At 08:37 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote:
Why Levi is upset is more evident in this
exchange between Steven Krivit and Luigi
Versaggi P.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/cold-fusion-andrea-rossi-method/i-made-a-question-to-steven-krivit/235485236468276
If I recall correctly someone wrote on the
vortex list back in feburary or march that
Galantini never wrote a report, so that fact is
not news. Steven Kirvit managed to catch Levi
uttering a 'white lie' to *him*. Is that fact news? Harry
Here is Krivit's report, copied in its entirety for commentary and criticism:
Steven B. Krivit says:
June 18, 2011 at 04:55
Caro Luigi,
Many of my readers were asking me for a report.
My quick report is based on the facts that I
have been able to obtain as of this point in
time. There is nothing conclusive about my quick
report and people would have been in gross error
to assume any kind of conclusion based on that quick report alone.
This was my impression also. I could not tell
from the preliminary report what kind of stand
Krivit was going to take on the steam issue. The
vehement attacks from Levi and Rossi complicate the issue.
As you know, I have identified a crucial factor
which could, repeat, could have an immense
bearing on the validity and viability of the
E-Cat. I certainly hope for the best for the
E-Cat but Levi and Rossis responses today seem
to be more along the lines of attacking me
personally rather than clearly explaining and
providing support for this crucial factor.
It may be a crucial factor, or it may be
irrelevant. It is crucial in terms of
understanding the demonstrations, which are, in
the end, irrelevant, compared to what Rossi --
and apparently others -- are asserting. What we
know is that, from the data we have, that is
publically available in witnessed demonstrations,
we don't know actual generated energy. We need
that steam quality data, and it would need to be
conclusive, or the "demonstration" simply wasn't.
At least, it was not a simple demonstration, as
simple as it might have appeared, if not for this issue.
On Wednesday, Levi had assured me that the steam
measurements were made by mass, not by volume.
At that time, I asked Levi to help me understand
how this measurement was done by mass so I could
put the issue to rest and dismiss it as an invalid critique, as I told Levi.
Right. The proper approach. "Help me understand."
But Levi could not explain the measurement
process to me in any detail, though he did draw
me a rough sketch of where Galantini placed the
probe. Instead, Levi told me that Galantini was the expert in the subject.
Great. So, then, we'd want Galantini's report, of
course. What did the expert say?
He told me that Galantini had prepared a report
with the details. I asked Levi to send me the
report so I had something to give to readers
that would support Levis claim. With such
confirmation, the news might have been very
positive. On Wednesday, Levi agreed to send me the report.
Which may have meant, "I'll try to get one from
Galantini." See, Levi may have a *verbal* report
from Galantini. It might be quite informal, and
Galantini may not have hedged it with all the
qualifications that a true expert would put in,
in a formal written report on which his future reputation might depend.
Earlier on Wednesday morning however, Rossi,
unbeknownst to Levi, told me in my interview
with him, that Galantini never wrote a report.
So we have some serious contradictions here on a very serious factor.
Well, there you go again, Steve. Basic rule:
assume that there is a harmonizing truth
underneath apparently contradictory testimony. If
nobody is actually lying, this is often the case.
So what could be the truth here? First of all,
did Levi tell you that Galantini submitted a
written report? What if Galantini had written a
report, perhaps a draft, and Levi saw it or knows
that it exists. And Rossi does not. The procedure
here would be to start with a rebuttable
assumption that all testimony is true, a basic
common-law principle. A harmonizing
interpretation, then, becomes the basis for more
detailed questions attempting to confirm what becomes a hypothesis.
The testimony only becomes contradictory if we
assume several things: that both Levi and Rossi
are fully cognizant of all the details, that they
understood the question, that they both answered
completely, etc. You are correct that apparent
contradiction forms the basis for further
questions, but I suggest avoiding making the
"contradiction" the story, unless you really get stuck there.
The bottom line, in fact: you don't have a report
from Galantini. That, you know, for certain.
Levi also agreed on Wednesday to send me data or
a report to support the sub-vapor experiment
from Feb. 10-11. This data or report, as well,
would have brought us all great news. Now,
sadly, Levi says he will not send me anything I have asked for.
Again, that a source will not provide information
to you is not much of a story, that can happen
for lots of reasons. While it may be personally
interesting, i.e., that Levi promised you
something but then reneged, is not really of
lasting importance. Legally, as you know, the
promise was void for lack of consideration, he
merely thought it best to tell you he'd provide
the report, and probably intended to, then
changed his mind because you were such a jerk, in
his mind. Or he was convinced that you were
positively dangerous. And I can speculate about worse than that.
Or he changed his mind for other reasons, and
your speculation and my speculation about those
reasons is not a reportable story! Unless, of
course, you want to make yourself the center of
the story, which I recommend you drop like a hot
potato. It can ruin your career.
Why? He says it is because I failed to mention
the linear effect of a mass-based steam enthalpy
in my quick report. But my mention of the linear
effect of a mass-based steam enthalpy is right there in my post, clear as day.
I can see the headline in the newspaper: "Angry
Italian Professor Makes Logical Error." Okay,
okay, the "Italian" is maybe irrelevant. Or is
it? The internet is a hot medium, people make
ill-considered statements all the time. Except
for me, of course, I'm always the soul of reason and prudence.
I wish.
My report stated that Levi had agreed to provide
me with the facts I was requesting by next
Wednesday. Nobody should have made any
conclusions until then. But Levi has decided
today that he will not provide you and the rest
of the public my audience with anything more.
Perhaps now you can begin to make your own conclusion.
We might, except for the fact that all this crap
doesn't tell us what we need to know. Jerks can
be right. It is an error to conclude from
apparently erratic or emotional behavior that the
person is wrong about some topic where they are
informed. It's an error to assume from Rossi's secrecy that he's a fraud.
It merely keeps us from determining the case.
That there *might* be a problem with steam
quality does not prove that this problem is a severe one.
Bottom line: the demonstrations were not
adequate, as presented so far. Lots of people
have known that, it's not just Steve. There are
other reasons to think that this might be real,
and, Steve, you should be investigating those.
You did not obtain enough information in your
visit to make a determination, that's clear. Your
job has just begun, should you accept the assignment!
You'd start, I'd think, by investigating
Ampenergo and Defkalion, and the people behind
them. You'd be careful about jumping to
conclusions, especially based on a very personal interaction.
And, remember this: Rossi has a reason to look
like a con man, it makes business sense at this
point. The mystery, really, is why he arranged a
public demo at all. The story is that it was done
to please Focardi. Is this plausible? (people
tell me it is.) Rossi took quite a risk by making
the demo, it took what was a minor story burbling
along in internet rumor mills, into something
that actually made Wikipedia without being
promptly deleted. That's the opposite of what he
needs right now, unless he takes steps to increase the "fraud" impression.
Maybe the situation is like his reactor. If it
gets too hot, it runs away. Too much appearance
of this being real, if there were conclusive
evidence, suddenly huge funding appears for his
competition. It's really the opposite of what he
says, one clue. He can lie about this stuff, it's
legal (except for possible libel).
His story of the Snake is so off-the-wall, it's funny. Good luck.
