FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[Bernie7]

Steven B. Krivit is not qualified to hold Rossi's hat.  Here is his bio.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bio/CV-KrivitStevenB.pdf

[poynt99]

Steven B. Krivit is not qualified to hold Rossi's hat.  Here is his bio.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bio/CV-KrivitStevenB.pdf

What are "qualifications" based on Bernie? In other words, what would qualify Krivit to comment on or publish in this field?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry about this guys.  There's something wrong with that Bold editing function.  It does away with paragraphing.  I've had to delete that whole post.

I've reposted it hereunder.

Apologies.
R

And yet more apologies.  It took me so long to edit that ruddy post that I didn't see you there Bernie.  sorry. 

[Bernie7]

TPU-Elite:  What qualifications are necessary for Mr. Krivit  to report on LENR?   Science 101 and losing his huge ego.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Poynty

As Bernie is nowhere around, may I presume to show you exactly where Krivit loses all credibility in his 'presumption of comment'.

In his letter to the editor he writes...   

     "I would like to comment on the Dec. 3 story “MU research chief wants ‘cold fusion’ puzzle solved.”

His first comment is that Professor Duncan erred in his reference to Rossi's 'empirical results.  As he states

      "I agree with Professor Robert Duncan on the importance of the scientific method and, furthermore, scientific protocol. Duncan’s suggestion that Andrea Rossi has “empirical results,” however, concerns me. Nobody has seen or tested any Rossi device outside of Rossi’s garage, let alone done so independently. No visiting scientists have been allowed to properly measure and inspect Rossi’s device."

His concern that no-one has tested any Rossi Device outside of Rossi's 'garage' as he puts it not only fallacious - but Krivit himself has referenced other work - extensively - as evident in his own article on the 'paper' if such it is, on this, published as early as 2008.  If he is specifically referencing Rossi's work - then he's omitted the very PUBLIC accreditation of Focardi, Celani, Stremmenos - Preperata and others all of whom witnessed the demonstration and approved the results demonstrated by ROSSI.A wide number of the public were invited to at least two demonstrations.  And they ALL concurred that the results were - as predicted by Rossi.

And why did Krivit need to refer to Rossi's research laboratories as a 'garage'?  If that's a garage it's the size of a house.  Clearly he's trying to diminish Rossi's work by implying that he's an amateur garage enthusiast.  That's where the likes of you and I come into play  Poynty.  Not Rossi.

Then there's this little gem of innuendo and implication.

     "I  interviewed Andrea Rossi in Bologna, Italy, on June 15. I had to explain to him the term “control experiment.”

How's that for a damning piece of utter nonsense.  Krivit - with his one year's course of design engineering under his belt and a questionable qualification in business? - implies that he had to teach the likes of Rossi and Focardi - the finer distinctions of required control experiments?  And we, the reading public must take this as an accurate account of the facts?  Not even I am that naive.  And it doesn't stop there.  Then there's this.

     "Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi ....."

Notice how he forgets to mention Sergio's credentials.  That's PROFESSOR Sergio Focardi.  Anyway - ever onwards.  Then he says...

     "...(they) said they had submitted their paper to multiple scientific journals but that all had rejected the paper unfairly. In fact, they did not submit their paper to any journal, only to arXiv."

Where is the evidence of this 'allegation'.  Because that's a damning statement.  In effect he is saying that Focardi and Rossi are LIARS and - for some reason best understood by Krivit - they're also lying to him.  If you are going to accuse anyone at all of being LIARS - then show the evidence.  Else omit the reference.  What a cheek.  And if Krivit assumes that anyone at all will believe his allegations over statements made by Rossi and Focardi - then he needs to re-evaluate his own credibility.  Thus far, in this very short exercise - his own credibility has been sorely taxed.  If Rossi and Focardi reference the fact that they've tried to publish but to no avail then I, for one, am entirely inclined to believe them.  Then more.   

     "On camera, Rossi demonstrated to me how his machine worked, a video of which can be found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
By all accounts, the visual evidence was grossly inconsistent with his claim."

Where - exactly does the visual evidence 'grossly' contradict the claim?  What is particularly disgusting in this reach of Krivit is this.  Krivit was doing the filming.  What has Krivit shown us that is inconsistent with the E-cat cell operating?  What he DID show us was a fully operational cell.  With the measurements on display.  What EXACTLY was inconsistent?     Then.

     "The list goes on. “Professor Rossi,” as Duncan calls him, has no affiliation with any university. He has a degree in philosophy and a degree in chemical engineering from what CBS calls a “diploma mill.” Anybody involved in the LENR field who condones or, worse, promotes Rossi’s unscientific behavior and claim does himself and the LENR field a tremendous disservice.Steven B. Krivit, senior editor,"

lol.  And then this concluding nonsense.  Rossi does NOT refer to himself as 'Professor'.  Someone called 'Duncan' called him Professor.  Unlike Krivit who has ABSOLUTELY NO CHEMISTRY ACCREDITATION - Rossi has a degree in Chemical Engineering AND a degree in philosophy.  And WHAT 'UNSCIENTIFIC' behaviour' is Krivit referring to?  Rossi behaved the perfect gentleman in front of Krivit and gave him far more time that he deserved. I saw nothing that was UNSCIENTIFIC except the obvious inability of KRIVIT to understand the implications of that demonstration.

So Poynty point.  To answer your question.  Whatever Krivit's qualifications or otherwise,  I'd suggest that his ONLY qualification to comment is as an opportunistic detractor who extends his license to free speech to include the right to malign the good work and good name of anyone he chooses.  In which case he's abused his editorial privileges and falls foul of any further credibility. And ass for that 'Steven B Krivit Senior editor' bit.  That's an utter insult on the the entire editorial field.  After this sample article as a measure of his editorial skills - then I'd earnestly recommend that he change his profession.  Not even those who want to detract from cold fusion or LENR - or call it what you will - would want to side with that much partiality.  Unless, of course, you do?  Then indeed.  I rest my case.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary