hi, and thank you for the answers.
No doubt Rossi is the main user of JoNP, but my question was about ownership. Does he own the journal? If not, who (person or entity) is the owner?
They are more evident considering also the first mail he sent to Vortex in March 2010 (1). This paper (2) could also help in clarifying his allusions.
This is what he wrote in November 2016 (3): "He orchestrated the scheme, one step at a time, by convincing a few scientists who were all too willing to believe that he had developed a ground-breaking LENR". But, in my opinion, this story is very hard to believe. I find nearly impossible that a controversial Italian philosopher can convince so many researchers, most of them with a PhD in physics or other scientific disciplines, that he has been able to succeed, in a such sensational way, where hundreds of other scientists had already failed for nearly 20 years.
So do I. Since the beginning.
Maybe, but only at some extremely low level of occurrence rate, a level comparable to the probability estimated by Focardi in the paper he wrote with Rossi in 2010 (4): "4.7x10-1059, so small to make the capture of a single proton by a Nickel nucleus impossible." In my opinion, such a low level prevents even to imagine any practical use for any possible LENR effect, for whichever purpose. But that's not my point.
My point is that no conclusion can be drawn on the nature of the Ecat affair and on the role of the many protagonists of this saga, including the front man, until the questions about the JoNP raised by Krivit in 2010 remain unanswered.
I really appreciated your thorough analyses of the exhibits released along the RvD litigation, that's the reason I'm asking your opinion on this specific point.
It's clear that none of us 'outsiders' can know who owns the URL journal-of-nuclear-physics.com, but I have to confess that this is not a very interesting question for me. Rossi obviously uses it. He either owns or is 'renting' it. But it's obvious that he is the one running JoNP. It's entirely consistent with his scamming history. Who else would so brazenly name a 'journal' this way but with content that clearly shows that it is not a journal at all, but rather a blog. I think that JoNP provides an important part of the strong evidence that Rossi is fraudulent. Who cares if he owns or rents the URL? He runs the website.
Maybe I've misunderstood your point, because I don't see any reason for your conclusion that "no conclusion can be drawn on the nature of the Ecat affair ... until the questions about the JoNP raised by Krivit in 2010 [are answered]". The conclusions about the Ecat is obvious to anyone who has any technical competence and to most others who don't: Rossi has no LENR reaction. He's a fraud. He's a conman. RvD was extremely helpful in establishing that to a high degree of confidence. The only way to not come to that conclusion is to ignore heaps of evidence showing that this is what Rossi does, and has been doing for at least 3 decades. Whether or not Rossi owns the JoNP URL has no bearing on that whatsoever. The constant provable stream of lies that he emits on JoNP are highly supportive of his fraudulent behavior.
What does anything about the Ecat have to do with URL ownership? Perhaps you believe there is some more complex relationship, and that pro-Rossi commenters here are involved in some collusion with Rossi and a behind-the-scenes JoNP owner? If so, I don't think that's at all likely. But with that unlikely premise, this conspiratorial group is currently doing a spectacularly awful job of promoting the Ecat, from my perspective. On the other hand, he did get 10.5M for crude stage craft, as I've stated. But watching Rossi is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
As a reviewer for peer reviewed publications, I can tell you based on my experience that I have no problem at all believing that Rossi has fooled a lot of Ph.D. scientists. Peer review is not at all like an engineering quality review. Peer review mostly addresses issues regarding the organization and content of the article in order to improve it for publication. Sometimes the review involves questions of evidence and errors in methods or conclusions. And while many papers are rejected because they are a mess, most of the time the reviewers give advice on how to modify the paper so that the submitters can try to revise and submit elsewhere.
Its almost unheard of for a reviewer to actually verify the data, calculations or analysis of the authors. That's in stark contrast to an engineering quality review of some submitted design or product proposal.
So it's not hard to get published. And while researchers don't assume that submissions are necessarily valid, they do generally assume that the submitting authors are not intentionally deceptive regarding their core findings. This assumption that researchers do not intentionally deceive, held by 'ivory tower' researchers (and that describes my professional community), is what Rossi has successfully exploited.
But in my experience, this is self-limiting. Once someone establishes a poor reputation by being intentionally deceptive, the community of researchers tend to stay away at all costs.
And RvD has provided boatloads of evidence to the research community that his reputation stinks.
So I don't anticipate that Rossi will be getting any warm endorsements from any 'ivory tower' researchers any more.
And I can't speak about the VC world, but I would think that RvD has effectively destroyed his reputation in the VC world as well.
If so, he'll have to find new marks. Who knows, maybe his next con will be crowdsourcing. The problem with that is when you don't produce, you then reap an angry crowd.
And Rossi most definitely likes the adulation of the crowd.
Regarding your links:
1) I don't believe there is anything 'funky' about JoNP other than that it is a blatant fraud created by Rossi himself.
2) This paper has nothing to do with Rossi. The only connection I see is that Michael Melich, an early supporter of Rossi is the final author. Do you think it has additional relevance?
3) I read this article by Krivit about 6 months after he wrote it, and find it to be a helpful summary.
4) Broken link