Rossi: 3rd Party Testing Will Finish in 2 Weeks

Andrea Rossi has commented some more on the validation process.

In comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Rossi stated in response to a question I posted about whether the new partner’s interests might swallow up Leonardo’s interests, Rossi replied:

Our Partner shares our philosophy. Stay alert: the third party validation will finish in 2 weeks, after which they will prepare the report. I’ll keep you informed.

Another poster mentioned that this comment contradicted Rossi a comment Rossi made on November 21 when he said that testing had been completed. To this Rossi responded:

Yes, we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.

It looks to me then, that the report may not be published until 2013 with the Christmas and New Year holidays coming up.

  • mark

    If I were investing mega money in Rossi, I would have a neutral physist. Pay him a small fee of say 20k usd to sit andwatch a ecat run for 2 months. Hard to fake a long experience and a seasoned veteran

  • mark

    Pweet there is also several other senarios you have not touched.. Such as the power that be own most of Europe and therefore any third party testing would have to be performed beyond their influence of coruption

  • captain

    fm Rossi’s JONP:

    Davide C.
    December 1st, 2012 at 9:04 AM
    Dear dr. Rossi, is it possible to know which kind of problems did you have? Did you have problems shutting down the hot-cat?
    Best regards

    Andrea Rossi
    December 1st, 2012 at 3:16 PM
    Dear Davide C.:
    The problems, for now, are confidential. They have been resolved, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Very good, Andrea!

    • Roger Bird

      captain, you are so gullible! I await confirmation.

  • freethinker

    Independent validation.

    What does it mean in this context? What does Rossi mean when he says that in a few lines in a blog, written in broken english?

    We have a tendency, sceptics an belivers alike to weigh every word he say or write.

    Are all of you commenting about this delay privy to the validation process details here? No, I guess not.

    Maybe it was a conditional ok, pending some adjustment, requiring more measurements and hence delay in the report.

    Maybe the simply came back to Rossi after some time, while preparing the report, with additional requirements, and remeasurements.

    The are almost an infinite number of explanations to this delay and why it happened. Rossi prefer to report on the positive in his blog for obvious reasons. Also, he is under no obligation to give us the full story.

    Don’t read too much in every statement from Rossi. If you do, you will be disapointed.

    What is apparent is that there is a validation process in place, by the customers, partner or third party. It is not yet complete, report is pending.

  • Pweet

    Another delay?
    Why am I not surprised?

    A.R. says;- “Yes, we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.”
    Well that part is not quite true is it?
    More accurately, the test was concluded but the report was not.
    But a few weeks ago, he said the tests had been completed and all that was now required was for the third party to write up the final report which would be forthcoming by the end of November.
    He said it was out of his control and that it was in the hands of the third party.
    He said this a number of times in response to questions about the release of the report.

    So what could be the “serious problem” which has unexpectedly arisen at literally the final hour?
    I find it hard to believe that this late in proceedings a competent testing authority discovered they missed out on measuring some critical factor in the experiment and therefore the test was inconclusive or invalid. Did they forget to turn on some critical instrument? I don’t think so.
    I find it far more believable it goes something like this.
    A third party was selected by A.R. who was willing to do the test and write up a report, but when the report was finalised, the results clearly showed that the device produces little or no excess energy. This is consistent with what the Swedish people found when they tested it.
    That Swedish party had no reason to falsify the results. In fact if the results were at all in line with the claimed performance of the device they were ready to invest millions of dollars in the technology. However, on the basis of their independent third party test, they bailed out.
    If this latest testing authority were also truly third party and independent then they would also be obliged to present an accurate and truthful report.
    I think they did exactly that.
    The only conclusion can be that this report was not consistent with what A.R. has been claiming.
    This has to be the reason why A.R. is so much against independent third party tests. He knows they will fail.
    Even if he truly believes he has a workable device, he would have to know from all his past experience over the last 40 years, they always fail an independent testing. That has been the long established historical pattern.

    So where to now?
    He can keep working on the original third party testing authority to see if he can “edit” the report somehow to make it appear closer to the claimed performance, or he can dump them and drag the whole show on for another six months by looking for a new third party and starting again.
    Since the important thing is to “keep the show on the road” then I think he will do both of these in sequence.
    That will allow for the maximum delay while maintaining a justifiable appearance.

    • Jim

      I suggest you check out the complexity of measurement at quantumheat.org, and add that to your exacting calculation of what the real story is.

      • Pweet

        Yes I know. But then I can’t help thinking this is exactly why he has moved into the high temperature environment rather than press on with the original e-cat design which has a multitude of uses for billions of people worldwide, and yet it has now apparently been shelved.
        Because of certification issues? On a low pressure low temperature water boiler? I don’t think so.

        The original e-cat operating at around 100 degrees C and making steam was very easy for all and sundry to check if the figures made sense. And unfortunately they didn’t. From the various videos of different demonstrations it is apparent that errors have been made. Lots of them. And they all seem to be along the same line, and that is, to give the appearance of something which is generating excess kilowatts of energy when in fact it is not.
        By moving the demonstrations into the high temperature arena where the output can only be measured by means of specialised and complex equipment, the tests have, in effect, been removed from the analysis of video viewing, which is all most of us get to do.
        We therefore have to take someone else’s word for it that what they are saying is true.
        And that leaves the whole thing wide open to abuse if the only person who can give us an opinion is A.R. himself.
        This is why some test results from an independent unbiased authority are essential if he wants people to believe such a remarkable device exists. The failure to consistently provide no proof can only lead to the conclusion that it doesn’t.
        Since the failure to come up with the much promised third party independent results in the often promised time frame, I have to conclude the “serious problem” is more to do with the results rather than a technical issue with the measurements.

        Another point to make;-
        This so called new “important and powerful partner” did not get important and powerful with millions of dollars to throw at pet projects by making bad investment decisions. If they actually have millions to invest in this technology, and I am happy to believe they do, then in my opinion, it will be only so long as certain milestones are met. I believe one of these milestones would have been a satisfactory report from this third party testing.
        Whether or not they choose to throw more money into this at this point, depends on the enthusiasm in the organisation for this sort of thing. It will be summed up on a risk/reward basis.
        They might be tempted to go another round but my guess is, the money for further work stops right here until such time as proof of concept is produced.

        • Peter_Roe

          Why would you continue with valves if you had now invented a transistor? The hot cat is simply better – more output, higher COP, faster ramp up etc. The original system is obsolete.

          “This so called new “important and powerful partner” did not get important and powerful with millions of dollars to throw at pet projects by making bad investment decisions.”

          I think you have it about right there. They had obviously already performed their ‘due dilligence’ and were satisfied before they partnered with Leonardo Corp.

          I think you may have started with a conclusion and worked out a convoluted way of getting there, for your own reasons.

          • Pweet

            To continue the analogy, you would continue with valves if everybody wanted one and you had orders for half a million of them and you could be sure they worked because they were warming your factory for the past 3 years.
            You may recall, valves stayed around for twenty years after transistors were invented.
            As far as the due diligence goes, on new technology it’s often better to jump in first to claim territory. It can be mostly safe so long as milestones are well defined and then adhered to. Again, it’s a risk/reward calculation. What’s the risk and how much do we make if it all comes good?
            There is no doubt that if it does come good then the rewards will be huge. Some may consider this is worth the higher risk. Good luck to them.

        • HeS

          @Pweet:” I believe one of these milestones would have been a satisfactory report from this third party testing.”

          If parter is realy “important and powerful”, then it has its own R&D laboratory and can perform their own tests. They need not external “third party testing”.

    • Lu

      The tester could have discovered a problem with their tests or equipment and needs to redo some of it. Happens all the time.

      Don’t get your panties all in a knot over this, “Pweet.”

      • Pweet

        Thanks Lu.
        I’m ok now.
        Panties untwisted. :)

        • Mark

          Mr Pweet,
          In Your two comments You have written the best concise analysis and summary .
          Thank You for Your great insight!

    • http://lenrplans.wordpress.com/ Owen

      Someone has a short memory. Didn’t Rossi just state the other day that the results were “no worse” than the previous report? They hit a glitch. Big deal. Why not just wait and see what happens?

    • captain

      Pweet, how can a light bulb of 60Watt be measured by the swedish tester as of 120Watt? Rossi measured said bulb: 59Watt!

      The swede said that the COP was, as per his measures, not enough!

      This makes me smiling a lot! because if there is one thing in Rossi’s E-Cat that is tremendous, is the COP. Rossi said that now his cat is a Ferrari kept running like a tortoise. If I don’t go wrong the swede reported a COP very very small… ;-)

  • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

    Hey! Coal is losing it, thank God. Here’s the latest (almost as predicted in my book, POWER: A Story of Cold Fusion.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/the-decline-of-u-s-coal-in-three-charts/

  • GreenWin

    Every so often it helps to review the last year of ecat/CF developments. Professor Christos Stremmenos has a reasonable view of what was going on in Bologna last October. These are his thoughts:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7NuNNicWV6k

    Professor Stremmenos is a retired Professor of the Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry of the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in the University of Bologna.

    • GreenWin

      Also Greg Goble’s comment regarding the Boeing Research SUGAR-Phase II study of LENR for ultra-green aircraft is interesting:

      http://ecatreport.com/cold-fusion/is-the-u-s-promoting-cold-fusion#comment-5625

      • Peter_Roe

        Thinking about avionics applications before an electrical generator has been developed seems a bit ambitious to me.

        I wonder where Greg Goble gets his info about GE being involved in frantic LENR research? While they do look like a strong possible for Rossi’s ‘American partner’ I haven’t seen anything to directly tie them in, beyond speculation here and elsewhere.

        • GreenWin

          Peter,

          Greg is basing his list of SUGAR team members on the actual contract issued by NASA to Boeing Research (it has been published.) The General Electric Aviation division assigned a couple of engineers to work on the SUGAR team.

          You are right, however that this is a long term study (25 years out), designed to consider future propulsion systems. The SUGAR team concluded that while LENR was higher risk, its energy density made it by far the best technology for an ultra green subsonic aircraft.

          • Jaroslav

            Demand will determine the development curve…..given that any of the technologies are ultimately viable, there will be a rush to market similar to that of the dot com situation. The key element being reliability not necessarily “science”.

  • Gaute

    Everyone wants this to be available as soon as possible.
    But remember that this is a new technology that nobody really understands.
    There are theoretical explanations, but they are in no way confirmed.
    How long time did it take to develope the batteries we have today ? From lead to lithium ?

    This technology will take more than 5 years to develop. I will wait until 2018, then we can talk. It will probably not be fully developed until 2025.

    • Pachu

      You can wait all the time you want, the problem is for the investors, i dont think thay are going to wait until 2018 or whatever.
      The clock moves forward, the investors want to see something that makes money and at some point they are not going to accept any “delay” or excuses they are going to be filled with hot air and eventually explode, then we can see if the theory more thinked but less said here is thruth: its a investor scam ?

      Top 10 investors scams:
      http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20020829a.asp

      • Peter_Roe

        If you hurry you may still be able to post this garbage over at ECN before the plug is finally pulled, but please don’t dump this kind of antiquated bs here. No-one is interested, and it just wastes everyone’s time.

        • captain

          Tank U Peter for your patience :-)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah Gaute, in fact, I can’t think of anyone who moves faster than Rossi.

  • georgehants

    From Discovery News
    Senate OKs Military March Toward Biofuels
    Analysis by Tim Wall
    Fri Nov 30, 2012
    Besides biofuels, the U.S. military has been pushing for a decentralized power grid for security reasons, reported Forbes. The DOD and the Department of the Interior opened up 16 million acres of land for solar, wind and geothermal energy production in a memorandum of understanding signed earlier this year. By creating off-grid, renewable power supplies, the military can be prepared in the event of widespread blackouts and or breakdowns in the fuel supply line.
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/senate-oks-military-march-toward-biofuels-121130.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

    • clovis

      Hi. George.
      Good idea at least until the e-cat, is in place, smile.

  • HeS

    Perhaps “serious problems” means a little conflict with validator?

    Curious: The third-party validator will not be a credible entity, or will suffer from a “conflict of interest”.

    Rossi: “whomever we take, thousands of wannabe competitors will say ” the only real validator is me”. I am tired of all these stupidities. No conflict of interest will be around : the only conflict of interest that I see is the conflict of our competitors that would be eager to become the validators. And never forget a foundamental thing: in any case, the sole real validator is the Customer, who pays the plant only if the plant works. Is this so difficult to be understood?”

    • Chris

      No doubt customer satisfaction is the real test. Still it would be interesting to see a well known and credible party publishing their own test.

  • clovis

    Hi, Guys,
    Thank you, frank for keeping us up on the latest, and 2 weeks sounds great and not too long either, I might add.

    • clovis

      Hi, guys,
      I recently was having miss givings about Dr. Rossi’s IP
      So i ask him on his blog and his reply was.–

      Andrea Rossi
      November 29th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
      Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
      We made a contract regarding our Intellectual property and now we are working together with our US Partner.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • clovis

        USA, USA, USA, USA—– BIGGEST SMILE EVER.

        • http://www.drboblog.com Bob

          That is exactly the mentality that makes me doubt that is necessarily a good thing.

          Actually… I think Information, Technology & Energy should be a basic right of every person on this planet.

          Resources should be equally distributed. (I think)
          Everything else is unfair..

          • Mannstein

            And who pays for the research to develop the technology? Does that come out of thin air?

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Lets make it clear, Rossi said two weeks and then prepare report…..no time frame for that last part.

  • Hampus

    What test is this, the hot cat or the warm cat?

    • Peter_Roe

      Hot cat – originally supposed to be a repeat by independent testers of the test run already published by Rossi, although there may be modifications to the procedure if these are required by the test operatives.

      • Ged

        I think also this is supposed to be a full fledged product validation experiment.

        • Peter_Roe

          Ged – I was assuming that Hampus meant the independent test results due out sometime soon, rather than whatever is happening with the US partner, but either way the answer is the hot cat!

          That said, now that AR has secured backing from a major player in the powergen field, I am no longer sure why he would want or need ’3rd party’ validation, or would want to publish it if it has already been commissioned.

          Unless he is now looking for a second partner in Europe, such validation would only serve to confirm to watching interests that he has what he claims to have, and it would probably be better to present the results to potential partners privately.

          Edit: Auto-moderated, but I can’t see any potential triggers at all.

        • Peter_Roe

          I think that if we do see independent testing published, the only reason for this would be because it is what Rossi promised. He does seem to feel some obligation to follow through on his promises, but in this case it is possible that his new partners don’t want him to publish, and he may be stalling.

          More ammo for the trolls, but who cares. Confirmation of a viable product seems to be quite close now.

  • georgehants

    Foreign Policy Journal
    Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be?
    by Dr. Stoyan Sarg
    November 30, 2012
    While the year 2011 will be remembered for the remarkable progress in cold fusion achieved in Italy and more particularly by the E-cat reactors of Andrea Rossi, the year 2012 will be remembered for the slow progress of its recognition by the mainstream establishments.
    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/30/cold-fusion-and-the-energy-crisis-to-be-or-not-to-be/

    • Fibber McGourlick

      “Slow progress?” George,I don’t think so. PROOF that there is a cheap, low temperature source of pollution-free energy will overturn every obstacle in its path. “Gamechanger” is too slight a word for what will happen. As you’ve pointed out many times, it will transform the world. Everything will turn around and bow before it–if it exists. The trouble is that the reliable, third-party proof that it does exist keeps slipping away into the future.

    • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

      Yes, 2012 will be known for its slow progress. What has gone on behind the curtain may have been remarkable this year, but the picture of the industry one year ago is very little different from the picture now. We are all waiting with baited breath for a market product to be revealed, or at least a very convincing scientific case having been made.

      This year saw MIT run an ongoing demo of a high COP reactor, and invite anyone to wander in and check it out. This year saw Celini publicly demonstrate his reactor at CERN. However, this year ends as it began with a small community, us, expecting something to happen, and the VAST majority being either disbelieving or totally oblivious of LENR.

  • Chris

    I don’t see the point of a peer reviewed article about a black box. Some time ago I was hoping for the likes but then it struck me that it doesn’t fit in when it is a proprietary thing with an agreement not to look inside and disclose what’s in it.

    Independent third party, OK, but of course there will always be those who lump them in with the scam. If Rossi doesn’t revise his patent application and let the secret out, the controversy will continue until there is no more secret because somebody looked inside and all and sundry are making it in their tool shed.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      You have a point there that a referee might dislike it that he doesn’t have access to the same thing as the authors, namely the reactor. But different disciplines have different culture with respect to tolerating black boxes. In archeology for example it’s not uncommon to use non-destructive methods on a thing that mustn’t be taken apart. Kind of analogous to a black box. Despite, the black box can be quite small in Rossi’s case, only 20 grams in the Pordenone and Zurich reports. But it means that the paper must be written with skill, titled properly and the scope defined reasonably.

      • Chris

        I get your point and I can think of other examples, which simply show one thing: that the peer review process often must place faith in the researcher’s credibility. This is true when it is not just an experimental setup that can be followed by anybody. It goes for naturally occurring events that nobody can make happen at will. It goes for especially costly things like these big particle accelerators. It goes e. g. for a dating based on the layer something was found in; once removed, only eye witnesses can vouch for it.

        One thing this means in Rossi’s case is that the peer reviewed process is not useful against all these accusations. He doesn’t prove his honesty by using something which presumes his honesty. The same goes if people doubt the third party’s independence and alledge them being corrupt. That’s why I say that, in the end, it’s this party’s credibility that counts, more than the peer review.

        There is also another difference, compared to research (including your example). Technically, Rossi’s case is R&D. If he were telling the world exactly how to do it he would be contributing to scientific knowledge, but this isn’t what he is doing. He is keeping a secret about how he makes a product to offer on the market. This is the main reason I see it quite outside the peer review process. No matter how small his black box is, it isn’t a naturally occuring thing nor something remaining from ancient people.

        In the end, manufacturers simply give technical specifications of what they sell and offer their guarantee. If somebody doesn’t trust them, they simply don’t buy.

  • robyn wyrick

    Sounds reasonable.

    I was pretty stoked to read that the report would come out this November – but clearly it will not.

    No big deal. Rossi sounds completely comprehensible, “we met serious problems that we had to resolve.” However disappointing (because I had an appointment of this month – because of him) it makes perfect sense that they could still be running into serious problems.

    I develop software, and even with that low-level of complexity I have had projects take many months longer than anticipated with snags are met.

    The “serious problems” could be with the test, or with a related piece of the puzzle. It could have been a staffing issue, a legal issue, a material supply issue, or on and on.

    I’m still stoked. Keep up the good work boys and girls.

    • Karl

      Agree,this is of course very good news. It is reasonable to understand that any kind of delay to present a report of this kind of such a new and groundbreaking discovery and innovation. In fact, even the hardest skeptics to Rossi must admit that he is in the process to deliver much more than anyone could have expected a year ago with the totally new product concept of the Hot-Cat. However, even if the coming report is extremely important for those who have an honest open mind, I still do not think that a release of the independent report will quite every skeptic. I think Rossi has been right from the beginning. The most important route is still release of products on the market, at least as long as there is no validated theory or detailed open process to be openly replicated.

  • Stephen

    Bla bla, bla
    bla

    bla

    BAH!

  • Peterem
    • Mannstein

      Have tou seen the work done by the US Airforce at Wright Patterson in the use of aluminum nano particles for generating hydrogen from water? Aluminum could become the fuel of the future for fuel cell electric vehicles.

      • GreenWin

        Got a link?

  • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

    Rossi, Rossi, Rossi.

    Can’t help himself. Poor guy, just has to say stuff.

    See you guys next year cause there is NO WAY a peer reviewed article will come in by the end of the year. Not in a serious journal.

    A preprint might come in but I have no faith in anything Rossi says since Focardi and Levi stopped talking to the public.

    • Chris

      Could you elaborate about Focardi and Levi? I haven’t seen news about them for a while but I’m not sure what to make of what you say.

      • Omega Z

        Chris

        Last I read Focardi has serious health problems. In fact, that’s the Primary reason Rossi started doing his Demos when he did. Otherwise they may have been put off for another year or so & We would just now be becoming aware of LENR.

        This also means many of the Other LENR projects we know of wouldn’t be where they are today. Rossi’s Demo’s started the Ball Rolling.

    • timycelyn

      “…after which they will prepare the report..”

      No mention of peer-review there, so time to publication estimates do not need to include the sclerotic (and occasionally somewhat corrupt)process of peer review.

      I assume that somewhere in the past this has been mentioned in this context, I feel Mr Rossi is a bit loose with his English usages from time to time!

      This looks like a publication by some at present unknown third party, validating his published description of the performance of the hot cat. Depending who they are (SGS for example) peer review would be irrelevant.

  • Pachu

    bs

    • captain kirk

      Stupid Troll!

  • Rio

    What a joke

  • Paolo

    I think that the 3rd party test will come from an unknow supersecret entity.

    • guga

      And will be published in “The Secret Journal of Energy Research”. ;)

      • Ged

        You mean the “International Secret Journal of Secret Energy Research”?

    • timycelyn

      You can tell ECN has ceased to trade, a glance in this thread indicates all manner of strange things seem to be creeping in under the door!

      Must be the damp weather bringing them out….

      • Peter_Roe

        Looking at the batch above, we may need a minimum age requirement here.

        • timycelyn

          ;-) !

        • GreenWin

          It is currently about 8??

          • http://lenrplans.wordpress.com/ Owen

            Time to flush them into the turd pile where they belong. Serious readers don’t want to sift through all this crap.

  • jacob

    thats great ,lets focus on our families and friends and let’s spend some time not thinking about this during the holiday season,merry Chistmas and a happy New Year to all.

    May god bless you all in every way possible :)

    • GreenWin

      Thank you Jacob. Your comments have been appreciated this year.

    • Peter_Roe

      Thanks Jacob. The same to you and yours.

  • Renzo

    Peter F.
    November 30th, 2012 at 5:53 AM
    Hello Mr. Rossi,
    just a clarification: November 21 you said that the verification by a third party was over, now you tell us that there are still two weeks, did you met some problem in the meantime so the tests had to be extended?

    Andrea Rossi
    November 30th, 2012 at 7:08 AM
    Dear Pietro F.:
    Yes, we met serious problems that we had to resolve, which delayed the tests conclusion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    So it’s true, the Maya knew it! :D

    • Gerrit

      The report will be published on Dec 21 to coincide with the ending of the Maya calendar, just like the 1MW plant test on Oct 28 2011 also coincided with the other ending of the Maya calendar.

      This is my guess …

      • Peter_Roe

        How many endings are there for the Mayan calendar? Can’t we just buy a new one when it runs out?

  • Andrew

    I expect the third party report to provide the detail on the serious problems.

    • Ged

      I hope so too. Be interesting to know what the problem was. Was it with the Hot Cat or was it with their equipment, or something else?