1,191 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2017
    1. The constant temperature (if real) means either a very sophisticated control system or a system where water is at boiling point and hence temperature stabilised. Any excess power beyond that needed to raise the water temperature in liquid phase can cause a small amount of phase change, and will not affect this temperature.

      Right. Basically, if the Plant output is mixed steam and water, it may then have a constant temperature, the boiling point of water at the pressure involved. This woudl also occur if the output is unmixed phase, I.e, steam over flowing water. This was all clear in studies of the early Rossi calorimetry, in 2011, so that this was not carefully examined by Penon is telling. The steam over water may have a higher temperature than water flowing below, depending on conditions. Temperature would depend on exact temperature sensor placement.

      With the removal of evidence, spoliation was the immedate comment of a lawyer before the issue was raised by IH, it becomes impossible to determine the fact. What should have, in a proper test, been very simple, becomes very complicated.

      The idea of "conservative" analysis depends on an a priori assessment of what is important and what is not. It is never a great idea to conceal data. Failing to record detailed flow -- which might, then, have shown the expected variations -- failure to check the pressure, to make sure that the pressure sensor was working, where a constant pressure reading was suspicious -- all this is a mess, the kind of mess Rossi has long created.

      If there was dry steam, which is a Rossi claim, the steam was allegedly "superheated," then there would be temperature variation, absent what THH states, a "very sophisticated control system," and doing this in the face of changing reactor performance, variations in power dissipation on the "customer side," "very" is an understatement, and why would one care so much as to go to all that trouble. The customer did not require dry steam, some level of entrained water would not be a problem ... and the removed trap would have "cleaned" the steam. A bit of overtemperature in the steam if it was actually superheated, would not be a problem either.

      No, the combination of almost-fixed temperature, fixed pressure, and fixed low (at nominal values) is highly implausible.

    2. It could well be broken, or badly connected.

      Pressure meter failure from overtemperature operation seems quite possible. What did the recalibrations Penon ordered show? I have not reviewed the Penon deposition, and I don't think we have all of it. I'd assume Penon was asked.

    3. because that proof is missing Rossi should somehow be given the benefit of the doubt.

      Given the benefit for what purpose? This is not a criminal trial. However, many are interested only in the excess heat question. Because Rossi has shown that he lies, and because he has shown that he somehow induces scientists -- even established skeptics like Essen -- to make face-palm errors, nothing from Rossi or generated in a zone of high Rossi influence, can be trusted. It's "fake news." And the people who cling to fake news are people who already "know" what it appears to confirm.

      If the Rossi Effect is real, Rossi will, I'd think, show someone his secrets, fully. If he cannot find anyone to trust, then the outcome is Natural Consequences. Paranoia strikes deep.

      Rossi's health may be failing, there are signs in the depositions. I understand why people like Rossi. I feel some substantial sympathy for him, in spite of all that he has done (and in spite of his calling me a paid puppet of IH). If he has a real effect, and if he actually cares about those children with cancer, and about the rest of us and our future, I strongly hope he will make that disclosure, and take steps to insure that the transferred technology actually works. He always said, the proof is in the market, and he was right as to an ultimate proof. So if people want to support him, if they believe him or in him, then .... let them raise the funds and make it so. Nothing could stop them.

      But we now see that Rossi had full opportunity to do this with IH, to make $100 million and then half the world market, which would be many, many billions, and he blew it, badly. Conclusions are obvious, though many details may remain obscure.

    4. Others then argue on the point of can Jed prove the data is not real?

      The evidence is strong, the data shows many signs of not being collected data, but filtered, averaged, and what was represented as independent collected was not, the evidence suggests single-source. Mostly Rossi and/or Fabiani.

      It is not possible to "prove" that the data is not real, but this could be shown to a high probability. This could be difficult in court, but actually is not necessary for IH. The fact that it is all obscured by counter-defendant actions, spoliation of evidence, may be enough to show damages.

    5. Those wishing to test the above statements could look at the Statement of Material Fact and see the factual basis for this version of events

      While I have found what, at first glance, appear as weak statements in the IH Statement, they are not critical. These are, legally, for the most part, uncontested facts.

      I think Rossi et al will have the opportunity to contest them, but consider this: winning at this point could be a Pyrrhic victory. They then get to go to trial where fact will be determined by the jury. That is, they might raise some doubt now, but then face trial expenses, for what outcome? And if they call the stated "facts" into question using perjured testimony, they will then increase the substantial risk of a perjury prosecution, not to mention increased legal costs for IH, which might then be awardable.

      When I looked at the Complaint, before there was anything else, I noticed the lack of signatures on the Second Amendment. I thought this was mere sloppiness. Did Annesser not notice? I think I remember writing that, if he'd noticed, he could have suggested that Rossi supply his own signature for Leonardo, and ask Ampenergo to sign a copy, since I was assuming, at that point, that this was a mere oversight -- and signatures were not dated. However, I did not know, but Rossi knew, that Ampenergo had actually refused to sign, so the Second Amendment was obviously invalid. IH was obviously willing to negotiate over the delay, but Rossi was not about to deal with IH as equals, peers, actual partners. If Annesser didn't notice, failure of due diligance on his part, and I see a Motion for Sanctions in the future. His incompetence, on this theory, has cost the parties millions of dollars. And Ruth Silver might be on the hook as well, a truly unfortunate consequence, since I doubt that she meant any harm, she simply failed to adequately supervise her employee. Hey, Rossi was happy with him!

    6. Rossi behaved as though it was the GPT

      It is behavior like this that leads me to suspect psychopathology. It would be called "high functioning." Yes, even Mats Lewan knows this about Rossi.

    7. the customer was not real.

      Technically, the customer is real and Johnson is legally responsible. However, what is not real is the alleged and insisted-upon independence of the customer. Rossi and Johnson, with Bass assistance, created the illusion of independence.

      IH knew that Johnson was a lawyer and trusted that a lawyer would not mislead them like this. What was Johnson thinking? Perhaps he was thinking billions in profits, trusting Rossi himself. IH claims to have not noticed that Johnson was actually Rossi's lawyer until later.

      People have claimed that they did not do due diligance, but they were not making a major new investment, merely allowing Rossi to do what he wanted. Johonson's defense was largely based on "they didn't lose anything," which, unfortuantely for Johnson, isn't quite the case. But it was not large, compared to the overall investment in the Rossi License and in associated research and testing, and the cost of attempting to keep Rossi happy in spite of his incipient paranoia.

      And then there was Fabiani, who seems a pitiful character, reactive, frightened, with his friend Rossi throwing him under the bus, and not know what to do, he deleted all the data he had. I might expect to see that from some stupid teenager. Bottom line, he broke his contract and his own promises to IH (Murray had promised to pay him the balance on the contract if he turned over his data, promised to have the check ready when they would meet. Did Rossi encourage him to refuse? Did Rossi encourage Penon to refuse to answer the Murray questions in writing when they were formally presented in writing?

      I wondered what Johson thought when RvD was filed. Did he think this was a Great Idea? I suspect not. Bass was clueless, and Fabiani was freaked out. Penon disappeared, etc.

    8. using the existence of this secretive customer as an excuse to prevent IH checks, in a way that made validation a joke.

      Yes. It's obvious. While Rossi at times seems to maintain the idea of JMP as independent, this is simply a demonstration of how Rossi creates an idea, then believes it. He had an idea of JMP as independent. He had an idea of working with Johnson Matthey, so he presented that as fact. He has done this kind of thing over and over.

      What is really odd is that Mats Lewan seems blissfully unaware of all this. He is skeptical of the IH position, while trusting Rossi, and clearly is unaware fo the evidence or somehow interprets it away.

    9. if 1% likely to be real is worth running.

      Many looking at this case don't realize that LENR, if real, could be a trillion dollar technology. Looking at a $100 million investment, say, and at 1%, this would make the investment worth an expected return of 100:1.

      Their actual investment in the Rossi Effect was roughly $20 million (that was their initial stock offering). and to allow for costs of the lawsuit, $25 million. The risk of loss beyond that is very low, because the real operating company now, sole owner of IH, is IHHI, which isn't touchable, and the Rossi attempts to pierce the corporate veil, both with Cherokee and IH, were legally extremely shaky (as IH shows in the MSJ)

      Filing Rossi v. Darden was a colossal error on Rossi's part, and I'm looking at the role of Annesser in this. Annesser apparently encouraged Rossi and Johnson to refuse the December visit to Doral, requested by IH. Apparently he encouraged Rossi to refuse to assign a patent in January or February, 2016.

      A new lawyer, wet behind the ears, trying to play David against a Goliath. Most Davids end up mashed. If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. I can imagine, now, a Rossi lawsuit against Silver Law Group for legal malpractice, after the smoke clears from Rossi v. Darden.

    10. They knew it could not be the GPT (no Ampergno signature on 2nd Amendment, wrong unit tested).

      Not only no signature, but deliberate refusal to sign, and Rossi knowledge of this. The Second Amendment was clearly invalid, a proposed document that failed, even though IH had signed off on it. The IH assurances that if the technology was shown to be real, they would pay anyway, were probably true, anyone who knows LENR would be likely to think so. Ampenergo obvious thought that. And with no 2nd Amendment, the IH initial argument that the time had passed for the obligatory payment was actually definitive. But the Judge allowed Discovery to possibly show that there was enough agreement for estoppel. My first reading of the Rossi MSJ appears to accept that Claim I was dead, but first readings can be deceptive. Where is the Wabbit? The smoking gun? Rossi was fishing for it in attempting to obtain attorney-client privileged material. We don't know what that was, specifically, but in several years of communications, some incautious statement, under a belief in privacy where one might say about any damn thing, might have arisen. It seems clear that not only did IH never assure Rossi that Doral was a GPT, IH and Rossi knew it was not, which is then why they allowed that abortion to continue.

    11. The IH MSJ paints a consistent picture specifically of why IH allowed the test to go ahead.

      Yes. I had speculated more or less along those lines. On Planet Rossi, expect to see the claim that IH is lying. They do not realize just how dangerous it is to lie under oath. I read Rossi's testimony and see few outright lies.

      The picture of how IH thought about Doral is clear from IH mails from the time, including confidential memoranda to IH investors. If those were fake, but attested by IH, expect to see prison time, and all it would take is one investor to blow the whistle. Such as, say, Ampenergo, which was a collection of Rossi friends, past supporters, with a financial interest in a successful GPT or equivalent. And they are investors in IH, having converted a small part of their payout to stock.

      to assess the evidence in the MSJ, note the legal principle that "testimony (i.e., sworn under penalty of perjury) is presumed true unless controverted. So if a witness said it under oath, it is presumed true, and only if there is contrary testimony that cannot be reconciled with it, will it be set aside -- i.e., it won't be used in an MSJ, though it might be used later in a jury trial, with the jury reconciling conflicts.

    12. as nicely arranged and indexed by Abd.

      Thanks, THH. That is not finished yet, I'll remove the Working Draft from the top when it is. This will then be a core document in an analysis of the IH MSJ, which will then be a part of the overall case analysis. Because the Rossi MSJ is such a mess, I put it off, even though my first desire was to carefully consider all the Rossi arguments first. I don't know what the judge will do, faced with an MSJ with all the exhibit references wrong.

      There won't be a decision on this for maybe two or three weeks after the back-and-forth on the MSJs is complete, so there is time.

      For me, part of the fun is seeking to anticipate the judge's rulings. Even when I'm wrong, the process then creates a background where I'm likely to understand the rulings.

      The only Wabbit Rossi came up with is the Heat Exchanger. Hidden, dismantled, and, so far, all evidence for it is Rossi Says. But he didn't Say when asked on JONP about the heat. So he lied on JONP. Oh, what a tangled web ....

    13. you'd think people would revert to their previous skeptical stance.

      Well, most of those who remain stuck on Planet Rossi were not skeptics to begin with. No examples come to mind. Rothwell was a vocal supporter of Rossi, though mostly privately. He was basing that on reports from people he trusted (some of whom are now known, all those early demonstrations, etc.) -- and this was maintained in spite of Rossi's refusal to allow him to visit because he wanted to bring his own instruments. He knew how suspicious that was, but chalked it up to Rossi's famous paranoia.

      However, Rothwell also was the first I saw to point out -- again privately -- the elephant in the Lugano living room, the apparent color temperature of the device, radically inconsistent with the calculated temperature. That the Lugano team did not even consider this showed something very off. Now we know that the "team" was mostly absent, that Rossi was there all the time, not just at the beginning and end, and that whatever Levi said dominated the report. And what Levi said was probably Rossi Says.

    14. If it could easily be distinguished from experimental error it would already have been settled scientifically as existing, or not existing, and IH would have no quest.

      Single tests, unconfirmed, are generally inadequate to establish the reality of LENR, and the existence of extensive unreported testing leads to a reasonable possibility of the file-drawer effect, also called confirmation bias. However, there is some LENR research that is not like this, that is not dependent upon a single result (i.e., excess heat) but that also shows correlated nuclear product. It is this work that I identified as most probative on the issue, and apparently a major source of funding agreed, and, while the existing evidence is such as to lead to LENR reality as supported by preponderance, the history of LENR and a strongly established rejection cascade required new work, which will be scientifically beneficial in any case, being measurement with increased precision.

      Rossi was a huge distraction from this, and LENR scientists were not prepared for a con artist -- or delusional maniac -- like Rossi. They tend to trust "scientific reports," and not to suspect deliberate deception. That is why the book is thrown at scientists who fake data. Parkhomov really screwed up with his improved plot.

    15. The nature of LENR is something that is elusive, and looks like experimental error.

      It is not always so, but this is so true of so much research that when it looks clearer, experienced LENR observers suspect a rat. Variability of the effect, unreliability, is, so far, a LENR characteristic. Pseudoskeptics point to this as some kind of evidence that the effects are not real. It is not, but it is certainly reason to be cautious.

    16. IH does not come out of the matter smelling of roses.

      Everyone's shit stinks. But I'm not seeing a lot of it. What I see in the Darden emails is cautious optimism, and that is exactly what LENR needs. Cautious optimism does not reject skepticism, rather it embraces it; it merely does not allow skepticism to ruin the creation of new possibilities. It is not denial, it does not assume that negative evidence is necessarily probative. It continues the conversation and exploration.

      I am encouraged. IH is massively connected, now, with the LENR research world. They have shown a willingness to work with scientists and inventors far beyond the call of duty. If they abandon the field, it will be a loss, but it looks like that is not their intention. Woodford seems satisfied.

      If I'm correct, there will soon be a major research accomplishment, on its way to being published, and I expect LENR funding to explode. IH will be well-placed to surf this.

      So to those who think the case makes IH "look bad," something is "smelly," I think they will be crying all the way to the bank. They may not make profits from LENR, directly, and certainly not in the short term, though we might notice that Ampenergo probably did just fine. They were lucky that IH came along. They returned the favor, though I think they were sincere, they were following self-interest in refusing to accept the Second Amendment, even though they would make more money if a GPT succeeded.

      We should realize that there may be much more evidence than what we have seen. If it was disclosed in Discovery, it may be used in the trial, if the matter comes to trial. The MSJ is just showing the evidence that IH believes reduces the case to matters of law. I'm not convinced on every point yet, but ... I have not finished documenting the IH MSJ and Statement.

      That IH would win the counterclaims with summary judgment is a long shot. The Rossi suit, though, is probably dead meat. No 2nd Amendement allowing a later test, no basis for suit. One can see in the depositions that Rossi's lawyers are angling for a "why didn't you tell Rossi" what Rossi already knew, and obviously.

    17. On the other hand they also know that Rossi's tests are rubbish and that Rossi lies. They must protect themselves from having to pay $89M for something that does not work but gives a spurious positive test result.

      Or an unclear test result. I find it hilarious that Annesser or Chaiken (I'm not sure which) asked -- was it Smith, the IH expert witness? -- if he was trained in nuclear engineering, as if that would be relevant. This was all following and supporting Planet Rossi FUD, because being a nuclear engineer would convey some relevant education (since nuclear power plants generate heat and must then harness the heat), but not the critical education (steam technology, a small part of nuclear engineering with some kinds of reactors).

    18. IH were incautious.

      Perhaps. They were willing to risk $20 million of their own money -- Darden and Mazzarino and a few friends -- to find out. They found out. As far as was possible, they "crushed the test," which was their goal. With positive results, validated independently, they could raise whatever funding was needed, I'd assume billions of dollars would just be the beginning. But with negative results, the whole Rossi Effect could be set aside, and all the mishegas wasted on it, and research could focus on independently-corroborated or promising findings. We will, in other discussions, look at that.

      They accomplished their mission, and the lawsuit is just cleanup, albeit a bit expensive. Environmental remediation is the Cherokee core business, and they are cleaning up the LENR environment.

    19. for Josh to see this as something that smells is IMHO wrong.

      It is normal on Planet Rossi. We have been seeing this since the filing of Rossi v. Darden. What was not realized was how much evidence IH had. Rossi was able to maintain the lawsuit against the IH Motion to Dismiss because he succeeded in confusing the issues enough that the Judge wanted to wait for Discovery to make a decision. Discovery is the most expensive aspect of litigation, I've seen that assessment. So there is a 7 hour deposition with three or more attorneys sitting there at $350 per hour, and there can be months of this.

    20. When defending a legal case you will argue anything you can that might stick.

      Within limits. One runs the risk of boring the judge and jury. However, an MSJ is not for a jury, and judges may well be interested in legal points. I was very skeptical of the "lack of signatures" argument, but I was assuming that Ampenergo had actually accepted the Second Amendment. Then I read the evidence. I had speculated that Ampenergo had probably signed a copy, but Rossi didn't have it. I also knew that, in theory, it was possible that Ampenergo had not signed, but, then, there was always estoppel.

      Now we know that Ampenergo not only did not sign, deliberately, but Rossi knew it. Did Annesser know this? Only if Rossi told him. And Rossi may not have told him. If Annesser did know, we might see a Motion for Sanctions later.

      I was puzzled at the lack of clear IH argument on the matter of no signatures on a setting of the GPT date. Now I know why. The whole Second Amendment was not valid, period, and clearly so. So the expiration of time was real. However, Rossi still had leverage, but instead of using it to negotiate with IH for an actual test, he used it to set up a phony, Rossi In Charge demonstration, lying to them about Johnson Matthey, etc.

    21. I've been off the internet for a few days walking up and down hills.

      What a waste of time, when one could be studying Rossi v. Darden! But better late than never.

      (Seriously, my sedentary habits turned a healthy 70 into a teetering 72. I'm now active reversing that. Enjoy those hills! Besides, you may think more clearly when you do sit down.)

  2. Mar 2017
    1. What you claim is false equivalence, without any argument or evidence to back it up.

      Yes. Reviewing discussions. I see two Planet Rossi views :

      • Rossi is a genius, savior of the world, and IH is a bunch of evil, blood-sucking venture capitalists -- said with lots of spit.
      • Rossi is a brilliant inventor but quirky, and lied, all for a good cause, of course, making the test happen. IH is lying too, so it's a draw on the moral front.

      Then there are the comments about Dewey Weaver. On ECW and sometimes on LF, the opinion is expressed that nothing Dewey says can be relied on, because it's been proven that he lied. Yet this "proof" is never actually cited, the most I have seen is one possible error, of no major consequence. And many times I have checked out what Dewey Says, and it checked out. Many aspects of the lawsuit were first revealed by Dewey. Some aspects have yet to be confirmed.

    2. Even rb0 is protected by the rule against doxxing. Best not to (openly) speculate.

      One of the problems with LF is that rules are not clear, and for free and complete discussion, identities can matter. It's actually a difficult issue.

      There used to be an accessible TOS. I couldn't find it, looking now. At one point, a mod asked the community for input on a civility policy, and then a policy was written that largely ignored the input. And that was then almost totally unenforced. Except when a mod wanted to ban someone, then the mod could look for an excuse, even though nearly everyone was violating the policy. Even though some moderators were violating the policy.

    3. basically unconditional diagnostic like "you are idiot" may be considered as insult by most people. If they are argumented, those diagnostics may be factual, or at least subject of a debate. Anyway best is to avoid unconditional statements on people, even on class of people (not easy).

      Sure, it's easy, Alain. Just shut yo mouth.

      In practice, "idiot" is never "factual." It is simply common speech, and may or may not be unacceptable uncivil in context. I was first banned on LF because a troll wrote about my mention of a conference many years ago that I organized, and asked, "Why do I believe that drugs were involved?" That was grossly uncivil. I responded with the reason: "Because you are an idiot." "Asshole" might have been more accurate, or "Troll" would actually get closer to neutral analysis. So I was banned. The troll was not. This was taking posts out of context, ignoring context, it is a classic moderator error.

      My later "permanent" ban had no excuse.

    4. all connections are explicitly admitted (Jed and Dewey and Abd).

      Jed has acknowledged visiting IH in North Carolina. Dewey, of course, is openly an investor and consultant for Industrial Heat. And I have actually talked with Dewey, once in person at ICCF-18, and on the phone. I have not been paid, and have not asked to be paid. My expenses have been covered, by others not connected with IH or APCO, though known in the field.

      Some of the possible Rossi socks seem different to me, though repeating the same Planet Rossi arguments, wildly disconnected from fact. And then there is the possibility that a sock is then turned over to someone else by giving them the password. That happens. Whether it has happened here, I don't know, but it could explain some of what has been seen. Rossi definitely uses socks on JONP to ask questions that he wants to answer, or to make statements he wants to attribute to someone else. Someone has mentioned that this has been admitted. I have not noticed this, a reference to the document would be useful. Rossi was asked, in an interrogatory with obligatory answer under penalty of perjury, to disclose all alternate internet accounts, but whether or not the answers have been made public, I don't know.

    5. Sifferkoll was an annoying poster.

      He was more than annoying. He was a caustic, racist conspiracy theorist, attempted doxxer without relevance, and drove away Thomas Clarke. Others have picked up and repeated his wild claims, as if fact.

    6. Sorry about the doxxing. Actually Eric Walker is also Rossi.

      In the training, to move beyond being an asshole one must admit being an asshole.

      The Playground was intended for "off-topic posts." That was quickly translated to "anything goes." Except spam, of course, everyone admits that spam should be nuked. Even spammers don't argue with that.

      So the Forum ends up hosting libel. Way to go, guys. As to doxxing, that originally referred to providing real-life information for accounts intended to be anonymous, and anonymous accounts were not called "socks" unless there was more than one participating in some discussion (i.e, pretending independent support that was only "puppet theater.") . Detecting and banning true socks involved a level of invasion of privacy, but this was considered necessary. That is, by pretending to be more than one person, one abandoned the right of privacy. Mary Yugo did this long ago, and Rossi has done it frequently. Real names were generally still protected (on WMF wikis), unless one of the multiple accounts was real-name.

      I allow doxxing on coldfusioncommunity, for now, until there is a community process to review administrative actions and decisions. The obvious may be mentioned. However, user IP information, visible to me as admin, will not be revealed except in one case: clearly abusive posting (such as impersonation, which has happened), not mere expression of unpopular opinion, will not be protected, because sharing that information will assist other admins on other sites to identify trolls. which may shift admin response. As well, a trolling target deserves to know more about who is attacking. Trolls will not be automatically banned, but encouraged to participate in genuine conversation; continued trolling behavior will be sanctioned, after clear and violated warning.

      Because nobody is being actually banned, it is not necessary to dig deeper than IP into user agent string, which is visible to those with root server access, and which tends to identify the specific computer being used.

      People should be aware, though, that anyone can get a subpoena for server records, with that identifying information. To avoid this could require using an open proxy, which then, on some sites, will be banned.Most abusive socks don't bother; however, the situation for socks gets tougher when real-life identities are revealed, i.e., doxxing may be needed to protect the community.

      Behind the scenes, I was informed that the reason my ban became permanent was that I revealed the identify of a user. However, that identity was blatantly revealed by LF history, was obvious, and was obvious in that way because of the user's behavior, the hiding of identity was thoroughly clumsy, and remains so. The user himself doesn't seem to be bothered, and has never requested that I remove such information (which would be considered, and which request should be private, for obvious reasons.) Remember, I was a WMF administrator, very active, both as an admin and in reviewing admin behavior. I dealt with socks and doxxing, extensively.

    7. Are you calling me an idiot,

      He didn't, he posited a conditional claim. However, I'm sure it could be arranged.

    8. Pro-Rossis are Rossi's sockpuppets

      There are some Rossi socks, it's quite apparent, and someone who points it out is not ipso facto anti-Rossi. Some who strongly dislike Rossi, though, may suspect a Rossi sock that isn't.This is not common or widespread.

      Those who are regularly called anti-Rossi on this forum are not working for IH, beyond Dewey Weaver, who is openly an investor in and contractor for IH. Even less for APCO. While, in theory, anything is possible, as to a practical reality, it is quite implausible that IH and ACP and "Big Energy" would be spending money on this quite minor site. If were Wikipedia,maybe this could be looked at. Large corporations have been known to spend money for influence there..

      This kind of "both sides are doing it" is hysterical nonsense. They are not equal, just as Jed Rothwell, when opinionated, is not equal to some random user. Real people with real reputations and long-term involvment are not equal to anonymous trolls or generators of drive-by snark.

    1. Doc. 228 and its exhibits now on the docket.

      You can follow Eric's link, which goes to a page very difficult to read, but you can also look at the docket page on coldfusioncommunity.net, -- or I could give the URL for the file itself, but it's very easy on that docket page to see what everything is and then load whatever page one wants.

    2. Knowing the full circumstances the events and behavior are logical.

      but who knows the full ciircumstances? Sifferkoll wasn't there. On whom is he relying? That email was blatant, and appears to be part of an attempt to defraud IH by pretending that the test was a deliberate failure, don't worry about it was Rossi's message, also. But he was admitting a fraud against Hydro Fusion, creating a fake failure so that they would give up on their agreement with him, because it seems he imagined that IH wouldn't want him dealing with Hydro Fusion. But they actually didn't care, it was not their territory, their license was not exclusive and Hydro Fusion was an existing licensee. There was no real issue. Most likely: the test actually failed and Rossi was just trying to explain that away.

      So how would this be resolved. Of course there is more than what the email said. But what? I've never seen anything from Sifferkoll on this point, and he is here, quite clearly, avoiding it. If he has confidential information, that he cannot reveal, he could state that. But remember, he was attacking Dewey Weaver.

      Sifferkoll may be telling the truth. "From his perspective," it does not reflect on Rossi credibility. Then again, his perspective is coming from a narrow, dark place.

    3. how does this email reflect on Rossi's credibility?

      sigmoidal doesn't fall over and play dead.

    4. Old news. This has been covered long ago and sorted out in person. Don't worry about it.

      Sorted out in person by whom? That Rossi email was written to IH, and I'm quite sure that IH noticed the implications. In the mail, Rossi acknowledges faking a (negative) test. But the story as told by Mats Lewan was very different. Rossi argued with the Hydro Fusion experts. Something was fake somewhere, but where?

      Sifferkoll's answer is like the Wizard of Oz saying "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain."

    5. Magnus was not to be one of those exceptions and I feel badly for him.

      I think Dewey is sincere here. Magnus Holm is the major shareholder in Hdyro Fusion, Ltd. Company filings. The last news on the Hydro Fusion web site is more than a year old, glowing, happy over the Woodford investment, and the Huffington post: "They also reported that Rossi’s customer has “significantly lower utility bills” since using the industrial E-Cat. What we now know was that the "customer" was Rossi, not even bothering to wear a different hat. Axel Magnus Holm appears to have invested about GBP 750,000 in Hydro Fusion, which has assets far less than that, including a large value for "intangible assets." Like possibly a license. Rossi v. Darden was not good news for Hydro Fusion, far from it. Even if the technology had been real. It appears that Dewey knows something about what is happening with Holm. Fact? Rumor? It's not important enough to ask Dewey.

    6. Please be more specific.

      Loss of scientifc reputation. There is already a sign of a problem in the Rossi - Gullerstrom paper, it does not give his institutional affiliation. He may have asked for permission and it was refused. The problem is not actually with "Uppsala" as such, but with the Swedish scientists -- with Levi and Foschi -- who allowed their reputations to be abused by Rossi. The Lugano test paper was misleading, in addition to being very incorrect as to how temperature was measured, and lacking calibration that would have shown the problem.

    7. Uppsala, Gullström are some hints on what is going on, but you already know that ...

      Sifferkoll avoids the question about Hydro Fusion. Uppsala and Gullstrom, a PhD candidate there, are in trouble, long-term. At this point there is no clue that Sifferkoll has been reading the court documents, though by reading them with blinkers on, one might be able to cling to some shred of hope.

    8. this is evidence of you making things up as you go

      This is classic Sifferkoll. He assumes that whatever Dewey says is fantasty. Maybe. However, not too likely. It might be exaggerated, it might be overextended, but there is almost certainly something real that he was talking about. Sifferkoll is myopic.

    9. I'll help out. Unfortunately, the CEO had to sell his car and has had some problems on the home front as a result of the financial difficulties associated with signing up with Rossi. The trail of destruction continues.

      Dewey does give some hints. Ascribing causation is dicey here, unless he's seen court documents.

    1. Planet Rossi is a permanent monicker well beyond this forum despite Alan's best wishes and desires. I believe this latest epitode (combo episode and epitath) of his also highlights his lack of judgement, temperament and inability to function as a capable moderator for L.F.

      It will be no surprise that Alan bans Dewey. (I have not actually rechecked the ban notice that I think was posted, and if Eric did it, that would be a very different matter. That is how to properly handle an insult of a moderator. Let another moderator handle it. But these people have no concept of recusal.

    2. Dewey - Stoppit! Alan.

      For Alan Smith, the obvious obvious ("Planet Rossi") is prohibited. Yet various insults against Dewey Weavere, Jed Rothwell, and others, are routinely tolerated. "Planet Rossi" simply means those who follow Rossi, who think like him or in support of him. It is not insulting in itself. But Smith is not sophisticated. He doesn't like it and some users don't like it (such as Peter Gluck) so ... he will ban Dewey.

    3. go back in your "disturbed place" is a ansty insult.

      Or the truth. Peter has been, for almost a year, condemning those who simply told the truth. He did this with Gamberale, because Gamberale exposed the error -- or fraud -- in Defkalion work, and Peter was a strong supporter of Defkalion. Peter has been calling honest reporting of experience and opinion "nasty."

      That's a "disturbed place."

    4. the Judge's treatment of the filing.

      The judge treated it as a discovery dispute. Maybe. Maybe she was having a bad day.

    5. if there has be destruction of emails, removal of pipes, (I am assuming even the pressure sensor outside the container, etc.) , doesn't that mean that according to the legal concept of 'adverse interpretation' Rossi will not be able to use any of the claimed ERV report regardless of its technical competence (or lack thereof).

      It's possible. Back when Rossi v. Darden was young, an attorney sent me an email with one word: "spoliation." This was over Penon removing the instrumentation. The later removals by Rossi were as bad or worse. Fabiani may have completely screwed himself by deleting those files.

      It's the cover-up, stupid.

    6. I am literally shivering Dewey.

      What he needs to comfort him while he's banned: A troll comforter.

    7. There are plenty of answers to your questions in the docket

      Peter doesn't read the documents in the docket. It's far too much for him; he does not understand most of it.

    8. you never get tired of telling you are winning the case flawlessly
      1. Dewey is not fighting the case. He is mostly an observer, but was deposed.
      2. Hence "he" is not winning, but it's obvious that IH is, though "perfectly" would be a strange claim. Win some, lose some. Overall, IH appears to me likely to win completely as to the Rossi claims, and has a running chance of winning some or even all of the counterclaims. The first may happen with Summary Judgment, but I'm still studying the document. The second is less likely to win that way, may require a trial.
    9. The images show no discernible heat differences between the neighboring facilities but we have not been able to get the necessary data certifications that would allow this to be admitted into court evidence.

      This could be introduced as a story of what IH did once fraud was suspected. A witness for IH would testify that he or she reviewed IR images, and found nothing standing out. It's too late to assert an IR thermography expert, probably, but IR evidence has been used, if I'm correct, for cultivation of marijuana violations. This could not be introduced at all if it was not disclosed in discovery. However, it would be introduced as sworn testimony, possibly supported with exhibits.

      Tactical considerations....

    10. why not ban this ?

      Alan did ban Dewey. But Eric (probably) banned Wyttenbach.

    11. They last straw seems to be, that AR didn't pay all taxes. But the court already more or elss denied relevance for the jurisdiction.

      sic. Rossi tried to get the tax issue struck or dismissed. He failed. It's still there. We will see what happens.

    12. No they cannot. That is an Admin function. BTW. I know you would love to be banned, but that is probably not a good idea right now. But call me a troll again and you will be.

      On LF, apparently, "Moderator" doesn't see IP addresses. "Administrator" does. However, then, we have a moderator saying that if he is called a troll, the user will be banned, and we know that he means that he will do the banning. On Wikipedia, if an administrator (who cannot see IP information for registered accounts) would likely lose his admin privileges if he made that threat. A Wikipedia administrator threatened me with enforcement if I violated the ban that he had declared. I was fascinated, so I violated it (with a truly harmless edit in every other way). He blocked me.

      He lost his tools over this. He had been very popular, but supporters scattered when he did that.

      That, in itself, is not how I ended up banned on Wikipedia. Rather, that admin had friends, and they went for revenge, long-term, and Wikipedia is largely defenseless against significant factions ... and this faction had maybe two dozen active members, including several administrators.

    1. What are your thoughts now,

      Again, inviting Sifferkoll to continue with what might well be off-topic. I sympathize with Eric, but ... what does it take to guide a community? The whip? How about leadership that inspires them to do what will benefit all?

      As long as the goal is "getting them" to "behave," it will fail.

    2. But, you certainly got my attention Deawey, so please go ahead ...

      Violating the request, thus inviting Weaver to continue.

      Ah, but all's well that ends well.

    3. In reality, I do not think this will happen.

      It is more or less the communist ideal, which broke down when they disrespected private property, which then violates basic instincts. Natural consequences: if you don't do something useful for others, society will not do something useful for you. However, this idea that we "have to work" is common and nonsense. We work if we choose to, unless someone is holding a gun to our head. And we have this amazing ability to enjoy work, so it's play. We choose to enjoy it.

    4. No doubt... "times are a changing!"

      They are, but isn't this off topic?

    5. If people wish to discuss this further, please take the discussion to the playground.

      Moderators need take special care to avoid an appearance of bias. On Wikiversity, as an administrator, I wrote rules for handling emergencies, where the only moderator available and following a situation has a potential conflict of interest. That proposal, while it would have had overall support if taken fully to the community, was crushed by ... a high-level administrator who often acted in conflict of personal interest. Later events showed that the administrative corps did not want any restrictions on its own actions.Classic. In other fora, in fact, this was called the Lomax effect, because I'd documented and explained it. It is a variation on the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The Iron Law is so-called because it will always happen, but there are ways to harness it.

    6. What I don't like is for the thread to be so jammed up with insults that I cannot even consider the carefully worded, polite posts.

      At one point on LENR Forum, moderators would move irrelevant posts to another thread, or even delete them. The latter is not a great idea, unless the text is copied and made available to the author. But what happened is that moderators stopped doing this. Too much work, too many trolls and even regular participants who go way off-topic. There has been no coherent attention to this.

      Basic moderation rule: do not clutter up discussions with moderator chat. Set aside another place for complaints and suggestions. Set up appeal procedures. Using regular forum discussions to warn users is poor practice. Rather, private message first. Then, unless the user requests privacy, private notice plus a public notice, in a place for that. Log bans, giving cause and appeal procedure. Set up an administrative mailing list to handle such issues. Ideally, that list is publically visible, if not publically writeable. (Public posts woujld be moderated, with clear rujles).

    7. Maybe this forum is not a good place for people who cannot formulate a real argument. That we have allowed shitposting is just a measure of our inability to extract better behavior out of the median forum member.

      How about the median moderator? If anyone wants to discuss how LF is being run, it can be done on coldfusioncommunity.net, and I have just opened up this annotation possibility. Anyone can do this, and it does not disrupt the flow of ordinary conversation on LF. On Wikiversity, I created refuges for the banned. A few used them, and that is still going on. I stopped working on that when I realized that the wiki structure remained unreliable, and what seemed safe was not necessarily so.

      Structure and frfeedom are not in intrinsic conflict.We can have it all.

    8. while you might love to see the server logs it ain't gonna happen unless you chainsaw your way in.

      Problem is, he could, if relevance to Rossi v. Darden could be shown. Dewey could also make it relevant to a lawsuit by filing one, he's been libeled enough, and that would lead to a classic claim. "Planet Rossi" is a way of describing a quite obvious faction. It is not an insult in itself, unless being associated wtih Rossi is an insult, and those who are called "Planet Rossi" generally don't think so. Smith's suggestion is an attempt at thought control.

    9. Is Dewey also banned?

      Dewey was banned, but I'm not sure exactly when. LF doesn't provide logs and a record is not compiled.

    10. Then maybe this specific forum is not a good place for u ?

      Trolling. And he was banned.

    1. Everybody cold be more satisfied if, after 10 days of zero excess heat IH had smartly and honestly told arrivederci to their former ally.

      We now have far more information, from the depositions, as to the sequence of events in the IH/Rossi relationship. At this point it appears that Rossi knew, in advance, that the GPT could not be performed without explicit approval, and Ampenergo was refusing to sign. So Rossi created a faux customer and a faux GPT, lying about it all then and continuing to mislead and misrepresent in his Complaint. Why didn't they tell the poor Andrea that it wasn't a GPT? Because they did tell him, just not in writing and not in the first parts of this faux test. Now Rossi is suddenly talking about slaving away in extremely hot, uncomfortable conditions, something that managed to escape notice before. Peter's confidence in Rossi has been betrayed, but Peter is blaming everyone else.

    2. What is the point of being an IH-troll if there is nothing to troll about?

      A huge pile of documents revealing actual fact or admissible testimony was dropped on the Court last week. There is a lot to read. I'm studying the documents, creating study tools. That takes time, but in the process, I keep finding more and more amazing facts. It's tempting to push each one. Mostly, I'm not. As people discover just how deeply and clearly Rossi lied, they write about it. Some might froth a little at the mouth....But Rossi created all this with his massive and extensive deceptions.

    3. Back in 1990, after the F and P announcement, it seemed clear to me that a lot of the criticism they received came from other scientist that were envious of their discovery. Could some of this be going on here, Jed?

      Rionrlty is not a Rossi sock, but has swallowed the Rossi Line, witih hook and sinker. He might as well be a troll, and has been banned. Rothwell is an expert on the Pons and Fleischmann history. He knows and I know what happened then, and it doesn't resemble what is going on with Rossi at all.

    4. From the documents is evident that IH had obtained high COP in her own experiments, and that Darden had rose about 250M$ from investors. They now don't want to pay simply creating an artifact opinion via this forum, There was even a bribery attempt by them.

      This is what we'd expect from Rossi, these are claims he makes in court, presented here as fact. The Magistrate did not buy the "bribery" idea. The evidence doesn't support it. Uzi Shaya, if the sworn declaration is the truth, was a private investigator looking for information, not exactly an agent of Darden, but hired by Zalli.

      Opinion on LENR Forum is going to have no effect on the lawsuit, and Rossi Says is not accepted there. Rossi has claimed that Darden raised large sums, but has been unable to document it, beyond the $20 million originally invested by Darden and friends, and then the $50 million invested by Woodofrd in a place where Rossi can't touch it, which must burn him no end.

      The lawsuit is exposing many, many lies told by Rossi over the years. It's not in question any more. Rossi lied, the most obvious one was the fake customer, supposedly independent, which he actually totally controlled.

    5. he he he ..... lost your job ? Ask IH they always look for new trolls .

      Funny, ele has not been banned. Maybe they don't want to ban an actual Rossi sock.

    6. My opinion stands: Darden et al. raised $250 million dollars on fraudulent grounds.

      Darden raised $20 million from a close group of friends. That is all that was involved with Rossi, there is no sign that any significant money from Woodford went to Rossi activities. joshg is inventing $250 million, that is even more than Rossi -- without evidence -- claims. So the reality of the Rossi investment (about $20 million) is increased by joshg to more than ten times that. APCO is not involved in LENR Forum discussions, there is zero evidence of that.

    7. fact that many of the other investments/investors and advisers incl their (Apco)bots (Dewey, Jed, etc.) are represented here and talking their book.

      AnotherTroll was banned. Obvious why. Rossi is speaking out, all right. As a result we can see exactly what he did, what was hidden has been revealed.

    8. I remember reading that the investment was Darden's own money but I have never seen any evidence for that. Cherokee, parent of IH, is an investment fund. And certainly, Woo-Woodford used investor money to support IH and their share-holders complained aplenty. The complaints in their forums went mostly unanswered and when I asked how they vetted the claims, they refused to say. Idiots!

      This is standard Mary Yugo. "She" pays no attention to the voluminous evidence being developed, but has strong opinions about it. Woodford money did not go to or support Rossi.

      If IH had done what Mary would recommend, they would have accomplished nothing. Rossi would still be confusing many. As a result of IH's persistence, Planet Rossi has shrunk and almost disappeared. It's not over yet, as this is written, but the end is reasonably obvious.

    1. careless people with other people's money decide to invest in something they do not understand

      IH (and Woodford) did extensive research before investing. Mary Yugo is a retured has-been, who has no understanding of what Industrial Heat actually did. Darden and Mazzarino, and a few others, first of all, invested their own money, not Fund money. Major Fund money only came in with Woodford, and that money did not go to Rossi, nor, in fact, to Industrial Heat, but to IH Holdings International, which Woodford has good access to, it being formed locally for them in the U.K.

      They knew about Rossi's past, that is obvious from the Agreement. Mary Yugo has not bothered to become actually informed, but keeps repeating the same tired narrative

      This is concern trolling. The poor investors lost money. But they actually gained something, and Mary Yugo has long been unable to understand what is outside the box "she" lives in. Financially, they are doing fine. The Magistrate just made a joke about it.

    2. If you think I work for IH, sorry. I post under my real first name, I have done so here, ECW, the old EcatNew.com and even on rare occasion, Mr. Gluck's blog. I have done so for 6 years, since 2011.

      As I recall, I have confirmed Bob's claim here. Now, will Wyttenbach apologize or provide a source for the claim? Shall I hold my breath in anticipation?

    3. The days were to start from the time the GPT was agreed to and signed by both parties. That did not happen so there was never any 50 days into the test.

      It appears that Ampenergo deliberately did not sign the Second Amendment allowing the GPT to be postponed, and Rossi knew this. Rossi, then, knew that the GPT was impossible unless IH created a side-agreement (they certainly could have done that). But Rossi wanted to force the issue, to create another of his "masterpieces."

    4. Dewey, BTW, my check is late.

      Yeah, mine too. Wait! I forgot to send the invoice. Never mind.

    5. if it had produced 10% excess with high confidence, they would have gladly paid.

      Well, with high confidence, meaning high reliability and control, maybe. There are details to consider. $89 million is a lot for something not ready for commercialization, but under some conditions, yes, definitely. COP 1.1 should be possible to convert to self-sustain, i.e., infinite COP, with appropriate engineering. Cost would be a factor, though.

    6. So you seem upset IH is gullible, and incompetent, but that is why Rossi chose them.

      And when they hired a sophisticated engineer, being not quite so gullible and incompetent and maybe even the reverse, Rossi decided the engineer was a spy, and actually says that in his formal Answer to the countercomplaint. No Snakes or Spies allowed where Rossi is At Work.

      After all, the spy might tell IH what is actually happening.

    1. monty banned for two weeks.

      He was practically begging for it. Anonymous trolls have nothing to lose.

      The biggest problem with bans as they exist on LF is that the user cannot edit or remove their own content. All log-in is disabled. The user cannot read their private Messages. hence there should be a preliminary step: "We are restricting your use of the Forum for for a period. However, as a courtesy, we are leaving your account unbanned. Do not use this account for anything other than to access content and to correct your own harmless errors or to delete your content. If this is violated, your account will be banned."

      While a user might violate that -- true trolls are very likely to viiolate it -- then they are responsible for having been banned, having violated a clear warning. If they want to complain, they have places they can do it, many of them.

    2. I do not think this forum is too rigid at all!

      Rigid compared to what? I've been a moderator at newvortex for many years and nobody has been banned (In spite of Mary Yugo's claims). Nobody has been banned from coldfusioncommunity.net.

      To be sure, it could become necessary, but for communities that depend on discussion, bans should reflect community consent. It's true that an owner has rights, but if the intention of the owner is to serve the community, the owner will consult the community and will be responsive.

      I am not banned on E-Cat World, but am on moderation, even though rejections have been very, very rare. Moderation is a relatively harmless device. If I were to flood ECW with posts the owner dislikes, I'd expect to be banned, but Bob's story reflects an owner who may have been having a bad day...

    3. I guess it's time that the moderator's uncover their relationship's.

      LENR forum process is far from transparent. The process for choosing moderators and administrators is hidden. There are factions in the staff. Finding two moderators to agree on a ban would probably not be difficult. But does the staff represent the community of readers (no), or the community of those who contribute content (no). To whom are moderators and administrators responsible?

      Legally, the owner, but what is the owner's position on all this? He isn't saying. He is not a major contributor, nor does he openly resolve disputes.

    1. There will be no bullying here if I can help it.

      Alan is the Bully-in-Chief. I've seen nobody else actually bully anyone. Eric is warning, part of his job as moderator.

    2. you seem awfully thin-skinned today. Maybe its a good idea to take a break? Please consider that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      This is called "concern trolling." It's highly provocative. This is indeed, the "Playground." It's a bad idea, when it's moderated by the same people, and hosted by the same owner, found on the same site, with the same Unread Posts display and the same user set.

    3. People who do nothing more than shitposting add no value and will not last long here.

      Some have lasted a long time. More difficult are those who both contribute value and troll for outraged response. One of them is a moderator. Not once, ever, have other moderators restrained him. Behind the scenes, staff is badly divided, apparently. And nobody talks about it ... except I have been, on coldfusioncommunity.net and now with hypothes.is annotation, and others may join. These annotations are only seen by those who choose to see them.

    4. But just a note: you are very much on thin ice.

      Siffferkoll was a highly offensive troll, for a long time, and was not sanctioned. He created many of the false memes that keep circulating on Planet Rossi, with "research" that sees a stick and calls it a snake.

    5. As I said, it's a judgment call. If you do not contribute clear value in the form of good arguments (pro or con), and you have a demonstrated history of attacking forum members, you are on thin ic

      Eric is trying to bring some order. It's difficult in the absence of clear rules. Eric is pointing out an obvious consideration: someone who violates civility and who does not "forward the conversation," is useless to the forum community. Someone who violates civility and is activly contributing might get a pass. My opinion is that the "pass" would not mean that incivility is tolerated, but that the person is worth warning, with clear consequences that can be anticipated and with this being made reliable. When it is erratic, unreliable, and unevenly enforced, we have a certified mess.

    6. The court decides what is posted and not posted, not Rossi or IH.

      Bob is incorrect. The parties may present parts of documents, that they consider relevant. The depositions, in particular, are enormous; a few of them are presented intact, the whole deposition, but mostly excerpts are presented. This can be cherry-picking, but in the process that ensues, the other side can supply the context if it matters. Redactions are a different matter. The ones I see are blacked out. That is not necessarily a court seal. If a document is sealed, it will not be readable for us, but only to those with court authorization. Bottom line, the court is only making decisions on the visibility of documents when requested. The normal process is that the parties decide what to include as exhibits.

    1. This is obvious.

      It is obvious that anotherTroll is a sock puppet of another troll.

    2. A simple explanation for non-payment could be that Darden did not have the money at hand by the end of the test

      There is apparently sworn testimony that Woodford committed an additional $150 million if needed. That "simple explanation" is simple-minded (as if investors like Darden have bundles of cash sitting around -- or are paralyzed. No, they raise money when it is needed. If the problem were cash on hand, IH could surely have negotiated for partial payment, and, in fact, there was a provision for that in the agreement, as I recall

      That the Doral test was almost certainly not the GPT was obvious from the Complaint. Crucial evidence was missing, and has not appeared, only vague references to a test, not the explicit signed agreement required by the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment was not signed by all parties, particularly not by Ampenergo, and evidence has appeared that this was deliberate. Ampenergo, Rossi's friends, did not want that Amendment, which is why Rossi could not have remedied the defect post-facto, but filed it as defective. The problem was obvious from the filing, I saw it and wrote about it. However, maybe IH had actually consented somewhere, which is why this was not resolved with the IH Motion to Dismiss. Now we know. There was no consent to a GPT, this is all Rossi Says.

    3. This notion that opinions are somehow magically equal or that any notion you dream up is somehow valid because it is your opinion is new-age nonsense

      Hey, I'm the New Age, my first teacher actually wrote a book, "This is the New Age, In Person," and Jed Rothwell is sometimes a beknighted curmudgeon. However, he is also an expert on all things LENR, world-class, even though he is "only" a writer and LENR librarian. Librarians learn a lot.

      The real New Age isn't each and every stupid idea. It's humanity waking up.

    1. Now where you clearly state that you think/work for IH,

      Wyttenbach is consistently off-point. If it is the case that Bob actually is associated with IH, it would increase interest in his comments. From what I know about Bob, though, Wytttenbach is spreading FUD.

      Classic for trolls: "Your comment is not worth replying to," thus demonstrating utter hypocrisy, since the troll has commented.

      (Wyttenbach is actually a math PhD, which goes to show just how important degrees are.)

    2. Dewey sure as heck insinuated it over and over, and may have even made the claim. And he is paid directly by IH.

      Rionrlty may be sincere, but he is a consistent Planet Rossi troll. No evidence provided. Dewey Weaver is a consultant for IH, but also an investor, and we don't know if he is paid more than expenses, and, further, he is not paid to comment on blogs, there is no evidence for that, it is pure "insinuation." The idea that some are being paid to attack Rossi is a standard Planet Rossi trope, very commonlly asserted. It's claimed that I've been paid, and I certainly know that I have not. It's claimed that Jed Rothwell is paid, and he is a long-time philanthropist for LENR and his comments, while opinionated, are his opinions, he is nobody's puppet. Etc.

      Classic here: the actual alleged comments are not linked. Rather an obviously hostile summary is presented. That is what trolls do.

      There has been much speculation about the pipe size, for multiple reasons. Most of it has been prefaced wtih "if."

    3. the pipe was DN40 in depositions under oath

      What pipe? It matters!

      The Murray deposition is a very detailed document, though much of it is wrangling by the Rossi attorney, trying to catch Murrray in some error. A common tactic: ask Murray if it is possible that he could be wrong about this or that. Murray doesn't take the bait. Of course it is possible. Anyone can make a mistake, and someone who believes they could not possibly be mistaken is not a genuine expert. Murray just says, "Yes." But sticks to his testimony.

      The deposition is here. - all 423 pages. It's PDF text, so it is searchable. There are five hits for "DN40."

      1. Steam side valve 2,3. Steam side DN40 pipes feeding a larger pipe 4.5. ditto, steam side, inside reactor.

      For DN80, there are two hits. 1 Flanges on flow meter.

      1. The main steam pipe "suspected" to be DN80,

      The DN40 reference mentioned by Wyttenbach probably comes from the infamous Exhibit 5, where it appears that Murray was repeating what Penon had told him, or simply made a mistake. However, the DN80 issue with the flow meter flange creates increased possibility for the meter to not be full of water. Reading the Murray deposition I find comments with enormous implications for the lawsuit. No wonder Rossi is trying to get it tossed out! However, Murray may have been entered as an "expert" -- and comes across as one -- but he was also the IH engineer that Rossi refused entrance to, the first sign of a major rift in the IH/Rossi relationship, in July, 2015. If the court decides not to allow Murray as "expert," his testimony would still be admissible as the engineer for IH. And IH would likely obtain another expert, or simply rely on Smith. I find Murray very, very believable. His caution and readiness to admit possible error increase his apparent probity.

    4. I've read the document and do not find any evidence that Darden 'deliberately mislead' Rossi. Please show how you know Darden's motivation.

      Belief in Planet Rossi is associated with a strong ability to read minds. That is how they know that Rossi is real. They have mental capacities far exceeding the norm.

    5. Rossi's did not follow the judge's order on page limits even after they asked for added length and it was denied.

      It's a bit more complex than that. On the face, yes, Rossi viiolated the limit. IH did not. But IH filed separate documents, The MSJ, at 30 pages meeting the limt, and then the Support, 15 pages of supporting paragraphs.also at the limit. Rossi's MSJ includes pages of alleged facts with numbered paragraphs. So this is actually a combined document, and the sections are within the limits. It's a formal error, not a substantial one, but the judge may decide that she doesn't like the form. This is not the worst problem with the Rossi MSJ. The misumbering of Exhibits is glaring. And the constant relilance on the exclusion of IPH claims based on the unconfirmed complaint about a fatal 30(b)(6) defect, that will presumably will have been remedied shortly, makes mincemeat of the MSJ.

    6. (from 215-03, PDF page 228)
    7. if Rossi's one is upheld I'd have to eat all my words.

      Ah, THH, your words can be delicious.

      Unfortunately, Rossi's MSJ, as it stands, doesn't have a snowball's chance in a megawatt-heated warehouse, Rossi's private hell. I'm prepping a study of the IH MSJ, and it's a lot stronger. However, there are parts I dislike, and I won't refrain from pointing those out.

    8. Abd argues that they had to resolve the matter of Rossi's claims one way or the other, since they were distracting LENR investment, and this bad and expensive contract, giving too much power to an ERV in a $89M up-front payment test, was the only way to do it. Maybe, or maybe they gambled on the possibility that Rossi really had it. Many people have been convinced by him...

      We have seen enough to know that IH realized and considered both outcomes as possible. At their level of operating, investors do not "gamble." Rather, they estimate probabilities, trusting their ability to do that. If something is possible but not probable, most of the time it will fail. They know that, but they trust their own intuition. That's their bread and butter, their intuition.

      That intuition was. I'm sure Dewey would agree, that this wouldl generate value, one way or another. Yes, at times they had high hopes, because at times there was a successful creating of appearance, but they did not fall down and give Rossi everything, they kept trying and testing and checking results.

    9. look at the exhibits that Rossi's lawyers cite in their motion for summary judgement

      ROTFL. I stopped studying that Motion because it is so badly defective that it will likely be moot quickly, replaced with a new version based on a number of causes -- if the Judge lets them. The evidence is all based on a translation of "test" to "guaranteed performance test." What joshg is ignoring is the evidence that Rossi knew that Ampernergo was refusing to sign the Second Amendment deliberately. IH was treating it as a kind of test, but would never have agreed to it as a GPT, to unconditionally trigger an $89 million payment, not under the Doral conditions, and that's obvious. This is the simple fact: without successful replication of the technology, able to pass truly independent testing, IH would not be able to raise the $89 million. With it, easy-peasy. Rossi created his own failure by refusing to simply deal in good faith with IH, and this is totally obvious in the documents, overall.

      This has nothing to do with "angels."

    10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxSTlJLk6g

      The video shows how to avoid damage to a pressure gauge from exposure to steam, which could melt the pressure sensor. If that happened to the Rossi gauge, that would explain 0.0 bar for every reading. That the pressure gauge may have been over rated temperature would, then, be a failure mode in the Penon protocol.

    11. Woodward had and "initial investment" that relied on Rossi but the $50 M was later and based on additional items.

      While this is certainly possible, I haven't seen evidence for it. I hope oldguy will find where he came to this understanding. The actual $50 million was given to IHHI in May, 2015, whereas Woodford reps had visted Doral in February. They might have previously invested in IH itself, but I kind of doubt it.

    1. For them the value of the gold was worth trying that.

      Yes. That's my conclusion. To most of us, $11.5 million is a boatload of money, insane to think of "wasting" it. But it wasn't that much money to them, and ... the goal was well worth it. This had long been observed about LENR research: even if it was a long shot, the potential value was so great that if one could afford to lose the money, it could be a sane investment. What is one chance in a thousand of making a trillion dollars worth? I'm sure Alan could do the math. Anyone smart enough to love a metallurgical microscope is smart enough for that, but something has happened to Alan's metaprocessing. Maybe he will recover.

    2. But IH let him do it. Which seems so incredibly dumb. After all, if you want someone to hang themselves, you don't really need to give them $11.5 M to do it with

      Pure Alan Smith. I've been looking back at what Smith wrote early on, when Dewey Weaver appeared on Mats Lewan's blog. Alan Smith was very much Planet Rossi. I think he identified this as a losing position, but ... he still believes many of the PR tropes. Here, the trope is that the goal of Darden was to get Rossi to hang himself. No. His goal was twofold, and brilliantly simple: first, if Rossi had a real technology, to give him what he needed to demonstrate it, and then to make a ton of money by commercializing it. And if he did not, to find out as much of the truth as possible, instead of just jumping to conclusions because of suspicious behavior. Once IH decided to tolerate the Rossi quirks -- and they clearly made that choice by 2012 -- the rest followed, until it was Rossi that truly ended it by insisting on controlling the Doral site, excluding the IH engineer, and insisting on it being the GPT, even though Rossi knew that Ampenergo was deliberately not signing that amendment allowing postponing the test. Without Ampenergo consent, there was no GPT. If Ampenergo had unreasonably refused, Rossi could have made a separate agreement with IH. Instead, he took the horns by the bull.

    3. they did not tarnish it themselves!

      Well, they made mistakes, both scientific, but more to the point, social. However, I agree with the comment in general, because the mistakes they made were under pressure, and not intended to deceive, beyond some hiding of fact that they believed would be misunderstood. That's a huge story, part of the ultimate History of Cold Fusion. It really was the "scientific fiasco of the century," -- Huizenga's book subtitle. Cold fusion is real and it is not impossible that Pons could get a Nobel Prize, though it is more likely to go to someone who explains it, which has not yet been done, to my knowledge. That Pons abandoned the field does not bode well for that Nobel.

    4. Doc 207-36, PDF page 29.

      You know, folks, you could give direct page-jump links. Try it. It's easy. This one.

    5. What the heck is "durapox" anyway - a derivative of chickenpox or smallpox on Planet Rossi?

      There is a product, epoxy-based, called Durapox. This is just ordinary old-man confusion with the real name of the material, Durapot. What was remarkable was the sock on JONP repeating the error. Clues, anyone?

    6. All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.

      See comment and study on coldfusioncommunity.net. Without evidence, this could be highly misleading. The cited reference does not support the claim.

    7. Darden is either a businessman with "astonishingly poor judgement who is pathologically bad at due diligence" or he had an ulterior motive (and maybe still does). It's one or the other.

      Black and white thinkers abound. Option A: businessman with poor judgment who makes billions with risky investments, and who came out cash way ahead by taking the Rossi Risk. "Poor judgment" means "not what I would do." Obviously! Option B" Ulterior motive." Like what? Making money? He's done that, amply. Burying the technology? How could he possibly do that if Rossi were not a Compleat Idiot? If he had legitimate misgivings and did not share them with Woodford, he'd be risking a very nasty lawsuit from an investor with deep pockets. We have no information confirming any investment with IH from the Chinese.

      Shallow thinking from shallow minds, knee-jerk, but ... common.

    8. Is there a Barry West or Dewey deposition somewhere amongst this document avalanche?

      Zeus46 has been very sarcastic about coldfusioncommunity.net, so it is totally understandable that he would not simply look at the docket page there, which is annotated, and use browser search to find documents.

  3. Jan 2017
    1. U.K. Will Withdraw From Nuclear Research

      No, "might withdraw" would be accurate from the new source quoted, which affects one agreement, which might be replaced by a new one. Total withdrawal is unlikely.

    2. On Jan. 12, New Energy Times reported that ITER had been sold to the public and elected officials on a misrepresentation of fusion results from the U.K. Joint European Torus reactor. Input power to the “record-setting” 1997 fusion experiment was not, as generally reported, 24 million Watts. Instead, it was 700 million Watts.

      This is Krivit citing himself. The articles he wrote do not make the case he claims. 700 MW was an overstatement of total input power to the entire JET facility, not input power to the reactor itself. It is a complex issue reduced to sound bites by Krivit. There is no sign that he reported of anyone actually being misled by the alleged "misrepresentations," which seem to exist mostly in his imagination.

    3. The U.K. government intends to leave Euratom, the European atomic energy community, putting in jeopardy fusion research in the U.K., an article on the Financial Times of London Web site reported Jan. 26.

      The source article does not say "intends to leave." Rather, leaving is authorized, not commanded, by what has happened.

    1. Production of megawatts of power from fusion is not (now) important and is not (now) the goal of ITER.

      It is possible that someone said this. What is "production of power"? If it means system electrical power output greater than system electrical power input (i.e., the plant is self-powered and then provides energy to the grid or some other application), it was never the goal of ITER. This is not what Krivit claims, a change.

      It is common for experts to pronounce popular explanations as "bullshit" or the like. I can look at the relevant web sites and find technical errors. "Bullshit." However, notice: the professors disagree with Krivit. All of them. Krivit barges ahead anyway, because there is a rule on Planet Krivit: Krivit is always right, unless someone lied to him.

    2. Despite their statements that results of fusion experimentswere large enough to provide power to thousands of homes, theydid not explainthat zero usable power had been produced in fusion experiments

      In one place, someone tried to make the figure of a few megawatts understandable. A few megawatts is enough to power thousands of homes, except for a problem. For how long? And, then, there would be conversion inefficiency. However, none of the explanations that Krivit points to have claimed that "usable power" had ever been produced. It was all about what might be eventually done.

      Krivit has created a story of deception without showing that anyone was deceived. Given how many people walk around confused, probably someone did misunderstand. But the explanations Krivit quotes were almost entirely correct and not misleading, unless someone adds Krivit's special meanings in a way very unlikely to have happened in the congressional hearings he reports.

    3. their own special, technical definitio

      The special definition is Krivit's and it matches neither ordinary meanings nor meanings in standard technical usage.

    4. total power that went into the reactor. It reached only 2 percent of the total power that went into the reactor.

      How does power "go into a reactor"? Through his confusion of definitions, he avoids this issue. In ordinary language, power goes into something when energy is stored there. Power goes into a battery. In this case, input power to the reactor is stored in the reactor, as plasma heat. Because the system must be kept cool, or parts will melt or vaporize, this heat leaks (or is deliberately conducted away). Input power heats the reactor, in short. With JET, only a small part of system power "goes into the reactor," i.e., does work on it, heating it. But Krivit imagines that system power is "input to the reactor," by defining the entire facility as the reactor. But then he doesn't count the heating in the facility as output power, when it is. So with JET, if it were 700 MW system input power during a shot (that's probably too high a figure), total system heat release would be 716 MW, a gain of 16 MW. Of course it wasn't 65% of system input! Nobody ever said it was.

    5. The JET reactor did not produce 16 megawatts of excess power.

      He is completely incorrect. It produced 16 MW of excess power. Nuclear power, fusion power, converted to heat, adding to the input power.

    6. they were saying something completely different from what the members of Congress believed they were saying.

      Krivit has not shown what the members believed.

    7. maybe 200-300 MW of electrical power.

      This appears to be incorrect, if there is only 100 MW available to that system. Krivit continues his error of thinking of "consumption" of power. It is all converted to heating power.

    8. JET had never produced a single watt of power in excess of whatit consumed,

      Krivit repeats this. It is completely incorrect, using the ordinary and practical meaning of "power," specifically thermal power. JET produced 16 MW of fusion power for a short time. Whatever power we want to consider from the JET facility, 16 MW was added to it. Instead of not "a single watt," it was 16 million times that. This is so thoroughly incorrect that I suspect some of Krivit's correspondents did not understand the depth of his error.

    9. total reactor input power

      Krivit is using a loose definition of "reactor input power." That energy is not input to the reactor. It sets up and maintains a magnetic field that does not cause fusion, it merely confines it. It does not do work on the plasma. Work is energy and rate of work is power. This is not "input power" to the reactor itself, but to an environmental condition set up. It is only dissipating major power because the method being used is inefficient for such strong magnetic fields, superconducting magnets take this to zero.

    10. total input electrical power

      He is using "input" here differently than JET uses it. However, it was recognized that he was actually asking about facility power, so he got a response.

    11. He guessed that, typically, total input power was about 10 times as much

      By "total input power," Krivit clearly means "total facility power." (He has never attempted to break it all down.) At JET, plasma input power (its effect is to heat the plasma, but it is not applied as heat, it is electrical power, which becomes heat in the plasma) is, during the record run of 16 MW fusion power, 24 MW. What is totaly system power? The 10X figure given by Shaffer may be correct. peak power may be higher, and JET had almost 2000 MW available, for peak power. This can be worked out from public documents. It was never concealed. For the scientific and specific engineering purpose, it was irrelevant, as Krivit was told, over and over.

    12. People in the magnetic fusion field, since the 1970s, have always used only a fraction of the total input power when reporting their progress.

      When there is reporting on, say, LENR experiments, the total system power is ignored. In some "demonstrations," in an attempt to show that there could be no trickery, all input power is considered. That could make sense only in evaluating the overall practical usefulness of a particular device. It is scientifically irrelevant, since this is not input power to the reaction itself. It is particularly irrelevant if a "stable" condition is involved (actually or potentially), such as a magnetic field.

    13. power is consumed

      It may seem like a technical point, but power is not consumed in ordinary process. Power can be "dissipated," i.e., converted to heat, generally. Elementary electronics: it takes energy to create a magnetic field, but this is energy storage. The energy is returned when the field collapses. There may be losses in the process, caused by heating in the conductors. This goes to zero with superconducting magnets. This is why ITER has much lower power requirements than JET, even though it is planned for much higher peak fusion power and longer shots.

      Krivit is, indeed, describing his own confusion, but is attached to it. He was amazed when he found obvious truth, and then attributed his confusion to misleading statements, which he still does not understand.

    14. At first, I didn't believe that fusion researchers customarily ignored a major portion of the total input power when they stated net power values.

      Krivit does not show where "they" stated net power values. The concept of "net power" was his imagination. "Fusion power" does not mean anything like net power. He made this up long ago, apparently.

    15. I was confused.

      He still is,. as he shows.

    16. The input referred to is just the input to the plasma and does not include the power to operate the equipment.

      "Power to operate the equipment" would be included if it adds energy to the plasma. A thorough analysis of a demonstration plant -- which Krivit has not attempted, simply making up numbers from unwarranted assumptions -- would study what operational power was intrinsic to energy production and what was not. If operational power sets up a condition that is maintained, without additional input, it would not be included. Example: magnetic field using superconducting magnets (ITER). Because JET sets up a field with ordinary magnets, there is necessary continuation power, though much less than setup power, probably. However, because this was known to be replaceable in a practical reactor, it was not considered important. It would not scale with the fusion power release. In fact, even "input power" as reported may not scale. It depends on the cooling rate of the plasma, and, as well, as fusion power increases, this input power would not increase, it might decrease.

    17. One of my editorsresponded critically:"I find the graph interesting, but who cares about power? 10 MW for a very, very short period of one second is not much energy. You want energy. It would be interesting to see this graph as 'fusion energy produced,' and then instead of Joules, use kWh foreasy of understanding."

      In my critique of Krivit's primary article here, I calculate the energy released. For the record 10 seconds at 5 MW at JET, that was 6 KWh, as I recall. Fusion energy, thermal power. That was not 10 seconds of electricity, it was heat.

    18. In fact, not one fusion experiment produced even 1watt of real thermal power.

      Liar, liar, pants on fire. Yes, technically, Krivit is probably not lying because he believes -- fanatically - in his own ideas. What is "real thermal power" One watt of real thermal power will heat something at a clearly specified rate. ITER heated the reactor and the insulation (and possibly coolant water, I don't know) with 16 MW of fusion power, for a short time. It was "real thermal power" and it was "fusion power." Krivit's comments are so crazy that his correspondents don't really understand just how off he is, and appear to assume some understanding and cogency. If a fusion reaction takes place, it releases energy. Most of this energy ends up as heat. A Farnsworth Fusor in someone's garage releases "real fusion power," just very little of it, probably too little to measure. Mostly, they are used to make neutrons. (If they made measurable heat, the neutrons would be very dangerous. JET and ITER were designed to capture and safely handle the neutrons (which also carry most of the heat).

    19. All the claims of megawatts of fusion power by the congressional witnesses were extraordinarily misleading.

      Every expert is misleading, according to Steve Krivit. Krivit has set up his own definitions based on concepts coming from practical application, when these experiments were not and are not -- yet -- designed to demonstrate practicality, but "feasibility." JET actually generated 16 MW peak fusion power. That is not scientifically controversial. Krivit then introduces a concept of "net power" which is scientifically confused, and seems to expect experts to have spoken according to his confusion.

    20. "When we speak of ignition," Baird said, "which I understand is when more energy is put out than put in, in layman's terms, what is the longest period of ignition achieved so far in any of our modalities in terms of time?How muchtime?"

      Baird is asking the important question that an intelligent lay person would ask. "How long"? That is not the exact definition of ignition, but Baird, at least, knew the term and knew it related to a possible self-sustaining reaction. Synakowski's answer given here was incomplete. But not wrong. If ITER reaches ignition, it might fail immediately. If it stays short of ignition, it will always require some power input. But not necessarily much. Then there will be what it takes to power what could be called "accessory systems," which create a kind of energy overhead. For JET, this was massive electrical input during a shot to set up and maintain the magnetic field. ITER won't need that. Accessory energy does not increase proportionally with output energy, it would be more or less constant. It is not "input power."

    21. Baird asked Synakowski a question that revealed his limited understanding of the testimony he had just heard.

      Looks to me like Baird knew more than Krivit.

    22. Synakowski'squalifying statement did nothing to inform Congress that the term "fusion power" might have had a special, technicalmeaning.

      Because it didn't.

    23. [JET] soon announced to the world the generation of a few million watts of fusion power, enough to power thousands of homes.

      For ten seconds. Krivit is right that this was hype. That kind of comparison is used properly to give a nontechnical audience a concept of how much power it is.

    24. Davidson provided no indication that his use of the phrase"fusion power" meant anything different fromwhat it appeared to mean, power generated by an experimental nuclear fusion reactor.

      When Krivit makes a mistake, he repeats it over and over. Actually, he's correct. Davidson did mean what Krivit describes. The error is that Krivit thinks he has a "special meaning," when the meaning is ordinary.

      There are other, similar examples of Krivit's semantic blunders. If we manage to transform deuterium into neutrons, per Widom-Larsen theory, which he promotes, and then these neutrons are used to generate helium, he thinks this is "not fusion." But any process that converts deuterium to helium is fusion as to result, which is what matters and what can be measured. His favored intermediate process is highly improbable, but that's not the point here. The point is that Krivit constantly pushes that those who call :LENR "cold fusion" are wrong, because it is Not Fusion.

    25. Baker provided no indication that his use of the phrase"fusion thermal energy" meant anything different fromwhat it appeared to mean, power generated by nuclear fusionin the ITER machine.

      His numbers, in hindsight, could be embarrassing, though we don't know the limits of ITER yet. However, the term "fusion power" as used by almost everyone is unambiguous, it means "thermal energy from fusion.". It means power released by fusion. Turning that energy into electricity is another matter. (Baker's statement shows a common unclarity about power and energy. He meant that ITER would produce fusion thermal energy at a rate of X MW. He did not say for how long. 400 seconds would be an impressive advance, but unless it could be repeated with little additional energy investment, still far from practical application.

    26. Rebut provided no indication that his use of the phrase"fusion power" meant anything different fromwhat it appeared to mean,power generated byan experimental nuclear fusion reactor.

      Krivit might be thinking about electrical power generated. ITER is not designed to generate electrical power. A gigawatt was ambitious, mostly they are saying, more recently, about half of that. ITER, if it has 50 MW plasma power input, and 500 MW of fusion power, would generate at least 550 MW of "high grade heat." For the period of operation that would exceed all system power inputs, some of which might be arranged to generate low grade heat, as a byproduct.

    27. In her oral and written testimony, Davies provided no indication that her use of the phrase"fusion power" meant anything different fromwhat it appeared to mean,power generated by an experimental nuclear fusion reactor.

      And that is what it meant. So of course she didn't indicate anything different. Energy released by fusion. Krivit has a persistent imagination that it should have some other meaning.He's imprecise about it.

    28. 3Twenty-Seven Years Later By May 1992, fusion reactors had not produced any useful fusion power. They had not produced more power, even for a moment, than they had consumed. Energy, which is equal to power multiplied by time, would not and does not become relevant as a measure of success,at least not until an experiment produces excess power.

      "not ... any ... useful fusion power is true, unless we consider a research result useful. They always, however,"produce" as much or more power than then "consume." Energy is average power times the duration over which it is averaged. Mathematically, energy is the integral of the power over whatever duration is chosen. Or power is the rate at which energy is released or used or work is done. All fusion experiments that succeed in creating the fusion reaction produce "excess power." Krivit is massively confused on this.

      JET did improve as Davies predicted.

    29. on the horizon

      on a clear day. Whether Davies statement was misleading or not would depend on the context. ITER's objective is to show the possibility (feasibility) of electricity production, by improving the overall systems efficency, but most of all by extending plasma power for longer periods. 10 seconds (JET, about 5 MW) to ITER (planned 400 seconds, about 500 MW) would be a massive advance. Yes, in over twenty years. That's the down side. How close to practical application? Difficult to say. If that trend continues, maybe twenty years, but that could be optimistic. The ;problem is very difficult.

    30. The goal of fusion power was unambiguous: a practical source of energy for an energy-hungry world.

      That would be the goal, but not what fusion power is. Krivit's theme is that the term "fusion power" shifted, but it did not shift. It still means what it meant in 1966. It means power from fusion, i.e., energy released by fusion at some rate, power being the rate of energy release or usage. (Energy is "work." The rate of work is power.)

    1. If ITER consumes 600 MW peak input power, and it produces 500 MW peak power, then it will produce no net thermal energy “at the level of a commercial power station.” In fact, the power coming out of ITER will not be greater than the input power. Instead, it will consume the equivalent of 1 million 100-Watt light bulbs

      Eating light bulbs, my, my. What does it to with the glass and wire?

      Krivit is using a strange definition of "net thermal energy." If we look at instantaneous power, 6 million 100-watt light bulbs will convert 600 MW of electrical power to 600 MW thermal and light power (which mostly ends up as thermal power) If there is 500 MW fusion power generated, the thermal power resulting will not be 100 MW, but 1100 MW. In these documents, Krivit has made this mistake over and over, in spite of attempts to explain the matter to him, some of which he has reported. However, most of his correspondents don't specifically point out the error, but argue other points.

      I have used high-wattage lamps to heat a room, in addition to brighly lighting it. Krivit does not understand that fusion power adds to the thermal effect of input power. Instead he subtracts input power from output power to produce a bogus "consumption" of power.

      This follows a routine trope: we talk about some device "consuming" so much power. The power "consumption" of a refrigerator may be so much per year. However, all that power ends up as net heat. Power is not "consumed," it is converted. If the goal is thermal power, this process is extremely efficient.

      As an example, the input power to the reactor heats the plasma, which then loses heat to the reactor containment. That must be cooled, and the system that cools the containment will also cool the neutron-capture blanket. All the plasma input power ends up heating the cooling system (which can then deliver heat). There are heat losses elsewhere in the plant, heating that just ends up escaping to the environment. Krivit has never understood that power is not "consumed,"

    2. they relied on ITER’s misleading public statements about technical progress in achieving the goal of “fusion power.

      In all the documents I have reviewed from Krivit on this matter, none of them show that "government bureaucrats" relied on the misunderstandings that Krivit asserts about "technical progress." What Krivit has actually shown is that there can be imprecision in language, but that is universally true, outside of narrow technical applications. If the misunderstanding actually happened, Krivit has not shown it.

    3. ITER has major unsolved technical issues that include the challenge of efficiently harvesting the high energy of neutrons emitted by the D+T fusion reaction.

      What is the evidence that this is a "major unsolved issue"? Neutron behavior is extremely well-known.

    4. Coblentz, on behalf of ITER management, has changed the character of the stated goal to be a large-scale, publicly funded scientific experiment.

      I never saw it represented as anything else. Krivit ignores statements which contradict his conclusion, and seizes on statements that could possibly be misinterpreted.

    5. total amount of power

      So Krivit here makes the same mistake. "Amount of power," to be of relevance, would refer to energy, not peak power. The amount of money I earn in a day by selling stuff is so many dollars. The rate at which I earn that money might vary greatly, from zero, say, most of the time, to as much as a whole day's income in one sale, in a few minutes.

    6. ITER’s actual input power could be as much as 600 MW.

      That power is not available to ITER. 600 MW is more than JET facility grid power, which was supplemented with two 700 MW flywheel generators, to provide peak power as needed, for a possible peak power of about 1900 MW. ITER's grid power supply is far lower, and ITER has no local power storage, as did JET, needing that for electromagnet power, which ITER does not need on a continuous basis.

      ITER does not dissipate 600 MW of input power. However, if it did, 500 MW of peak fusion power would be generating 1100 MW of "thermal power." Krivit may be correct about Calder's use of language, though he makes the same mistake himself. "Peak" refers to power. Average power for a time is equivalent to energy. Apparently Calder was giving power numbers as if they were energy numbers. Sloppy. But he was probably not a careful scientist, but a writer, with very different training.

    7. “The energy coming out of ITER will be 10 times greater than the energy going in. Input power 50 MW – output power 500 MW.”

      The problem here is imprecision on what "ITER" means. The acronym is "International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor." The reactor is a specific object, the place where the reactions take place. The reactor is building into a facility that provides the magnetic environment, injection and plasma maintenance power, and recovers heat in a blanket that captures neutrons. Those neutrons carry away energy from the reactor proper, and they may be considered "thermal power production." They do not contribute much heat to the plasma. Other aspects of the reaction do, and I have not studied the balance. Because there are some with some knowledge writing that ITER may reach ignition, if output power is 500 MW, and if it takes 50 MW of thermal effect in the plasma to maintain temperature, that would work if 10% of the fusion power ended up as plasma power.

      However, all input power ends up as heat in the confinement or thermal blanket. In a commercial reactor, that blanket would be cooled with a circulating coolant that would be used to generate electrical power -- or that could deliver heating power. At ignition, input power must be reduced, because increase in temperature will do two things: increase the power output, and increase risk of loss of control of the plasma.

    8. My predecessor when I arrived in 2011, Neil Calder, was very optimistic about fusion and ITER; he thought it could solve all the problems in the world.”

      Like Steve Krivit with cold fusion, later translated to LENR per Widom-Larsen theory (which has never been experimetnally confirmed, and it predicts results contrary to experimental evidence.)

      A communications officer is enthusiastic about the project. This is considered odd or something wrong?

    9. “While I was in Cadarache,” Claessens said, “I asked my colleagues to be a little bit more cautious and modest

      Right. Sensible. However, what was his job description?

    10. Claessens was given incorrect information by ITER staff or management.

      This is extremely unlikely. I do not find Claessens to be completely clear, but there is no sign, so far, of his being given misleading information. He would, I'd assume, have access to the primary sources and could find out for himself, if he was interested. His focus was on something else.

    11. If the electrical input power for the heating systems is 150 MW

      There is possibly a confusion here between peak power and average power. Krivit is relying on an off-hand comment from a professor for "150 MW." The professor is likely talking about power during a shot, whereas average power consumption of the site (under what conditions) would likely be much less. The difference is due to inefficiencies in creating what will end up heating the plasma.

      A major accomplishment for ITER would be the release of massive fusion power during a shot, and doing this for 400 seconds would be fantastic. Input power to the beam, to the plasma, as ignition is approached, would be reduced, and it is possible that the 50 MW figure is projected under those conditions. Krivit, with his focus on "misleading language," and his resulting condemnation of ITER spokespersons, was distracted from obtaining the real story, the true power and energy balance figures. Reading around, I find most of the information is available, but Krivit is impatient.

    12. “To generate 50 MW of the power which goes into ITER as radio frequency waves and energetic neutral beams, you need to spend at least 150 MW electric!” the professor wrote.

      Krivit is then using this for his own purposes. He has not understood what is being said to him. The input power is not "thermal," it is "radiofrequency waves and energetic neutral beams." Both will deposit energy into the plasma, i.e,. will heat it. How the putative "input power" of ITER is calculated, I find obscure. Krivit is relying, for the most part, on summaries written for popular audiences, and off-hand comments from scientists, and what Krivit does is to run with these and I have never seen them, then, confirmed by the scientists as to, Yes, that is what I meant. The professor is talking about specific methods of maintaining the plasma, and if ignition is approached (some think ITER may do this), injected power must be reduced, or the reactor could run away, control. could be lost. The professor is talking about setting up the reaction initially, not about maintenance power, except perhaps under low fusion power conditions,. Neutral beam injection (Wikipedia. When physicists are reduced to sound bites, they commonly are unclear or even misleading.

    13. input power is electric power and the output is thermal, so you cannot compare the two.”

      Claessens repeated himself. However, this is all the manipulation of language. What is the input power? Claessens here is looking at the same power that is called input power by everyone but Krivit. It is not "plant power consumption," because there is a lot going on at the plant which is not the fusion reaction and input power to the plasma. There is an issue of clarity here, and Claessen's point is apparently that there could be more clarity. For example, the record fusion power burst was 16 MW at JET, for about a tenth of a second. Sounds impressive. In fact, given the difficulties that had to be overcome to reach that, it was impressive. However, there was much more energy released in a longer burst, about ten seconds, at something like 5 MW. Now, how much energy is that? A quick and easily understandable measure of it" At electrical energy rates for consumers in the U.S., about $0.60. The big question for ITER is not peak power (in or out). I have little doubt that ITER will beat those records, all of them. However, the issue will be how long fusion power can be sustained. I have seen no estimates. Controlling the plasma for 10 seconds, from JET, is encouraging, but this is all still far from what would be needed for commercial power production. If ITER is being presented as something with a practical payoff for energy production, short term, that would be misleading. But Krivit is so focused on his alleged "special meaning" of "fusion power" that he develops no evidence at all on any actual misleading of decision-makers. I have followed fusion research since I was a child. I never saw it being represented as "just around the corner," it was famously "thirty years in the future," which figure remained more or less constant with the passage of time.

    14. We can’t compare the input of 50 MW with the output of 500 MW because the former is electric and the latter is thermal.

      Claessens is not being careful. We can certainly compare them, but like any comparison, it could be misleading in some way. However, the input of 50 MW is used to maintain the plasma, which can be considered "heating power." So so much heating power in, so much heat out.

      It is true that if we want to recover electrical power from the fusion power, there would be conversion inefficiency. If the goal of a fusion power plant is electrical power, then, of course, the production of exportable power would require regenerating that input electrical power, using a portion of the generated power. This are all standard engineering considerations. ITER is not a power plant, but, largely because of the use of superconducting magnets, will move toward that. If the plant produces 500 MW of fusion power, does "peaks of 600 MW during the shots" negate that in some way? Not necessarily. Powering up the electromagnets will take a large amount of power, but the issue would be duration of that, compared to plasma fusion power duration. Krivit doesn't begin to approach the real issues of interest. Krivit doesn't understand, it is obvious, that all fusion power is "extra," the input power is not "lost." If ITER were located near a city, it could sell heat, and that can be highly efficient. (Because there is no conversion inefficiency: and conversion inefficiency is inefficient because of heat loss. Krivit has not obtained a clear understanding of the issues, in spite of studying this for some years, and Claessens, if he reads Krivit's comments carefully, will certainly see errors, omissions, and misunderstandings. But he was being friendly. Krivit is well-known for abusing that.

    15. Confirms Accuracy

      If he confirmed "accuracy" he was utterly ignorant. But he did not. Krivit synthesizes what he wants from what people say.

    1. Krivit had identified eight experimental facts that disproved their erroneous “cold fusion” hypothesis.

      Cold fusion is a mystery. Krivit, however, began to show his scientific ignorance -- I am not aware that he has any training in the relevant sciences -- by around 2008, attacking scientists -- similarly to how he, here, attacks ITER -- taking strong positions about theory (whereas experts know that no "theory" of cold fusion is established), and using his own specialized definition of "fusion," that then makes everyone else wrong. From his early positive relationships, he had become the major "reporter" on the field, and that was parleyed into publications, which continue. His work has no respect within the field, it only appeals to those who like the idea that it is "not fusion." However, it is known -- and even accepted by Krivit -- that the Fleischmann-Pons effect generates helium, and the only reasonable fuel is deuterium. The reaction itself might or might not be called "fusion," it's a question of definition. The original idea of fusion as Krivit described fusion in this article is almost certainly not what is happening, but there are other possible kinds of fusion.

    2. The input power for the reactor in the best experiment at JET thus far, in 1997, was about 700 MW.

      Simply not true. grid power was about 500 MW peak, but the great majority of that was not "input power for the reactor." It was power to maintain reactor conditions, mostly the magnetic field. It does not take power to maintain a magnetic field, a field is stored power. However, ordinary electromagnets require current and with ordinary conductors, there is heat dissipated in them. That power heated the magnets, not the reactor. Superconducting magnets avoid this, and JET's goal was not to demonstrate efficient maintenance of a magnetic field, that is already well-known -- but expensive. The goal was to control the hot plasma. "Input power" in that experiment is not "input to the facility" but energy actually added to the plasma, to maintain it against cooling losses.Krivit is, once again, insisting on his own definitions in claiming that others are wrong.

    3. Determining the full power input required to get the 500 million Watts is difficult because the ITER Web site does not clearly provide that information.

      It was not difficult to find public information about ITER power supply. Plasma power is about 50 MW. They are hoping for a Q of 10, so fusion power is 500 MW. Those are not continuous values, those are "shots," i.e., short experiments. That is well in excess of available grid power at about 300 MW peak. If ITER functions as hoped, it will, while running the plasma, be generating more power than the entire facility could bring in from the grid, and there are no flywheel generators, apparently. About 100 MW is allocated to the cooling system (which will handle the 500 MW!) and to cryogenics (that will keep the superconducting magnets cold). Krivit has not researched the real story, a shame, so focused is he on his story of deception and what he originally called "lies."

    4. In 2014, I was unable to locate any Web site, book, or news story revealing that, instead of consuming a total of 24 MW of power, JET consumed a total of 700 MW of power. The records of two congressional hearings that I examined show that Congress was informed about the 24 MW number but not the 700 MW number.

      Krivit is treating the total power requirements for the JET facility as if it is news. From Wikipedia, Joint European Torus -- if it is on Wikipedia, it's hardly hidden or secret:

      JET's power requirements during the plasma pulse are around 500 MW[4] with peak in excess of 1000 MW.[5] Because power draw from the main grid is limited to 575 MW, two large flywheel generators were constructed to provide this necessary power.[5] Each 775-ton flywheel can spin up to 225 rpm and store 3.75 GJ.[6] Each flywheel uses 8.8 MW to spin up and can generate 400 MW (briefly).[5]

      The basic input power "during the plasma pulse" is 500 MW, not 700. However, peak input power, reached under some conditions, is over 1000 MW, which is greater than the grid can supply, so energy is stored locally. Notice that to store the energy, only 8.8 MW is used, but the storage can then release up to 800 MW. This shows how power figures can be misleading if durations are not given. Rather, what we would really want to know for assessing power plant performance is not peak power, but average power, for a given time (or energy release, basically the same). The best performance of JET was not the "16 MW," for a tenth of a second, but was covered in this announcement, which Krivit has ignored:

      We have however run three tritium campaigns. During the second one, in 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts fusion power, with fusion power of over 10 megawatts sustained for over 0.5 seconds. In other pulses in the same experimental campaign, a more stable configuration was held for nearly 5 seconds, producing continuous power around 4.5 megawatts.

      16.1 MW for 100 msec, if that is the actual figure, would be 1.61 MJ, or 0.44 KWh of fusion energy. 10 MW for 0.5 seconds, in the same run, apparently, would be 5.0 MJ, or 1.39 KWh. However, 4.5 MW for 5 seconds would be 22.5 MJ, or 6.25 KWh. Using a figure of ten cents per KWh, roughly what I pay for electricity, that would be 62 cents worth of power. I'm sure that they would emphasize this to Congress (right?), but is Congress so dumb as to not know the meaning of power and energy? Krivit is making these mistakes, not Congress and their staff. Krivit is good at looking up facts that prove he is right. So ... was anyone actually misled?

    5. They believe they will be able to capture energetic output neutrons from the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction and efficiently convert their energy into electricity to keep the magnets and other subsystems working.

      The neutron issue is not "belief," it is a very well-known technology. High neutron flux is easily obtained in a fission reactor. They will mostly be thermalized, losing their kinetic energy to heating, and we know well how to convert heat to electricity. "Efficiency" is not necessary, unless the heat is marginal. This is, quite simply, not an issue. If the reaction can be maintained, which boils down to controlling the plasma, this is not a particular problem. Most power plants generate heat, which is then converted to electricity using various methods. There is waste heat in this process which can be harnessed in other ways, if the power plant is located close to some uses for heat. Krivit has in his head that the heat must be converted to electricity (which is inefficient, generally), to "keep the magnets ... working." He's focused on the magnets, because he thinks they are the major usages of plant power. However, no energy is required to keep superconducting magnets working, but they must be kept cool. Depending on insulation, and, as well, any heating of the magnets by the reactor itself, that power will vary. But it is nothing like the power used at JET. Heat can be used to drive refrigeration, it is common. That would avoid electrical conversion inefficiency.

    6. Fusion researchers like Hassanein believe that they will inevitably ignite a self-sustaining plasma, which will create enough net output power for sufficiently long duration to be practical.

      Krivit likes, in general, to talk about what people, including scientists "believe." Scientists, however, have opinions based on their experience and knowledge. Let's look at each of these alleged "beliefs."

      Krivit likes, in general, to talk about what people, including scientists "believe." Scientists, however, have opinions based on their experience and knowledge. Let's look at each of these alleged "beliefs."

      "Ignite a self-sustaining plasma." No. Where did they say that? Krivit does not understand what is going on, his understanding is shallow, but eager to attack. Krivit has confused ignition with COP and breakeven and the rest. At ignition, COP becomes infinite, one can shut off plasma input energy and the reaction will continue, and this is dangerous unless some other fast control method is used (and it is not easy to imagine). However, there is no specific limit to the power that can be released short of ignition. Most of the power will show up, not in self-heating of the plasma, but carried by neutrons into the confinement, which it will heat.

    7. Accounting for the input power for the various subsystems is crucial to understanding the dual meanings of the ambiguous phrase “fusion power.”

      No, that would be quite incorrect. Fusion power is simple: power released by fusion. There is no other meaning.

    8. The public expects, among other things, that scientists will explain crucial technical objectives of research programs using unambiguous, accurate terms that will be correctly and easily understood by their target audiences. The public also expects that, in communication from scientists, there are no misleading calculations and no unstated assumptions.

      The public also expects this from journalists.

      Krivit is arguing for an ideal. Part of this is utterly inaccurate in a sense. Scientists are not trained to "explain" things to the public as described. It takes a certain skill, and it's rare. The public might expect this or that, but the public isn't paying for that by providing scientists with training in public communication. That takes other experts, who may or many not have the same ideals. From this point of view, the public gets what it deserves from the stands it takes, and the support provided for the education of scientists. When a scientist testifies in court, as an expert, some expert witnesses are highly skilled at presenting fact such that it will not be misunderstood, but others may have an agenda, and any jury must know this; the attorneys involved will take pains to ensure that communication is understood -- or, sometimes, that it is misunderstood the way the attorney wants for client benefit.

      So, perhaps -- Krivit has not established the fact yet -- the language has been used to imply something not true. I would say, in the other direction, that if someone doesn't understand what is meant by ordinary language, and the language as used, they are unqualified to make any decisions regarding funding. And that is a political problem, how is it that the government, responsible to the public, has allowed this to happen? But first, we want to know if it has happened or not. Does Krivit show evidence for actual misunderstanding on the part of funding decision-makers? [Answer after review: No, not in the least!]

      It appears that Krivit may have, himself, misunderstood "fusion power," though one had to be quite ignorant of the history of fusion research to be confused, and then, when he found what appeared to him as contrary evidence, was outraged at the "deception."

      Bottom line, why didn't they spoon-feed him with perfect information, with all terms precisely and clearly described in his personal lay language? Bottom line: because they were not paid to do that. Krivit's complaint is not about the scientists, but about organizational managers or representatives, who are often not scientists at all, or who are chosen for other reasons.

    9. This claim is not accurate, although ambiguous terminology allows ITER representatives to claim that the reactor will produce 500 million Watts of “fusion power.”

      In other words, when the words are defined as used, it's accurate as to design intention. Anyone presenting a research goal as if it were a fact is being misleading. Krivit is here contradicting himself. "Ambiguous terminology allows the representatives to claim ..." means that the claim is a representation of truth, with the words defined as used. Where is the ambiguity? I have known the claim for years, and never interpreted it as Krivit seems to think the "public" interprets it. People who think shallowly, which is common, might indeed interpret it incorrectly, from the brief statements that Krivit cites. But fusion power means power produced from fusion, and it is not ambiguous at all. Only someone who interprets it as "net power generation" -- which isn't claimed -- would be confused. Further, the real issue is always, in the end, energy generation, peak power is irrelevant unless we know for how long such power is generated. Generating high peak power is not terribly difficult. What is difficult is generating significant power, continuously, for extended periods of time. Krivit doesn't seem to realize the importance of time, and he misses other aspects of these issues, I think we will see.

      "Have led" implies, though it does not state, that the misinformation is deliberate. The idea is that this was done to increase support, to maintain or increase funding. I doubt it, and I doubt that any serious decision-maker has been misled on this point. Rather, the strong points of JET and ITER have been communicated, and JET, in particular, set records for "fusion power," which has almost nothing to do with "net power," i.e, power produced in excess of the power consumption of the entire facility (which is an arbitrary measure, because any power produced is "net"). As has been pointed out, the former is electrical power, from the grid, whereas the latter is heating power, almost entirely, but it is not clear to me at this point exactly how it was measured, it may have, instead, been calculated from measures of the reaction rate, because the reaction is well-understood. The record rates were with D-T fusion, which is easier than ordinary D-D fusion.

      Probably because Krivit's understanding of power and energy is poor, and also resulting for his search for a dramatic story, "lies!" being dramatic, Krivit apparently does not know the questions to ask to truly understand what is going on. Instead he seizes on what is said whenever it seems to confirm his "story."

      It is a crucial part of Krivit's story what the "public" believes. What public? Wikipedia is edited by the public, and I don't see that the misconception Krivit imagines as being widespread is reflected in the relevant articles.

    10. The Selling of ITER

      This commentary was posted at coldfusioncommunity.net with full attribution, claiming fair use, but then subject to a DMCA takedown notice from Steve Krivit. I am placing this here and am researching response. Krivit has commonly violated copryight and privacy, so this is ironic. There are more details there, though this commentary is presently wordy for this context.

    11. it does not inform the public that it is using the special meaning of “fusion power” and does not provide a definition of “fusion power.”

      Because it is using the ordinary meaning, not Krivit's confusion. It means "power from fusion." In LENR, which Krivit started out with, it would be "excess energy." Excess energy, in LENR, is any energy sourced in an anomalous reaction. It is not "net energy." For some purposes, input energy is considered, but that does not change the meaning of "excess energy," or, here, "fusion power."

    12. members of Congress also likely (mistakenly) believed that the full power requirement for the record-setting fusion experiment was “extraneous.”

      It was extraneous to the purposes of JET. Even the record JET power may have been difficult to measure as heat, given the conditions, I suspect that fusion power was measured by detecting levels of neutron radiation, thus the level of fusion and thus energy release could be calculated, this all being well-known. But maybe they did have thermometry in the confinement sensitive enough to detect that heat pulse. Krivit does not begin to approach the real issues.

    13. None of them initially interpreted my question as I intended it. I learned that fusion researchers (who are almost all physicists) simply do not think about the total power that goes into the entire reactor. Instead, they think only about the power that is used to heat the plasma.

      Krivit uses his own definition of the "reactor." Krivit doesn't notice that nobody interprets these words as he does. To these people, the total available grid power, or the operating power of the full facility, is not relevant to the purposes of JET. Information developed from JET, though, can be used to predict performance of a more advanced design, using superconducting magnets, which only need to be kept cool, there is no energy going into the magnetic field, once it is set up.

      However, facility power was not secret. Those 500 MW flywheel generators were very special. Krivit's research was shallow because he seeks to prove himself right, instead of to gather organized information.

    14. Congressional records show that the practice of exploiting vagueness in the meaning of the phrase “fusion power” has been occurring for decades.

      Krivit assumes an intention to confuse, to "exploit" vagueness, but "fusion power" is not vague at all, to anyone with any knowledge, and it matches ordinary language. It is Krivit who is giving words a special meaning, that he has largely invented. The slide he shows is completely correct, as long as we understand "power input" to mean input to the reactor itself, i.e., the plasma and its containment.

    15. Congress, in making its fusion funding decisions, relied on the false and misleading impression that the JET reactor produced 65% of the total power it consumed, when instead it produced a mere 2%.

      Krivit produces no evidence that anyone was misled, and his own figures are highly misleading. JET was a world record for fusion power for a significant time, indicating substantial success in confinement. It is not remotely close to practical power production, nor was it intended to be. ITER will still be, if successful, a step forward in the demonstration of plasma control.

    16. Power input: 700 million Watts Power output: 16 million Watts Net power: Loss of 684 million Watts Ratio of output to input: 2%

      Highly misleading. Not accurate at all. Krivit is including alleged input power that does not go into the plasma, so his figure do not reveal plasma performance. There is no "loss." He is also using peak power, and not energy balance.This is useless. He includes all inputs to the entire facility in "input power," but then only considers "fusion power" as output, when input power, in fact, generally ends up as heat. In an experimental plant, like JET and ITER, that heat might be ignored, but in a power plant, it would be intensively conserved and used where possible. The actual COP, even using his distorted figures, then, but simply measuring "output" as the heating effect of operation, is 102.3% not 2%.

    17. Power input: 24 million Watts Power output: 16 million Watts Net power: Loss of 8 million Watts Ratio of output to input: 65%

      No, radically incorrect. No power is lost, it all ends up as heat. So the ratio of output to input is 1.54, not 0.65.

    18. this is not how fusion has been sold to the public and to elected officials. Financial support for expensive mega-science projects like ITER has been sold based on the appearance of getting more net power out of the entire reactor system than goes into the entire reactor system

      How has fusion been "sold"? Reading this article, looking carefully for it, I do not find Krivit showing any evidence that anyone has actually been misled. I have always -- from well before I became interested in LENR -- understood fusion power as a very long-term project, facing enormous challenges, not ready for practical applications in the near future. What the science shows is that "more net power" may be possible, because the issues encountered with JET will be addressed in ITER and ITER may show some periods of "breakeven", if it works as planned and understood by the scientists, but Krivit is steadfastly ignoring that, claiming that the "scientists" -- or somebody -- has been creating a false appearance.

    19. Fusion scientists responding to a recent New Energy Times survey

      I don't trust any survey run by Krivit, because he asks leading questions and then interprets answers in his own unique way. If he gives the question, how he determined whom to ask, and then shows the actual answers instead of his conclusions about them, I'd be more interested.

      His correspondents did explain what they are doing (trying to demonstrate only the physics of a fusion plasma), but that is not why they use the "special meaning," they use it because it's the ordinary meaning they are reporting. It is not misleading, unless context is lost. 16 MW sounds like a lot of power, but it is only for a fraction of a second. In the longer run (at 5 MW for ten seconds), total energy was about 6 KWh, sixty cents worth of electrical energy. However, this was, and remains, a world record for controlled fusion power if LENR is neglected (which has reportedly generated a lot more energy, and even if one lincludes LENR claims, those run, as to anything mainstream (within the field), a few watts, a few hundred watts in the extreme. Larger claims appear to be fraud or, sometimes, experimental error.

    20. they have rarely explained the difference between the two most common terms: scientific breakeven and engineering breakeven. Instead, spokesmen have generally used only the term “fusion power.”

      "Scientific breakeven" is defined here. Krivit is again completely confused. Breakeven is based on a ratio of 2:1, thermal output power divided by input power. It is a misleading term. I'd avoid it. When heating is involved, one almost always "breaks even" in ordinary language. There is no loss to speak of.

    21. In fusion reactors, input power used to heat the plasma and input power used to magnetically suspend the plasma are among the greatest power-consuming subsystems of a tokamak reactor. Using the special meaning of “fusion power,” fusion scientists account only for the power used to heat the plasma.

      Again, a radicat error. "Fusion power" does not, in the least, "account for" any kind of input power. It is simply release of energy, at a rate which is the "power."

      To be more accurate: "in tokamaks using non-superconducting electromagnets." Krivit is here mixing power used to heat the plasma (which can be an actual power input to the plasma) with power dissipated in magnets. (Which does not input power to the plasma, at all.) When JET stated input power, they only considered power to maintain beam temperature from losses.

      Krivit is not referring to the use of "fusion power." He is referring to what has been called "input power' or "plasma power." Input power does not include setting up the environment. A full engineering study attempting to demonstrate commercial viability, more than theoretically, would look at all system power, but for now, ITER planning is only considering the most essential: plasma power. Because of how heat transfer works, ITER will probably not reach ignition, and an operating and practical reactor may not reach ignition, because at ignition, the reaction becomes fully self-sustaining, and therefore difficult to control.

    22. Standard practice for analysis of devices or experiments that purport to transform fuel into power is to provide a complete accounting of all power that goes into the system and all power that comes out of the system. Ordinarily, for claims of power gains, peak and average power outputs are compared to peak and average power inputs.

      Is "power gain" claimed for ITER? I haven't seen it so far; this is inferred from "net energy." In fact, there is a power gain, because nearly all input power is ultimately converted to heat, and then fusion energy adds to that. It's just that the percentage is small, if all "input power" -- which Krivit has not defined carefully -- is considered. He often looks at the available grid power, plus some extra power provided by the on-site energy storage devices, as if this is "input power." Only some of it is, some is what would be considered "overhead" when we look at business profit. Overhead will not vary, or will not vary directly, with sales volume. Krivit is careless with language.

      His basic point here is "they are still wrong." He is trying to show that "standard practice" is not being followed. But ITER publicity has followed actual standard practice for the study of plasma fusion. When it approaches practicality -- it is far from it -- work will begin to reduce to a minimum all unnecessary power inputs. ITER is planned to produce more power than "input power," input power is just the energy added to the plasma that must be replaced to cover heat losses by conduction or radiation. (The "consumption" of heat by the actual fusion process is negligible, every fusion reaction, in itself, releases far more energy into the system than is absorbed by the fusing nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier.)

    23. Among fusion scientists, the special meaning for the phrase “fusion power” means the numerical ratio of the plasma heating power output to the plasma heating power input. In other words, it encompasses only the output/input power balance for the plasma heating subsystem. Fusion scientists have additional terms and symbols for this and similar ratios, but they are unnecessary for the scope of this article.

      "Fusion power" is not a ratio, though it might be stated as a ratio. Ratios are unitless, but "fusion power" is stated in units of power, i.e., here, "megawatts." This is the core of Krivits misunderstanding, and Krivit blames scientists because their comments do not match his misunderstanding.

      Fusion power is absolute, independent of input and other conditions. That is, it is what is released by the fusion of so many nuclei. All that matters for fusion power is whether or not it is measured correctly, and Krivit does not challenge the measure.

    24. ITER’s design uses more efficient superconducting magnets that require less input power.

      No power. Zero. Superconductors have literally zero resistance. The only problem is keeping the magnets cool, which is a matter of insulation. Because insulation will not be perfect, there will be some necessary power there, but it is an engineering consideration, is probably a small one compared to other considerations, and is not related to fusion power. The peak power needed to create the initial magnetic field is one-shot, for the duration of the experiment. A full study of power interactions would show that. There are other initial setup powers, such as getting the plasma current up to fusion temperature. Maintaining that may require continuous current, dependent on cooling, and, again, the plasma has a certain resistance and there will be heating, and heating is work, so this is input energy. But if the plasma reaches ignition, this can and should be shut down.

    25. by using a magnetic field.

      I would say "magnetic fields," plural, because the field structure of a tokamak is complex. It's not just the field of a single straightforward electromagnet. A plasma consists of fast-moving ions. Such will have a curved path in the presence of a magnetic field. So the magnetic fields are arranged in a tokamak such that the path curves back on itself, and runs around a torus. Other kinds of fusion reactors use electrostatic confinement or inertial confinement. (I.e., a fusible bit of fuel is impacted by high energy, perhaps from lasers, with the incoming energy balanced so that the bit of fuel is simply heated and highly compressed and fuses, it doesn't have time to expand. A form of this is what happens in a hydrogen bomb, this is inertial confinement.) Inertial confinement reactors are not continuous, they would produce energy in bursts, so much energy per "shot.")

    26. If the plasma touched a reactor’s wall, it would instantly damage the reactor by vaporizing wall materials and terminate the reaction

      Or whatever walls. They don't have to be metal. Yes, any material will vaporize at these plasma temperatures. The tiny spark, that can happen with relay contacts if there are no protective diodes, can burn the contacts, until they fail. Switches can burn out if switching an inductive load. Motor contacts, the same. This is really well within ordinary experience. The plasma used in hot fusion is hotter than ordinary lightning, I think. A "plasma disruption," it's called, will damage the containment, though it will be designed to not fail from occasional disruptions, especially if they don't strike the containment at the same place. Eventually, they will, indeed, eat away the containment. As well, if there is enough of a wall strike to disrupt the current, the reactor will shut down, entirely aside from devices installed to shut down if there is a plasma disruption. I'm not sure I'd want to be near a tokamak in a major disruption, but the most likely serious consequence would be a need to replace part of the plasma chamber wall. This, will, by the way, tend to become radioactive, due to neutron activation, another problem of hot fusion, but they are ready for that one. The tokamak should not explode, because full plasma disruption will completely and immediately shut down all fusion power.

    27. an environment in which atomic nuclei are forced closely enough together so they can bind and undergo nuclear fusion.

      At significant rate, yes, though I'm not looking up the specific numbers. Strictly, speaking, the nuclei are not "forced," that would be the action of a force on them, which is work, which would be "input energy." Rather, at fusion operating temperature, some ions have enough kinetic energy to climb the Coulomb barrier. The only force acting on the particle comes from the interaction, not from input power, and it slows the particle as it approaches. Temperature, while it may initially have been created by some force acting on the particles, is maintained by an environment unless it does work (i.e., heats the surrounding environment). This idea that fusion is "forced" is a common trope that leads to confusion. There is, in fact, a fully-accepted fusion mechanism where, experimentally, the particles are at minimal energy, i.e,. close to absolute zero.

    28. In experimental tokamak reactors, heating is accomplished in a variety of ways that convert electricity from the grid into thermal power applied to the plasma.

      Not exactly wrong. However "Heat is applied to the hydrogen isotopes" may be misleading. The tokamak is not heated, i.e., heat is not applied to it. I don't know the specific plasma creation method in tokamaks, and it might vary, but the general idea would be running a current through the plasma. At a certain voltage, the plasma will ionize (and that is the definition of plasma, it's significantly ionized, and the ionization will increase with temperature until it becomes more or less complete at very high temperatures). A common example of a plasma would be a lightning strike, or, smaller scale with much lower plasma current, an electrical spark. So we have all touched plasma.... Hopefully, though no big plasma has touched us. They are very hot, but that small spark has only a tiny energy involved -- compared to the lightning strike. Lightning strikes probably cause some level of fusion.

      "Thermal power" is not applied to the plasma. Rather, the plasma is heated by increasing the current through the plasma, which has the effect of increasing the plasma temperature. That current creates thermal power, not the other way around. Again, unless there is cooling, temperature, once created, will be maintained. It's basically a form of inertia. The power necessary to maintain the temperature can be called "input power," easily, this would be continuously required for a stable plasma. It, however, depends on engineering details. If the plasma becomes self-heating, due to an adequate reaction rate, that's ignition, and no more such input power would be needed. Indeed, the backoff on input power needed to maintain plasma temperature would be a quick and easy-to-measure indication of fusion power. When it goes to zero, that's ignition, and then there arises the opposite problem: how to cool the plasma.

      I don't know of any fusion reactors that don't use hydrogen isotopes for fuel. There are some theoretical proposals and I am setting aside speculations about nickel hydride LENR.

    29. This would imply that commercial fusion power plants are not far away.

      I have never seen anyone who understands fusion research who thinks that "commercial fusion power plants" are "not far away." If someone thinks that, they have not been paying attention. If someone from ITER testified to "not far away," they were lying, unless they clarify that "not far away" could easily mean more than twenty years. Krivit is correct in that the "real meaning of 'fusion power'" has nothing to do with engineering efficiency or commercial viability. It means the same as "excess energy" in LENR experiments.

      The general "public" is not reading the ITER Web site, and we don't actually know how they would interpret this unless we study it, which Krivit has not done, to my knowledge. He might be correct, misunderstanding is possible, but that Web site is not necessarily designed for a totally ignorant public. It is more designed for those who might be interested and who might have some general knowledge. Is this laying blame over how to design a web site to be maximally informative?

      Krivit started out by calling the ITER information a "lie." But it's not a lie, clearly, so Krivit was misleading! But Krivit must be right at all costs. So he converts his criticism to something more subtle. It's "misleading." To assess whether a communication is misleading, properly, I would need to study the effect it has on readers, and, further, communications are designed with levels of importance. Basic communication about science is often misleading, if interpreted outside of the intended message, because it can -- and probably must -- leave details out, exceptions, etc. So are the misinterpretations significant? Do they create an impression that causes harm?

      This is not easy to study, but Krivit takes the easy path, he just accuses, and doesn't show evidence of what he claims, only evidence that an unidentified someone might misunderstand. Probably somewhere on the planet or on the internet, someone has misunderstood, but the issue of weight here would be public decision-makers, especially over funding. Are the scientists themselves misled? Almost certainly not, they know what "fusion power" means, in detail, and what it does not mean, and they have explained it to Krivit, over and over.

    30. special technical meaning

      It is like many scientific issues. The "special technical meaning" is actually within the ordinary range of meanings. "Fusion power" means "power from fusion." That's the "special technical meaning." Krivit thinks that it will be interpreted as "net energy deducting all related inputs," but that would be "overall net power" not "fusion power." When I sell Item X, I make a profit, typically a certain percentage. Does that mean "net profit"? Sometimes, net profit can mean profit from sales, not including overhead. However, what is my taxable profit? For that, I deduct overhead. I can call this the "net profit of the business." However, the word "profit" by itself is possibly ambiguous. Does that mean that if I use it, I am being misleading? It's possible, it depends on the usage, and most of all, it depends on whether or not the misleading interpretations are reasonable in context.

      Krivit is inventing conditions for language and communication that do not reflect real communication in the real world. As he found, there are those who think that ITER can be and should be more clear, and I'll agree. Some people might well interpret "fusion energy" as Krivit has. But would this happen with decision-makers who have available experts to help them understand testimony? Not likely. Krivit, see below, has shown some congressional testimony, and claims that a question from a congressperson shows that he misunderstood. In fact, as I read it, the question showed cogency, it was a very pertinent question, and it got an honest answer. No, "ignition" has not been achieved. Krivit isn't even concerned about ignition.

      However, scientifically, and at this point, what Krivit thinks "net energy" should mean is irrelevant. Does Krivit examine this? ITER is a scientific research project, not a fusion power plant designed to generate usable power, to make an overall "energy profit." Such a power plant, to be practical, must consider all expenses associated with the project, including the guy that works at the plant cafeteria and who uses electrical appliances which use power, included in what the plant consumes. At this point, fusion engineering is not at the point where study of that overall impact would be anything more than a waste of time and money. ITER is designed and funded to increase engineering knowledge around maintaining a plasma at fusion conditions.

    31. misled the public and elected officials.

      Krivit has not demonstrated, so far, that anyone was actually misled, other than him. Further, he hasn't actually shown that he, himself, was misled; rather he has identified a possible misunderstanding. Did he ever write something that shows he was misled? At least that would show one misled person! Krivit is generally searching for "lies" or "deception." Seek and ye shall find. But it may be meaningless.

    32. The two images above

      This is brief polemic, about a "potential source." They are not wrong. How much information does Krivit expect in two sentences? "Harnessing fusion's power" is a somewhat misleading goal stated for ITER. The goal is to study plasma behavior and control, which is an aspect of harnessing fusion power. One might think that "harnessing" was a goal for ITER, to actually produce net energy overall. It's not, and it is obviously not the goal, ITER is not engineered for that. ITER may demonstrate progress in what it could take to "harness" fusion energy.

    33. many fusion scientists

      "Many fusion scientists" is vague and Krivit has no real evidence for this, it is an imagination. It might or might not be true and is, in fact, irrelevant to the issue here, unless those scientists believe in Krivit's imagined implication re "net energy." I have never seen this misunderstanding from a scientist. What I have seen is explanations that were incomplete, that did not address the issue Krivit raises.

    34. 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW of input power (a power amplification of 10)

      what is "input power"? Does it mean the total power usage of the entire research facility -- because this is a research facility, not a power plant (No.) -- and is this peak power (Yes, probably) or continuous power (Unlikely, but they would hope to get there)? "Net energy" probably means coming close to satisfying the Lawson Criterion. It is not yet, necessarily, to be "net energy," from the social and practical point of view. ITER is not designed to be a net energy producer from the overall full-social sense, where one would look at every energy input to the process, as a real and practical application.

    35. JET consumed 684 million Watts of electrical power.

      No. It converted 700 MW of system power (this is not the real figure, by the way, but using it....) into heat and an additional 16 MW of fusion power for a total heating power of 716 MW. "684 MW" is a completely meaningless figure.

    36. their record-setting laboratory experiments have produced megawatts (millions of Watts) of “fusion power.”

      the statement, using ordinary language, is true. Peak power released by fusion ("fusion power") was 16 MW. It was a record, a difficult accomplishment, a result of perhaps forty years of fusion efforts. Krivit wants to make this mean something that it does not mean. That something is misleading. He is apparently creating the problem, as far as what he has shown, so far.

    37. may have been sold

      "May have" or "was"? Further, was this intentional? Presumably the public and especially elected officials will have their own experts to analyze information, looking for possible bias. Could the information presented by ITER be biased in some way? Wouldn't it be utterly astonishing if it were not? Human institutions involve human beings, who have opinions and agendas and interests. It takes high training to avoid this, and it is never perfectly avoided. What we see does depend to some degree on what we seek to see.

    38. an excellent replacement

      Probably not "excellent," but if we are comparing it with, say, burning lots of coal (greenhouse gases), or solar power (unless it is satellite solar power, requires massive energy storage), or fission power (creates dangerous waste), it may be "better." We cannot yet actually compare it with LENR, only with ideas about LENR based on projections from what we know. Hot fusion is facing severe engineering difficulties, but the science is well-known. LENR is not understood, in spite of what a few may claim (such as Krivit and his obvious sponsor, Lewis Larsen of Lattice Energy, co-author for and most active promoter of "Widom-Larsen theory.")