As everyone here knows, Steve Krivit wrote a report about a visit to Rossi's factory in Bologna:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ On one hand, I thought this report was pretty good, but on the other hand I can well understand why it upset Rossi and Levi. This is unfortunate. I was hoping this visit would help clarify the situation, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. I think this is partly a misunderstand about the nature and purposes of these tests. Krivit is looking for one thing (legitimately) but Rossi is offering another (also legitimate). Krivit was looking for a scientific exposition, and Rossi was offering a press briefing. Here is one key difference. Someone here said that Rossi is offering "an appeal to authority." Strictly speaking, he is not. That would be a logical fallacy, called a "Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Rossi is citing actual, bona fide authorities in the relevant field such as Dr. Galantini. That is a legitimate thing to do in the context of explaining an experiment to a reporter. It is not, however, a legitimate argument in a scientific exposition at an academic conference, for example. In other words, Krivit saw himself acting as a scientific critic (which he did, ably) but Rossi saw him as a reporter. A reporter will be satisfied when he is told that Professor X is an expert in wet or dry steam; a scientific critic will want to see the data. Krivit makes an important point: detailed data has not been published. I was expecting it would beby now. When the tests were done earlier this year, Levi, and later Essen and Kullander published quick, preliminary reports. I heard they were planning to publish longer, more formal papers later. Maybe they are still working on them. The initial reports were pretty good. They were a reasonable first approximation -- the kind of thing you expect someone to write a few days after a test. I think anyone would agree with Krivit that more data is called for. It seems that he asked Levi for more data and this led to a dispute, and hard feelings, which is a real shame. I remarked briefly during the visit, "I hope Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements." I gather that was not on the agenda, and it was not the purpose of the visit. Again, that is a shame. Let me explain something about that remark. This is about an event I have not discussed. Strictly speaking it is a non-event. It did not happen, and it is of no importance. A couple of months ago, Rossi cordially invited me to visit the factory in Bologna. I was excited and pleased, naturally. I immediately responded saying I would be thrilled, and I would like to bring several thermometers, a graduated cylinder, I would like to do a flow test, a test sparging the steam with a 1 m hose, and so on, and so forth. Anyone who knows me will know that I am better at measuring temperatures than asking questions or interviewing people. Rossi came back and said (in effect): "no, that is not what I had mind. I meant you can come and observe the machine, and we will talk about it." In other words, he offered the kind of exposition and discussion that he gave to Steve Krivit. I thought about that for a while. But I told him that I am not cut out for that sort of thing, and I cannot see traveling all the way to Italy and not measuring the flow rate, inlet temperature, outlet temperature, mixing, and on and on. The only reason I would go is to do calorimetry. Rossi said he did not have time to do any more tests, and he feels the professors have already done enough calorimetry, and he did not want any more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I said: "naturally you are very busy; a test is time consuming and difficult. I would not want you to have take extra time out of your work just so that I can make measurements." We agreed that this is not the right time for a visit. It was a friendly discussion. The point is, I was hoping that I might help resolve some of these issues. A test sparging the steam is crude but I am confident that if it is done correctly it would help clarify the wet versus dry steam issue. To do it correctly you need a short hose, and you first confirm that the steam is not visible. This is the sort of thing I did at Hydrodynamics. I am obviously nowhere near as qualified as an expert such as Galantini! I would never, ever, challenge his authority in this matter. I never teach grandma how to suck eggs (as the expression goes). I can see why Krivit's comments rubbed Rossi the wrong way. Krivit seemed to be lecturing experts about wet and dry steam, which is bad form. It is effrontery. I *totally* understand why Rossi felt he does not need me to do this, and he does not have time for tests. On the other hand I do have significant experience doing this sort of thing with Gene Mallove. I am fanatical about collecting data and using multiple instruments. I believe I might have augmented and clarified Levi and E&K, with a sparge test and also issues such as the placement of the thermocouples. I was going to bring and place my own thermocouples, an extra set. In short, I was hoping I could shed some light on the situation and answer some outstanding questions. In view of Krivit's experience and these misunderstandings, it is regrettable that I did not have the opportunity to do that. As far as I know, other public tests of Rossi devices are not underway. That, too, is regrettable. There is just a heap of stuff to regret here, folks! I have heard that there are several private tests of Rossi devices now underway. That does not help readers here. You cannot judge data that you are not allowed to see. You cannot form an opinion about it, or bolster your assurance that the machine is real. Still, it is good to know that these things are underway, and that better information is likely to emerge in the not-too-distant future. - Jed
