Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • As a converse to your question, is this the behavior of someone acting in good faith?



    No, of course not. But I am sane, he may not be. Actually, come to think of it, he doesn't even have to be insane to explain his bizarre behavior. I have run across so many in my life that functioned well, sort of, in the workplace and social situations, but would perceive threats, see insults, take offense, where you and I wouldn't, and react differently, strangely than you or I.


    You can see the same personality issues in play here, which explains Para's "WTF" happened to LF. :) Rossi believers, for which I was once, often explain his odd behavior away by comparing him to Tesla, and Edison. One thing they forget, is that those two actually produced products, whereas Rossi has yet to do that. He is still at the promise stage, 9 long years into his promises, and that is starting to ring hollow. Very much so.

  • Mary Yugo wrote:
    ONE FROM THE GREEN INK PARTY. Alan Smith


    Please stop doing that. It makes the message hard to read.

    Not to mention being incredibly rude.


    Mary Yugo is a pseudonymous pseudoskeptic/skeptic (kind of a mix), much more sane than, say, Sifferkoll, though Sifferkoll, is, at least a real, known, acknowledged person. If you are going to color, why not all contributors with fixed positions. I'll call Mary, "George" because ... hey, nice name. My middle name, my father's name. George is far from outside the norm here. When site administration picks sides, the site goes south, and I have now seen lots of signs of that. If that is a site owner, well, can't be helped. If, however, the owner is a trustee for a community, and is responsible to the community, maybe the community can advise the owner. If most here want this blatant rudeness, so be it. I have no critical interest here. Right now, it is mostly an opportunity to research the Federal case, and I get snippets here and there from Dewey, who also is harassed. Of course, he is also rude and uncivil on occasion. These environments can be like bars.

  • Rossi believers, for which I was once, often explain his odd behavior away by comparing him to Tesla, and Edison. One thing they forget, is that those two actually produced products, whereas Rossi has yet to do that. He is still at the promise stage, 9 long years into his promises, and that is starting to ring hollow. Very much so.


    Yes indeed. Edison was an infuriating at times. He drove his investors nuts. He went way over budget and demanded lots more money, then he spent it on things which were not in the budget and not agreed to by them. He was sharp dealer (a cheater), and he did not pay his bills. But he worked quickly and came through often.


    Often, but not always. He screwed up many times. I recall he blew away $10 million on magnetic separation, which was a lot of money back then.


    See the book "Thomas A. Edison: A Streak of Luck" for details.


    People forgive bad behavior when you make lots and lots and lots of money for them. See also Steve Jobs.

  • Frank Acland corrected the post on E-Cat World. Meanwhile, I looked and saw that a user wrote this:


    "IH never intended to perform the 1 Year test (as they didnt make any effort to find a customer)"


    Again and again, there are people who take Rossi's conclusory claims in the Complaint as if they were fact. Dewey has claimed that IH identified a customer in Raleigh, which would have been very convenient to IH, and Rossi refused to accept, giving essentially a bullshit answer. I would guess that at that point, IH gave up on arranging the test. These are things that can be established with testimony, if this goes to trial, and if there is conflict in testimony, the jury will decide what is fact, if it is relevant. I would guess that multiple people knew about that offer (including the prospective customer), so establishing this with testimony might not be difficult.


    Nobody has corrected the obvious bias. This person goes on to say:


    But then, Rossi updated the reactor and then with the improvement they started to see a COP of around 50. Too difficult to dismiss or argue agains it.[sic]


    It's clear that there is no understanding of the lawsuit and the issues. If Rossi "updated" the reactor, it was no longer the reactor to be tested in the Agreement, and would not satisfy the condition for payment. Rossi sold a supposedly existing technology, not some new one to be developed. Sure, if he had a better reactor, he could have negotiated with IH, and the simplest negotiation would have been to dump the 1 MW test entirely, and rely on independent and multiple verification of individual reactor units, as made by IH with Rossi not touching them, just telling them what to do, and perhaps watching. And the same with the testing. No-Rossi-touch. But instead, Rossi went for completing the test as if it was something he could change at will, and he behaved as if he was completely in charge, apparently. And then appears to have assumed he could force IH to pay.


    Now, the kicker: if he'd sued Industrial Heat, they might have $50 million sitting around. They'd spend some of that on legal expenses, and that would be planned. Instead, Rossi included Cherokee in the suit, a $2.2 billion corporation, on a very weak legal argument, and this practically guaranteed that the best lawyers in the country would be retained.


    Rossi still thinks of Darden and Vaughn and the corporations as if they were one person, it is part of his massively dysfunctional world view. Darden and Vaughn are officers of Cherokee, responsible to the board and the investors in that real estate fund. They were personally interested in LENR. They, however, had no right to invest in an agreement with Rossi on behalf of Cherokee, not without risking an investor lawsuit. Apparently no Cherokee money was invested in IH. IH invested in something that was obviously very risky, the vast majority of analysts would say. Investors in IH knew that, you can ask Dewey and I'm pretty confident what he'd say.


    This much I predict: the judge will remove Cherokee from the case. The judge may remove Darden and Vaughn personally, but that's not so certain. For example, suppose Darden and Vaughn did fraudulently claim that Cherokee would pay the $89 million if needed. Difficult to prove, but maybe. I'm not saying the argument would succeed, but it might be triable.


    I do not see that Rossi has alleged what would be needed to keep Cherokee as a defendant.

  • Are you saying you still hold some hope that low temperature Ni-H or Ni-Li-Al-H fusion actually works? In Rossi's hands? (Wow if so!)

    If you want to say this neutrally (do you?) the question would be about NiH anomalous heat. PdD anomalous heat is still a mystery, but we do know, now, that the main reaction is with deuterium, producing helium and basically nothing else at high levels. So I will happily call it "cold fusion." NiH reactions have been sporadically reported for a long time. For PdD cold fusion, there is direct evidence, with multiple independent confirmations. There is nothing like that with NiH, though there is some work from SRI that might be replilcable, this is still unconfirmed. The Texas Tech/ENEA collaboration has announced a program to confirm heat/helium correlation with increased precision -- basic science! -- and is also working with an exploding wires technique that seems to be able to vet materials, and they have results with NiH. I'm skeptical. But these are competent researchers.


    I certainly hope that NiH can be confirmed, but most investigations are scattershot. To my mind, nothing is clearly established, merely possible. One of the explanations of Rossi's behavior is that he did see something, but exaggerated it and failed to nail down his measurement techniques and possibly he also faked some tests, which "eccentric inventors" have been known to do. It's not a proof that they have nothing, merely a very bad sign about their ethics. And sometimes they are deluding themselves, too. Many are coming to the conclusion that Rossi is just an elaborate con with some fairly unusual ability to generate confidence and belief. "Confidence man" is the original word. However, as you point out, there are others involved. So ... the current lawsuit may not resolve the question of whether or not Rossi actually has some real results in some of what happened. However, what the suit has already shown is that Rossi is, very likely, a dangerous and untrustworthy business partner.


    Even if the 1 MW reactor actually worked! And it appears possible that it did not.

  • I'm copying this entire post by Mary Yugo and may comment on pieces of it.

    Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else. But here are some simple yet powerful facts -- yes, FACTS!

    Well, perhaps. Or reasonable surmise, uncontroverted by the record we have.

    Quote

    1. It is very simple to falsify the results Levi got, simply by placing the output temperature thermocouple too close to the gargantuan heaters in the original ecats. Note, incidentally, that the outer heater does nothing but heat... you guessed it... the COOLING WATER! I pointed this out in 2011! Others have since noted that irregularities in the flow meter measurement could also account for erroneous positive results.

    Those are two possible error sources. "Gargantuan" is a bit of polemic, eh? I forget the design and am not sure we know it. However, a heater that takes the cooling water to boiling reducing the heat needed to take the reactor itself to the higher reaction temperature, isn't odd. The power would be input power, not a problem, as long, of course, as it is correctly measured.

    Quote

    2. Levi failed to perform the very simple calibration step, using the built in gargantuan heaters to check the output power measurement method.

    This is a generic Rossi failure. Calibrations are not performed. It's a huge lacuna, missing over and over, in spite of being pointed out again and again. There is some NiH work in China where they are calibrating with empty fuel containers. It's better work. There are still problems, and my position that, absent major and sustained heat, proof of nuclear reaction has not been attained unless there is correlated nuclear product. In the case of NiH, that might be difficult, if Storms is right and the product is deuterium, because substantial deuterium will also be present in the fuel, unless it is deuterium depleted (which is more expensive and nobody has used, to my knowledge).

    Quote

    3. Levi never repeated the experiment despite multiple requests to do so, including one by email from Dr. Brian Josephson. Levi never even replied to that email (check with Josephson if you doubt that).

    The protocols of science have extensively been ignored in the Rossi affair. He is sometimes called an "Italian scientist" in newspaper accounts. He is not a scientist. It's not his training nor his experience. He is possibly an engineer.


    Quote

    4. Levi and Rossi never pursued the original ecat design even though it made more power and a better "COP" than the best hot cat result... by more than a full order of magnitude (10X).

    The field of cold fusion was afflicted by a constant effort to "improve" experiments rather than thoroughly investigating and understanding them. Now, I know engineers. Some of them are perfectionists. They keep trying to make the product better. As a result, they do not deliver product. Managers must know and restrain this, deciding when something is good enough to market, and then taking that to market, and reserving improvement for future product. If Rossi actually had something, he could have had an investigational product for sale by the next year. But he wanted a 1 MW reactor, remember that? Flamboyant, is the word I'd use.


    Quote

    Now that isn't the discovery of an error in the test, which Levi made impossible by complete and incomprehensible failure to cooperate with anybody anywhere about doing the test correctly and making documentation available. But it is an error in methodology: no blank, no calibration! And several easy ways to cheat. Those features are true for each and every one of Rossi's tests and remain true to this day despite having been explained to Rossi and Levi by at least a dozen people, some rock solid reliable and using their true names, starting back in 2011.

    Yes. I wrote quite a few critiques. The biggest thing I found was the possibility of overflow water, which reduced the COP possibly to 1.0, depending on how much. No testing for overflow water, everyone was distracted by what amounts to a lesser version of the same thing, low steam quality. And, of course, they used a humidity meter to measure steam quality, which is a total misunderstanding of how a humidity meter works.


    Quote

    I've never been able to figure out Levi. He is an undistinguished assistant professor who should be at least an associate by now. He has never written a single paper on his own which meant anything. Most of his publications are about brewing coffee. How come he has not published a properly done ecat experiment with calibrations, in a peer reviewed journal, even if it were simply a cold fusion journal? I can't decide if this man is incredibly negligent and incompetent or whether he is crooked. I'd ask him which it is but I doubt that he'd answer me. I see no other possible reason for his behavior but maybe you do. Certainly, it isn't secrecy. If Rossi and Levi wanted secrecy, they would not have done public demonstrations and given interviews, for example to Krivit. And Rossi would not be posting an incredibly tedious and inane set of Q&A's on his misnamed blog, JONP, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year!

    One might think.


    Quote

    So no, I did not "find an error" as such.

    Right. Rather, you found nothing rising to the level of strong evidence. Too many possible artifacts, not acknowledged and investigated. Or at least acknowledged. Read McKubre's reports, when there is something missing, he normally says so. "It is possible that ... we were unable to investigate ....") Real scientists do this, they become very careful about reporting.


    Quote

    Note also that were the original ecat real (never mind the hot cat and the QuarkX [ROTFLW!]), Rossi and Levi could have been rich beyond their wildest dreams by now by simply marketing a small heater to the world at large or by licensing the technology to anyone of a large number of major industries and companies.

    One might think so. You forget about the Vast Conspiracy to Suppress Free Energy that sucked in Rossi in 2012 by giving him $11.5 million and promising him $89 million more. Right? The snakes! Rossi is so innocent that he didn't read the Agreement and didn't bother consulting a lawyer. The rats, to delude such a saint!


    Besides, Rossi hates lawyers, like any right-thinking person.


    Quote

    It has been almost six years since Rossi's fun and games began. Or do you really believe that Rossi has "certificators" [sic] working on safety certificates for the small ecat for five years and in that time, looking at the greatest invention of the last two centuries, they have been unable to come to a positive decision? That's what Rossi uses as the lamest imaginable excuse for not making small ecats available to the public. Even if that were true, why could the small modules not be available to industry? So even on Rossi's own extremely suspicious terms, it makes absolutely no sense. None of it.

    People have been noticing all this since 2011. IH, I'm sure, noticed it.


    They took action to call Rossi's bluff, is one way to put it. They saw Rossi's claims as either real and of vast importance, or as fraud or false and doing great damage to LENR, by depressing research. After all, why go after watts if someone is claiming -- and appearing to show -- kilowatts? So they took a risk with $11.5 million. We can all thank them. If Rossi technology is real, he is more or less going to be forced to prove it, and yet the lawsuit, as it stands, warns any investor away. And he did that to himself.


    Mary, he's insane.

  • Mary Yugo wrote:
    Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else.


    That is incorrect. There is a lot of data in the report:
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

    Jed, that is not the work Mary Yugo was talking about, obviously. This was the first Hot Cat report, published much later on arXiv (which you do not show with the paper, by the way, it's not dated in the pdf itself) much later.


    Mary might be talking about http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf, sketchy reporting of tests done in December 2010 and January 2011.

  • In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?

    Because he is a very good reader of people. The Lugano testers were not going to do anything outside of what Rossi wanted them to do. Rossi selects people, it is obvious.


    There is a great story by Dewey that rings true. If Dewey is lying, it will all come out and I will personally stick pins in a voodoo doll. ... Nah. But he will stand exposed, because the truth will come out.


    It is on a post here that could be found if I had time, but this is my memory: he was present at an early Rossi demonstration at the IH lab. He had an IR temperature gun. When Rossi saw that, he told everyone to leave, because the reactor was out of control, but Dewey saw that the temperature was nowhere near what Rossi was claiming. Then Rossi told the IH people to keep that "lawyer" away. (Dewey is not a lawyer, he's an investor in IH.) They humored Rossi. Dewey describes Rossi as engaging and likable. That is a characteristic of a con artist -- or some high-functioning but very crazy people.

  • Abd. Without moderation of some kind this forum will fall apart and you will be here all on your own posting walls of text so boring that few bother to read it. If you think I am partisan, so be it, but it is not the case. So live with a little green ink and be happy.


  • [...]
    1 - [...] dryness of the outlet steam [...] a factor of six, at least.
    2 - [...] flowrate of the dosimetric pump [...] a factor of 2.5 of the thermal power produced.
    3 - The duration of the boiling period [...] a factor of 2 of the total energy [...]



    Congratulations Ascoli, I wasn't yet in the loop back then and hadn't studied this early test, but your summary is very telling.


    Actually it fits the scheme of "multiple redundancies" that Dewey mentioned a while ago.


    Even Lugano has two big measurement issues, one of which (electrical) may have been noticed and corrected early in the test but leaving traces.

    [note skeptics formatting self-applied]

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Not
    to mention being incredibly rude.


    Well being a member of the 'incredibly rude club' I think you would have no difficulty recognising such characteristics.


    As for me, I am a reformed character and apologise for any offence I may have caused in the past. I think its time we all left ad hom's at home and offered our unconditional support to the 'moderators', here's mine:


    Very best of luck and my full and unconditional support for you and all the moderators.


    Salaam alaikum
    Best regards
    Frank

  • Again and again, there are people who take Rossi's conclusory claims in the Complaint as if they were fact. Dewey has claimed that IH identified a customer in Raleigh, which would have been very convenient to IH, and Rossi refused to accept, giving essentially a bullshit answer. I would guess that at that point, IH gave up on arranging the test. These are things that can be established with testimony, if this goes to trial, and if there is conflict in testimony, the jury will decide what is fact, if it is relevant. I would guess that multiple people knew about that offer (including the prospective customer), so establishing this with testimony might not be difficult.


    Right. People so easily accept his explanations for things. For example, "he sold his house to finance building his reactors." Anybody can give any reason they want to for the things they do. It could be true or not. We can safely say that the explanation that he sold his house to finance his business is the explanation that casts him in a good light. It naturally leads to the thought, "nobody would sell their house to finance a non-working technology." The question that it is false doesn't so easily arise since the explanation is presented as fact.

  • Right. People so easily accept his explanations for things. For example, "he sold his house to finance building his reactors." Anybody can give any reason they want to for the things they do. It could be true or not. We can safely say that the explanation that he sold his house to finance his business is the explanation that casts him in a good light. It naturally leads to the thought, "nobody would sell their house to finance a non-working technology." The question that it is false doesn't so easily arise since the explanation is presented as fact.


    This factoid is actually true. From the horse's wife's mouth in direct conversation.

  • That is a different test, with a different reactor, and a different report.


    I was replying to a MY's comment, which began with this sentence of you: "Have you discovered an error in the first set of tests by Levi?"


    So, what did you mean with "the first set of tests by Levi"?


    For me, and I think for MY, they are the 3 tests held in Bologna in the winter 2010/11, that is the tests you find in the first row of the attached jpeg (http://i.imgur.com/rB93G1X.jpg). I guess that these 3 tests are also those which triggered the interest of the vast majority of the people following this story, and which gave the maximum of scientific credentials to the Ecat, due to the numbers of the academic physicists which were involved, and the fame of their University.


    If they were wrong already in the first public demo, which other test should we consider?

  • Very happy to see you posting on LF. I really appreciated your postings on Mat's blog


    Thanks for your appreciation. Anyway, I'm here on L-F since almost a month, when I posted nearly the same infos: Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test .


    Can you please send me a contact email to dewey.weaver@deeprv.com? Any conversation from there-on will be private.


    Sorry, I can't. There is a lawsuit in course between two private parties. I'm not really interested in its outcome, nor I'd like to appear as a supporter of any part. Moreover, I'd prefer to avoid to become privy of any info that I cannot share on the web. I hope, you understand.


    I'm here only because 5 years ago I, as many other millions people, heard the astounding energy claims proclaimed by some academicians of a prominent Italian University. Unfortunately, since the beginning, these claims were unfounded and badly wrong, but since then they have been not retracted by those who had spread them all around the world. I just would like to see the scientific truth restored by some academic or scientific authority of my Country, not by a US court.


    Anyway, I'm willing, within the limit of my time and my English skill, to answer any question, provided they deal with material or procedural aspects of the tests held during 2011. But, all I can say could have been easily found by any expert or adviser in a normal technical due diligence. All the infos are available in the web since the beginning of this story.

  • Quote

    That is a different test, with a different reactor, and a different report.


    I directed her attention to the other report, as an example of what I find credible. I suggested she have a look at it. She then accidentally selected the wrong report. That's all there is to it. You should stop confusing the issue.


    I was not referring to either report Jed mentions nor to the one Ascoli cited. I was referring to this: http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304



    The reference to a "gargantuan heater" was deliberate hyperbole. The device tested was the original ecat which looked like this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…nergyCatalyzer20111.shtml


    That ecat has a single thermocouple, placed entirely by Rossi, in the output stream, to measure output water temperature. Simply moving it close to the large heater ("gargantuan" because it is the largest feature in the device) would cause wild overestimation of the output power. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I don't know. A simple, "Joule" (resistance) heater calibration would have resolved the issue. Levi was asked again and again by many people including Josephson, to redo the experiment with proper calibration and a blank run and he never (NEVER EVER) replied to this challenge in any way.


    The experiments referred to by Rothwell and Ascoli are different ones and they were discredited in different ways. All Rossi experiments have giant gaping holes in calibration or verification. Clarke has raised the issue of emissivity errors in the various hot cat tests. Calibration in those tests did not include the full operating temperature range and left out the most critical. Input power monitoring was flawed or left up to Rossi wiring and equipment in some of the tests. Other tests confused wet and dry steam. Yet another test allowed a thermocouple misplacement again, this time on a heat exchanger where the thermocouple was deliberately placed too close to the hot end. In my opinion, none of these "errors" are accidental but each and every one was done by intent by Rossi with the purpose of deception. This of course is an opinion. Absent the opportunity to make my own measurements, I can not rigorously prove any of it. IH, at present, are the only ones who can conclusively prove that the ecat doesn't work.


    My point is simple. To prove that the ecat works and works well and is nuclear, all Rossi had to do was to ask Levi to replicate his experiment that I cited above. It had BY FAR the best COP and power level of any experiment done since until the megawatt one year test which was totally non-credible because the "ERV" is a friend of Rossi's and the "customer" is his lawyer! Had Rossi repeated the Levi liquid flow calorimetry test, under the complete control of a truly reliable and credible third party such as ORNL, Sandia, a major university officially, or a large company with competent staff like Tesla, GE, GM, Google, etc. etc., then the world would already be different and Rossi would be a billionaire. You think Rossi doesn't know that?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDenis Lee etc etc


    Post edited to remove potentially libellous content (accusations of fraud). Alan

  • There is no allegation of fraud. Only of the possibility of fraud. I specifically said I can't prove it. Amazing that you can't grasp that simple concept, Alan. Makes me wonder what else you are missing in this sordid Rossi story.


    Quote

    This of course is an opinion. Absent the opportunity to make my own measurements, I can not rigorously prove any of it. IH, at present, are the only ones who can conclusively prove that the ecat doesn't work.


    That's not clear enough?


    The censorship and rude changes in other people's posts speaks to the lack of confidence the owners of this forum have in the validity of their conclusions.

  • Actually it fits the scheme of "multiple redundancies"


    Not exactly "redundancies". All of these overestimations were necessary all toghether to get the target of the demo. In its calorimetric report, a COP of about 12 was claimed. Moreover, there was the needing of increasing the output energy in order to exclude the possibility that the claimed output heat could have been attributed to the combustion of the gas coming from the hydrogen bottle connected to the Ecat.


    Even Lugano has two big measurement issues,


    I know that there has been an intense activity around the two TPRs related to the hot-cat tests held in Ferrara and Lugano. But, sorry, I can't comment in detail these findings because I didn't examine the reports. I gave them just a look, but I suspended any further examination due to their lead author. Before spending my time in verifying those quite twisted and absolutely improbable results, I'd like to know how he justifies the blatantly wrong data reported in his first document about the January 2011 demo.

  • Here's a crazy thought, Alan: why don't you try refuting what I said? That Levi's failure to replicate the most potentially successful ecat test ever is suspicious of incompetence or "you-know-what"? You don't think it's incompetence or ______ ? OK, prove it.

  • Here's a crazy thought, Alan: why don't you try refuting what I said? That Levi's failure to replicate the most potentially successful ecat test ever is suspicious of incompetence or "you-know-what"? You don't think it's incompetence or ______ ? OK, prove it.


    Difficulty in replication might be an intensional IP protection mechanism. Rossi said that he has discovered a configuration whereby his IP is very difficult to replicate. This could be involved with startup.

  • Ascoli65 - duly-noted and understood. Was it you that did the background work on Levi's paid research with Fulvio Fabiani for pinball software or firmware?


    If yes, can you please share the links to the university disclosure system where those payments were listed?


    Thank you,
    - Dewey

  • Dewey


    Ascoli65 - duly-noted and understood. Was it you that did the background work on Levi's paid research with Fulvio Fabiani for pinball software or firmware?


    If yes, can you please share the links to the university disclosure system where those payments were listed?
    Thank you,
    - Dewey


    So, you don't really have a clue do you? And here was me thinking you had a direct line to the 'all knowing master' himself. (Sorry Mary; I've amended it - 'himself' should be 'himself/herself')



    What a disappointment.


    Shalom
    Best regards
    Frank

  • Was it you that did the background work on Levi's paid research with Fulvio Fabiani for pinball software or firmware?


    No, absolutely not. I must also add that I have never spoken of these payments. If there have been irregularities in this regard, it is the duty of his University of finding them. I will not go into this kind of controversy.


    What interests me is that any professor or researcher of an Italian University makes his best in telling the scientific truth, because the people trust them and pay the taxes from which their regular salary comes.

  • There was nothing irregular about the money paid to UniBo, it is recorded in the University public accounts (visible online) and all due taxes and fees were paid. Any suggestion (or fond thought) that 'brown envelopes' were passed over are total nonsense.