Rossi: Peer Review by ‘High Level’ Magazine to take all of February

I recently made an inquiry of Andrea Rossi regarding the publication of the 3rd party report and today received this message in reply:

Dear Frank:
The report will be published on a very high level scientific magazine. The peer reviewing of the magazine is in course, and I have been informed it will take all the month of Feb. This communication is not confidential.
About the Piantelli patent, Stremmenos has sent a very interesting comment published on the Journal: it will arrive to you in English, I suppose.
Warmest Regards,

This would indicate that the report will not be published until after February once the peer reviewing is complete. On January 17th Rossi mentioned that “Third Party members returned this week to make more tests to clear some points that they had to repeat in the course of the peer review.”

Now we’ll have to figure out which magazine he is talking about!

  • Roger Bird

    Watch for the report to not be accepted by the magazine. Either it would make a perfect excuse for Rossi to not have to show his empty hand, or else what is in his hand is too far out for dummies at the magazine.

  • AlainCo

    The most logical (but is Rossi logical) would be naturwissenschaften. They are serious about LENR, not in denial.

    Otherwise, maybe Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, like spawar.

    No hope for nature/science, they will look so stupid if it work that they will reject any application, if impossible, will fraud the P/R, if impossible will arrange for not having room… as they did before.

  • Ono

    I don’t know much about “high level magazine” or scientific journals, but would one of them ever bother publish a paper on CF if the results of the tests were not positive?

  • Tom Conover

    Get your quotes right please. You may confuse things if you don’t – Tom Conover …

    Andrea Rossi
    January 17th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
    Dear tomconover:
    I did not read the report, yet, because it has not been published yet. By the way, the Third Party members returned this week to make more tests to clear some points that they had to repeat, while I am in Miami. … NOT “…in the course of the peer review.””

  • Sandy

    Which “very high level scientific magazine”? My guess is…

    Fusion Science and Technology; “Published eight times a year, Fusion Science and Technology is the leading source of information on fusion plasma physics and plasma engineering, fusion plasma enabling science and technology, fusion nuclear technology and material science, fusion applications, fusion design and system studies. Recent topics have included plasma and fusion energy physics, tokamak experiments, stellarators, next step burning plasma experiments, target fabrication and technology for inertial confinement fusion, inertial fusion science and applications, tritium science and technology, magnetic and inertial fusion energy reactor studies, heating and current drive physics and technology, plasma control, plasma diagnostics, and much more.”

    • Peter_Roe

      This is a journal entirely dedicated to the hot fusionists. LENR would be regarded as heresy of the highest order – practically the work of the Dark One!

  • GreenWin

    “We don’t need some high priests of science to be gate keepers for the rest of us peons.” Mannstein

    Well said.

  • Jouni

    To be useful the reactor has to be impressive?

    Why not rise the temperature of a swimming pool by a couple of tens of degrees. And then use same electrical power without the e-cat to do it again after the water has cooled down.
    Too obvious?

    • Jouni, I think Mr. Rossi is too busy to play around with swimming pools right now 🙂

  • georgehants

    Being slightly biased I would suggest printing the report in the Sun newspaper, as that must be more trustworthy than the main-line science comics where Cold Fusion and many other important subjects are treated as was Galileo.
    Pherhaps time to move on from the middle ages mentality.

  • Chuck

    He said, if the quote above is accurate, a “magazine”–not a “journal”. So having “Popular Science” perform the test will satisfy that. Unfortunately, given the current level of PopSci journalism, that will solve nothing, other than to get some free publicity. Nothing has been said about peer reviews or juries in this particular quote.

    If Mr. Rossi really wants to be validated, why not send an e-cat to a government testing laboratory, say NIST? Confidence in the quality of the work they do is generally among the highest within the scientific community. I’m certain that they’d be interested.

    If Mr. Rossi would like to keep the tests in Europe, I’m pretty sure that CERN would agree to examine his device, provided that no restrictions be placed on the testing procedure or environment. After all, the e-cat does fall within the purview of “nuclear energy.”

    • Redford

      Getting in depth with english words used by the italian Rossi is not a sensible thing to do. He said that there is a peer review process. Only scientific journal does that. He used the word journal in many other instances. I don’t think your analysis stands, honestly.

      • Chuck

        Well, to be fair, I did say, “If the quote above is accurate.” I’d assume that the translator knew the difference, but perhaps not.

        At any rate, the central purpose of most scientific journals is to report on an event or present a paper. Do I expect “La Stampa” to be more credible in the matter of LENR than the “Giornale di Fisica” (published by SIF)? Of course not.

        Why hasn’t Mr. Rossi submitted his e-cat to SIF for review and testing? That would seem to be a no-brainer, particularly if neither Mr. Rossi nor any of his firm is present to supervise the tests. The idea is to send one of the 1,000 e-cat modules that he’s manufactured with directions for its use to a SIF-appointed facility for testing.

        It might not be perfect, but it would have more of the ring of credibility.

        I’m not trying to be negative here, just trying to come to terms with the idea that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

        This was the idea behind my suggestion to have CERN or NIST test the device. They have their own organs for publishing reports and are generally pretty reliable in facilities and testing (although that bit from CERN about breaking the speed limit on light was a embarrassing–but they did retract the paper).

  • Karl

    I think this is very good news. Rossi seems confident that it is in process and who cares one month more or less. The people from the four universities behind the full validation of the E-Cat and the actual report seem to me even more important than the actual magazine where the report is presented. After the presentation an entire world will be able to dig in and analyse the result further anyhow.

    Many of the so called prestigious scientific magazines have a lot to prove in regard to CF/LENR after all. Regardless the result of the validation report the history of Cold Fusion and the E-Cat deserves to be presented in a highest possible scientific magazine regardless the outcome of the analyse.

    • Björn

      “It is a very serious thing. I am very worried of this. I do not know the results of the report”

      Rossi seems confident?
      Why do he have to worry?
      What is the problem?

    • “regardless the outcome of the analyse”
      What IF the E-Cat gets the same “analyse” as P&F got? The Rossi independent third party validation and peer review should be done by non biased/open minded physicists. We have come too far to be smacked down by pathological/scientists who would use any trick to debunk CF/LENR. jdh

      • Bruno

        The fact of the matter is that you don’t need physicists to determine if Rossi has something. You just need competent engineers to carefully measure mass flows and temperatures in and out and compare the thermal energy produced to the electrical energy used. If you get high temperatures and an out/in ratio substantially higher than 1 (let’s say >3) and the process is sustained for long enough, he has something. Let the physicists figure HOW the device works, but we don’t need them to judge WHETHER it works.

        • Peter_Roe

          Well said.

          I’m still a bit confused about how and why ‘3rd party tests’ (by engineers) has morphed into publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The former would have been adequate for commercial purposes, and a report would presumably be available by now – whether or not Leonardo chose to release it.

          • Joaquim Procopio

            A very good and realistic remark !

        • HeS

          @:”Let the physicists figure HOW the device works”

          You are right, but this is not typical situation. The inventor does not allow for in-depth examination of the device, and the scientists are interested in whether it actually works. A typical compromise. We (the researchers) will investigate whether your device is working for free and perhaps intensify research in this area (LENR).

        • Frank Zamburro

          Hi Bruno,
          Congratulations, the first unbiased, constructive statement,
          which will help the progress of this technology.
          You don’t need all your pseudo scientists, who only try to
          beat their own drum, or the scientific journals, and peer reviews who have vested interests to protect.
          The man on the street is equal to the task, and should take it upon himself to judge the merits of the technology, by leading with his purchasing power, if the product is safe and productive he will be the scientist and promotor.
          We can all note the results of misleading and promoting of
          ideas and products, by our pseudo scientists, which are ongoing disasters, and a threat to our very extistence.


      • Karl

        Of course the validators must be honest. I think it will be much more difficult to repeat what happened to F&P 23 years back today. Rossi have other chances to prove that his products are really working.

        • Peter_Roe

          It’s all too easy to ‘disprove’ something by – in effect – asking the wrong questions, just as happened in the early days following P&F. Rossi says he has given the researcher ‘carte blanche’ in the way they conduct the tests, which would (if the intention is there) offer plenty of possibilities for generating negative results.

          Presumably a set of parameters have been established for producing optimum sustained output, but if these are not used for ‘safety’ or other reasons, performance could be greatly degraded.

          In this event Rossi would need to go back to independent 3rd party testing by a reputable institution in a hurry.

  • Robbie

    So what is new? You notice Rossi never say which year. From my observations this is very normal for this man. Oh and this is statement number , what, regarding this 3rd party review. It was promised several times last year. I have very little doubt that when, if ever, the report turns up it will be as reliable as the statements and promises from the subject. Rossi has said he has produced and sold these devices many times. He also claims to have robotic factories in USA and Europe turning out LENR devices every day yet to date not one genuine report from any customer. Welcome to 2013, nothing changes.

    • Frank

      In order to demonstrate what Rossi’s understanding of “highest level of scientists” may mean, here just one example what Rossi said more than a year ago (I think it’s not necessary to add here who finally performed the 1 MW plant “test”):

      Andrea Rossi
      August 13th, 2011 at 2:28 AM
      Dear Enzo:
      The R&D program with the University of Bologna is aimed to the research and development and will last a couple of years. In October our 1 MW plant will be put in operation in the USA and tested by the highest possible level Scientists, witnessed by the highest level scientific journalists.
      Warm Regards,

      • Peter Svensson the AP journalist did attend the 1 MW demonstration in October. He just never wrote about it.

        • Frank

          Yes, Peter Svenson (writer for AP, covering telecommunications, consumer electronics, etc.) was there but had most of the time to stay in an adjacent room – for “safety reason”.
          Is this your understanding of witnessing a test by the highest level scientific journalists?

          • I have no evidence for the contrary.

          • robiD

            Not sure about this because Sterling Allan went everywhere in the facility and, with his camera, did several videos of the plant while it was working, instead did Peter Svenson stay all the time seated on a chair?
            Hmmm, maybe a not so good journalist.

          • Omega Z

            Peter Svenson was there. He stated that he would do a report later & to stay tuned. He has said nothing.

            Mat Lewan’s of Ny Teknik was there & reported important people there for the test, But would not say who.

            I Find it very curious that these people say Nothing. A Wall of Silence.

            Who has the power to keep the lid on this regardless of the Results…

            • Pweet

              They saw a large genset making a lot of noise supplying power to two small pumps, a laptop computer and a few electric fan motors on some heat exchangers.
              What was there for them to write about? Except for why was such a large genset making so much noise to power so few devices. I suppose that might have been worth a mention.

              • Omega Z

                Mat Lewan did talk about the Gen Set among other details. But has been totally silent about the unknown to us-Visitors as has the AP Reporter..

  • We do not deed any ” very high level scientific magazine”. We need only a little, low scientific level, but reliable test on the basic e-cat unit. Not necessary to use very accurate instruments: it is so zfficient that a analogy test would be sufficient. Only independant operators. We promise not to open the reactor.

  • georgehants

    Sunday, January 20, 2013

    • Peter_Roe

      Sadly I think there may be some truth in Peter Gluck’s ‘heresy’, and not only in Rossi’s case. That’s why I have mixed feelings about the acquisition of this technology by corporate interests. On the one hand they will bring professional development resources to the design of CF reactors, which will inevitably solve remaining problems and produce a commercial product relatively quickly. On the other hand, once they have such a product they will of course be in sole control of both the IP, and of how and when products are introduced. As a consequence it’ll be another decade at least before we see LENR-powered private vehicles and home units, or widespread use in water purification, agriculture and all the other potentially society-changing applications.

  • Fyodor

    I am *shocked* that Rossi is missing another of his promised validation dates.

    • Redford

      Can you show us where he promised ? Because I really think he never did. He always said “it should happen that month”, ie opinion. Is opinion was optimistic, sure, but that’s pretty much how things works for people, always optimistic on duration it finally takes for things to happen. There’s not a lot of project I’ve been in that didn’t end up being a bit less than expected, ie later or with less feature.

      Now promise, you say ? I must have missed that part.

      • GreenWin

        This appears to be the last gasp for deniers. Try to blame independent time lines on AR – who says in effect, “I have not control over their work or publication date.”

        Peer review is so tainted today as to mean little. A working hot-cat, with a satisfied customer means more at this stage.

  • Curbina

    Peer Review is a process that can take anything between a month and forever, if the work is controversial enough. Let’s hope in this case the reviewers don’t ask for new experiments, something that can be asked by a peer reviewer not convinced enough.


    • Garry

      Correct. And even after “acceptance” it can be 2-3 months before publication depending on how “hot” the editors are for the publication to come out soon.

  • Kahuna

    There is a very good chance the mag is NyTeknik if Rossi considers it a Scientific Magazine.

    • Is NyTeknik peer reviewed? I don’t think so.

      • captain

        Me too, I don’t think so.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    My knowledge of international patent law is nonexistent, but are we being set up for dueling LENR international patents? One from Europe, one from the US, one from Japan and China stealing them all. Of course the big question, will all this international intrigue delay the implementation of LENR?

  • RenzoB

    It seems the team of scientists is working like crazy to make sure the results are as unquestionable as possible.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:10 AM
    Dear Tommaso Di Pietro:
    The Party is composed by professors of 4 international Universities, and their work is very complex. It does not depend on me, and, as I said, I do not know where it will be published and who are the peer reviewers. It is a very serious thing. I am very worried of this. I do not know the results of the report. I assume it will be published by February, but I cannot say that it is sure, as I expalined. New tests will be made in February, to confirm the results already obtained. Being an international commission ( from different and distant parts of the World) the reviewing times are not very simple to coordinate, I have been told. The news of this week, while I am in the USA, is that the results need further tests to be confirmed beyond any doubt.
    Warm Regards,

    • Can we interpret this statement so that the reviewers of the paper will also visit the lab? Since previously we were told that the writer team was European, what else the other timezoners could be except some reviewers.

      I have not encountered such practice before (reviewers visiting the lab). But maybe it can be used in exceptional cases like this.

      • Omega Z


        Just my opinion, But Rossi has stated that many of those doing the data tests are skeptical of the E-cat.

        If I were 1 of the Skeptics & the Initial Data shown me to be wrong, I would want to check & Recheck before I was to admit that I was wrong. What’s your take on this.

    • Peter_Roe

      I find it slightly disconcerting that “the results need further tests to be confirmed beyond any doubt”. This the ‘hot cat’ that is being tested – a device that produces kilowatts of output over significant self sustained periods, yet that comment implies a marginal result that requires repeating to confirm that it is not some kind of artifact. I hope the test team have not run the thing at some kind or ‘safe’ level at which results might be inconclusive.

      • Invy

        Yes, I was worried about that too… The signal to noise ratio should be large given the amount of power we expect the device to produce.

      • Teemu

        There’s also another way to look at it: The results may be so spectacular as to create a lot of skepticism among the scientific community. In such a case, it would be wise to double-, or even triple-check everything. It can be viewed as a sort of insurance for your career. Maybe I’m just being wishful, but it could happen assuming Rossi’s device really works.

        Another think I found intriguing about Rossi’s comment was that he’s “worried” about this. If he was lying about everything, how would expressing such a sentiment help his narrative?

        What a fascinating story.

      • Pweet

        If the tests are being done by measuring the radiated heat with various instruments then they will indeed be complex and difficult, and worse still, subject to constant argument.
        The only convincing and conclusive test would be to boil a barrel of water, which I have said all along for all the e-cat demonstrations. Mr. Rossi has constantly avoided doing this, even though it is so obvious. The only conclusion I can come to from this is that he knows this test would show it does not work as claimed.

        For a convincing test on the hot-cat, all they need to do is put a water filled sleeve over the device and heat up a small flow rate of water from say 20 deg C to 90 deg C and then dump the water into an insulated barrel, not down a drain, or some other unmeasurable place.
        The calculations for this are so simple that a high school student can do them and the results cannot be in dispute.
        A 200 litre barrel of hot water after a 5 hour test would make everybody sit up and take notice.
        If it makes so much heat that the barrel boils then get a bigger barrel. I would then be twice as impressed.
        The only question would then be whether energy was being fed into the system which was not being accounted for.

        • Peter_Roe

          There is another possible reason that no ‘barrel-boiling’ has been going on – that cooling the reaction to the extent that submerging it or running water through it would do, simply quenches the LENR reaction.

          A company used to taking risks might well see past this problem far enough to acquire the company with the tech, but extracting significant power from the reaction might remain a problem to be solved.

          However as an alternative to radiation measurement, forced gas cooling (possibly using CO2) to a heat exchanger submerged in a fixed volume of water would offer a possible way to perform calorimetry without over-cooling the device.

    • Stephen

      He does not know to which journals they are going to send his results, that’s funny. Why on earth is everything so awkward around AR and his story?

    • Lu

      I cannot find this comment on his journal! Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place…

      I’m heartened to hear that Rossi realizes how important this report is.

      • It’s in the long section near the end of the page which currently has 3314 entries. For some reason that page is not included in so one has to look it up on JONP explicitly.

        • Lu

          Thank you. I did look at the more recent JONP posts to try to find it.

    • Redford

      I must say this is very exciting. This sounds exactly like what a high level validation (who did it) in a high level publication (where it’s published) was in the making. People playing highstakes, ready to enter history or ruin their career, but playing it nonetheless.

      This may take longer than Rossi thinks. Months, maybe one year. Many other verifications. But if he’s real, and patient, this is the good process.

    • David

      Regarding the 4 international Universities: Bologna, Ferrara, Uppsala and Stockholm, upon me.

    • Anonymous

      Rossi is “worried”.

      It is just as possible that the peer review team finds out that it is an exothermic chemical nickel hydride reaction, or the equivalent, because it does not sustain the energy output for sufficient time.

      I give this till the end of March, at which I drop the probability down of real LENR from Rossi to 1% from current 5%. I wish Rossi good luck and I look forward to reading a third party independent test with data.

      I think there is higher probability with Piantelli that at least he has a LENR reaction (20% to 25%), although it appears to be not economically viable at this point (75 watts with all that overhead of apparatus around it). I.e., it is possible that Piantelli has an important scientific curiosity in a working LENR, but that it is not sufficiently powerful enough to supplant other existing technologies, or that it doesn’t self sustain and has a low COP.

      However the breakthrough of proving LENR by Piantelli at least leaves open the possibility it can be economically scaled up to be viable at a point in the future.

      I wish them both good luck, I just find the probabilities lower than I did when I first came across this more than a year ago.

      • Peter_Roe

        IMHO it is literally impossible on the information to hand to estimate the probability of success (however defined) of any of the players. Certainly setting arbitrary deadlines is not helpful as these have no significance outside the minds of the observers who set them (the mistake that Paul Story of ECN made). We are the proverbial mushrooms, sitting in the dark and awaiting more manure.

  • Stephen

    Mmmh… saying a paper under peer-review will be published for sure seems a bold declaration to me. Except maybe when one had extremely good reports.

    Anyway, I wish him best luck and I am curious to see how this promise ends… and – in case there is indeed a publication coming out in the near future – what does “very high level” means for AR.

    • Redford

      Actually he’s not saying at all it is sure. And he even told what he would do if it’s not published.

      The early talk about this publication was pretty disconnected from the reality of a peer review process but it’s clear it now starts to look like the right pace and stress. The 3rd party coming back for extra check smells normality to that regard. It’s what happen in a serious article publishing. They make you sweat.

      The real info here lies in the “high profile” part. If true, and if published, this will make a hell of a noise.

      I expect the review at best to be published in May. High Profile reviews don’t rush thing.

      On a side note, it’s clear that Rossi lacks experience about publishing peer reviewed stuff. One could wonder if it’s not a scam technic, but frankly even in that logic I don’t see a reason to claim against all plausibility that publishing & peer reviews would be fast and certain then switch to a more sensible presentation. I can only explain this with lack of experience of publishing.

    • I guess it means Nature.

      • robiD

        This is impossible. Nature’s attitude toward CF/LENR is well known.
        In the past Giuliano Preparata was used to talk about Nature as the “Pravda” (the journal of the old soviet regime) of the scientific magazines because they are used to do ideological information other that scientific information.
        Well known are some answers they gave to someone that tried to ask to publish works related to cold fusion: “since the phenomenon is impossible, we won’t publish it”.

        • GreenWin

          Even Nobel laureate Carlo Rubia, President of ENEA at the time could not get “Report 41” published in ANY scientific journal. And that report only confirmed the appearance of He4 in CF.

          The ruse here is that consensus science of any caliber will publish anything confirming CF. Peer review is corrupt. Personally, I give it 1-2% possibility. A working device and happy customer is the only proof we need.

      • daniel maris

        LOL – No way Pekka! Even if Rossi has the most stupendous machine of all time!!

        • Invy

          Well then it must be Science…hehe

          • At least that would rhyme with “scientific magazine”: If it’s a hiding in plain sight hint. We are still not sure about Carrier either.

    • Peter_Roe

      European Physical Journal (EPJ)?

      Or at a slightly humbler but more specialised level, the Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter?

      • daniel maris

        Those sound more likely.

        • captain

          Yeah, the test having place in Italy, so more likely EU reviews.

  • Joseph Fine

    A do-it-yourself English translation can be obtained using Google translate and I made one available on Facebook. (If you are in the interest group.)


  • Definitely good news that peer review is in course. It means that (1) the writing team was able to agree on the contents, (2) a journal (“magazine”) editor didn’t reject the paper offhand but sent it to peer review and (3) most probably the first commment round has already taken place since the team has returned to the lab.

    In general it’s not possible to foresee how long a peer review takes. Perhaps it rather means that it will take at least all February.

    (Minor: I’m wondering what the “it will arrive to you in english” means.)

    • RenzoB

      I agree this sounds very encouraging. I wonder if the report will get published soon after the peer reviewing or if it will take longer, sometimes it take months from peer review to actual publication. It depends also on the magazine. The established practice is making the pre-publication draft available at the scientists’web page. Rossi said they are completely indipendent and free to do as they wish. They kept a very low profile until now but once the paper gets accepted there is no more reason to be so guarded…

    • Omega Z


      I think he was talking about this…

      About the Piantelli patent, Stremmenos has sent a very interesting comment published on the Journal: it will arrive to you in English, I suppose.

  • RenzoB

    I have the chance to speak (among other topics) about the Ecat to a group of people, sometimes in march, but if the report doesn’t get published in time I’ll abstain from that part.

  • lcd

    Where is the Stremmenos comment

    • admin

      In Italian, it’s here:

      I haven’t seen it in English yet. In the past Stremmenos has published English translations of some of his comments after he has first commented in Italian.

      • Omega Z

        You can also see it here.

        Presently #7 shows a translation

        Also the Original posted by Stremmenos
        Presently #13 There is a translate tab above it.

        The # positions will change with additional posts, but you should be able to scroll down & find them.

    • captain

      I’ve reported the Stremmenos comment in italian, but duly corrected due to several typos and italian accents, so to render it better understandable thru an english googletranslation.
      My post is waiting for mod.n, anyhow.

      When U’ll see ‘nanopolveri” in italian, write “nano-polveri”, that is nano-powders or nanograins.

      While undergoing further corrections, my post disappeared. Sorry.

      • captain

        further explanations/corrections:

        framento ==> frammento ==> fragment
        microfasi ==> microphases
        nanofasi ==> nanophases
        suop ==> suo ==> his
        polvere ==> powder (better than dust, here)

  • Gerrit

    Vogue ?

    • admin


    • lcd

      Better not be popular mechanics again

      • Mannstein

        It’s immaterial what magazine publishes the report other than possibly the prestige factor. The report done by a third party in and of itself is important and can be read and evaluated for it’s contents. We don’t need some high priests of science to be gate keepers for the rest of us peons. We have been down that road since 1989 and led to nowhere!

        • daniel maris

          It was Rossi who originally said the real proof will be a working product on the market. He now seems to be on a different tack, or maybe he feels the two go together in parallel.

          • Gerrit

            spot on !

            Why is Rossi suddenly allowing a third party validation, a scientific proof of his machine, when he has preached that only the market will decide.

            Is it the influence of his new master ?

            Is it all made up to keep the attention ?

            • Peter_Roe

              Rossi did say somewhere that the ‘report’ (which now turns out to be a research paper) was not commissioned by him. That would seem to imply that it was as you suggest ‘his new master’ that decided to go down this route.

              It would also explain Rossi’s apparent distance from the process, if he didn’t commission it and had zero input to it. I very much agree with Mannstein’s sentiments – there doesn’t seem to be any need for this just yet, and it could be counterproductive, not least due to the possible delays involved.

              • Gerrit

                Can you imagine what will happen if (soon) a very serious scientific journal will publish a rigorously peer reviewed report claiming the ecat works ?

                The stock of Rossi’s master will explode, big oil will plummet. Stock trading halted. Worldwide disruption. It will be the 1989 frenzy on steroids, the internet will explode.

                To me that is unimaginable. Not “too good to be true”, but “too strange to be true”.

                And yet it is not unthinkable that Rossi’s ecat works and it is not unthinkable that a peer review process is currently ongoing.

                • HeS

                  +1 (Armageddon:)