E-Cat Action Moves to 2013

For those of us watching and waiting for news on the E-Cat, it seems that we won’t be getting the third party report this year. Andrea Rossi today announced that he had been told by those doing the tests that they would be finished by December 16 (this Saturday) Then, according to Rossi, “It will take some time to collect the papers and the data and more time for the peer reviewing. My opinion is that the publication will be made not before January, considering the mole of the papers . . . I suppose that to write the report will take at least 2 weeks and that the peer reviewing will take at least other 2-3 weeks.”

The Christmas and New Year holidays are bound to be slow times, so it would seem that realistically it could be February before anything is published, possibly even later, depending on the work involved, and the time available for the people involved.

And speaking of February, Rossi also said that, “as for the 1 MW plant of the Hot Cat we are on schedule to complete the plant in February.” he has said that after the Hot Cat is up and running for a while, that invited people will be able to visit and report about it — that may be a few months after it is installed and running.

I am not trying to be pessimistic here, and I don’t feel pessimistic. Things take time sometimes, delays happen for understandable reasons and we just have to wait things out. Meanwhile there are interesting things going on in the cold fusion world to keep our attention, such as the work of the MFMP and Celani. I’m hopeful that we’ll hear something more from STMicroelectronics and their testing of a Celani cell in the next few days.

  • Go Katto

    Why should it be so important to have a paper peer reviewed that says a machine is truly working over the fact you could get your hands over that machine? Did not Rossi promise “soon on the market” more than a year ago? And now, after all this time you’re waiting for a piece of paper? Why not ask for the machine itself? It might be cause you can not? It might be you can not as Rossi “soon” is far beyond 2012, so far and so beyond that all you (your sons and your nephews) can hope for is a piece of paper? And in 2150, when Rossi will no longer be there, should the sons of the sons of your nephews wait a 3/6 months more to see a paper stating the “Wireless Cat” of the son of the son of the nephew of Rossi is truly working?…

  • H. Hansson

    Mr Rossi is not a fraud, just nuts. Time after time he have ended up in legal problems because he is nuts. Every time the Court have found no fraud (just a guy that is nuts).

    Said that, if he insist to run the project on a CEO basis LENR “À la Rossi” will only be the first not the most produced. We are looking for a guy with another sets of skills.

    Does it works.. I don’t know. But Mr. Rossi have put the final nail in the coffin as far as investor confidence is. If the 3 part report is a joke….

    • Dave

      According to Rossi he once had a company that produced oil from biological waste (using well known principals, nothing special). The problem however was that he was not allowed to sell his product because his oil was classified as a waste product. Labeling his products as waste and preventing him from selling it (he already had costumers) ruined him and his company and left him with a lot of “biological waste” and no resources to dispose of it. We are talking about Italy of many years ago and the officials who were responsible for ruining his company were controlled by the mafia. The mafia were major players in the energy sector of that time.

      If you think all political systems in this world are send from holy heaven… you live in a big lie.

  • Roger Bird

    I am an LENR, Mike McKubre, Celani, et. al. believer:

    First sentence: “For those of us watching and waiting for news on the E-Cat, it seems that we won’t be getting the third party report this year.”

    What a BIG surprise!! (sarcasm galore!) I fell on the floor I was so flabbergasted.

  • HeS

    It would be funny if Rossi partner began to sell a product without any scientific basis. Any public demonstrations, scientific papers. Simply will sell just functioning devices.

    • jpelsor

      Ahhh There’s the solution – FUNCTIONING DEVICES.
      Shown in public. Better yet pair two devices together and let them power a light bulb,IN PUBLIC VIEW, for several hundreds of hours. It jut isn’t that difficult folks. If it’s real and reproducible, to prove it to us all.

      • Peter_Roe

        Explain why Rossi needs to prove anything to you or anyone else please.

        • Blah43

          He doesn’t, but it would be nice. In ten years the world will have been profoundly changed by LENR/E-cat or it will be a disappointing footnote.

  • georgehants


    • Patrik

      Could you elaborate? I am specially interested whats your take on this news.

      • georgehants

        Patrik, do you mean the post I cancelled as it is now on a new page or the topic on this page.

  • MarcIrvin

    My only comment is that if anyone is serious they would be doing an irrefutable report or demo video by next week. Timing is paramount. If someone delivers the goods on December 21st, 2012 they will forever be recognized as the inventor of the technology, period. The world is that simple. Even if its a COP of 1.1, the history books would remember, the news media would remember, and people everywhere would never forget. The patent is the date, and it is world wide. The owner becomes whomever discloses.

    • clovis

      Dr.Rossi is an honorable man, doing his dead level best to bring something good to the world, and all he ever gets is bad mouthed,
      he does not lie, that is not his way.He has always said that the proof was in the pudding, has he not, and no one is even close to doing what his device is doing,he is the father of the e-cat that will change the world , believe it,if you need the facts about the e-cat read his report, remember it,the new one will say the same thing and maybe be even better than his, believe it,.
      We need to get behind Dr. Rossi, not in front of him , he is on the exploration of the unknown, you think you know better than he, i don’t think so, so please join the revolution or get the hell out the way, because this group is bound for the further and many other wonderful thing are coming just be patient.

  • Ollgus

    If this is for real it´s big. The text is a google translation from swedish from the blog Conucopia.

    Climeon and C3 – a decisive breakthrough in the energy
    In broad terms, half of the energy humans use lost to entropy in the form of low-grade heat which can not refine further to high-grade forms of energy as motion or electricity. In the latest issue of the magazine Filter, which in days to reach subscribers or lands in stores, in-depth article on entrepreneurs and inventors behind the technology C31. Company Climeon, who claims to have cracked the problem and achieves a nearly flawless Carnotcykel at low temperatures below boiling point of water.
    Climeon (website, the people behind) the lid on and Filters article is the first time you let the media look behind the curtain, even if you already have long lines of interested parties to apply the technology. It’s about letting a Carnotmotors water be in vacuum and with a secret patented substance do to achieve an efficiency of n = 0.15 (Source: Thesis lookup at KTH) at temperatures as low as 90 degrees C and room temperature of 25 C (Source: Climeons website) that cold side. The theoretical maximum efficiency of 25 C and 90 C is approximately 0.18 (n = 1 – (273 +25) / (273 +90) = 0.18, so Climeon achieves Carnotcykel of over 80% at low temperatures. Especially interesting is that when it is below boilingtemperature.
    Those of you who are technically and scientifically skilled understand the greatness of this.
    15% of the energy in a heat difference between 25 and 90 C, ie a delta of 65 at low temperatures makes the example that we can get maybe 8% more energy from all the world’s nuclear power plants, simply by extracting energy from the cooling water today cooled into the seas or lakes. n is likely to be even greater at higher temperature differences, for example, will thus have a n is higher than 0.15 if it is 25 degrees out, but colder, e.g. winter.
    One can also recover waste heat from our vehicle engines to generate electricity for hybrids. And you can generate 15% of electricity from solvar hot water, as the above thesis is about.
    The technology does not contain hazardous substances and are scalable from micro turbines up to powerstations.
    An example of the small is that an IKEA candle has a power of about 100 W. If you use a simple tea light as an energy source, you can then get up to 15 watts of electricity from a candle from IKEA. A single candle would thus be able to run three 5 W CFLs and thus light up an entire room, when one takes to be part of the heat energy from something as trivial as a tealight. Two tea lights could drive on this computer.
    Even greater efficiency can be understood if, for example applying the technique on something as trivial as a stove. My household stove has an output of 7 kW and reaches temperatures of 400-500 degrees. Even if one could only recover 15% of the power into electricity, with the usual room air as cold side, you would then get the 1:05 kW of electricity on the road, more than enough for a modern household. Electricity gets the rest of the heat when used, so no energy is lost to heat. However, at the temperatures it may be possible to convert approximately 45% of heat to electricity.
    But especially interesting is that you can now use plain water for the storage of solar energy during the night. A solar heating system can easily heat up a water tank to 90 degrees. When I last house had solar we got 300 liters of 95-degree water a normal summer day. Whatever scale you can out of that hot water thus generate electricity through Climeons C3 technology when the sun is not lit at night. This is a revolutionary breakthrough.
    It now remains to be seen whether this is true. Climeon have no reason to show off the technology publicly, but customers are queuing. Remains to be seen as the first real application becomes.
    Important to understand is that C3 is not an energy source, but opens up and very cheap solar power and energy storage over the day and also means that we can in principle get electricity even from waste heat from eg server rooms. Or really just about any heat whatsoever, now only lost to entropy, or, at best, used for district heating.
    Should we theorize, so if you can maintain a Carnotcykel 80% of the theoretical maximum, so you can, for example, at 25 degrees and 400 degrees get n = 0.8 * (1 – (273 +25) / (273 +400)) = 0.45, i.e. in line with a Stirling engine. But the technology has been put together in KTH’s basement with no major problems and should be easier than a Stirling engine. But unlike a Stirling engine and it works then even at very low temperatures. And that’s where greatness is found.
    If you are interested in reading more, go and buy the latest issue of Filter. Any information on the web does not exist. It is a story about peak oil and climate change anxiety and a brainwave by some engineers with different approaches.
    But then came in mind that this is not an energy source. And do not forget technology, volume and time. It takes time to reach volumes that solve our problems, but it is true that this is really interesting and a future many-billion that will be sold overseas and not give a single Swedish job. Although the Swedish Energy Agency in silence are funding.
    Concludes with quotes from the thesis prospectus available from KTH, which really is what apart Filters article reveals the most concrete of technology.
    “Climeon is developing a new powercycle, ”C3”, converting hot water to electricity and cooling that is different from any other thermal to electricity conversion technologies today. C3 is clean, renewable, and sustainable.As C3 is optimized from start for the low temperature region, it has the potential of getting significantly closer to an ideal Carnotcycle that any other existing technology.
    (i) C3 has the potential to deliver 2-¬3 times higher thermal efficiency (n=0,15) than aditional ORC -¬ cycles at the same cost for waste heat applications.
    (ii) C3 combined with solar hot water collectors has a substantial lower system cost than PV(Photovoltaic) and is thus suitable for large scale solar power plants. The inherent feature of intermediate energy storage in hot water allows the system to deliver solar power 24/7.”

    See also http://www.climeon.com/

    • dzejk

      Thanx, this looks much more convincing than everything else so far (if claimed partners are realy their partners). Although I do not understand this: ” … with a secret patented substance do to achieve … ”

      Folks, is it possible to patent a secret substance?

    • Ash

      A quick search of LinkedIn shows only a single person at Climeon AB, and they are a board member. They can’t be a very substantial company – even Rossi has more employees listed.

  • Garry

    No mainline journal will “peer review” in 2-3 weeks. More like 2-3 months to come back with with severe critiques, requests for confirmations, side experiments, etc.

    The peer reviewed journal will have to be a 3rd tier journal for such a short review.

    • dzejk

      Do you really believe that it would take more than a few days to arange an article in any magazine on earth, about a machine that ‘will’ change our lives for ever (assuming that the article/study is backed by a trustworthy scientists or organization).

      Personaly, I do not need a scientific article. Brief confirmation from any established university/company would be enough.

    • it seems realist. In 93, it took me 3 month to tune a simple tech-review report in a small IT corp.

      I suspect that this delay might explain the delay about Defkalion testings. And even on that subject, much more sensible, 6-12 month with experiments seems needed.

      We already have many articles, some peer reviewed, some validated by big serious organisation around the world, and nothing have broken the wall of delusion…

      The paper will be rejected by big “reference” magazine without any question (like nature and science did).
      Most small magazine a little serious will reject just being afraid of critics from mainstream.

      Only big commercially managed magazine, hoping to ridicule Nature and Science, will take the risk (like national instruments dis) to check every character, every digit, every comma, in the report, so they can publish “the paper of the century”.
      I think about Naturwissenschaften, who have nothing to lose, and all to win.

      about papers I think that the first PR science paper of the century might be from Defkalion, or by a discrete outsider like Brillouin, maybe Toyota or Mitsubishi…

      MFMP have another mission, it is to convince businesses and labs directly, but through the oligopoly of magazine.
      It can also make the buzz and raise awareness in the public.
      Maybe is it the best method, since I’m afraid that convincing scientists with a paper is impossible. They will only accept when they touch it, and they will mostly refuse to touch it, unless you more or less force them. Businessmen can help them to accept to touch at LENR, just to earn their living.

      First scientists refused to look at LENR to avoid being ostracized and fired, about now they are convinced by the official groupthink. Stockholm syndrome.

    • Ged

      In my field in science, you are completely right. There are fast-track journals now though, top tier ones actually, that can do peer-review in 2-3 weeks in my field. They are a new phenomenon that’s grown in the past year.

      I don’t know how it is in the field of engineering however.

  • John-xyz

    My money is still on MFMP to deliver undeniable proof of LENR before Rossi’s E-cat does the same.

    They seem like genuine people. Rossi – not so much.

    • all will be denied.
      there is no way to convince non greedy scientists, because they have nothing to win and all to lose.

      I only expect (beside the honest witnesses – there is no believers, just witness) to have people who have a business plan around LENR, whatever it is… only those who can lose to make a mistake can be honest.

      It is too comfortable for many deniers, and some believers, to be wrong…

      Prepare to bet your balls and your realism won’t be an option.

      Sadly once you bet them, it is possible that you refuse you were wrong if it turns bad. but that is another story.
      In fact that is the story of the mainstream denial, based on too early big mistakes by F&P and some intern-designed quick experiments. Todays tragedy is just a sequel of that rational but too quick judgement.

    • Ash

      Except the MFMP people are also showing exactly how hard it is to accurately do the calorimetry on this type of setup. It’s possible they will end up just showing that Celani’s energy result is just a measurement error.

      The US cell was clearly a measurement error (power varied with H pressure), and the EU cell is looking likely at this point. They need to redo their calorimetry to know for sure.

  • GreenWin

    Dr Rossi’s peers are those who attend ICCF conferences. Plenty of talent there.

  • Lemuel

    February, huh? …. I can wait. We’re almost at the winter equinox now. The days will be slowly getting longer. In some countries February is seen as the arrival of Spring. Now that’s kinda nice to look forward to. If it plays out as we hope then we can bask in the summer’s warmth, knowing that our future winters will be all that bit warmer. Besides, it looks like we may well have a multiple choice of devices to pick from very soon.

    • Peter_Roe

      I don’t think that any small scale/personal appliances are even on the horizon from Leonardo. It’s just possible that DGT may come up with something, but I suspect that any such proposals will be slapped down by TPTB using whatever means are necessary.

      If things go well we may see CF-generated power begin to enter the grid ‘mix’ within a few years, but I think the average oik is unlikely to see much change for at least a generation, other than an end to new nuclear builds, withdrawal of all govt support for solar and wind installations and the phasing out of all feed-in tariffs where these currently exist.

      I think we may need to step back a bit and view the advent of CF as a relatively slow process of transition which will be controlled by the existing energy cartels to minimise their losses and maximise their profits. No de-stabilising applications outside their control are likely to be permitted, and should not be expected, at least not within the forseeable future.

      • Owen

        Peter, I respect your opinion and you may very well be right. But what’s your take on the possibility of low cost LENR reactors being built by novices for personal use or small shops for the black market? With so much info already in the public domain, it seems like just a matter of time before the remaining details are published. Maybe one of the open source projects such as Zeocat will hit upon an effective technique. It would seem almost impossible to stop this once the cat was out of the bag, don’t you think?

        • Peter_Roe


          The questions you raise have come up a number of times. Whether or not the ‘scenario’ I suggest (or something like it) actally happens depends on the extent of control over governments of cartels and those who own them. IMHO this is far greater than many people suspect, as evidenced by the total media ‘blackout’ on CF developments (which may be slowly ending) and the odd lack of curiosity in university academia and government energy departments in connection with ‘anomalous heat’ phenomena. If vested interests do indeed have such power, then it is only natural to expect them to use it to protect said interests.

          As to a means of suppressing ‘backyard LENR’, this would depend on legislation to classify LENR as ‘nuclear’ and therefore falling within existing legislation covering radioactive substances. This would probably be justified through one or more ‘incidents’ that would allow a case for safety (lack of) to be constructed, just as increased incidents of shootings seem to be occurring in the US prior to the introduction of gun control. The citizens of the UK have already been almost completely disarmed in a similar fashion, and if any official suspicion arises that someone is making or holding firearms, their door will be kicked in in the small hours.

          I foresee something similar happening in the case of CF experimenters or black market vendors, following any purchase of the ‘makings’ of known types of LENR reactor such as nickel powder, potassium carbonate or tungsten metal. Alternatively the potential to make bombs or other weapons that utilise CF could be exaggerated enough to build a ‘national security’ case against possible ‘terrorist’ use, and legislating on this basis. The effect would be identical.

          The only question to my mind is whether the BRIC countries play ball with all this, and similarly establish state monopolies over CF. If they don’t then of course it’s anyone’s guess how things will go, especially if they allow a free-for-all to go ahead, while the West attempts to maintain its state monopolies.

        • Peter_Roe

          Owen, I’ve replied at some length to your post, but I’ve been auto-moderated. Hopefully the reply will appear eventually.

  • georgehants

    Thanks Bernie, hope you don’t mind me transferring.
    Bernie Koppenhofer
    December 13th, 2012 at 6:41 PM
    Mr. Rossi: Does your USA partners have access and knowledge of your E-Cat intellectual property….. the catalyst and your research? Are they helping with patent processing? I love your answer to the skeptics, “the market will decide”. Keep up the good work. Thanks.
    Andrea Rossi
    December 14th, 2012 at 5:26 AM
    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes
    Warm Regards,

    • Gerrit

      define USA partner:

      – Ampenergo
      – undisclosed
      – The goldfish in Rossi’s condo

      • HeS

        @:”The goldfish in Rossi’s condo”

        Goldfish? I’ve read that goldfish remembers only the last 6 seconds of life (robust confidential data safe:)

        • Gerrit

          You’re right about the memory span (6s) of a goldfish.

          That is the reason why you should buy a large enough fishbowl, so that it will take the goldfish longer than 6 seconds to swim one full circle. In that way he has already forgotten he has been there before and will not get bored. Happy goldfish live longer.

  • georgehants

    It would certainly be disappointing if the third party report appears in any of the main-line censored journals (comics).
    They do not deserve the publication of such an important paper after their bias shown on Cold Fusion and many other scientific subjects.
    The place to publish the paper is the JONP where it has been shown it will be argued and debated openly without interference from the editors etc.

    • Redford

      Life doesn’t work like that. Being fair and achieving the goal doesn’t get along together very often. A comics would do him way more good. Sad fact.

  • dzejk

    So, Rossi has this wonderful machine that will save mankind. We just have to step in line and wait few more months for the paper work. Yeah right, why would anyone hurry to release such boring news.

    BTW, an idea for total energy independance (no natural gas or external power supply needed): plasmic transition proces engine coupled with ecat.

    • Chris

      I’m sorry, but announcing publishing in official journals when your case is less than airtight is stupid. That kind of behaviour has already derailed cold fusion for 20 years.

      • georgehants

        Chris, why do you always say “I’m sorry” as if your opinion is more important than anybody else’s.
        Lets talk Facts —-
        There is no such thing as an “airtight” report only a temporary amount of evidence to work away from.
        The only thing that has “derailed cold fusion for 20 years.” is the total incompetence of science to take P&F seriously and do the bloody research.
        Journals are there to report Evidence not give opinions about if that Evidence is worthy of reporting, only further research will determine that.

  • Chris

    I’d like to use the analogy of battery technology to discuss the chances of a product actually hitting the market, regardless of LENR being real.

    Every year we hear about this amazing new battery technology that will revolutionize energy storage. faster charging, more charge, holding the charge for longer, more efficient.

    Every year we wait, they hit an insurmountable problem and the idea is shelved.

    Basically what I’m trying to say is, making a product is hard. It’s obvious now LENR is real. Converting that into something you can make money off of, at sufficient energy levels? Yeh. It’s going to take a while before we can buy one of these. Rossi is a showman, and easily excited and overly optimistic with his timescales. Who knows how many insurmountable problems they’ve hit that have lead to a redesign.

    Alternatively, Rossi doesn’t actually have exactly what he claimed in 2011 (he does exaggerate we know this) and the delay is trying to get the technology up to that level so he can actually deliver what he promised.

  • daniel maris

    Rossi claims to have already a working commercial device that has been sold – the 1 MW plant. All he needs to do to regain crediblity is set up a webcam to show us it working (not necessarily at a customer’s location – it could be in his own facility), heating a building and being tended periodically on a 24 hour basis as such a facility would.

    Why doesn’t he do that I wonder?

    As every week passes without credible confirmation, Rossi becomes less and less a source of inspiration.

    I will be the first to cheer if he proves the sceptics wrong. But he doesn’t deserve forgiving for the way he has gone about his PR, which has been atrocious.

    • Chris

      Sold, but not delivered.

      This is what he’s talking about with the device that he expects to be ready in February is it not?

    • Martin

      “All he needs to do to regain crediblity is set up a webcam to show us it working (not necessarily at a customer’s location – it could be in his own facility)”

      No problem, he just could show us the blue box which is still sitting in Bologna.

    • Redford

      “Why doesn’t he do that I wonder?”

      Because opposite to what you naively believe, that wouldn’t do any good to his credibilyt. People convinced by such video are already convinced that the basic eCat is real and think Rossi’s credible. The vast majority asks for more, for something new. Peer reviews, public customers, anything 3rd party. A new video would be seen as an attempt to avoid that and actually damage his credibility.

  • Redford

    What about the regular 1MW plant of ECat that was supposed to be accessible for the public ? Has it turn into the Hot Cat delivery or is it a separate thing ?

  • timycelyn

    Also, to try and keep our expectations correct, we need to remember that regarding Announcements that are then delayed, or even withheld, Andrea Rossi has little control over events.

    Firstly, he is no longer captain of his own ship, so what he can and cannot say regarding Leonardo ‘News’ is now subject to the control of others. Which, I bet with his emotional psyche, can easily lead to something starting to slip out to us all, to be corrected by a horrified ‘You can’t tell them about that now…’ from his internal Powers that Be.

    Secondly, as some of the contributors here have to be frequently reminded, in this instance the publication/announcement/whatever it is will be coming from a third party group, NOT Rossi. Why should they announce it at all, I would question, what is their agenda? Keeping us happy? Hardly!

    Finally, from his comments about the timescale,peer review etc., this is quite clearly not a formal publication via journal, where months and sometimes years can go by in this sclerotic and a discredited process.
    I feel he is using the term rather loosely – another Rossi-ism. To me, these timings seem more about publication by the body themselves (eg someone like SGS) after a good internal proof-check.



    • Redford

      “To me, these timings seem more about publication by the body themselves (eg someone like SGS) after a good internal proof-check.”

      Would make sense indeed. And be great!

    • sebastian

      “this is quite clearly not a formal publication via journal, where months and sometimes years can go by in this sclerotic and a discredited process.”

      Have you ever published a paper? I don’t hink so…
      My paper(s) always got through in a few weeks (four maybe). There is no need to discredit the system with nonsene “facts”.

      • timycelyn

        Actually I have. Depends on the nature of the subject matter, journal, etc. In the context of this area, this seems to be a particular problem.

        • Warthog

          Most journals have available an “expedited publication” route for controversial/obviously important discoveries. How they handle peer review in those instances probably varies from journal to journal.

      • Peter_Roe

        I’ve published a few papers too, mostly as a co-author. Average time from submission to a decision was 3 or 4 months in my field, but was often longer. If revisions were suggested (=required) this would typically add another month or so (or much more if additional new experimental data was needed), and if a paper was rejected by a journal it was on to the second journal, starting at square one.

        On top of this, scientific journals are often published quarterly, meaning that if the editor’s deadline was missed, or if the editor was unhappy for some reason, or had no space left, it could be necessary to wait three more months for the next publishing date.

        All told it was a labyrinththine process that depended more on politics and the disposition of the people involved than on scientific merit of the paper. Peer review was a dinosaur 30 years ago when I was involved – it has long outlived its usefulness now.

        • georgehants

          Peter, publication time on the JONP would be about 20 minuets.
          Let all the journals copy from there if it is a good report.

          • Peter_Roe

            It’ll certainly appear there – but I think he may want to publish a bit more widely for publicity reasons. When he has publishable news about the US pilot unit he’ll probably send out ‘press packs’ that include the report, in the hope that the embargo will end at some point.

        • Peter_Roe

          Incidentally, I don’t think that Rossi has any intention of going down the formal ‘peer review’ route, and will simply release a report certified as accurate by SGS which may or not be uploaded to an e-print website for ‘open review’.

      • HeS

        @:”My paper(s) always got through in a few weeks (four maybe).”

        Maybe, but I think that your papers are not in such a controversial area (LENR, CF).

      • psi

        I have been waiting for over a year on a particularly controversial article submitted to a peer reviewed humanities journal. I don’t know where you get your “facts” from Sebastian, but in the humanities 6 months is not at all unusual.

        3-4 weeks? Wow. What field do you publish in?

      • Redford

        My wife has too. The standard in her field is between 6 months and 2 years.

  • Redford

    Expecting a redaction to peer review to publishing doesn’t strike me as “being pessimistic”. It still sounds hugely optimistic, actually. We already know from this than the publishing will not take place in a big IF journal.

    Still, the good side is that AFAIK this is the first quote of Rossi confirming peer review. A 3rd party testing published with peer reviews will already be a landmark in the LENR field!

    • Redford

      Expecting a redaction to peer review to publishing “in less than two months”

    • Steveta_uk

      Peer review? But does Rossi have any peers?

      • clovis

        yes , yes he does, there are enough real sicentice on this form alone , in my way of thinking.

      • clovis

        yes , yes he does, there are enought real sicentice on this form alone , in my way of thinking.