I'm not attached to Peter being first, this was only a vague impression, and ... looking at publication dates on, wrong. I had first read Kim in a later theory paper, where he was a co-author (Chechen et al). But both Kim and Hagelstein were publishing in 1989. So IH has funded the longest-standing theoreticians, perhaps, which is an interesting factoid.

    I will let you remain curious. I am a nobody. No I have not known you for 50 years and I have not been in prison.
    I didn't know you had 4 daughters. Good luck with the teenager.

    "not ... 50 years" rules out Cal Tech. As to prison chaplaincy, it said "Dennis" on my state ID, but ... the inmates never saw that, I was Abd ul-Rahman. At that point, in most social contexts, I was using yet another name, and had since my early twenties. That name was occasionally used until not long ago. Sometimes old friends still call me that. My daughter -- the one that lives with me -- calls me "Dennis" when she's pissed. Otherwise it's just "Dad!"

    Actually, I have two teenage girls, though only one lives with me, the other lives across town with her mother. I've needed more than luck, I've needed to apply my training, fully. Summary: it worked. But thanks.


    I try to know more than I write and listen for good information. Right now, just skimming until the Rossi reply comes out.
    Likely just hand waving with no real evidence to support his position.

    We'll see. Consider the IH Answer (3rd amended). It started out with a bang. The Answer is organized according to the Complaint. So, paragraph 1 and 2 of the Complaint:


    l. ROSSI is the sole inventor of a revolutionary low energy nuclear reactor, popularly known as the "Energy Catalyzer' ot "E-Cat" (hereafter "E-Cat"), which through the use of a catalyst, generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy at a cost well below more traditional energy sources. LEONARDO, a Florida corporation, is the sole owner of all of the intellectual property related to and underlying the E-Cat technology (hereafter "E-Cat IP").

    2. Defendants, THOMAS DARDEN ("DARDEN"), JOHN T. VAUGHN ("VAUGHN"), INDUSTRIAL HEAT, LLC ("IH"), IpH INTERNATIONAL, B.V. ("IpH") and CHEROKEE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC ("CHEROKEE") have meticulously and systematically defrauded ROSSI and LEONARDO in an effort to misappropriate Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights in the E-Cat IP.

    IH answers:


    1. Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. Compl. ¶ 71. Such claims are not scientifically verifiable or reproducible. See e.g., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), “Non-Final Rejection,” dated January 11, 2016 as to Patent App. No. 12/736,193 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1); discussions of third party testing infra. In addition, the procedures and mechanisms which Plaintiffs have used in their experiments and testing of the E-Cat technology are flawed and unreliable in many respects. See e.g. id.; response to Paragraph 72 infra. Lastly, the E-Cat technology has never been independently validated by a scientifically reliable methodology to produce the energy levels Plaintiffs now claim, and has failed to produce any commercially viable product. Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.

    2. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 2.

    [... etc.]

    IH comes close to denying the scientific possibility, but not quite. When they wrote "not scientifically verifiable," they were using this narrowly, as to specific claims, and as a reasonable conclusion given their experience, not as a general rejection of LENR.

    For the purpose here, notice the provision of evidence. They can simply "deny" allegations. However, a bald denial may not have much weight against a Motion for Judgment, if positive evidence has been presented on the other side.


    I found it interesting that MrSS mentioned JMP paying for heat , yet we know that IH never invoiced them and never
    said they sold any heat at all to JMP. That is a dead-end for Rossi.

    Well, it's more accurate that we don't know that JMP actually paid. Dewey has said that IH never invoiced. What is remarkable, then, is that Rossi claimed jurisdiction of the Florida U.S. District Court because of an alleged sale of power, and IH did not pursue a dismissal based on that not being so. Perhaps placing the Plant in Florida with an agreement for payment for power would be enough to establish jurisdiction.


    The only thing that could possibly save him is if he has unequivocal proof that IH formally approved a start date for the GPT.

    You noticed. It is possible that approval could be informal, but this would require, my opinion, a clearly manifest intention to approve a GPT, as distinct from a sale of power, demonstration for investors, with Penon designing the power measurement and occasionally popping in to check on things, and with Rossi totally in operational control, including controlling access even against IH.


    Even then he has an uphill battle for other issues. At least that is what I see in my magic 8 ball.

    Maybe you were just lucky.


    My guess is that he will wake up from his dreams and liquidate any holdings and leave the country with no forwarding address.

    It could happen. However, he will probably not exactly disappear. Rather, he would go where he could not be extradited and where US court judgments could not be executed. And, assuming he was able to keep enough funds, and even if he doesn't, he would continue his research -- or his magic show, take your pick. He could maintain enough support for that. Maybe it will be time for Planet Rossi to actually support the man. (He has had supporters, he burned some of them, but there is a short collective memory. I was just noticing on a forum that Ampenergo was called one of his "shell corporations." Actually, Ampenergo is independent, apparently invested in Rossi and was the U.S. licensee before IH, and IH apparently paid them "millions." Ampenergo may actually have made a profit. And ... owns stock in IHHI, the parent company of IH.


    I know I could live comfortably with 11M in my pocket.

    It wouldn't be that much, unless his investments have prospered. $1.5 million was for the Plant, and Rossi had substantial expenses. He claimed that the construction cost of a Plant is $200,000, but that would be an incremental cost for each additional plant, I'm sure. But, yes, he could be comfortable and continue with his hobby. Who knows, maybe he will hit pay dirt! Even if the probability is low, the payoff could be enormous.


    I do think that LENR is real. I have seen it. I don't even doubt that you can get the effect with Ni and some effort.

    The accumulated evidence is quite strong, Bill Gates was not a ninny, nor was Darden, as to the field as a whole. Gates has apparently supported fundamental research, Darden took a different tack, I could call it "clearing the decks," and then IH has also moved into much more fundamental funding. The support of Kim has almost no short-term practical possibility, this is blue-sky, much more risky (in terms of generating ultimate value) than the Gates support, which is almost a slam-dunk. That is, there will be clear and scientifically useful results. Kim, maybe. He's been on the case of cold fusion theory for almost as long as Hagelstein, which IH has also supported.

    (Hagelstein has a successful prediction of a specific LENR result, resonance in the THz band, confirmed by Letts, and ... IH is also supporting Letts.)


    But I don't think that Rossi had what he claimed and definitely did not transfer it to others. The word greedy comes to mind.

    It seems that way, but "insane" comes to my mind just as easily. The common factor to the two is obsession with personal power and control.

    Self-Sustain presents a list of items

    [...] Here are a few possible examples that might range in effectiveness from a limp egg noodle, to a switch taken from a tree in the back yard, to a Louisville slugger baseball bat. [...]

    Perhaps I will sort them. Or not. They are all nowhere near strong enough to be called a Louisville slugger not even maybe a switch.


    - James A. Bass' employment contract detailing how he is responsible for the installation, implementation, and maintenance of real manufacturing equipment.
    - Documents showing purchases or receipt of such manufacturing equipment.
    - Documentation showing some relationship with Johnson Matthey, even if it is just a contractual supply agreement in which they receive product to be processed and returned.
    - Photography or videos of the manufacturing equipment proving more was behind the wall than simple radiators.

    These would weaken the story that JMP was a total sham, but not kill it. All of that could easily have been created without there being any serious activity there. I have seen from Dewey that IH never did invoice JMP. If they hand, there would then be a money trail. There may still be a trail. Who paid the rent in Doral and other expenses, such as the security guard. Where did this money come from? IH attempted to subpoena records, and that was rejected, I assume because the normal way to proceed (in a civil case) would be with discovery. You *ask* for the records! (And they must be provided, or, then, there can be other court orders.


    - Logs from the other side of the wall showing more thermal power was received (at least on certain occasions) than would have been capable of being produced with zero excess heat from the plant.

    Nowhere near enough to be legally significant. This is a common error among Rossi supporters, the idea that the issue is whether or not the plant produced LENR heat. To make this more clear, suppose the plant operated with a genuine COP of 1.1. Scientifically, that would be quite significant. But contractually, it would be meaningless. So then the question would be come how it happens that Penon measures much higher COP when it is only 1.1? A low result could easily be faked, by the way, that's another issue.


    - Shipping manifests showing where the manufactured product was sent to along perhaps with signatures from the recipient.

    If that product required a certain known amount of heat, this could start to be important. However, that the Plant produced a megawatt, as claimed, is almost impossible, because of the heat dissipation problem.


    - Evidence from tests of E-Cat systems showing excess heat. For all we know, these could be third party tests that have never before been revealed. They may not prove a thing about the test in Doral, but could prove the concept that his technology can indeed work.

    This is completely irrelevant! IH has not argued that the technology could not possibly work. Such evidence would only become relevant if that were a claim requiring contrary evidence to defeat it.

    The IH defense has layers. Each layer may take a miracle to overcome. A Wabbit.

    • No agreement to a GPT, therefore no GPT. Everything else in the Rossi claim, then, become moot.
    • Somehow Rossi establishes that there was agreement, so then, was the test conducted properly? And where is Penon? His testimony would likely be needed.
    • In the conduct of the Test, Rossi interfered with the ability of IH to monitor performance with its engineer.
    • Were conditions precedent satisfied? Rossi teaching IH to make devices that work was not stated as a condition for the $89 million payment, but it was obviously necessary. $89 million just to see a demonstration and then walk away makes no business sense, so the Agreement will be interpreted to require success in technology transfer. A court could easily decide that payment was Not Yet Due, because of this, hence, again, the Rossi case fails.


    And then there is the countersuit. The possible evidence described would tend to lend credence to the JMP story, but ... Rossi's behavior still shows deceptive intent, i.e., that the point of the Doral installation was not for a sale of power and demonstration for investors, as presented, but rather was to set up a payment when IH was not prepared to pay, where IH would be unable to pay because of no successful technology transfer. If everything that Johnson and Rossi told IH was true, reasonably shown by evidence, then, yes, Rossi can avoid the fraud claim. But he still might lose on the basis that Rossi refused to fully transfer the technology.

    I have posted a few times in the past that I have began to expect to be disappointed with "all things Rossi".
    Boasted customers always secret, certifications not what is expected, tests are disappointing, etc. etc.

    I have been reading what a Rossi believer posted on a forum in 2014 (because Peter Gluck just pointed to that discussion, where the same user was holding forth.) It's just amazing, how much was confidently accepted, to the point of calling others who contradicted it "liars," that flat out didn't happen or was just plain wrong.


    I have this uneasy feeling about the court case as well! I see some here post that possibly in a few weeks we will have
    a "big reveal". That the court case will bring a close, one way or the other, to the "eCat saga". While this may be
    possible, I think not.

    What I am now starting to lean towards and I think at least compatible with Mr. Lomax's view is :

    The judge throws out the case and does so on almost no more information revealed from what we currently have.
    Mainly, Rossi's answer does not suffice for the case to proceed forward.

    Yes, it could happen. Except....


    With the case dismissed, as I have pondered before here, Rossi states on JONP "The court case must stop. I would have 800 thousand pages
    to read! It is stopping the R&D and production of the QuarkX. I must focus my attention to R&D and making production instead! Only the
    commercial sale of the eCat will convince the world!"

    He can't just make the case stop, not unilaterally. He opened Pandora's Box. There is the counter-suit, and the counter-suit is based on a lot of evidence that seriously impeaches Rossi's behavior. This isn't twenty years ago in Italy, it's recent.


    He will continue as he does now and the existing believers will accept this without question. The existing doubters will point and continue
    to say "it is unlikely". The patho-skeptics will dance and have a field day...... nothing will have changed!

    Something has changed. The facts that allowed many scientists to reserve judgment about Rossi evaporated. Yes, Planet Rossi would continue, but heavily damaged.

    As to the pathoskeptics, they are losing their grip, LENR is moving into the mainstream. I don't know what Industrial Heat would have done without Rossi, but ... the result of their taking such a risk has been overall positive. As I have stated before, Rossi was either an eccentric genius, crazy, or a fraud, or some combination. It was necessary to find out. Reality is always better than "what we want." That is a trust well worth developing, because it is empowering.


    Will Rossi continue to get funding? Probably not in a big way, but he has been going for quite some time. Unless IH wins back their
    initial investment, Rossi's 11 million dollars can keep him posting fuzzy blue photos of the QuarkX for quite some time!

    IH may settle, I have no crystal ball on that. But they are going for a recovery of what they put in, possibly plus punitive damages. Rossi could end up bankrupt.


    The big question then becomes does IH continue with the counter suit to "Crush the tests". Surely if they pursued
    the fraud charges and won the suit, that would indeed crush the eCat once and for all.

    That would not be "crushing the tests." It would be winning in court, something quite distinct. Pons and Fleischmann sued an Italian newspaper for libel, for calling them frauds or something like that. They were not frauds, but they lost the suit. So what did the suit prove?

    Rossi is not going to win this case, unless he comes up with something very much unexpected (and if he had this, why didn't he show it in his complaint? The core legal issue is the signed document required to set the date for the GPT, or an equivalent showing clear consent to a test that would trigger a payment of $89 million.)

    I should point out that it is not likely that IH has, as a motivation, "crushing the eCat." That is Peter Gluck's' fantasy, along with much of Planet Rossi.


    ... no, some would still believe....

    Some will believe forever. There are still fans of the Keeley engine, more than 120 years after he died. However, what IH did was to demonstrate that Rossi's claims cannot be trusted, and even when they are observed by experts. What was needed was what everyone sane said was needed, independent testing, which Rossi would never allow. They figured out how to make that happen. They paid him what he asked, for the secret. And then made a lot of devices, apparently, and tested them. And they tell us their results: no excess heat. That's devastating, if anyone is paying attention.

    Here was an independent company, looking for real LENR and willing to pay. They put up a lot of money for the Rossi IP and his cooperation and then they put in even more. This is obvious unless you live in some very weird fantasy game: they wanted it to work, and they tried. And when it didn't work, instead of helping them to make it work -- which could surely have been done if the techology worked -- Rossi then tried an end-run around the problem, to extract more money from them.

    Game over, for anyone who studies the history and the case. As well, if any corporation is considering investing, they would surely notice that Rossi attempted to pierce the corporate veil, going after not only Industrial Heat, but the major officers, personally, and another company where Darden is the principal, which did not have an agreement with Rossi, all based on Rossi's recollection of what he was told four years ago -- and massively defective legally. What corporation or corporate officer would want to take the risk, seeing this, of entering into an agreement with Rossi?

    If one does, well, that's their problem. Due diligence, after all. Hydro Fusion is bankrupt, technically. To invest anything, they will have to raise it. From whom?

    When ignition is off, is no power going into the cell? Why is ignition turned on later in the video?
    It is difficult to understand what is being displayed. Is the plasma the white light or the orange streamer?

    Perhaps someone would want to go over what BLP has released on this and create a description. My understanding is that the streamer is liquid silver, being used as a conductor. It's obviously not a plasma, you can see that it's a liquid.

    The next few months will only be interesting if one side or the other actually takes the gloves off.

    I'm completely unclear what this means. Turning red in the face and making fists? Lawyers are generally collegial, it is as if it's a game (and it is, in some ways, a very old game with sometimes high social value). Looking at some of Annesser's pleadings, I got the strong sense of "outsider." Looking at his history, he's raw. He was not polite and collegial. Attacking the attorneys is a no-no, except where done very carefully. My sense was that he was not impressing the judge. Rossi started out by alleging fraud. What would you want to see, child molestation? IH is counterclaiming fraud. Again, what would you want to see claimed, stealing purses from old ladies?

    Johnson is in trouble, he could be disbarred, it's not impossible. Rossi might face criminal fraud charges. But for IH to try to make that happen would guarantee the loss of all their investment. As it is, they might get some money back, though, for sure, the net on Affair Rossi will be negative as to anything direct. Rossi almost certainly would not be able to reimburse them for everything.

    If Rossi could show Cherokee fraud, sure, he could make a lot of money. He could also make money selling shares in lunar real estate. More likely to make a profit on the latter.


    When one side finally throws a solid punch, I'm sure the other side will as well. Then the fight will begin and the crowd can enjoy the barriers to TRUTH being broken away one right hook at a time. But for right now both sides seem to be delaying.

    We may see very little until trial, and it is likely, my opinion, that there will be no trial. Yes, if I'm mistaken about that, we will see a lot, but it is unclear that it will cover what some of us might want to see.


    They have both claimed to have mountains of absolutely irrefutable damning evidence against the other, but we sure have not seen it yet from Industrial Heat or Andrea Rossi.

    Neither one has said what you just reported. Rossi has made some claims that are sort-of like that, but without the extreme superlatives.

    From rumor, largely through Dewey Weaver, IH has evidence they have not presented. It might be a surprise to us, if we see it, but (1) We won't see it unless it goes into a trial, probably, and (2) it will all be disclosed to Rossi or at least to his attorneys, and may already have been. What IH has already presented, assuming it cannot be impeached, is already enough to show probably fraud, and short of that, a complete failure to set up a GPT, hence no basis for the Rossi suit. This is basically all we will see from IH, I expect, for quite some time, unless there are some more discovery disputes, in which case we get to see more facts, as we did. But the parties could at any time request protection, and then we won't see it, only the court and the parties will, and sometimes only the court and the attorneys (with "attorney eyes only")

    The courts are not there to please the public with some spectacle. They are there to make decisions with equity and justice. They are deliberately insulated from screaming mobs.


    I hope I'm surprised by the answer that is due from the third parties, Penon, Fulvio, and Bass.

    No answer is due from Penon because he hasn't been served, apparently. Yes, those Answers should be interesting, but I expect there may be another Motion to Dismiss from the 3rd party defendants, first. To give an idea on timing on this, the Rossi MTD on the countercomplaint was filed 9/29/2016. Pleadings were complete by 10/27. The judge ruled, dismissing the Motion, 11/16.2016. Judges might take longer than that. Then, unless an MTD is sustained, they will have a week to reply or maybe it is two, I forget. So, right now, an Answer is due from the third-party defendants, but that requirement might easily be, again, suspended.


    In particular, I hope that Bass tells all about his job description, the work he performed, and the thermal power received on the other side of the wall.

    If he knows about that power. A description of what he did and did not do might well be a part of an Answer. Answers are not made under oath, there has been a lot of misunderstanding of this. They are like claims. It is in Discovery that what is said is under oath and lying becomes perjury. So whatever they say in the Answer, they will be asked about! You can get an idea by reading Rossi's interrogatories.


    For better or worse, Fulvio and Penon seem to have strong loyalties to Andrea Rossi. James A. Bass might be the only individual with almost no loyalties, only took the job to find employment, and would be willing to clear his name not matter what impact it might have on Leonardo Corporation. I highly suspect that he could reveal that some quantity of a real chemical product was produced and shipped somewhere, negating the absolute worst of the accusations by I.H. (that Rossi lied from the start about a manufacturing process to trick them into moving the plant when in reality there was never any equipment whatsoever on the other side except a radiator).

    I have already laid out a scenario which negates the particular fraud alleged. Notice: if the purpose of the move was to allow Rossi to set up a faux GPT, even if there really was chemical manufacturing going on of some kind is not enough to dispel the possibility of some kind of fraud. It would merely indicate that the possible fraud was more complex. I agree that Bass may have an interesting story to tell, or it might be totally boring.


    Then again, there is a small (very small in my opinion) chance that James A. Bass will admit he intentionally threw away his engineering career to take on the job of an actor to "pretend" to be a director of engineering when he actually performed zero work on any manufacturing process -- not for a single day.

    Watch out for only positing extremes.


    He could reveal that Rossi lied from the start of the test because there was never any manufacturing equipment on the other side of the wall. Furthermore, he could admit to participating in the fraud by misrepresenting facts to Industrial Heat, various investors, and other visitors to the plant. I don't think this is anywhere close to the truth, but if it is what really happened it needs to come out!

    We do not know precisely what Bass told IH. Good chance, being paid by Johnson and Rossi, he repeated what he was told, perhaps thinking it fact. If he has good counsel (I hope he sees another attorney than Johnson's attorney!), he won't lie. Sensibly, he will not be in any rush to blurt out what he knows, his "explanations."


    Unlike what Rossi's strongest adherents and Industrial Heat's supporters want to believe, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

    I don't expect to find "the truth" anywhere in our fantasies and explanations, least of all in the "middle." It is before and after, inside and outside, and covers every opposite.

    I suggest being careful when you say what others "want to believe." That's truly a fantasy, so often!

    K - I met Abd at ICCF18 and ended up sitting beside him by chance on the bus ride over to tour the Mizzou research reactor. He is interesting, smart, hard-working, honest and curious. As do many others, he wants to see LENR become a useful tool for our planet in his lifetime.
    While he can be wordy at times, I think that he is doing an amazing service for the community by interpreting LENR events and developments. He might have missed his calling in the legal profession as his analytical skills there, based on published court docs, are exceptional.

    Thanks, Dewey. My legendary wordiness is a result of how I learn: I learn by writing. I research and consider and my writing is my notes. And my friends help me by correcting errors. And, of course, those who disagree with either what I'm reporting or my conclusions will be especially careful to find errors! Real or otherwise.

    I can write polemic. I do it when I have moved from research to action. It is also useful to have an editor; mostly I don't.

    As to law and the legal profession, again, thanks. I've been told that often, and by lawyers. On the other hand, on the occasions when I have needed to be active in legal action, the research gave me migraine headaches.... I suppose I could handle that now, but ... other factors intervene. Summary: too soon old, too late smart. (If I was getting migraines, I was stressed, wanted some particular result too much.) However, there is still plenty to do!


    The next several months promise to be very interesting across the board - I don't think that Abd will not be bored or boring.

    - Dewey

    I'm not sure where what "interesting" will be. Rossi will Answer, likely, within a week. Then about the most exciting thing in the case, I'd imagine, is that IH will whack the Rossi case with a big stick, it's easy to imagine how. But how interesting is it, shooting fish in a barrel? Frankly, the whole thing makes me sad. Even if the fish are bottom-feeders.

    Of course, Rossi might come up with a Wabbit, and by definition I can't really anticipate any Wabbit. Maybe some IH officer made some mistake in an email. The most I can imagine, though, is that the matter would then simply take longer to resolve (i.e., if Rossi has a possible case, even if not particularly plausible, it could require a trial for factual determination). The substance is obvious already.

    Very minor new document today, 85, rescheduling magistrate hearing for later today, 2:30 PM.

    And then document 86 filed by the IH attorney cancelled the hearing. This was about Rossi's response to an IH request for production. Aside from some boilerplate likely of little importance, this was the core of the objection, together with the Request:

    So what happened? I have some guesses. The Rossi response was delivered to IH by email October 15. The Hearing request was dated November 16.

    While it is possible that Rossi did not comply with the 15 day deadline, more likely they did, but did refuse to show any materials from after the Guaranteed Performance Test in February. I see no other reason to file a request for Hearing. However, to me, the possible utility of later video is obvious, because it could show what was inside the "customer area." Hearing a plausible argument from IH in the hearing, I think it fairly obvious that the Magistrate would order compliance. So maybe Rossi caved on this and simply supplied the videos. Much easier, and probably cheaper.

    Otherwise, it is possible that IH, reviewing what Rossi provided, decided they didn't need the later material, so cancelled the Hearing, again possibly saving time.

    I covered the issue in this post; this was an example where IH looked at a post-filing Rossi blog post and derived information from it, on which to then base their request. Rossi just didn't know when or how to shut up.

    The lawyers on both sides are laughing themselves silly on the way to the bank.

    Lawyers are a common and easy target. However, I've known many, and no good lawyer laughs when their client is faced with increased expense. They are professionals, dealing with what most people would prefer to stay far away from. I look at the latest MTD, the one just mooted, and see a waste of time, running up legal bills for no particular gain, but the choice of whether or not to do this rests with the client, not the lawyer (except in certain extreme situations). Perhaps the client wants the delay and is willing to pay for the lawyer to do it. Perhaps the client sees value in running up the legal bills for his opponent. Something done solely for that purpose would be unethical, but it's hard to prove, so sanctions are not common.

    Nobody is forced to hire a lawyer. It's merely highly advisable in certain situations. Such as when negotiating a $100 million contract. Anyone with a knowledge of law reading the Agreement and the Complaint is immediately impressed with how totally naive Rossi was, if he believed what he asserts in the Complaint. Can anyone here imagine that they would spend a year of "hard work" without making sure that the paperwork was done to assure payment? Would you rely on vague promises and assumptions? Rossi is aiming, I think, to play the victim game for a jury. "They fooled me!" Did they also fool your lawyers, Andrea? Those who would actually read the Agreement and understand it?

    Lawyers are typically paid by the hour, though they may also work on contingency. The talent and training and effort involved in becoming a lawyer is considerable. Most lawyers expect to do well, financially, just as do professionals in many other professions. As lawyers, though, they only become modestly wealthy, perhaps. "professionally" wealthy. Millionaires, perhaps, not ordinarily billionaires. Lawyers who make fortunes do so by using their skills in other ways, as business-people, typically. Darden has a law degree from Yale.

    Rossi made the choice to enter this arena, no lawyer forced him to do it. In dealing with Darden (and Vaughn), he was dealing with professionals, highly skilled. I have no doubt that if Rossi had delivered on the IP, had actually taught them to make devices that passed independent testing, they could easily have raised the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to either bring products to market themselves, or to arrange licensing to others who would have done that. If Rossi is a con, he picked the wrong marks. They gave him every opportunity to make good, but instead he tried to trick them out of more money, and possibly to attempt to coerce them to pay with the lawsuit, imagining that they would be strongly averse to the publicity. He did not understand, then, whom he was dealing with.

    (Rossi might still disappear, I wouldn't be surprised if he fled. He is not under any criminal indictment. He is not legally obligated to stick around and to keep his assets in Florida. Or his wife's assets.)

    The miracle here is that the experience with Rossi did not sour them on LENR. It looks to me like the risky stand they took with Rossi actually increased their credibility with Woodford. I am assuming, of course, that they fully disclosed the situation to Woodford. As the professionals they are, they would not deceive an investor through material misrepresentations. That's a fast track to civil and sometimes criminal prosecution, whereas ordinary mistakes merely involve losing money.

    IH, it now appears, is digging in for the long haul. They don't expect any quick profits, they expect to spend the entire Woodford investment and need to raise more money before they are done. Maybe a lot more money. the project they have undertaken could require billions. My general advice is to be very careful, to fund fundamentals, to establish the most solid basis for the field. It will all, then, become more obvious where to invest.

    While lawyers are expensive and Jones Day, being the largest firm in the U.S., with high expertise to bring to a case, is probably particularly expensive -- though, of course, we don't know what they are paying, IH might inspire some pro bono work (I suspect APCO's association with them is pro bono, i.e., personal with McLaughlin) -- these people will also pay, and well, for services. Look at what they were paying Fabiani!

    Industrial Heat is now dealing with many inventors and scientists in the field. Nobody is complaining but Rossi. It's obvious.

    It costs 80 cents now per page load just to list the documents in the docket, so lately I've been checking once a day, towards the end of the day (if I remember). At first I was taken aback at the low quality and the nickel-and-diming of the web site. But on further reflection I realize this is exactly the kind of document retrieval system I would imagine the US courts procuring and maintaining.

    It is certainly irritating. Customer service is good if one has a problem, though. It ought to be for ten cents per page! To be sure, it's 150 pages free per 3 months. So the docket is only 8 pages? Thanks for mentioning it, I will download the docket once. But I'm not going to download it once a day, or week. It's easier to do a test query. The only problem there is that they don't tell users the difference between the document not existing, and it not being downloadable. So I check a few doc numbers.

    Most users of the system are attorneys, I'm sure, and to them -- or their staff -- the time to access the system is worth much more than those page charges. Of course, they could make it all easier, in particular by simply displaying the docket and then allowing download from there, instead of the clunky system they have. As well, there is no date filter, so ... apparently one is expected to download the same data over and over for the docket, as far as I've seen. The system is what might have been nice twenty years ago.


    Keep in mind that while we may be moochers, you not getting out Documents 83/84 before Abd may be grounds for divorce!

    To make it clear, I'm completely happy if Eric gets documents before I do. When he does, I hope I notice, because then I can save ten cents per page, by grabbing them from him. He is also welcome, of course, to grab documents from me. Or, even better, he could help maintain that case page, he could communicate with me about that.


    That said, as always, thank you Abd,, and yes you too Eric. My guess is that no matter the legal maneuverings of Rossi, et al., the outcome is pretty much assured at this point. Just what IH has presented to the court already is very hard to defend. Only hope for Rossi at this point IMO, is to get this in front of a jury. There, as we all well know, all bets are off. That is his only chance. But there is a smart Judge standing in the way of that.

    Rossi has a shot, probably it will be fired next Monday. The third-party claims will still be hanging fire, but that's not actually important for the primary case in Rossi v. Darden. to survive to a jury trial, Rossi will have to present sufficient evidence that a jury might legitimately support his version of fact and interpretation. Originally, IH killed four out of eight Rossi counts. FUD from Planet Rossi attempted to spit that as victory for Rossi, but motions to dismiss are generally considered long shots. 4/8 was indicative of a poorly drafted case, my opinion. Notice that the Rossi MTD was totally rejected, recently.

    The core issue in my view has already seen some emphasis. I do not know why IH presented it relatively weakly, but I think they did, though they hinted at the core, which I expect will come if Rossi doesn't present clear contrary evidence: there was no agreement to a Guaranteed Performance Test, only to a demonstration and sale of power with Penon measuring power. Rossi, at great legal expense, established the validity of the Second Amendment (by estoppel, at least, and maybe there is a signed copy from Ampenergo floating around). So now that Second Amendment establishes very clearly that setting the date of the GPT requires the signature of all parties, once again.

    Yes. If Rossi can get this before a jury, he might have a chance. However, this would be the ultimate test of his persuasive powers. He always filtered his audience; he won't be able to filter that jury. And, yes, he first has to get past the judge, who was already inclined to dismiss on the "Six Cylinder Unit" issue -- which is why IH filed a Motion for Judgement; my guess is that they withdrew it to allow the matter to become even more clear, before going for Summary Judgment again.

    The lack of clear agreement, obviously required, is much stronger than "Six Cylinder Unit," even though, in fact, it was that unit that was to be the subject of the GPT. I.e., what she wanted to see in discovery was already known and clear. They are not the same. If a GPT had been allowed with the slabs, the six-cylinder unit problem could be estopped. But a core requirement, obviously necessary for strong business purpose, to avoid lawsuits and controversies over what can be handled with a simple document, can't be so easily set aside.

    I don't think he can do it. We get a better idea next Monday, I expect.

    Stack overflow.

    That is because you are trying to understand it, perhaps as if this were just one event. This is a set of developments, at least three covered, that are more or less independent. Trying to put it together creates stack overflow.

    This is a story that make little sense if it has not been followed. I'm not about to re-explain everything, "sua sponte," though I will certainly answer questions. I do explain the significance, but if you try to understand everything when you have missing pieces, you may not even understand what is simple and easy.

    I think I'll place some dividers, see if I can improve it.

    FIRST. WTF is a 3rd party motion to dismiss, and why would it be "moot"? To understand that, we need to know that IH has filed four versions of their original Answer to the Rossi Complant. Complaints and Answers are core documents. It is common that a defendant will move that a complaint be dismissed, and from such motions, it is possible that, instead, the judge will allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint, and it is also possible that a plaintiff amends a complaint simply to make it better.

    At this point the core IH document is their Third Amended Answer, which includes a large pile of exhibits. These exhibits are listed on my case page under the original names for them, I have not downloaded or uploaded all the duplicated exhibits, even though they are presented that way on PACER.

    The "Answer" is not just an Answer, though. This is the full title: THIRD AMENDED ANSWER, ADDITIONAL DEFENSES, COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS . So not only does IH Answer the Rossi Complaint, they provide "additional defenses," also called "affirmative defenses," -- then include counterclaims, which amounts to IH suing Rossi, and then they add claims against third parties, i.e,. Johnson, Penon, Fabiani, and Bass.

    So at this point, it is as if a new lawsuit started involving the "third parties." They get to then move for dismissal, etc. They did, originally in two groups, but the judge required them to file together (allowing them to separate if needed). So they filed a joint motion to dismiss. However, it was directed against the SECOND AACT (as it is sometimes abbreviated). Because the Judge, out of Rossi's own Motion to Dismiss, required some (minor) changes to clarify some claims, IH amended it. This made the 3rd party defendant's motion moot, because it was a motion to dismiss a document that is no longer of any effect.

    Do *not* try to make sense of this, there are ways in which it makes no sense, i.e., it would seem that something much more efficient could be done. You will simply drive yourself crazy thinking that way. The judge, you can be sure, is not stressing herself, she is just dealing with what is in front of her. One step at a time. She saw that the filing made the motion before her (including the IH objection and the 3rd party reply to that) obsolete, at least technically, so she cleared her desk. If they still want to try to dismiss, they can still file again. (And the IH may object and they may reply, and the world turns many more times before it is resolved and then the 3rd party defendants will have to answer. I'd say that it is impossible that they could completely succeed, though Bass probably has the best shot. Maybe. Depends.)

    But the judge is now much more visible as to how she will rule. They would be wasting time to simply repeat what they filed before. If they want to buy more time, they can do it that way.

    This then had an effect on Rossi. He had seven days from the Judge's ruling on the 3rd party motion to Answer the IH countercomplaint. Because she now ruled (making it moot), he now has 7 days to file, i.e., we should see his Answer, providing much more clue as to his positions, by next Monday. That's the big event, coming soon.

    SECOND. Some boilerplate was put up about a hearing transcript and how and when it is available. I took the occasion to note a prior such notice, and that transcripit is about to be available on PACER, scheduled for release that way in two weeks. That hearing was the subject of much discussion when it happened. Among other things, it was about Bass, but it probably also was about an attempted subpoena of Rossi's accountant's documents, and bank records, or was it? It might be interesting to know.

    THIRD. There is a hearing tomorrow, about Rossi objections to an IH request for production. This may be of interest, other than the Magistrate order, we won't see anything on this for maybe three months or so. That is, the Magistrate will rule, we will see that, perhaps, I expect, including an order to produce all photos and videos of the Doral plant up to the date of production (as an example), but we will not see the arguments made unless someone wants to attend the hearing or go to the court terminal, until it appears on PACER.

    Two documents appeared today.


    The first, (DE 83), was an order from the judge sua sponte (on her own initiative) dismissing the 3rd party motion to dismiss, as moot, because the IH Answer was amended (at her order).

    Of course, the 3rd party defendants now get to file a new MTD, perhaps, giving them yet more time to reply. Meanwhile Rossi wanted to see the judge's ruling on that motion, before completing his own Answer, but the order on his motion for more time limited the delay to no later than December 14, or 7 days from the ruling if that would be earlier. (I suspect it could have been expected that this motion to dismiss would be dismissed as moot, I think that would be standard if the complaint was amended.) As today's ruling despatched the MTD (for now), Rossi now has until December 12, next Monday to file his Answer.

    The original motion now mooted was[/url]


    There was also a notice issued today, DE84, of when the transcript of the hearing held October 14 before Judge Altonaga will be available through PACER: I give this information on the Rossi v. Darden page. However, this is what PACER displayed for me:


    You do not have access to this transcript.

    TRANSCRIPT of the Motion Hearing and Status Conference held on 10/14/16, before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, 1-60 pages, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / [email protected]. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/27/2016. Redacted Transcript Dead line set for 1/5/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/6/2017. (smn)

    And I added: "See DE66,67"

    We also have such a notice, DE 48, with respect to the Hearing before the Magistrate held earlier:


    You do not have access to this transcript.

    TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing held on 8/30/16 before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan, 1-44 pages, Court Reporter: Carl Schanzleh, 305-523-5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(hh)

    And I added "See DE 0040, 42."

    If someone is terribly interested in obtaining these, they can be purchased as described. It would be an appreciated service to find out how much they cost. We would see the actual arguments being advanced by the parties. We will see that in the case of that Magistrate hearing in two weeks, I assume.

    Some hearings do not seem to generate that notice with their minute entries.


    There is another hearing scheduled for tomorrow per DE 75. "Discovery hearing December 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., on Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Request for Production to Plaintiffs." This hearing, requested by IH, is about DE 75.1 which shows Rossi's objections to requests for production, such as all videos of the Doral plant to date. Rossi claimed that nothing after the "test" was over would be relevant. He will lose on this, I predict.

    Because this was misunderstood on e-catworld, I explain that an interrogatory or request for production must be answered (under oath) unless the one it is directed to objects. If they object, they are not required to answer, unless the requestor obtains an order. If there is no order, in the presence of an objection, there is no obligation to respond. This came up because a commentator there believed that if the objection was not confirmed, formally, if it wasn't even mentioned in an order issued, then the person was obligated to respond. He had it backwards. The error allowed him to think that the Magistrate Orders were a major victory for Rossi, when the reality was much closer to the opposite.

    Speaking of Siffferkoll; where is he? As you may recall, he is affiliated with Hydrofusion (staunch Rossi supporter/licensee/official Leonardo website keeper) in some way. He even met with Rossi. Last I heard from Siffer was when I asked him why HF does not provide some public announcement of support for Rossi, and the Ecat they are licensed to sell. With the legal proceedings casting doubt on their product, you would think they would want to get on record in defense?

    Also, when Siffer comes back, maybe he can give us an update on Rossi's plan to host a QuarkX demonstration/demo there in Sweden...I assume at Hydrofusion's facility, this February?…of-quarkx-sweden-and-usa/

    Or if the Swedish branch for the industrial production of the 1MW has started up yet:…he-production-is-started/

    Don't hold your breath.

    I don't know the direct connection between Sifferkoll (Torkel Nyberg) and Hydrofusion, but his coauthor on a book and apparent close friend owns 9000 shares, nominal value 0.005 GBP each. That would be 45 GBP.

    Sifferkoll went ballistic when this was mentioned. She was not accused of any improper behavior, but Torkel had been raking others over the coals for imagined conflicts of interest, and he apparently had one -- albeit small -- at home. Torkel also continually called the penny stock of IH "toilet paper," but Hydro Fusion Ltd. stock is worth approximately a penny a share, nominally, and in fact less than a sheet of toilet paper. None of this was actually important, and that was my point.

    (In fact, the penny stock of IH leveraged $50 million, i.e., could vote on how it would be spent, at a penny per share vs more than $45 for the preferred stock held by the Woodford trusts, though as a practical matter control is in the hands of the majority shareholders, Darden and Vaughn (technically LLCs that they may control), and all this makes obvious that Woodford trusted them, personally.)
    (and HF stock may have a value due to possible agreement with Rossi. Or not.)

    I would imagine that there are HF shareholders not happy with Rossi's deception wrt Hydro Fusion. From Companies House, a majority of shares was held, at report, by Magnus Holm (29%) and Stefan Helgesson 28%) . They would be the people to ask!

    As of the last financial report, HF has liabilities exceeding assets, but elected to be treated as a going concern because of major shareholder assurances that more capital would be provided.

    Sifferkoll's last comment here was September 29, 2016, ballistic, over the top, frothing at the mouth.
    His last comment on e-catworld was three months ago.
    His last blog post was September 11, using a religious argument.

    ele doesn't understand what he has read, but is focused on certain implications. That is, indeed, an interesting page, but Sifferkoll confesses:


    Reading all these comments. I’m baffled to the core.

    He is baffled because his theme is that Fred Zoepfl (if that is the real name) is an IH operative, like Dewey Weaver (who is actually an IH investor and consultant, well-known as such), like me and Jed (and I have no business relationship with IH, nor does Jed.) Yet the comments show that Fred is highly contemptuous of IH.

    (Dewey does not necessarily represent any approved IH position, IH has not been engaged in a public campaign against Rossi, and I'm sure that APCO has not been retained to bash Rossi, it would be a waste of money. IH is only defending itself in Rossi v. Darden and made only the barest minimum public statement about that, reporting their experience without attack language. "We have been unable to verify" is hardly a massive attack, though it pulled the rug out from under what had been supporting Rossi before then, the appearance of support by IH. Dewey is acting on his own, I infer. If I were to guess where there might be paid FUD or the use of sock puppets by a principal actor, it would be on the other side, but I have seen no evidence other than for socks.)

    Rather, Fred Zoepfl's comments are consistent with a strong and nuclear-knowledgeable pseudoskeptic. His quoted comment on pseudoskepticism shows the misunderstanding of the term common among pseudoskeptics. This term was coined by Truzzi to refer to skeptics who are only skeptical of the opinions of others, not of their own. It was applied to "debunkers" who are obsessed with the alleged errors of others, instead of looking at their own possible errors, instead of what CSICOP was formed for, as the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." Repeating over and over that Rossi is a convicted criminal, as some of these due, is not "scientific investigation," it is debunking and defamation (in addition to being possibly misleading, it is commonly overstated).

    There have been many of these appear over the years with regard to cold fusion. Most are largely ignorant, but a few are much more knowledgeable than that, such as Joshua Cude. To infer, from the existence of people like this, a common species of internet troll, a conspiracy of paid FUD, is simply not very smart or is obsessed.

    So what connected Fred with IH? Well, first of all, he was highly acidic toward Rossi. Of course, so is Steve Krivit and "Mary Yugo" and neither is connected with IH. But there is a piece of evidence. Sifferkoll points out that FredZ knew about the $11.5 million investment before that became public knowledge.

    However, lots of people had inside information through various means, and for someone with military connections, as may be the case for Fred -- it would not be surprising. The possession of such information does not prove an actual connection, and the bulk of FredZ's posts show him as a pseudoskeptic, debunker, and not working for or with IH, rather, thinking that the whole IH investment strategy was stupid and trashing it about as much as Rossi. Yes. Like Mary. Diametrically opposed to the entire IH mission.

    Sifferkoll's thinking is not uncommon on Planet Rossi. "the enemy of my friend must be a friend of my enemy."

    I did a little search for Fred Zoepfl. He was active with acidic debunking of cold fusion in 2015.

    [email protected]/msg104378.html">Quoted on vortex-l from an Amazon review.


    This page fails to load
    , but googlecache shows Fred Zoepfl, in a comment by Fred7777 that quotes an email exchange with Fred Zoepfl. I consider this reasonably strong linkage, FredZ777 is indeed Fred Zoepfl.
    So, then, Discus again.
    From this, a thread started four days ago by FredZ777 on So he is still active. I see that I interacted with him about a month ago (I made a few posts there...) I did not mince words. Fred didn't like it, but he freely insults others.

    ( is a pile of comments on a single Welcome post., totally unmanageable.)

    The real name is likely Fred J. Zoepfl. (from 1994 or so).

    (links here are major buggy.)

    Abd wrote:

    If low temperature nuclear reactions exist it is likely that they can be commercialised with (effectively infinite) COP and very high power density. High temperatures are less clear since one can imagine effects that require low temperature to work (as Kim did, with BECs, some time ago).

    It is possible that a mechanism would temperature-limit the reaction, and, in fact, it's obvious that reactions requiring condensed matter structures will temperature limited, the damn stuff melts or vaporizes. However, the opinion about BECs implies that BECs require low temperatures. That's an easy to understand impression, but "temperature" refers to the bulk, whereas a BEC requires very low local relative momentum, so if it is with, say, two molecules (as in Takahashi's 4D analysis), the frequency of the necessary arrangement may be high enough to create the very low percentage of deuterium molecules that need to react to create a heat effect. Deuterium doesn't fuse in liquid form, even though the density is higher than in PdD, but PdD confines the deuterons to certain positions. Normally, molecular deuterium does not exist in PdD, but ... could exist in vacancies, defects, and yes, Dr. Storms, surface cracks (his hydroton is actually a linear hydrogen/deuterium molecule). The structures that can be thought of as "freezing" molecules may have an entry cost, so that reaction rate increases with temperature.

    Bottom line, we don't know. We can just invent possibilities, and even if we invent the truth, we don't have a means of recognizing it yet. We need more data. As Kim pointed out, as I recall, we don't know the velocity distribution of deuterium dissolved in palladium.

    BECs at higher temperatures must form, my analysis, but would have very short lifetime and be extraordinarily difficult to detect. It is possible that some technique could be developed to detect them, but that has not been done, to my knowledge. For fusion per Takahashi, the lifetime need only be on the order of a femtosecond.


    Perhaps you were applying this comment narrowly to Ni-H systems? Or, perhaps you mean that the experimental evidence thus far does not support this: which I'd agree, but that is a (fairly weak, but real) argument against the FPHE being caused by nuclear reactions.

    It was a general comment. We don't have demonstrated and confirmed systems as described. "practical, immediately useful," were key phrases. "Possible," sure!

    The "no practical device" is a very weak argument, a lazy one, against "nuclear reactions." Muon-catalyzed fusion is real and not practical, and may never be practical, though people have worked on preventing muon-trapping. Storms' theory explains the difficulty and suggests approaches that may create practical applications, but it's not there yet. (For this purpose, "cracks" is enough, his nuclear mechanism is not necessary.)

    "Cracks," of course, means gaps of a particular functional size, and it should be possible to engineer those. All it would take is a few billion dollars, perhaps. Before that much funding is tossed in the hopper, prudence suggests following promising avenues in basic research into the effect, which is happening. Much cheaper, and likely to lead to better understanding and thus less waste when larger sums are dedicated.

    Abd wrote:

    Abd, I think you are implying one over the other. This is a difference that I have with "your well thought out opinion". Where you elucidate your reasoning clearly, I struggle.

    I have no idea what "reasoning" you are talking about. The statement is one of a possible affinity, an occurring, senses of attraction and non-attracting. This is not about reasoning. It might be completely wrong, I might find "Mary," in person, interesting -- and I could say some good things about this person -- and Rossi, boring. But what I know about each leads me to expect otherwise. I also have been trained to notice such expectations and, in real life, to set them aside, because they can be highly limiting.

    Struggle will not help you to understand me. Letting go will. I will say that it is much easier in person, presence is almost everything, voice is adequate, text is seriously defective except for certain kinds of communication.


    As for me personally when it comes to peoples motivations, I am quite naive. You are worth the time to read because you are interesting and informative. I am not being patronizing here.

    Thank you.


    I have tried to dig Mary out of the "shoot from the hip" when threatened, as he can be very informative. Maybe not to you but to me. Does he still take pot shots? Sure. Like almost all people I have conversations with he can up his game when he knows that he is not threatened (like many others).

    Yes, this is generally true for human beings.


    I care deeply for people in general, if someone can not get along with me, I know that it is not my issue. You perform (notice, I say you do this "not maybe I think so" but your thoughts) are in depth and with a strong logical analysis on every word, you have admirable concentration and fluency. Back to your point. I would probably want to eat with someone who may not say what I like, but I did not think was mentally trying to say whatever they thought I wanted to hear.

    Yes. Agreed. Boring. Unless she is beautiful, then maybe. Only maybe. Wanting to please someone is not Bad. It depends on details.


    Anyway, do you have news on Mr. Bass?

    The topic here? No. Bass, as we know, was found, served, and has legally appeared through an attorney shared with Johnson. My guess is, provided by Johnson. At this point, the only arguments have been legal, pursuing a Motion to Dismiss that is likely to fail. When that ruling is issued, assuming no dismissal, Bass, Johnson, Penon and companies will have a week or two to Answer. I expect the ruling from the Judge soon, so we should see some documents of interesting in the next ten days. Rossi's Answer is due December 14, based on an extension he requested and received.

    Mary, Abd

    I wrote this. It was not intended to mean "real." It was a comment about appearance.


    They are superficially impressive. You might think that only unthinking people would be so impressed, as Mary does.

    What Mary thinks is irrelevant. "Impressive" doesn't necessarily mean what an unthinking person might imagine. That ex-DARPA director actually said more or less the same thing about a demonstration that was far less impressive in appearance than the megawatt Plants. This was not the run-of-the-mill energy scam.

    And some inhabitants of Planet Rossi are such on this issue. But, more subtly, a lot of Planet Rossi will argue: "so much effort, no-one would do it for something that was just a giant electric heater! And, it would be obvious if it did not work, so unless you believe Rossi to be a fraud it must be real!"
    The argument has a cogency to it, but is also flawed. One would think that something would be obvious, but this does not factor for what insanity can accomplish! Step by step, a reality is constructed from appearances. Denial can run very deep. But, granted, "fraud" is a relatively simple explanation, but ... it's not about stupid people, in general. Further, that is a useless hypothesis, it creates nothing of value. Self-satisfied smug is not of value.

    If I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with Andrea Rossi, or with Mary Yugo, which would I pick? I have no hesitation. One of them is actually interesting. Do remember, though, that I was a prison chaplain. I met some remarkable people in that work.


    Now there are two errors here, as I see it:

    (1) There are many ways in which Rossi might convince himself that it works even when it does not. Abd views, tentatively, Rossi as not sane, but you don't need this for him to have selective cognition over the matter of whether his pet invention operates.

    I consider selective cognition as a kind of insanity, albeit fairly common. It can develop and grow into quite complex self-deceptive constructions. Rossi is obviously "high functioning," at least in some contexts. I would predict that this would degenerate, over time, unless he confronts the central issue for him, and I don't know what that issue is. Rossi is not big on deep self-disclosure. If he were to become so, everything might shift.


    Or, as I tentatively claim, he could be essentially incapable of distinguishing between appearance (public effect) and reality. In our celebrity culture there are many who get close to this malady...

    The resemblance has been noticed.


    (2) If he is a total (conscious) fraud, or if he believes his stuff could save the planet, if only he got more money, and reckons one faked large-scale test is all that is needed for this desirable outcome, again the 1MW PR machine will be built.

    This is not surprising for an inventor, this kind of thinking can exist, I have no doubt about it. In this scenario, the inventor fakes something in order to move to the next stage of development, where he is sure that he can solve the problems.

    There are many shades of grey. We have less than about ten days now for Rossi to Answer the countercomplaint. In court, Planet Rossi collides with reality.


    Abd here naturally sees the grey areas between rational and insane: perhaps his wordiness is from a desire to be more precise about matters which are in the hands of God and difficult for us to know, and more difficult for us to communicate.

    And I wrote "grey" above before seeing this. I would not say "precise," though a desire for precision of expression, combined with issues of the time it takes to write, can lead to more words. To find the optimal expression can take a lot of work, as is well-known to writers. "I would have made this letter shorter, but I didn't have time."

    People don't realize that it is easier to write more, rather than less, for some. I do cut back, but this also can result in losses, so my writing is often "shared research notes." Not the final conclusions. Maybe there are no final conclusions, but people reading my writing wonder why I don't just get to the point. Maybe there is no point, or, more accurately, the "point" is yet to be revealed, it's, as was put above, "in the hands of God." I.e., not known to humans, not yet.

    I just spent more than a full day writing a commentary on the comments on the Chemistry and Engineering News article. It's very long. It was not written to make a clearly known point, I write these things to learn. And then others can follow along if they want, and if not, they can ignore it. I do not know what is best for others, and even if I did, it would still be their choice.

    a poll presents a series of unpalatable options, where any answer would be a drastic misrepresentation of what I would actually do, for what I'd do is not even contemplated. So how will I answer?

    I won't.

    The conditions presented in the question are preposterous, essentially impossible, as stated, so coming up with a hypothetical response to an impossible situation is of no value.

    While I am skeptical on the results , for me the reason is due to A. Parlhomov's earlier "dancing with the data". But, currently I am stunned by the ash results. I will be glad to eat my "100% organic felt hat" when this is fully independently reproduced. I will dismiss the excess heat for now. That ash sample needs to be explained. If it was somehow contaminated I could understand (after all this is a cottage industry using real sinks and living rooms and garages). I personally do not think he would salt the ash. So this anomaly needs more information and explaining. Anyone with an even handed argument ?

    I very much doubt that Parkhomov would deliberately falsify results. His "dancing with the data" I interpret as meaning where he copied data from one time into another, to not show what had actually happened (he had to recharge his notebook). I consider that a symptom of naivete, not a willingness to create fraudulent results (that data period was unremarkable, not particularly important.). However, I don't think his apology was complete, I don't think he really covered it, why he had done that. My impression is that he is not entirely "with it." I still take his reported results as what he found, but don't take his interpretations as necessarily solid. He never addressed serious problems with his original reports, and simply went on to "improve" his work, without cleaning up the mess he created.

    His newer work does look better. However, his approach is fraught with hazards and the possible issues make it difficult to clearly interpret what he's finding. The idea that he is "replicating Rossi" is more or less preposterous. Rossi seems to be promoting the idea, now. He originally was very noncommital.

    I see that Mary Yugo kicked up some dust here, as "she" did on C&EN, and on the Financial Times article, where they actually seem to have shut down comments because of what Mary did there (and eventually deleted those comments). My analysis of the C&EN commentary is linked above, and Mary was very busy there protecting the world against stupidity. Someone there asked why we should trust Mary? Indeed. Why? The point is made that Rossi has lied, so cannot be trusted. Mary, here, still claims to be female, in the profile. Well? A fake identity with fake gender does not exactly inspire confidence. And, no, this is not outing Mary. Mary makes personal remarks about many, both participants here and public figures. Mary is, then, fair game for similar, where it is relevant.

    How long ago was that improbable story, Abd? And why has it not been repeated? If I could do that, I would repeat it the next day and the one after that. Then, I'd invite Bill Gates' people to see it and I'd make billions. It is a hallmark of scams and deceptions, including honest self-deceptions, that the authors seem not to understand the extreme consequences (good in this case) of their claims. So basically, I don't believe a word of it. BTW, wouldn't the military love a small nuclear reaction which is controllable and yields lot of thermal energy. Wow. They'd salivate a chance to fund it. If it worked, provably, of course. If not for a bomb, how about for powering a huge laser? And that was 1993 and nothing since. Wow.

    If that's your big breakthrough, Abd, fuggit about it.

    No, I have stated what the breakthrough would be, it would be publication of results from the Texas Tech collaboration on heat/helium. Why would Mary assume it was the Thermacore attempt, where I know almost nothing and results are entirely speculative? Because this is what Mary does: assume whatever might irritate someone. That is called "trolling."

    I did not assert the Thermacore story as fact. I asserted it as something reported by Brian Ahern, improbably or not. It was not repeated for reasons that have been explained. It is claimed that the specific results were only recently disclosed, as to public information. It's plausible, these kinds of things happened, we think. Mary could not have repeated this the next day, because the apparatus was destroyed, and management was, as reported, and undestandably, freaked out. Easily this might have killed someone. When Pons and Fleischmann experienced that original meltdown, they did not want it to be known what they were doing, because the university might have shut them down. Instead they scaled down for safety (and then later there were complaints that their results were not strong enough.)

    When SRI had their explosion (of chemical origin), they were shut down for some time, until they were able to set up precautions to handle an incident like that. It's expensive, and Thermacore apparently decided against pursuing it, and it's that simple. This was not a developed product and the conditions had been inadequately explored. This was not the mature technology that was almost ready for development. It was an incident, an anecdote. Cold fusion in general has enormous commercial potential. This is discussed in my coverage of the C&EN discussion. Say it's a trillion dollar per year lost opportunity cost for delay. It might cost billions to develop the first commercial product, and there is a risk that such could fail. Game theory says, go ahead, but only if one can afford the loss, because there is a high risk. So who has billions to spare?

    Not very many! In fact, some are investing in LENR, but much more cautiously, as I would recommend. They are spending exploration dollars, not commercialization dollars. Blue-sky, getting their feet wet. They expect to spend that money with no profit, as a dead loss (which, of course, will be fully tax-deductible, these are not stupid people.).

    So someone might well fund Brian Ahern. I'd say it would be worth it. This should not be terribly expensive, but expect it to take time. If he can confirm that result, this will be the strongest confirmed NiH work so far. It will shift the field, in a good way. If he fails, this would not be surprising. Many efforts fail in this field, and when it seems easy, that is the mostly likely work to be artifact.

    Please explain to me how something so simple to do and so hugely important and apparently known to quite a few people-- explain how that could go undeveloped and unrecognized by the mainstream from 1996 until now, 20 f'n years later? How is that possible?

    The details were not so widely known, apparently. There may also have been other complications not so easily visible. Very simply, it's possible, and Mary asserts an impossibility argument because that is what Mary does. She is essentially claiming that others are lying, but she does it by questioning likelihood. Was there some chemical explosion there? Maybe. That's part of what Ahern will be examining, I assume. Ahern does not need Mary Yugo to point out the obvious possibilities, though Mary is not actually doing that, just making bad noises.

    The mainstream never heard about this because it was not published, because no mainstream journal or magazine will report on cold fusion.

    Jed, you really should stop saying that. Yes, there is a truth: publication became difficult, but mainstream journals have always published cold fusion research, just not certain prominent ones. When you say this, it creates an impression of a conspiracy theory, where it is improbable that a conspiracy would stop all publication, and, obviously, you know, it didn't. So you damage the reputation of cold fusion, in outrage at what did, in fact, happen (a level of suppression of publication in certain particularly influential journals).

    That may not be the reason at all (the above quotation was from Jed, I think.) There is no account of any attempt to publish this, rejected by a journal.


    Explain to me why no mainstream journal would publish proof of a revolutionary new technology.

    Is Mary really that naive? First of all, those whole argument was floating in non-existence. There was no journal rejection. Secondly, the incident if simply reported without an accompanying theory deemed plausible would, in fact, be likely to be rejected by many journals, and this has happened: experimental reports have been rejected because they were not accompanied by an explanatory theory considered adequate, and if "cold fusion" was mentioned, there were reviewers who would reject immediately with no further examination. A report of an event could certainly have been published, though, the question is where. It wasn't, it's that simple. And this proves almost nothing. The participants may have been under NDA, for starters. So they didn't have permission. But I'm assuming this possibility. I'd defer to actual interviews with the participants.

    The point here, as with everywhere that Mary participates, is a knee-jerk pseudoskepticism, laced with contempt. I don't wonder that it upsets Jed. He has indeed seen his friends harmed.


    Many journals would leap at the chance to be first. Many researchers would leap at a chance to replicate, just as dozens did when P&F made their claims in 1989. First they leaped and then they crashed because they could not replicate P&F despite your protestations to the contrary. Hell, P&F could not replicate P&F despite millions spent on that effort.

    Bull pucky. A story that P&F, for a time, were unable to replicate, when they ran out of the original material, here becomes "unable to replicate," which might as well be a lie. Miles tells his story, and Yugo does not put it all together, only picking up pieces that fit his world-view.


    People like me? I am all for publication of cold fusion research whether positive or negative results, as long as it is well done, properly documented, and properly peer reviewed.

    Mary claims this, but when it is done, Mary ignores it or attacks it.


    Publishing nonsense though, like the claim to powerful explosions from a nuclear source which were NEVER followed up by anybody? Even that I favor. People should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether such obvious nonsense is real or not. I suppose, Jed, that you think Papp really made energy from noble gases and would now be famous and a zillionaire had it not been for Feynman? I can see why mainline scientists give such crappy thinking so little attention!

    Nobody really involved thinks that way. This is all Yugo fantasy. Papp was insane, that's obvious. I have never seen Feynman blamed for Papp's situation by any LENR scientist, and mostly CMNS scientists ignore Papp and all that.

    What Yugo wants to do, here, as he has done many times, is tar real scientists with the same brush used to tar Papp and others. It is very common among pseudoskeptics, there is an inverted pantheon of devils, like Papp, and if anyone dares to say anything that could be seen as positive about one of these devils, they are obviously evil or seriously deluded.

    McKubre apparently witnessed a Papp engine demonstration, way back, but we all know about demonstrations, they can be impenetrable, even, can seem to be proving something, when they don't. They are not "independent," because they are controlled by the inventor. So if McKubre honestly reports what he saw, he could then be condemned. This is all backwards, not science at all, but social reactivity.

    The raising of Papp here, totally irrelevant, was completely diagnostic of this phenomenon. It was trolling, because it accused Jed of a belief in what is commonly rejected.