Posts by Ascoli65

@ IH Fanboy,

Quote from IH Fanboy

I don't know where your evidence is that the pump was operated at less than 60% of its "max" speed. We don't know its maximum speed at zero bar back pressure.

You can hear the pump pace at the beginning of this video:

The frequency is lower than 1 stroke per second, ie < 60 stroke/min, while the max speed for that pump is 100 stroke/min. That's a big difference, that an ear can immediately catch. Having spent weeks in calibrating that pump, Levi could have easily recognized that the pump was running at a speed much lower than its maximum. So he knew that the real flow rate was much much lower than the value he wrote in his report. With the help of the above video, everyone who knew the pump model were aware that the pump was delivering a water flux much lower than the values, which circulated on the web since the first days, but nobody warned the readers about this crucial aspect.

Quote

You presume that the real flow could have been "much lower, even close to zero," while I postulate that the real flow was probably much higher, since the stated maximum of 7.2 l/h requires a 3.5 bar back pressure.

Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem. My problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources.

@ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,

once established that the P18 (not J5) was the model of the yellow LMI pump used in all the tests carried on in 2011, let's answer your other questions.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Here is what Levi said in the "Ecat UniBo test" video:

"Right now I think 12 l/h but after I give you the exact number."

So he is not committing to a hard number in the video. He is giving an oral presentation off the cuff.

The first video of the Bologna demo shows that he was answering to a question from the public. He was just describing the scene on the monitor, addressing the yellow pump on the lower left corner, and he said that its flow was already measured. At that point someone from the public asked him which was the measured value, and he gave him the value of the max possible output of the pump: 12 L/h.

He had spent the last two weeks calibrating the pump in the actual test condition, so he was well aware of the performances of that pump. Moreover, he seemed embarrassed, as if someone caught him off the guard. If you hear the original Italian speech you can better notice his uncertain tone. Then he immediately dropped the pump argument, starting to talk about the nuclear instrumentation. Why?

A possible answer, is that he was aware that the max output of the P18 pump was not sufficient to reach the target already established for that test. Which target? Well, we could ask JR, but it's better asking the web. In his mail to Vortex (1), sent the day before the demo, he informed the vortician that "Focardi is holding a press conference to show a 15 kilowatt heating module". He made reference to an article on an Italian newspaper, but the article didn't mention the output power, so we don't know how he got that number, and I doubt that he will tell us. (Edit: JR just forwarded a message of Brian Ahern. I apologize.)

Anyway the 15 kW target was a big problem for the tester because, even letting the people believe the dry steam condition at the outlet, the max power for unit flow was about 0,722 kW per L/h (*). So having a pump with a capacity of 12 L/h, it was possible to demostrate at most a total power of 8.7 kW, nearly the half of their target.

Quote from IH Fanboy

As Alan F. has shown, the flow rate can vary (i.e., increase) significantly (beyond the stated "maximum") when dropping down to effectively 0 bar back pressure.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Lower that to effectively 0 bar back pressure, and your pump rate could probably meet or exceed the measured ~17.6 l/h stated in Levi's report.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

the manufacturer also warns about maintaining sufficient back-pressure.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

an actual physical pump serial # 12345 COULD deliver MORE than the rated specification. Levi correctly calibrated the ACTUAL performance, and therefore has no need to downgrade his results to the nominal specification value

People is free to imagine whatever flow rate they like for the Prominent pump used in the Doral test, because the actual condition are unknown. But for the January 2011 demo the calibration of the LMI pump has been done by the testers themselves, and the one responsible for the calorimetry said: "I think 12 L/h".

This public declaration is not reconcilable with what is reported in his interview to Macy, where he said that he calibrated the pump for two weeks, than he left the pump setting untouched, and that this flow rate remained constant throughout the demo. If he really had set the output at a value greater than 17 L/h during his calibration, he should have answered instead: "I think around 17-18 L/h"!

So HIS two declarations, before and after the demo, are in contrast each other.

This only fact speaks loud about the MPF of the people involved in that demo, and raises many other questions about those facts.

(1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41235.html

(*) Can be easily deduced by the Levi's report by dividing the alleged values of the heat output and of the flow rate.

@ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,

First of all, I'd clarify the pump model issue.

Quote from IH Fanboy

You then apparently make a guess as to what pump Levi used, and you go with the LMI J5 series, which has a stated max output of 7.6 l/h at 1.4 bar back pressure.

Quote from IH Fanboy

But wait, there's more. Why did you select the lower performing LMI J5 series pump when the LMI Series P Pump looks just like it, but has a higher performance. This particular pump can pump 7.6 l/h at 3.5 bar back pressure.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Here we go again : Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] The LMI J56D is also a diaphragm pump:

The following jpeg, featuring the J5 series of the LMI pumps, was prepared in English in order to be submitted to Brian Josephson.

http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg

This jpeg was first posted on physicsforum on March 30, 2011 (1). At that time, no Ecat tester had released any specific information about the model and performances of the yellow pump. The J5 model was chose on the basis of a couple of hints, about maker and maximum flow rate, appeared on the web (2-3), and because its aspect resulted nearly identical to the pump used in the Bologna test.

The next month, in April 2011, Mats Lewan witnessed and described two more Ecat tests, and in both his reports he listed the data of the pump, reporting for the first time the max output of 12.0 L/h. So, at that point, the J5 model was no more a good candidate for the pump, and the best choice resulted to be the P18 model.

As a consequence, the first jpeg in English was updated and, being the thread on physicsforum been closed immediately after the cited previous comment, I translated it in Italian and posted on an Italian forum around the end of April 2011. This is the new version:

This model, LMI P18, resulted to be absolutely identical to the Bologna pump. It has 2 knobs which allow to regulate the speed (up to 100 strokes/min), and the volume (up to 2 cm3/stroke).

The P18 capacity is larger than the J5 one (12.0 vs 7.6 L/h), but considering that it was operated at less than 60% of its max speed, the expected outflow was only 7.2 L/h, even less than the value indicated in the first (in English) jpeg. It should also be considered that the 7.2 L/h value requires the max volume per stroke, but we have no information about the actual position of the volume knob, so the real flow could have been much lower, even close to zero for a while.

(1) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83
(2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41482.html
(3) http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/…p=34361830&postcount=1233

I'll answer later on the other issues.

@ IH Fanboy,

Quote from IH Fanboy

Please source your accusations. You have provided no evidence.

Please, no accusations, we are here just to understand the facts, I'm bringing my contribution.

The flow rate is the most important parameter in flow calorimetry. Even a journalist like Lewan understood this, and in fact he put the pump on the top of the list of instruments in all his reports on the Ecat tests: "Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar."

Do you think that the many colleagues of Levi which were present at the January 2011 demo, all of them with a way longer academic experience, and many of them involved since the beginning in the CF/LENR field, were less aware than Lewan of this crucial parameter of the flow calorimetry?

The Levi's colleagues were only part of the people who participated in writing and revising the calorimetric report, the others have been revealed by Krivit (1). Do you think that these people were less aware of the importance of the pump capacity?

JR was in touch since the beginning with the "people in the project", typed up the first "brief report" on the test, and asked them to "add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments" (2). Can you really believe that he didn't ask to know the name and the model of the pump?

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…6/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml
(2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41364.html

@ THHuxleynew,

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ascoli: not being all knowing I'm slow to decide motivations of others, and always aware that cock-ups can look, from a distance, like conspiracies. I'm also not in a position to allocate responsibility between Levi and Rossi for the test designs.

I fully agree. I have no intention to talk about "motivations", "conspiracies", or "responsibilities", apart, for these last, those which are strictly related to the duties of any academic member with respect to the public, and that can be directly derived from their declarations.

Quote

But the details of these experiments are factual and undeniable, which is why it would help some people here for you to go over the Levi pump flow rate issue from those early tests with links to source.

I already did it. See, please, the above video, it has English subtitles. At about 9:40, Levi reveals the max output of the pump. Now compare it with what he declared in its interview to Macy, that I already quoted above, and think how they can fit.

For those who wish to know more about the factual aspects of the January 2011 demo, I prefer to link here below a couple of my old posts:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…s/?postID=24942#post24942

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25650#post25650

@ THHuxleynew,

Quote from THHuxleynew

And, indeed, it is consistent with the Lugano test, where again Levi makes a fundamental mistake that allows a COP=1 system to be measured as COP=3.

There is a major problem with the terminology here. If your "again" is with respect to what Levi, and others, did in January 2011, they are not "mistakes", unless in English this word applies also to deliberate misrepresentations of experimental data.

Quote

IHFB is simply biassed, so he does not consider the positive nature of the errors in Rossi tests, but there is a consistent pattern.

I don't understand what "positive nature" means in this context. Anyway, I find also biased to speak about "Rossi tests", it gives the wrong impression that all the responsibilities lie on a single person. Actually, they were "Ecat tests", not necessarily designed by Rossi. For instance, the January 14, 2011 demo was an "Ecat UniBo test", and under this name it has been presented to the public:

@ IH Fanboy,

Quote from IH Fanboy

One of the purposes of this test is to expose the faux certainty of Jed, Sig, Zorud, Shane, and others (and indeed most participants of lenr-forum).

I don't know what the real purpose of this test is, but it is evident that it is going to repeat with the Prominent red pump, what has been already done in 2011 with the LMI yellow pump. The difference is that while the present test is affected by many uncertainties due to the unknown real configuration of the pump, in 2011 the pump was calibrated for 2 weeks by the testers themselves:

Quote

Excerpt from: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

The flow rate, Levi continued, was measured with a high precision scale. “The flow rate was 146 g in 30 seconds. Using a simple measurement gives a simple result. There was a pump putting in a constant flux and what I have done is – with the reactor completely off take measurements – we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration. After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment. […]

So there is no uncertainty here. The tester (*) knew which was the real output of the pump, but he issued a document, under the aegis of his university, reporting a much higher value. This is sufficient to consider all this story a farce since the beginning.

Many other people, who contributed to write and revise the report, knew the performances of the yellow pump, including someone cited by you, but the report has been eventually issued without any reference to the discrepancy between the maximum output of the pump and the allegedly measured flow. This fact is sufficient to determine the lack of credibility of any successive development of the Ecat story and of its protagonists (*).

(*) I'm not talking about Rossi, he is not a scientist, all the credibility in the Ecat performances comes exclusively from the academics who participated to this saga.

@ IH Fanboy,

Quote

Ascoli65 wrote:

I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.

Quote from IH Fanboy

With this I agree. Andrea Rossi's e-Cat is a Schrödinger's cat and will be until it hits the market, which is the final and ultimate arbiter.

The present Prominent pump test will be inconclusive, but the January 2011 demo was already conclusive:

maryyugos's pink invisible flying unicorn will beat the Ecat on hitting the market first.

@ Bob,

Quote from Bob

2) It does not matter if this test shows the pumps cannot produce the volume needed.

I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.

It can provide some hints on the physical factors affecting the real flow of the pump, but it can't say nothing about the human factors that eventually decide which value will be declared by the testers.

In the Ecat saga, there are reasons to deem that the most important human factor is the propensity of the many actors to deliberately misrepresent the real data. Let's call it the Misrepresentation Propensity Factor (MPF). It's impossible to test the real MPF of a person, especially if he is aware of being under scrutiny. The only way to get a rough estimation of someone's MPF is deducing it from information released when there was a good confidence that nobody would have checked the reliability of his statements.

That's the reason why the best opportunity to estimate the MPF of the people involved in the Ecat story is provided by the earliest tests, in particular by the January 2011 demo, the first diffused on the web, when the endorsement of a few academics seemed able to provide a sufficient protection against any questioning about the truthfulness of the data used to calculate the excess heat, so that it was not paid too much attention in publishing a lot of collateral information (pictures, videos, interviews, etc.).

Speaking of pumps, we can for example estimate the MPF of the author of the calorimetric report of the January 2011 demo (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf). In this report, he wrote that the water flux was "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s", ie 17.6 L/h. But the information available on the web show that he knew that the max output of the pump (the yellow one) was only 12 L/h, and, moreover, he couldn't ignore that during the demo this pump was operated at a much lower speed than the maximum. So you can easily deduce that his MPF is indeed very high, ie he has (as regard the Ecat stuff) a high propensity to deliberately misrepresent the experimental data under his control. That's also the main reason why the Ferrara and Lugano reports, signed by him as lead author, have no merit at all.

The same reasoning applies to the all the other persons who contributed to the writing of the January 2011 calorimetric report, and that were aware of the real characteristics of the pump. Several people. Not only Rossi!

When the truth is based on sb'says, it's first necessary to calibrate the persons, not the instruments.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

We are talking about two different tests and two different reports. The one that I was talking about, that was issued and then revised after comments by me and others, was in 2013. It is here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

This is a more complete description of a Rossi test than anything published earlier. Taken on its own, I think it has merit.

The 2013 report has been issued and revised by the same persons who issued and revised the 2011 report ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf ), which reported a huge excess heat calculated on the basis of completely invented data. Therefore, the only merit that the 2013 report could have, with respect to the 2011 one, is to be more effective in misleading the public.

Quote

I now think that Rossi is a complete fraud and a criminal based on the Penon report, and the Murray and Smith reports. […] It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report.

This is your present acrobatic narrative. I wonder who can believe it.

Quote

Who knows what happened?

I guess you were in the best position for knowing it.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

No, it was after they issued the report. They revised it and issued a new version. The gist of it was the same.

This is completely in contrast with your words:

Quote

Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011

Jed Rothwell Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:21:08 -0800

I revised the H2 flow measurement part already.

The first report I will upload today is by Melich. This week or next we should have one by Prof. Levi.

These people are busy, which is why it took so long for them to give my report the once-over, and even they overlooked the part about weighing the H2 bottle. That is what they told me -- I have the handwritten notes, but it is clearly wrong.

The part about the electric wires I observed myself, from the video and photos. It is just a "reality check" observation.

I would like to know more about how the steam was condensed. They must have flushed it out of the room, down a drain. Otherwise they would end up with a very hot large bucket of water. Someone here correctly pointed out that venting that much steam into the room would make it like a steam bath. A medium size water heater at Home Depot is 5.5 kW. A sauna takes about 6 kW, I think.

- Jed

Ref. http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41453.html

Display More

It's way clear from your own words, and from the Krivit's article already cited, that you and others were involved in the examination of the data of the demo held on January 14, 2011, and in the preparation of the final report published on JoNP only on January 24.

So, it seems that you are trying to fabricate a new narrative of those early facts, completely different from the real one.

I wonder if this applies to everything you are writing here.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

Wow! In that case I have interfered with hundreds of experiments in my role as copy editor.

This is not what I intended. Interferences happen when the contacts with external people take place between the setup of the test and the first issuing of its report, as happened in the January 2011 demo.

Quote

But, don't you worry. This was after the test. I and others made suggestions about the first draft of the paper.

I am not worrying. I'm instead relieved seeing that you recovered your memory of the January 2011 facts.

So, you are confirming now that you had contacts with the members of the measuring team before the issuing of the calorimetric report, and that you and others did make suggestions about that paper. That fits what Krivit wrote about the genesis of the Levi's calorimetric report (1).

But the big problem is that it was impossible for whoever contributed in any way to that report not to be aware of the inconsistencies of the data used for calculating the astonishingly huge excess heat reported in that document. You, and the others, did actively contribute to the preparation of the calorimetric report, therefore it's really difficult to understand which members of this sort of "extended Ecat team" are responsible for the fake data disseminated worldwide by that report.

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…6/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

I don't recall the 2011 document.

Come on, you can't have forgotten the document for which most of the people here in this forum are following the Ecat saga since the beginning of 2011. This document is included since then in your library ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf ), and you contributed to its content.

Quote

I don't recall the 2011 document. I do not think he was in charge of the experiment; he was just reporting on Rossi, in a summary fashion.

Levi was the researcher who prepared the test, calibrated the pump for two weeks, assumed publicly the responsibility of the calorimetric measurements, and, eventually, issued the calorimetric report, whose results triggered all this circus. He reported all the data by which he computed an astonishingly excess heat, but these data resulted to have been invented. I don't know who invented these data, but at least one of them has been suggested by you. It seems that the 2011 report has actually been a team work at which many people contributed. Not only in Italy.

Quote

In any case he had many co-authors for the 2013 work; the method and instruments were far better than previous studies; and the paper taken on its own has merit.

The merit of a document is based essentially on the credibility of its authors. If you can't believe what they write, the best methods or instruments of the world are not sufficient to give you the necessary confidence in their results. Levi was the lead author of the 2013 report, and his credibility on the Ecat subject was already harmed by the report he issued in 2011.

Quote

You have not given a technical reason to doubt that.

You can't give any technical reason until you don't get enough confidence in the credibility of who signed the report.

Quote

As I said, I communicated with Levi and with some of his co-authors in 2013. They seemed capable to me. Subsequent events make me doubt that, …

The reasons for doubting the authors of the 2013 report were precedent and not subsequent to that report.

Quote

… but in any case my view of the paper was partly based on direct communication with the authors, which I think is a better way to judge than looking at one summary paper by one of the authors.

Direct communication with the authors of a technical report from someone external to the team responsible for the measurements can be considered as a serious interference in the work when this communication happens before the publication of results. It's also heavily disrespectful toward the universities whose prestige is exploited to give credibility to the report. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened in occasion of the January 2011 demo, when you had contacts with the members of the team of the testers well in advance of the issuing of the report which exhibited on its first page the logo of the University of Bologna.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

You don't understand the concept of time, past and future, and the impossibility of knowing something a year before it happens?

Year 2011 came before years 2013 and 2014.

Quote

Again, how would you know to condemn or ignore the 2014 test in 2013? Do you have a time machine?

Again, you are pretending not having understood the years I'm referring to. See above, please.

Quote

Have you found a serious problem with the 2013 report?

Yes, a critical one: the credibility of the leading author.

Quote

You seem to be insisting that I should have known in 2013 what did not happen until 2014, and what happened later in Rossi's 1-year test.

Again. You seem to not have understood what I meant. But we both know you did have.

Quote

You insist that we should have rejected their work because we should have known they would publish a worse paper a year later. This makes no sense.

I insist that his 2013 work, as well his 2014 work, should have been rejected on the basis of what Levi wrote in 2011, two years in advance. This makes sense, to me.

Quote

I do not know about invented data, and I do not recall the 2011 Bologna test.

I wonder who can believe you on this.

What an incredible comedy!

@ JedRothwell

Quote from JedRothwell

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem to be suggesting we should have rejected the 2013 tests based on the Lugano test which was published two years later.

I'm sorry but I can't believe that you have misunderstood what I wrote. THH just here above has perfectly understood what I meant. I just think that it is the usual tactic you use to avoid facing the 2011 facts. Anyway, just in case my English could have been misunderstood by someone else, I repeat my position with other words:

The 2 reports issued by Levi et al. in 2013 (Ferrara tests) and in 2014 (Lugano tests) should, IMO, be ignored just because of their leading author. At least until the same person will not have fully explained why he used some invented data to calculate the claimed excess heat in the report he issued after the demo held in Bologna on January 2011.

@ THHuxleynew,

Quote from THHuxleynew

Everyone makes mistakes. Those like Jed who have strong and not nuanced opinions will sometimes make big mistakes.

I'm very sorry. I don't want to chase anybody. I know, I give this impression with JR, but this is not my intention. I have nothing against him or anybody else in this affair, I'm just trying to understand the real role played by each protagonist of this saga, and in doing so it's impossible to ignore the role that JR had in the January 2011 demo. It's not a matter of mistakes, but of roles.

I guess that most of the followers of this story started to look at it due to that event, happened 6 years and half ago. In the meanwhile most of those who initially believed in those results realized that the Ecat didn't produce any excess heat. Now, they are asking themselves how this could have happened. For instance, just a few comments above, someone asked how it is possible that so many millions have been paid, in spite of all the warnings which could have been easily found on the web. Almost everyone try to explain these facts, attributing some extraordinary deceiving talents to one man. That's simply impossible.

Focusing on only one man prevents the possibility to have a realistic view of what happened along the years. It's necessary to better understand the role played by the people around him. JR knows a lot about the tests held in 2011, but he always divert the discussion toward the more recent tests. Did you notice this behavior of him?

I have the impression that he is bamboozling whoever ask him something about the 2011 tests (1). Is it only a my impression?

(1) Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

@ JedRothwell

Quote from JedRothwell

Tepid support.

Tiepid? I'd say warm, at least! The post, I linked above, contains 23 excerpts (the maximum allowed here by the limits on characters) taken from the thousands of comments that you posted in the period between January 2011 and December 2014 in support of the reliability of the results of the first Ecat tests and of the credibility of the testers, including Levi.

Quote

I still do not find any errors in the first Levi tests, and I still do not see how Rossi might masterminded them. […] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

The pdf you linked doesn't refer to the first Levi tests, ie those documented in the report issued by Levi at the beginning of 2011, as you well know (1). You keep on saying that the first Levi tests are those performed in Ferrara two years later.

It's evident that you are trying to divert the attentions from what happened in 2011, during the launch of the Ecat in the blogosphere. I'm not surprised, I know this tactic of yours since long (2). What puzzles me are those who are following this saga since the first demo of 2011, realized that those results were fake, but still upvote your comments, even if you had a major role in disseminating such results.

This is really "bizarre", just to use a word liked by one of your upvoters.

Quote

Would you care to tell us how this was done?

If we refer to the effective first Levi tests, I told many times how these manipulations (not exactly errors) were done. You can use the "search" function of this site, looking for the words "January" and "2011", to read them.

But you meant the test performed in Ferrara, and in this case the simplest explanation is implicit in the first four letters of the name of the document that you linked: Levi. Whoever understood what happened during his first tests, held in Bologna at the beginning of 2011, doesn't need to go beyond the name of the first author of the TPR1 (the Ferrara test), as well of the TPR2 (the Lugano test), to realize that those reports don't worth the time spent to read them.

Quote

Tell us what you know.

I know what I found on the web, and that in large part comes from you. You are one of the most informed first hand source. The problem is that often you release only half a card, and when asked for the other half, you answer that those are your business, or you don't answer at all (3).

(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

(2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25724#post25724

(3) Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe it was because they trusted Levi et al. more than that group merited. I do not think they trusted Rossi himself much.

Just to remind who supported the myth of the Ecat and the credibility of its testers for years:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=29406#post29406

@ sigmoidal,

I see that you wish to continue the confrontation on this subject. So, let's go on.

Quote from sigmoidal

You seem really confused by insisting that Melich can only be 'a functionary of the DoD'. He is a research professor at a US Navy Graduate School. [...] He is not limited to being only 'a functionary of the DoD', though.

I can't understand your objection. He acted in the Ecat affair as "someone" of the DoD. In fact, he appears in the Board of Advisers of JoNP as "Prof. Michael Melich (DOD - USA)".

You can also rely on his own words. A few weeks after the first and most famous demonstration of the Ecat held in Bologna on January 14, 2011, the ICCF16 started in Chennai, India. In that occasion he said (2): "the reasons that I am involved in this at all derives from my responsibilities as a federal employee who is frequently approached and Rossi and his partners approached us". If you wish to know who "us" were, you can read the "Overview of the ICCF16 in India" written by his wife (3): "Melich described the involvement he has had with Rossi’s efforts: “Rossi and his partners approached us at the Navy …""

So, there is no doubt that he was acting in the Ecat affair as an employee of the DoD.

Quote

He could have paid the $20 registration fee himself out of pocket.

This doesn't matter. As shown above, he acted in the Ecat affair as DoD employee, and therefore he should have had some authorization or mandate to do that, also because he could have incurred much higher expenses (for instance all the travels with Rossi). Probably he had a budget at his disposition to manage this specific assignment, and the modest registration fee could have been included in some lump sum for minor expenses.

What does matter is that, if Krivit's allusions are true, he registered the JoNP site as a federal employee of the DoD involved in the Ecat affair, therefore, in such a case, Rossi is writing since 7+ years on a site put at his disposition by the DoD.

Quote

So let's go with your assumption that Melich was the original registrant of journal-of-nuclear-physics.com . Melich is a professor. Maybe (unrelated to any knowledge of Rossi) in the middle of the night he got inspired to start an online Journal of Nuclear Physics, …

Your funny story is interesting, but for sure the incipit is false. The assumption is not mine, it's a clear allusion made by Krivit. I have no means to support it. I can only rely on the fact that Krivit, contrary to me, lives in the USA and knows very well the CF/LENR circle and its protagonists.

Quote

Melich could easily and reasonably have done that without any input, endorsement, or any other connection to the DoD.

No, for his words at ICCF16, he was acting as a federal (ie DoD) employee.

Quote

So under your assumption that Melich was the registrant, does it not seem likely (or at least plausible) that he simply gave (or maybe even sold for a small fee) the URL to Rossi because he wasn't interested in pursuing it and/or he wanted to help a colleague out?

Again, it's not my assumption, see above. The rest, sorry, are nonsense, especially if he had the minimum doubt that Rossi could really have the Graal.

Quote

But do you even have any proof that Melich registered that name? Because the current registrant is named as: 'EFA SRL' located in: 'BOLOGNA, ITALY'. So my question to you is: Why do you think that a website clearly controlled by Andrea Rossi and registered in Bologna Italy has any connection to the US DoD (other than possibly that a US citizen who happens to be employed by the Navy as his 'day job' also has helped him get it started)?

As already said I base myself on what Krivit strongly alluded in 2010. I'm confident that he checked the registrant name on the whois site and found that it was "A web site registered in California by a secret entity", as he confirmed in January 2011. So when the JoNP was largely used to disseminate worldwide the fake calorimetric results of the January 14, 2011 demo, it was owned by a secret entity based in California. There are not so many candidates for this role.

Presently, whois indicates that the site is owned by EFA, but it also reports that there have been at least 2 registrants. So the ownership changed after the January 2011 demo. Maybe it changed only recently. I have no idea when and why. But it would be also interesting to know the date and the reasons for this change.

Quote

And please consider that one way to interpret the fact that Krivit hasn't responded to you is that he no longer is interested in his speculation regarding the JoNP board of directors that you have become so interested in.

That's the reason I showed you the jpeg ( http://i.imgur.com/yoshHoI.jpg ) with date and hour of all our comments on ecatnews.com. Do you think that he lost interest in just one day?

Quote

Or maybe there's some super secret conspiracy that's so complex that it doesn't make any sense to outside observers. We can never completely rule that out, can we?

Conspiracy is not my hypotheses, but for sure the Ecat affair is so complex that it's not possible to jump to any conclusion about the role and the responsibilities of whoever protagonist of this intricate story.

(1) http://faculty.nps.edu/vitae/c…earch_results&last=melich

(2) http://www.newenergytimes.com/…elich-on-Rossi-ICCF16.pdf

(3) http://www.infinite-energy.com…s/pdfs/MacyICCF16IE96.pdf

@ sigmoidal,

Quote from sigmoidal

But I don't really see why this is significant. Rossi obviously runs JoNP, and fills it full of fake Rossiworld stuff. Maybe Melich registered the domain and gave it to Rossi.

If you really think that this possibility (ie that a functionary of the DoD registered and gave to Rossi the site where he posted fake stuff for 7+ years) is not significant, well, we not only have different positions, but we use also a different logic.

Quote

I would encourage you to try a bit more strenuously to contact Krivit with your questions. Here are three possible ways to do that (based on entering 'Steven Krivit LENR' into a search engine):

Thank you for the links, but I did already ask him. My request was clear and he was there. I can reasonably consider his silence as a confirmation of his allusions, otherwise he would have corrected them.

And in any case, the real authoritative confirmation should have had to come from the DoD herself, but they decided not to answer about the "more recent developments in LENR" even if the request came from the US House of Representatives. This could be significant, as well.

Thanks for all your kind replies.

All the best, to you too.