Here is a long posting by Steve Krivit: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/Report2-372-EnergyCatalyzerScientificCommunicationAndEthicsIssues.shtml
I would say this is correct. He points out many weaknesses in Rossi's presentations and data. He exaggerates the problems, but basically it is correct. Then he nullifies the discussion: "I went to Bologna to seek scientific answers to scientific questions that deserve forthright and detailed responses. Rossi does not claim to be a scientist, and he was under no ethical obligation to give me the scientific answers I sought. He is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution. Levi, however, is a scientist and, to a certain extent, represents the University of Bologna. (Levi is, of course, entitled to academic freedom to conduct research as he chooses.)" My response: I *did not* go to Bologna because Rossi told me he would not answer scientific questions. He made that abundantly clear. Krivit should have asked, as I did. If he had scientific questions, he should have asked them over the telephone. Rossi would not have answered them, and Krivit would have saved the cost of airfare. If Krivit did ask before he left, and he knew that Rossi would not answer scientific questions, then perhaps this whole thing was a set up. Perhaps Krivit went there to make Rossi look bad. It is the easiest thing in the world to make Rossi look bad. I have been dealing with Rossi for over a year and he has not answered any scientific questions yet, so why was Krivit expecting anything different? Rossi answers engineering questions, albeit not to my full satisfaction. Since Rossi "is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution" why is there dispute? Why is there any issue? Rossi refuses to answer questions. End of story. Ditto Levi. I know dozens of professional scientists who will not publish papers or allow me to upload anything about their work. Yeah, sharing information is essential to academic science, but there is no professional ethical obligation to do it. If you want to make private use of it, or withhold it for months in order to make progress yourself and win more acclaim, that's perfectly ethical. It is unfriendly. It is unbecoming of a scientist. But it is not unethical, and it sure isn't unheard of! It is as common as arguing over faculty parking spaces. When a programmer finds a bug in a Microsoft programming language, it is helpful to others if he or she informs Microsoft. If programmers never did that, no programming language would work. However, this is not a professional obligation. People who do not do this are jerks -- that's all. As Krivit points out, Rossi is not a scientist. Yes, we knew that. So why ask him scientific questions? Why demand of him things you know from experience he never provides. If you know that he is not going to prove the steam is dry, why bring up the subject? Either you trust the meter or you don't. I asked Rossi to let me run a test of steam quality. He said no. Why make a fuss about it? Why devote pages of a blog to that topic, and why stir up anti-Rossi feelings? Rossi does that himself on his own blog without Krivit's help. - Jed
