We are tired of Mr. Coviello's libel and selective memory.
Here is our response to his libel.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Coviello is enraged that we excerpted his publicly posted review
of the MIT Colloquium, which was posted on s.p.f., a public forum
AND edited with corrections in part by ourselves at least twice per his
requests
(not attributed by him, but proven below by email excerpts).
THE FACTS:
1. The Cold Fusion Times DID give Mr. Coviello full attribution by name
above the edited excerpt, as he admits.
Nonetheless, he continues public libel against the COLD FUSION TIMES
with purported claims of plagiarism (which he misspells as "plagarism" (sic)).
2) We actually helped Mr. Coviello in his paper and he acknowledged it by
email - twice (A, and B),
and once on vortex in a public posting (C)
A) Here Mr. Coviello acknowledges our first correction of his draft
report which
he publicly posted to spf and vortex.
------------ first email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz
for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article -----------------
From: "John Coviello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mitchell Swartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Symposium
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:17:06 -0400
"Mr. Swartz,
Sorry, you're right, it was Prof. Peter Hagelstein. I had written the
note about the iesiusa.com company in the column next to my notes on your
conference comments. I do want to get it right who said what. I have
heard of iesiusa.com before. Not sure what to think of them?!? Being from
Las Vegas, NV kind makes me take pause. That is a town that is rife with
swindlers and con artists. I've also heard of plenty of predictions of
imminent commercial developments in cold fusion and other exotic energy
fields, and knowing the tract record, I'll take a wait and see approach on
this one. I kind of miss being young and naive about these things. But,
age makes you wiser and more cautious. John C."
------------end of email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz
for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article -----------------
B) Here Mr. Coviello makes a second acknowledgement of our corrections to
his draft report which
he publicly posted to spf and vortex. Mr. Coviello requested this
additional help by
asking several questions by email.
------------ second email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz
for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article -----------------
From: "John Coviello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mitchell Swartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question for MIT CF Article,
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:39:22 -0400
"Mr. Schwartz, Thanks for the quick response to my questions. They will be
helpful in writing the article for NET (which will come out with the July
10th newsletter).
I'm sorry, I did not mean to step on anyone's toes with my statement below.
I certainly didn't think you were trying to prevent a discussion about cold
fusion. I did get to ask two questions during the colloquium, as did
others. But, the program did say that a panel discussion session called
"Future Developments in Cold Fusion" would be held, and it was not. It
seemed as if the non-cold fusion presenters took up the time that could
have been used for such an important panel discussion. The diversion to
non-cold fusion topics did, in essence, prevent such a discussion from
occurring during the colloquium.
I did enjoy the colloquium very much and appreciate your efforts in
organizing it. I look forward to attending the 2nd colloquium later this
year and having an opportunity to ask more questions. I am also very happy
to read today that they have finally charged someone with the murder of Dr.
Mallove and his family might be able to bring closure regarding his passing.
Sincerely, John Coviello"
------------end of second email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking
Dr. Swartz
for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article -----------------
C) Here the ingrate Mr. Coviello acknowledges to vortex our meticulous
correction to his draft report.
====> NOTE: Ironically, Mr. Coviello failed to attribute from where he
actually got the correction.
----------- public post by Mr. Coviello to vortex after receiving from Dr.
Swartz corrections of his errors -----------------
From: "John Coviello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vortex" <[email protected]>
Subject: The Proposed Mallove Cold Fusion Unit
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 09:55:34 -0400
"I hastly posted a description of the proposed Mallove Cold Fusion unit
last night. Here's a more thorough description of the Mallove unit, as
proposed by Dr. Schwartz:
The "Mallove" is a proposed unit to describe the height/width of the
optimal operating points which appears to describe most (if not all) cold
fusion systems and their products. The optimal operating points are seen
when the product is plotted as function of input electrical power. They
peak is where each system should be (optimally) operated.
The Arata data, described by Russ George, and then shown in optimal
operating point fashion by me, is characterized by a "19 Mallove" optimal
operating point indicating a very high, very narrow peak.
The helium-4 and heat production data of Pd/D2O have "4 Mallove" and "5
Mallove" opimal operating points indicating that these are less narrow, but
still important peaks of system operation along the input electrical power
axis."
----------- end of public post by Mr. Coviello to vortex using details he
received from Dr. Swartz -----------------
SUMMARY:
Despite Mr. Coviello's libel of "plagarism(sic)", we gave full attribution
to Mr. Coviello,
who thereafter has libelled us claiming plagiarism when in fact we gave him
full attribution
AND helped him twice compose his review.
Incidentally, we also offered to add Mr. Krivit's name in the next issue
and send him
email asking what his contribution was to Coviello's review (because
Krivit did not attend the CF Colloquium, and for him to review it would
be tantamount to fraud.) Mr. Krivit has NEVER returned the private email
sent to him about this matter.
Instead, Mr. Krivit has posted:
------------------------ Krivit posting -----------------------------------
"It was a collaborative piece. As editor, I worked extensively with John on
it. ....
So when we don't get any credit or recognition for it appearing
elsewhere...that's the part that really sucks."
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:42:48 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: Steven Krivit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------ end of Krivit posting
-----------------------------------
=====> In summary, as shown above, many of the corrections were FROM US,
and we did not get any credit from Krivit OR Coviello about OUR significant
factual corrections to Coviello's multiple important errors in the initial
drafts of his reports
(nor did we expect it BTW since helping someone previously seemed the
right thing to do).
CONCLUSION:
As a result of this matter, the COLD FUSION TIMES in the next issue will
cover Coviello's libel
against our periodical [which has labored for 12 years for the cold fusion
community at a financial loss]
as well as the disruption-attempt by his partner which almost led to the
cancellation
of the MIT Colloquium made to Honor Dr. Eugene Mallove [and was never
discussed publicly previously].
We are truly sorry that we elected to try to help Coviello gain recognition
in the cold fusion community
and that we bothered to lift a finger to help correct his many factual
errors in his draft reports.
