Andrea Rossi made a few more comments yesterday (Jan 20th) regarding the 3rd party tests and peer reviewing process that is apparently ongoing:
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.
Plenty of food for discussion here.
Loading ...
Saving...
After reading most of the negative replies above on the Rossi E-Cat, I have concluded that all but two are negative thinkers who would not accept a 100% validated working Rossi ECat if it bit them in the Gluteus Maximus.
This is the same crowd that always geather like blow flies on a turd to boo and cat-call any intellectual pursuit that they can’t grasp mentally.
It is not a neutral observer who laughs about spilled milk that has yet to spill.
I am betting that something is supposedly happen to make a report of the report not happen. It will all be hot air. I will bet a dollar. Who wants to bet me?
I’ll add a dollar to your dollar. My vote is hot air!
Add my dollar too.
Sounds like he’s trying to setup the stage for his explanation on why independent tests debunk him.
Just to be clear I think LENR is probable and has a future. Just the more I see of Rossi, the less I think he has any place in LENRs future.
Rossi, to his chagrin, is admiting his device may not work as he believed and (perhaps) claimed. He’s being thoroughly honest, and thus currently acting in good faith. Be decent, and do not “pour salt in the wounds”.
Is he genuine? People have been asking for serious checks for over two years now… If in the end this thing doesn’t work and people will say harsh things about him… it’s just all his fault.
Anyway, I have a hard time in believing he’s not aware of what he’s doing and of the reality (or not, +1 dollar here) of the effect he’s claiming. If he’s not… well, then he has serious personal problem and he’s in need of serious help.
Thanks to Peter E, for posting this paper on “Chemonuclear Fusion in H Clusters…” One introductory statement jumps out:
“Chemonuclear fusion releases a power over one million times as dense as the solar interior power density in the metal hydrogen systems, e.g a 1-mol NiH system is capable of some kW output.”
Considering some of this work has been done by Sven Kullander, this is a theory well worth further study.
Based on this conjecture, the author observed successfully the enormously
enhanced fusion reactions in the metallic Li liquids under the collaborations with R. Pet-
tersson in Uppsala and T. Watanabe in Sakura/Tokyo. The above described enhanced
nuclear reations or transitions are generally expected through the spontaneous chemical
reactions coupled with the nuclear transitions in the thermodynamically stable liquids.
The enhanced nuclear transitions
Oktober 12
Bologna Experiment
Due to the lack of detailed information on the Bologna experiment, it is not possible
to compare rigorously the present prediction and the experimental results. Nevertheless,
the observation results of Bologna group seem to be suggestive some coincidences of the
prediction in Section 12 [29-33].
1) In Bologna, no 5.5 MeV gamma ray was observed as prediction i). Instead later, the
0.511 MeV annihilation gamma ray might be detected and correspond to the occurence
of the reaction Eq.(8).
2) The observed power output of the Bologna device charging some tens gram Ni and
ordinary hydrogen gas might be some kW. This is consistent with prediction ii), iii)
and iv).
3) The Bologna data on the power output is said to be gained through supplying D2-gas,
which correspond to prediction iii).
4) Corresponding to prediction ii), iii), iv) and vi), a very small percent fraction of Ni
might be transmuted into Cu during a few months continued operation of device. A
small part of annihilation gamma rays observed might be due to the positron decay
of 60Cu produced in the 58Ni(3He; p)60Cu reaction.
!!
http://www.tsl.uu.se/digitalAssets/142/142245_tsl-note-2012-61.pdf
The Guardian
Open access: Those who publish behind paywalls are victims not perpetrators
One issue that permeates university-led science across the world. In many (if not most) fields, the journals in which we publish are judged to be an indicator of professional quality. This isn’t a good thing, as the evidence linking journal rank with the merit of individual articles is weak to moderate, at best. But here science is bad at being scientific: the actual quality takes second place to the perception of quality, which is so strong that journal rank creates its own biosphere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/jan/23/open-access-publish-paywalls-victims-perpetrators
We think this will change as former prestigious journals will have to confess ignorance in withholding papers on CF and other unorthodox areas of science. Yet, dogma insists confession is good for the soul and may redeem even the most calcified of sins.
+10
Wondering what is the danger in announcing the peer reviewed publication? In scientific field its not at all uncommon to say the study was submitted to such and such magazine and failed the peer review. No problem, submit it to another publication for peer review. Its just been frustrating to wait so long for the results. I just don’t see the need for the secrecy. People who don’t believe this won’t be convinced anyway, and there is plenty of other research in this field now (outside of AR). I just don’t get the danger of concrete information at this stage.
In normal journals yes, but in Nature and Science no (www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/embargo.html). Which is why I think (=consistent with what they say) that they submitted to one of these.
The problem I think is the established power structure. University, Oil, Government, are all entrenched and have too much to lose and too much money to interfere. If he could (and obvsiouly can’t) keep it from them, there’s a better chance of it not being blocked. Unfortunately, you really need 100,000 or 1,000,000 working units released simultaneously globally to raise public knowledge and bypass the burying influence the established power structure will apply.
Another, serendipitous namesake arises in that today Jan 23rd, Italian defense giant, Finmeccanica will consider offers to buy Anasldo Energia – a participant in CF, National Instruments Week and in the 17th ICCF in Korea. Samsung, Doosan, and Siemens AG are all bidding. Also interesting is the President of the Tuscany Region Enrico Rossi, seems to feel this is all for the best as it will bring much needed cash to Finmeccanica.
Ansaldo Energia makes single and combined cycle components for fossil and nuclear powered electric generating plants. Their representative physicist attended Dr. Rossi’s successful test in October 2011 of the 1MW e-cat reactor.
Here is a fascinating 6 part series of Dr. Martin Fleischmann speaking at ACS in 1999:
http://www.ecoinventions.ca/dr-martin-fleischmannacs-1999-part-6-by-the-newenergyfoundation/
A wonderfully genteel man. Who WILL be recognized for his and Stanley Pons’ brilliant work.
Do not worry Rossi, Rely on God.
What should he rely on god for? A miracle ? Miracles by their very definition are not reproducible, and Rossi needs all the reproducibility that nature not god can muster….
Ramsy should have said “Rely on hard work”, for that is the source of success (with a big dose of inspiration from God for good measure).