Steven Krivit vs. Andrea Rossi - Why?

Shane wrote:

Quote

Krivit recorded the video while visiting Rossi in Bologna after being invited to a personal ECat demo. The Ecat didn't seem to be working too well, Krivit went to the other room to record the "steam" come out of the hose, came back and caught Rossi on video, with what is best described as a: "kid caught with hand in the cookie jar" look. Rossi was fiddling with the controls.

This is a frequent error. It seems to fit that Krivit caught Rossi adjusting the controls, but that didn't happen in the videos you linked.

It happened in one of Lewan's videos, but Lewan glossed over it. Here's a link to the video with Krivit's editorializing.

I couldn't find the original.

Tomas Clarke said above that Krivit is an “informed observer”. Krivit has a sixth grade science degree trying to make money off a one sided feud with Rossi. Anyone who wants to believe Krivit is “informed” is not trying to be objective.

Quote from BBCK777

Tomas Clarke said above that Krivit is an “informed observer”. Krivit has a sixth grade science degree trying to make money off a one sided feud with Rossi. Anyone who wants to believe Krivit is “informed” is not trying to be objective.

I agree Krivit is not a scientist. But he is a good journalist with long and deep experience of the LENR scene. Informed sums it up well.

If you require qualifications, then Rossi has a Philosophy Masters degree and no science credentials other than those bought. I think Philosophy is great, but not when substituted for Science. Seems no better than Krivit?

Tomas Clarke:

Tom, you said Krivit “is a good journalist”; what kind of journalism do you call this, from Krivit’s site “Rossi Promoter arrested on child sexual abuse charges”? Krivit had zero journalism experience or background, this from Krivit, “I had a career in information technology as a network specialist.” Krivit says this about how he achieved your scientifically “informed” staus; “My applicable background (in science) comes from the experience that I have accumulated from speaking with the experts.” I doubt very much, talking only to those experts you want to talk to and not talking to experts who will not talk to you brings you to an “informed” status.

Quote

Krivit had zero journalism experience or background, this from Krivit, “I had a career in information technology as a network specialist.” Krivit says this about how he achieved your scientifically “informed” staus; “My applicable background (in science) comes from the experience that I have accumulated from speaking with the experts.” I doubt very much, talking only to those experts you want to talk to and not talking to experts who will not talk to you brings you to an “informed” status.

(1) I'm not claiming Krivit has a scientific education, but then neither does Rossi.

(2) I claim he is a good journalist because of the long history he has of LENR journalkism (see his publications) and awards he has won etc.

Quote

Krivit is a classical biased opinion journalist who have a great talent to deform reality, and transform his misunderstanding, and failure to obtain information into sexy stories of conspiration.

Well he was certainly, initially, predisposed to think Rossi had what he claimed. I agree that he is a "crusading" journalist and clearly got a bee in his bonnet about what he considered Rossi's deceit. That is understandable, he is a strong LENR+ advocate and to have a false prophet in this area is bad for everyone else. Also, as a potential acolyte disappointed he will have felt more strongly perhaps than others.

All of that explains the strength of his campaign against Rossi - as has been noted. It does not speak as to the accuracy or not of his initial judgement. I cannot determine that, except that the classic "cookie-jar" video gives clear evidence that the test he observed did not work as Rossi claimed, and some quite strong evidence that Rossi was adjusting controls so as to make it work better while Krivit was out of the room for a short period, in a setup that was supposed to work continuously without minute-to-minute adjustment. You can see how this second thing would easily lead to suspicions in a neutral observer.

Quote

and some quite strong evidence that Rossi was adjusting controls so as to make it work better while Krivit was out of the room for a short period,

Not Krivit. Lewan. It's Lewan's video. Krivit just gave his interpretation. See the above videos.

Thanks for that. It is easily got wrong! But, it does not alter the point, except perhaps to strengthen it slightly.

Thomas Clarke

Is there a reason you did not answer this question: Tom, you said Krivit “is a good journalist”; what kind of journalism do you call this, from Krivit’s site “Rossi Promoter arrested on child sexual abuse charges”?

I call it accurate but unnecessary information. And, while personally as you know I stay clear of personal comment, Sterling's belief's about science (what he promoted, relevant) are way off beam and totally weird. I suppose you could make the case that this pattern of weirdness is consistent with weird (and criminal) behaviour in other areas, though I would not.

But: I'd rather doubt Sterling's judgement on the basis of his arrest than Rossi's journalism on the basis of this comment about Sterling. What do you think?

Quote

The fact you do not see that Krivit slants his headlines to FUD and against a person with whom he has a well known feud, is not something that promotes your opinion

You are misquoting me. Where have I said or implied that?

I have stated previously that Krivit has a campaign against Rossi. That does not IMHO make his original judgement suspect - before he turned dark on rossi he was biassed in favour and if he believes, sincerely, that Rossi is a charlatan it is understandable he would have this "feud". I think the word feud is incorrect here, it is a PR campaign, no doubt, and equally transparently because K believes R to be only pretending to have LENR+, and K is a great supporter of LENR+ as the future of the world.

Also, as I've said above, I would not mix up character and business or science facts. I would also pay little attention to who supports Rossi - it is meta-info.

However there are many who do give Rossi credibility because of his supporters. If discrediting one of these reduces Rossi's support Krivit might (legitimately) argue that it should be done.

That Sterling supports lots of other people is irrelevant. Krivit, no doubt, reckons his reputation does not depend on Sterling support.

You see this as me supporting slurs on Rossi via connection. Actually that is not true, I'm saying that Krivit's judgement of Rossi (made a long time ago on historic evidence) is not contaminated by his PR offensive now.

Thomas Clarke

Unbelievable. Rossi has nothing to do with Stirling Allen's arrest, Krivit simply wanted to associate Rossi with sexual abuse. Why didn't Krivit also name the hundreds of other people Allen has interviewed? Tom, I too respect your comments here, but your rationalization on this Krivit/Allen subject is a bit too much.

Quote

I call it accurate but unnecessary information

You quoted that. How does that imply:

Quote

I ... do not see that Krivit slants his headlines to FUD and against a person with whom he has a well known feud

Do you deny that Krivit's comment is accurate? Providing accurate (but unnecessary) information is exactly how PR is done. Calling it FUD perhaps implies it is inaccurate, but in reality it is just emotionally loaded. The fact that a backer of Rossi is a criminal has no effect on Rossi's probity unless you use the good reputation of said backer as a guarantor for Rossi's reputation. Maybe some do. So perhaps it is effective propaganda though it would not sway me.

Quote from BBK

Unbelievable. Rossi has nothing to do with Stirling Allen's arrest, Krivit simply wanted to associate Rossi with sexual abuse. Why didn't Krivit also name the hundreds of other people Allen has interviewed? Tom, I too respect your comments here, but your rationalization on this Krivit/Allen subject is a bit too much.

I think you are objecting to my lack of negative reaction. What am I rationalising? I agree Krivit has a PR campaign againt Rossi. I agree he is providing accurate but unnecessary information in the service of this. What am I supposed to say? I don't disagree with Krivit's aims, and though I am not a PR person and don't do PR I can't see that Krivit should be blamed in this case given that he is surely convinced Rossi is a bare-faced liar and engaged in a major deceit. Krivit (I suppose) believes sincerely that Rossi is harming the field of LENR research and should be stopped.

Personally I find Lewan's video quite strong evidence that Rossi was deliberately egging the pudding in a demo. I also think it overwhelmingly likely that Rossi has nothing that works. I don't feel as strongly about it as Krivit, and even if I did, an all-out PR war is not my style. But I don't think Rossi deserves good PR and believe his massive credibility based on a bogus experimental result (Lugano) is wrong.

Quote from Eric

even when you make assumptions on partial data

All science is "best guess" based on partial data. So maybe what you mean is that my "best guesses" assign more informative probabilities than you think is warranted? But that is a matter of judgement and not binary "making/not making" assumptions.

Tom, you're quoting the other Walker.

Thomas Clarke

You said “What am I supposed to say?” I would like you to admit this quote from Krivit’s site “Rossi Promoter arrested on child sexual abuse charges” is character assignation by associating Rossi with Allen’s sexual abuse arrest, and these tactics are not used by “good journalists”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination