Rossi: Peer Reviewers Require More Testing

According to Andrea Rossi the long-awaited 3rd party report of European testing of Andrea Rossi’s hot cat reactor is undergoing further tests. Rossi reported, “I have been informed today that the third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.”

I followed up with a question about what the reason for the delay was. Rossi’s reply was that “the peer reviewers asked for additional tests to confirm the results.”

I would guess that once the testing is finally over (and it’s possible that they may want more time after the 3rd week of March), that it will take at least a few weeks to write the report, so realistically I don’t think now that we should be expecting to see the report published until April now.

Here are are a couple possible reasons that I can think of that the peer reviewers in this situation want to do more testing.

1. The effect is so small that they can’t determine whether it is significant or just noise.
2. The effect is so impressive that they want to be absolutely certain there is no conventional explanation for it.

I would guess that if there is nothing interesting going on, the peer reviewers would have pulled the plug and given up on the whole affair.

Any other ideas?


  • http://www.hybridships.co.uk Val Gorsky

    I can reveal that the 3rd party is a swedish test institute/ Rossi has cooperated with the swedes for a long time. There are still some who believs in him. Mats Lewan, Ny Tekbik is one of them.

  • Shiv

    Great news. No point speculating on the cause of delay. What matters is that other people are now involved and the truth will now come out.

  • Omega Z

    Statements from Rossi since Feb 15th.

    The “third” independent party tests.
    The (peer reviewers*) asked for additional tests to confirm the results.
    The third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.

    So this would be the 3rd set of tests in order to confirm results from previous tests. They should be concluded near the end of March. Above- (Peer Reviewers) would indicate reviewing of the Data is already in process? Maybe? -Rossi speak sometimes uses the wrong terms.

    I would suspect that had the first 2 tests been negative, there would be no 3rd set of tests. Worst case scenario here would be their inconclusive so warrant’s a 3rd set of tests.

    Alternate Scenario would be the Test Data are much as Rossi has stated.
    If So then Consider:
    This is being done by 4 Universities who will be Validating a Technology that Main Stream Science has said is impossible. They will leave nothing to chance. They will be looking at absolutely every possibility of Error in measurements.

    Reputations are at stake, Both those doing the Testing & the Scientific Community. The entire Worlds Scientific community will be double checking everything once the Report comes out. One or the other has to be wrong. Asses have to be covered.

    The 3rd set of tests are to cross the T’s & dot the I’s. A Mistake on the testers part could be disastrous to their Reputations & Careers. If the H-Cat is Confirmed, MS Scientists Hopefully will have to answer some Very Serious Questions about the 20 plus years delay. There’s more at stake here then just LENR. Politicians may Start Questioning them on many Scientific Fronts. Everything could be Questioned.

    As For Rossi being Nervous about these tests- He has stated sometime back that many involved in the testing are Serious Skeptics. In the World we live in, That’s Good Reason to be Nervous. Even the most Honest can be swayed by their own bias views to some degree. It’s just Human Nature.

    One other thing to Consider- Rossi’s partner may be causing delays to keep confirmation from dribbling out until their ready.
    In Business, Timing can be everything. They may prefer everything coming out in rapid succession at their choosing. Not gradually.

  • tony

    Well i
    haven seen this in the tread:

    Maybe the
    review are postponed due to pressure from Military that want to get a head
    start as long as possible against others, and in the mean time find some way to
    block it , duplicated, and get a better patent.

    As some one
    sad it’s a hell of a lot of money and world domination possibilities on the
    table

    • Frank

      I totally agree. This is about many, many trillions of dollars. All the old-energy industry, tne new regenerative industry, the hot-fusion-researchers, the defence companies producing weapons for wars about oil, everthing is at stake.
      Many poeple base their power on fear and scarcity, they don’t want abundance. But at the end, the countries which embrace this new technology will win.

  • Michael

    I think this is the second time that Mr Rossi says that more tests are necessary. So, the second set of tests were not good enough despite it was repeated tests…..who is doing the tests?

    As far as I understand it when Rossi talks about tests, third parties, peer reviewers etc……he is not involved either in the tests or as a paper author. So, if something scientifically sensational shall be described in a paper the main person does not engage himself in that paper……….why?

    • Peter Roe

      Presumably so that the results can be seen to be truly independent. Rossi is obviously aware that tests he has been involved with are often attacked as being unreliable so he has distanced himself in this case.

      Who the testers are thought to be and why they may need to perform more experiments has been discussed in depth on this thread. Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

  • Dave

    Gut feeling, they found results but they are variable. The problem with LENR seems to be achieving stable consistent results. I think April is to soon for the report to come out. Nothing with LENR is ever on time. Understandably so. The hounds will howl but what can you expect with something as revolutionary as LENR. It takes time, and we wait…

  • Redford

    “Here are are a couple possible reasons that I can think of that the peer reviewers in this situation want to do more testing. [...] Any other ideas?”

    This : they want to check that there isn’t another possible explanation for the results whatever they are, ie the original methodology has some flaws. If you look at the typical objection at MFMP, it’s quite your typical issue. That being said, MFMP’s project is very thin compared to Rossi’s so I assume the issues would be very different. If it’s not 2) it means that Rossi’s and Levi’s and Focardi’s and everyone who put his name on this a fraud and/or an idiot. Still possible but not the simplest hyptohesis.

    Honestly, nothing at all is surprising in this except the fact they thought it would be fast. There’s no bloody way on earth this goes fast if the review is serious (and the extra checks clearly indicate it is – that’s good!) it takes less than month. Everyone familiar with publishing in real reviews know that. It can take two year sometime ! If this is published before the summer, I’d be very happy, but if it doesn’t, I will not be surprised.

    If that is not at all, then it’s another thing. Let’s hope if that happens Rossi will tell immediately and pubish as he said he would.

  • william borav

    I have others ideas about the peer reviewers, the first idea its who are the reviewers, I really wat to believe that this cientifics are running to the truth of the science, but we must know that science and politics sleeps at the same bed.
    So if the machine really works and this peer reviewers are free of presure by goverments and great companies of petroleum and another kind of energies sources, I think that thees men are right now ones of the powerfull men of the human been, because if they says that the machine doesn´t works the development of this tecnology will sleep in a deskbox and no one knows when will get up, may be the same thing happened to Fleishman and Pons. So really the future of the humanity are in theirs hands and theirs interests.

    • Peter Roe

      Don’t forget that Rossi’s US partner is working on a hot cat prototype, so maybe the test results will not prove quite as critical as you suggest.

  • Greg Leonard

    Interesting that my questions to AR did not get past the test for being posted.

    I wonder which part(s) of my questions were a problem.

    Question below

    Dear AR
    A couple of questions about the third party tests
    1. where are the tests taking place: USA, Italy, or somewhere else?
    2. is your industrial partner supervising the testers
    3. are the testers using instruments to determine how the e-cat works, or simply measuring power in & out
    regards,
    Greg Leonard

  • John L

    Andrea Rossi

    February 17th, 2013 at 6:58 AM

    Dear Neri B.:
    The third indipendent party tests do not depend from me, therefore I am not able to answer to your questions. Timing of tests, publications of the tests also do not depend from me.
    As for your friends who are impatient, you can ask them why they are so impatient with us, while they have not been and still are not impatient toward what follows: they paid and still pay with their taxes the nuclear fusion prototype – plants made by the Majors, which still are eating billions of euros, while we didn’t get from the Taxpayers a single cent.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Gerrit

      This is definitely one of the few times where Rossi says something which is absolutely true and for which hard evidence is available.

      You can’t be impatient with Rossi, he doesn’t owe us anything. If you want to be impatient about something, complain about the ITER, hot fusion circus.

  • paul42

    The people reviewing the paper are looking for any possible way that the data might be faked or wrong and they are asking for more tests to rule out every possibility that this data is not what the researchers claim.

    • Omega Z

      I agree Paul, This is similar to Rossi’s test in the past where everyone says it seems to work. Then in hindsight they think, Well we forgot to check (X). Hence, they need to test again checking other prospects for flaws. I see this as a Plus. If Nothing positive was found, they wouldn’t continue Rechecking it.

  • Nixter

    This Rossi/LENR topic strikes me as being occasionally humorous, but always worth taking seriously, so much at stake, so little solid information, truly a unusual and strange set of circumstances, converging in odd and unpredictable ways. Rarely can it be said that both sides of a debate are correct, this seems to be one of those situations, it’s within reason to support either side of the argument at this juncture. Fanatical support of either possibility could leave the proponents wishing that their public positions had been somewhat moderated. Fence sitters may wish that they had expressed their views more forcefully. Those who left all possibilities open while engaging in polite and open minded dialog will be positioned comfortably when the drama finally plays itself out.

    Much depends on Engineer Rossi, things will change if and when he shows proper evidence of his claims, three things that are supposed to be happening right now;

    1. The third part report.

    2. The 1MW Hot-Cat heat generator being examined while in operation at a customers facilities.

    3. Rossi has said he is working on a E-Cat powered turbine electrical generator set.

    Many wouldn’t invest a single penny into this scheme as things stand now, but if even one item from the list is actually demonstrated in convincing fashion, the entire spectacle will quickly transform into the equivalent of a modern day “Gold Rush.” On the other hand, Rossi may drag this out for another year or more, with positive results never appearing. If that happens it will be a terrible blow to the legitimate scientific work being carried out.

    Unless you are an insider with direct knowledge of the proceedings, it is impossible to take an intelligent position.

    • Peter Roe

      I agree that it is not currently possible to form any substantive opinion on the state of play with Rossi, based on what we have been told (it never has been of course). We continue to ‘second guess’ based on circumstantial evidence and our personal opinions of the veracity of Rossi’s blog statements, but it has to be admitted that verifiable facts are rather thin on the ground.

      AFAIK the 1MW unit Rossi says he has shipped (2) is not a ‘hot cat’ – it is another LT container assembly. I’m not sure we have any info about whether extended running tests are being carried out on this by the customer, just a couple of vague statements about extensive safety data from industrial units being necessary for safety certification of domestic units (don’t hold your breath).

      The last projection I heard for a hot cat prototype (US partner) was (I think) end of March, beginning of April, and I seem to remember that Rossi’s later wording indicated a boiler only a that point, i.e., not coupled to a generator (sorry, I’m too idle to trawl through JONP to dig the relevant quotes up). This part of the project seems to be pretty much out of Rossi’s hands, judging by the lack of any comments, or even hints, on progress (usual caveats).

    • Gerrit

      Very well said, completely my point of view also.

  • GreenWin

    It is increasingly apparent that the “testers” of the Rossi Hot-cat verifying anomalous heat – are paralyzed by great waves of fear and loathing. In the scientific publishing and peer-review domain, there is a creeping terror that, should the truth out, there will be abject chaos, mayhem, infidelity – cats sleeping with dogs, sociological entropy, etc. The suggestion therefrom is these testers, reviewers and periodical editors are close to frozen with fear. Should they assign their names to such an article, might they immediately become targets of the “black helicopter NWO brain police??” Should any man risk the well known but whispered demise many a whistleblower comes to??

    There is little salvation in the continued delay of truth. It only corrupts the soul of those who delay out of fear, and increases the suffering of those whose condition would be bettered. There is, in fact a real “life lesson” to be learned here. And that is, the truth knows no bounds. And no matter how terrifying or potentially disruptive it might seem – the universe views truth as simple evolution. It tests the mortal soul to trust in the welfare of evidence and honesty. Should these mortal reviewers, editors and verifiers fear for their lives or reputations? In a word, NO. Should they elect courage, and write the truth – it will set them free. There is an impenetrable shield manifested about such actors, and they have nothing to fear.

    The time for archaic “life lessons” has ended. The time to step forward, get honest and disclose this phenomenon is now. “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

    • Bigwilly

      Uh, Greenwin, excellent monologue truly, but anyone of of us could come up with any equally eloquent and speculative reason that the report has been delayed. Hopefully invoking less “gloom and doom” to boot.

      Good day
      BW

      • GreenWin

        Ah, but Willy – “gloom and doom” is wholly invented, either by those lacking real courage, or those claiming to save us from its imminent arrival.

        My day was very good, thank you!

  • Dixie

    It is delayed because they are using a steornoprobemeter

  • Robyn Wyrick

    This is fine. I think the work of bringing LENR into market is going to take a while, and several things still seem very promising. Toyota’s replication of the Mitsubishi transmutation experiment comes to mind. I don’t think we’re in “dead certainty” territory with respect to Cold Fusion, but I think the probability is stronger with every passing month.

    As some point a commercial product may be available, and then all the 3rd party papers in the world will not matter.

    So, if this takes time for a 3rd party reviewer, no problem.

    If this takes time where there is little earth shattering news, no problem.

    I’m not the one working on this (though I did donate to MFMP). What am I to get in Rossi’s face. Fraud, fool, or genius, my opinion of him is immaterial.

    What I think does matter is that there are many people looking carefully at this question, and those who look the closest seem to find exciting results.

    If that is true, then delays by 3rd party reviews to look more closely is all to the good. It doesn’t change Rossi’s and his partners’ production schedules. It doesn’t change reality of whether LENR works.

    I advise a happy pill, and don’t lose the forest for the trees. My $0.02.

  • http://twitter.com/bbck777 Bernie Koppenhofer

    Just because everything is different doesn’t mean anything has changed. ~Irene Peter

    Rossi demonstrated his E-Cat in 2011, according to the Wright Brothers timetable
    outlined below, the US government should recognize LENR for funding sometime in
    2017. (:

    Wilbur and Orville Wright made their historic first powered flight on December 17,
    1903, from Kill Devil Hill in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The world at large
    would not acknowledge the Wright’s success until 1908. It would be four years
    before even the U. S. War Department would believe that the Wrights had
    actually flown a heavier-than-air, engine-powered airplane. In January, 1905 the War Department wrote to the Wright Brothers:

    “Referring to your letter of the 21st instant to the Honorable Secretary of War inviting attention to the experiments in mechanical flight conducted by Messrs. Wilbur and Orville Wright, ……..the Board has found it necessary to decline to make allotments ……the device must have been brought to the stage of practical operation without expense to the
    United States.”

    On October 30, 1905 the Wrights decided to end their flights for the time being
    and keep their airplane under wraps PENDING RECEIPT OF A U.S. PATENT.
    The brothers started flying again in France in 1908. The Wrights became celebrities in Europe and signed a French government contract. The US Army officially accepted their airplane on August 2, 1909.

    • Scott Bergquist

      “must have been brought…without expense to the United States.”…the Wright Brothers wanted guaranteed money -prior- to demonstrating the airplane to the US Army. Note the difference, and how it fits the Army’s reply. The Wrights wanted money before anyone was allowed to view the aircraft in flight.

      They also thought “wing warping” was their most valuable patent. They got into an invention dispute with Glenn Curtis over ailerons and flight control. The Wright Brothers did not do the honorable thing. They should have settled.

    • AlainCo

      thanks for telling that episode. I’ve quoted you message in a matching thread.

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1008-Wright-Brother-story-It-remind-me-something

      Wright brothers story really match Rossi, for good and clown.

  • Doktor Bob

    I dont like to wait for things to happen that is outside of my control.

    / Dr Bob

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I can imagine Rossi would say that.

  • AlainCo

    Off-topic: Just a comment to the webmaster:

    the rss of comments http://www.e-catworld.com/comments/feed

    produce link to comment that are incorect

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/report-defkalion-gt-and-moses-ltd-forming-joint-venture/comment-page-2/#comment-102368

    however the disqus rss itself

    http://ecw.disqus.com/latest.rss

    works well, because it links to things like:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/mfmp-the-data-points-are-starting-to-converge/#comment-790443268

    without the comment page

    maybe it can be corrected…
    thanks in advance

  • GreenWin

    Caveman1: Ouch! What you call it?
    Caveman2: Fire.
    Caveman1: How it work?
    Caveman2: I dunno.

    Caveman1: I don’t believe it.
    Caveman 2: Go ahead, touch it again.
    Caveman1: Ouch!!

    Caveman2: Believe it now?
    Caveman1: NO!
    Caveman2: Touch it again.
    Caveman1: Aiiiieeeeeee!!!!

    Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

    • Neil Taylor

      Very funny and true, I am afraid!

    • Scott Bergquist

      Can we please retire that foolish “insanity” definition. It is ridiculous.
      Watch someone fish by casting a fly or lure. Few succeed on the first of many repetitive, identical acts. But they are not insane. Many such examples abound.

      • Jon

        dear sir as a fly fisherman i must object…each cast is unique and different in its timing and placement as is the location of the fish…the only time when its insane is when you have no fly on your line

  • Fyodor

    I think that the “third party” testers suffer from a debilitating problem, which is their fictional, non-existent nature. It has already prevented them from publishing in October as Rossi originally claimed and I am very concerned that it may prevent them from ever publishing their results.

    This same disability has hampered the other university testers, Rossi’s various customers, and Rossi’s dozens of robotic factory employees in their attempts to develop and publish the technology.

  • Horst

    The whole affair starts to get boring.

    • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

      Sleep is healthy. I got down voted for falling asleep. Can you beat that!

      • GreenWin

        Down voted for staying awake?

  • cliff

    My understanding of this process is that a paper is researched and written. Then it is submitted to people who are competent enough about the subject to review it. The problem is that since LENR doesn’t fit into current physics theory, finding someone who is competent enough to review it might be tough. Finding someone who is not biased against LENR from the Pons and Fleischmann days might be tougher.

    However, that’s all irrelevant in the long run. If it works, then the paper will eventually get published. If it doesn’t work, then the paper will eventually get published. I would bet that if it doesn’t work, the paper would be published sooner, since you don’t have to prove it doesn’t work. You have to prove it works. Very few scientists believe it works, so you have to prove them wrong.

    Convincing peer reviewers who cannot believe that all the physics they have studied and taught all these years is incomplete or maybe downright wrong, might take a while. Given the incredible scientific bias against LENR and the forces (oil, nuclear and even wind and solar companies) arrayed against this kind of game changing discovery, I’d be surprised if it was easy. I would have bet that the peers would have tried to bury it. Maybe that’s why it is taking so long.

    If someone suggests that scientists are more interested in the good of humanity than in their corporate sponsors, then I might be able to sell a nice bridge in Brooklyn to them – cheap!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed, except that I think that the paper is only attempting to show that the device works (produces non-chemical energy), not explaining or exposing in any greater detail how it works. So any physicist could act as a referee, no previous knowledge of LENR is required, in my opinion. (This is partly my guessing.)

      • AlainCo

        the problem is that today, papers are rejected if no theory, facts are rejected if no theory… today, scientists are bishop, not curious.

        as long as they don’t have a theory they will refuse the fact and wait for new data to make new theory.
        I feel that it is impossible for them to simply take measures…
        that is the job of engineers… maybe it would habe been better to hire engineers.

        • Peter Roe

          At one point I believe Rossi said that if there are problems, that the paper would be posted on Arxiv. However, as he has also repeatedly said that he has no knowledge of, or control over, publication, this may have been hot air.

      • Peter Roe

        As it is simply (as you say) a question of ‘how much heat, if any, does this box make?’, Rossi probably should have submitted his paper to an engineering journal connected with boilermaking, rather than a scientific one. As engineers, the ‘peer reviewers’ would be rather less phased by a positive result than a bunch of physicists!

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Maybe so, but it’s not Rossi’s paper.

          • Peter Roe

            True – forgot that momentarily.

    • AlainCo

      right.

      I see three hypothesis.

      The only skeptic hypothesis is that there is no peer-review in process and all is lie… It may also be Rossi manipulating the PR so they wait for some event (an announce)…

      The second is that the result are not very good and, between troubles and small effect, the testers need more test.

      The most probable as you say is that it is nearly impossible to make mainstream physicist accept LENR, so they always ask more test, more rechecking, more more more…. like hypercritics do to avoid facing facts… always ask more, change direction,…moving target strategy.

    • kasom

      oil, nuclear (hot fission), wind, solar, natural gas, biogas, biofuel, e-cars, e-busses, ship-diesel, coal…..

      With LENR beeing a viable alternative, all those projects planned or already in realisation will have to be revised.

      Yuo can’t imagine the amount of money on the desk.

      The jobs, careers, social standing of all leaders, managers, teccies that are involed in those project around the globe, will be impacted.

      If I’d be a professor involved in the testing or reviewing procedure I’d look twice, thrice or more times before I publish any word!

      • yamal

        i don’t buy that argument. the entire sector focused on making use of energy is a lot bigger and mightier than the one actually providing the energy. that trend is consistent ever since industrialisation started and neither the peek oil discussion nor the climate debate changed that substantially. if the cold fusion driven car becomes a reality, there will be a lot more jobs, careers, social standings etc. effected positively by the following boom of that industry than could be effected negatively in the dying oil sector. if you’re a building contractor making a living by installing solar panels on rooftops, you’d be stupid not to welcome an energy revolution providing hundreds of times more business opportunities for you. believing the industry suppresses something better in order to hold on to something worse makes for good conspiracy theories but in reality it doesn’t work like that.

        • orsobubu

          I don’t buy yours, neither. According to marxistic theory, every “robotization” of the production system requires more and more people enslaved to the capitalistic machine, so that extorted surplus value keeps rising even if the productivity and unemployment keep rising (remember that surplus value, then converted in capital and money, are exclusively explained by exploitation of wage work; in a free market, robots absolutely cannot generate money, aside from the over-profits in the starting phase of their cycle). We can classify LENR as an energy robotization process, since – if proved – it will surely wipe off a big bunch of workers in the sector. And energy industry is the most capital (workers and machines) intensive sector of all. Other industrial sectors are experiencing the same process: cars, agricolture, computers, electronics, and many more. People employed in bank sector, actors in cinema, microchip designers, skyscrapers architects, vehicle drivers, teachers, shop clercks, every business area will be devastated by enhancement in productivity and automation, both triggered by the competition mechanism inherent to the capitalistic market economy. In the future, also buldings will be erected by robots or nano-robots, driving profits to zero. More a sector is advanced, and less people are required; a large portion of mankind was involved in manual crops cultivation during past millennia; today, a few super-high skilled engineers can design the tools sold by tech companies, then the production and assembly phases are completed by millions of workers generating the true profits; but competitivity will soon menace this process. And remember, in capitalism, it is absolutely mandatory that even more and more workers be subdued to the capitalistic machine, because the overall surplus value must increase 1.5-2% yearly to avoid recession and wars. In nature, a stationary state is physically impossible, but also the capitalistic process cannot grow forever, because human race should start to expand to other planets, and this is impossible too: because capitalsts absolutely have not the capitals to invest in centuries-long projects to colonize outer space to house millions and millions of space wage workers. In conclusion, the easiest possibility is that a counter-revolution driven by capitalists (as in WW I and II, caused by fall of profit rate, overproduction and unemployment) will destroy a large portions of our markets and earth, in order to re-divide and restart. Only a communistic revolution could impose a planned, more advanced social and productive system, without wage work, money, capital, banks, markets, crisis and wars.

          (A warning to readers: please DO NOT annoy me using the old trick to compare
          communism with Soviet Union, etc; they killed more communist than anyone
          else: that system – like chinese, etc – is scientifically called STATE
          CAPITALISM, as also based on wage workers, money, banks, and so on; also US
          economy today is more similar to a state capitalism than a free market
          economy)

          • AlainCo

            ok for not conparing marx theopry with soviet union, since ther seem to be no such implementation, except maybe France at some period…

            your theory of how productivity increase cause problem is simply not coherent with fact.

            It happens in Europe after the war, and nobody can honestly say that the population and the poor did not enjoy great progress.

            It happens recently in many emerging countries, like Korea. and when it stalled, like in Brazil until recently, it is linked to the elite blocking the productivity increase to keep their position, with the stupid cooperation of the victims who insisted things not to change…

            crisis in EU and US is linked to loss of productivity, concentration of activities in non productive space, and also to some transfer given to poor countries like china to help them develop. since China is nearly developed in some region, it should go better in zone who accept technology…

            probably US, and probably not EU.

            like for LENR we should observe fact.

            Capitalism is not efficient. Capitalism is very often crony, not real.

            anyway other syetm are worse on the long term.

            as said the author of “the next convergence”, some non-liberal policy (protectionism) might be useful for limited time, and it is what China is doing today. On long time protection cause weak economy, but on short term it let time to absorb shocks, to prepare the workforce to change, get more educated.

            the way capitalism, the real one, not the usual crony one, redistribute wealth accros social class is tha every technology revolution allow the lucky or the smart to get richer than the previous rich who simply keep is wealth which will soon be comparatively low because of growth. Even a capitalist who miss a revolution, will became poor.

            This happens in the 50s in europe, with old bourgeaoisie washed by industrial revolution.

            the problem today is that governement try to protect jobs and status-quo, leading to miss revolutions. moreover the add regulation and forbiding, increase minimum standards , lower productivity, leading to an effective reduction of wealth and increase of prices.

            we are experiencing de-growth. In that context as explaine in the next convergence, the rich get richer, the poor poorer, and everybody get poorer on average.

            what is well explained in the next co,nvergence is that the state have to do many things, but not what is asked usually.

            he need to prepare for change, educate people, support them durin the change with welfare state, invest in infrastructure , not to protect industry and jobs, or run short term efficient industry itself.

            for example for LENR there is no need of government to fund LENR, but just to stop blocking LENR, avoid over-regulation (punish fault not fear).

            However it will need to help all the workforce that will have to change job, give them education and money support during the transition.

            It will have to euthanize the big energy monopoly and similar corps, dismantle the old electric grid, preventing those zombie to use their power to block the transition (one usual inefficiency of capitalism is big smashing small). The risk being that less efficient solution (like home LENR) be preferred to optimal solution (micro-grid), because of war between consumers and big energy incumbent.
            The alternative is simply to watch and punish the anti-competition behavior of the incumbent and let a gang of small and lean companies (like lent-cities) kill the big corps like red ants eat a sick cow.

            capitalism is not perfect, but centralization is simply worse, except in few case. The art of policy is to use state power where it avoid toxic capitalism, without falling into the usual comfortable policy without performance feedback, that make state ruin the economy.

            the fact is that in western world we globally do the opposite of what should be done.

            • Peter Roe

              In other words you are suggesting that governments, er, …govern – instead of carrying out their sponsors’ agendas. Unlikely in the extreme, sadly.

              • GreenWin

                Unless of course government is forced to understand that decisions made not in the best interest of the majority – result in corruption convictions. Putting Senators and Congressmen in the Big House for contemplation.

                • Peter Roe

                  If only.

          • bloke from poland

            You must be joking. Go to north korea for a vacation and check how communism works in a real life. I live in country that was trying communism for 50 years after WW2 and believe me you woudn’t like to live here. 30 years ago if I wanted to get a chocolate I had to wait in a queue for a few hours, my father was waiting at petrol station in a queue that was over 1mile long to get some fuel. Dont tell anyting about overproduction in ‘bad’ capitalism until you know how works real communism. The difference between high-tech society and lets say agricultural from beginning of industrial era is that 1 thousand years ago 99% was growing food and in high-tech ‘robots’ do that and people are designing those robots or are working in f.e. entertainment industry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/claesand Claes Andersson

      They need to find people that are senior enough not to have to worry about their reputation and their grants, that’s for sure.

    • http://www.facebook.com/claesand Claes Andersson

      It’s positive that he appears to be in the process to turn this into acceptable science. Let’s see if he manages that. If he doesn’t that may be for a number of reasons, including that he seems to have the mentality of an inventor rather than of a scientist.
      I don’t sympathize with bias, but I do sympathize with demands for extraordinary evidence here. Besides, a publication WITHOUT extraordinary evidence isn’t going to do him any good anyway! It will be scrutinized, and not only in a friendly way, but that’s the rules of the game. He might as well do it very properly from the start.

  • What if

    Who’s supposed to be the third party?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi has said, when putting his statements together, that they represent four different universities, mainly or completely European. They are not paid by Rossi or anyone else except their home institutions for travel, subsistence etc.

      • rolando

        Uppsala university, University of Bologna, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and what the last one may be….?MIT?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Oh I think he also said that they are non-Italian.

          • rolando

            Uppsala university (Sven Kullander), Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (Hanno Essen), University of Cambridge (Brian Josephson), and MIT (Peter Hagelstein) or Missouri University

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Could be.

  • Garry

    Remember as well… if this is at a “name brand” journal the reviewer’s reputation with the journal is also at risk. So while reviews are anonymous usually they don’t want to be wrong either way. If the effect is somehow flawed, and the reviewers say the effect is real, the reviewers are up to it to their ears with the editors. Similarly, if one reviewer says it is flawed, and the others say the effect is real, and the eCAT ends up truthfully being real, the incorrect reviewer similarly looks bad. Having multiple anonymous reviewers is somewhat of a check and balance against each other.

    • Peter Roe

      The final say about publication will be with the journal’s senior editor. If he/she has his/her own prejudices, this could also effect whether or not the paper sees the light of day (although an editor’s dislike would normally mean rejection before the peer review process).

      Edit: I see that Garry has already made a similar point.

      • HeS

        It’s very likely. The possibility of publication depends on personal preferences of editor. The example below (here it depends on what believes the editor:)

        14-Feb-2013
        Dear Prof. Guglinski:

        Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A
        “Hadrons and Nuclei”.
        However, I do not believe that your proposed model of the nucleus
        is state of the art.
        Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.
        Sincerely yours

        Prof. Ulf Meissner
        Editor in Chief
        European Physical Journal A

        • Peter Roe

          Thanks – a very clear example of an editor acting as gatekeeper simply on the basis if his personal opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • Garry

    I can tell you from having published over 160 papers in peer reviewed journals– if the reviewers have asked for more data and not killed the paper outright, the EDITORS have read the reviews and are looking for a way to let it get published.

    However, that does not say whether the outcome is positive. All it means is the editors are looking to allow the RESULT to be formally published.

    • cliff

      Thank you for your insight. This is what I expect. LENR and Rossi’s hot cat is interesting enough that the editors want it published. I doubt that they would consider an elaborate hoax as interesting, but you never know.

      • Peter Roe

        It’s difficult to see how the submitted paper could be ‘an elaborate hoax’ unless the authors are all Rossi’s stooges, and they’ve faked the whole thing. Or is this what you are suggesting?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I think he referred to a journal publishing and exposing the anatomy of a hoax. That is, a hoax by the inventor which the testers would have exposed and then published.

          • HeS

            @:”journal publishing and exposing the anatomy of a hoax.”

            And will be published in the “American Psychologist” (or “British Journal of Psychology”:)

            • yamal

              i don’t see rossi exposing himself to such risk. if this is a hoax, then he won’t have a truly independent third party run tests he can’t control and publish results wherever they want. so if there really is a third party test, rossi at least thinks he has the goods. having a third party making tests would also contradict what he said earlier. last year he repeated over and over again that he won’t allow tests and all that counts are happy customers. i haven’t seen a quote from him explaining the reasons for that change of mod.

          • Peter Roe

            Yes, on re-reading Cliff’s comment I see that I misunderstood his point. Apologies, Cliff.

    • Carl White

      Editors typically would rather publish some other paper describing some advance in knowledge than publish negative results.

      • Garry

        Absolutely true. Unless they have an agenda…

  • He who understand

    Hot-Cat is producing not only energy, this hardware is producing MASS too. So folks from Unis experienced hot moments and shocks and simply repeat tests

  • bfast

    I think, I hope, you have the scenario slightly wrong. If I understand the peer review process, a report gets written, then a separate group (the reviewers) come in to confirm that the review is correct. If this is so, then the report will be complete by the time the reviewers have finished their work.

    I suspect that something in the report is causing debate. However, it could be something rather trivial. In any case the “if there is nothing interesting going on, the peer reviewers would have pulled the plug” hypothesis sounds reasonable to me.

    Here’s hopin’

  • Greg Leonard

    I guess the inspection team have been infiltrated, and they are busy with their neutron and other detectors, trying to work out how the damn thing works – so their paymasters can copy it!
    I am not really a conspiracy theorist …

    • invient

      Illuminati!!!! [points finger]

  • yamal

    normally peer review doesn’t work like that. you write a paper and submit it. the journal nominates the reviewers which either accept or don’t. those who accept examine the paper and either reject it, accept it or demand changes. the only way rossi’s statement could make sense was if reviewers had complained about methodology or scope of the testing, basically declaring it unfit for drawing conclusions or publishing. so if rossi is telling the truth, the only explanation is that whoever wrote the report screwed up in a major way. screwing up while making experiments happens all the time. it wouldn’t be a good or bad sign for anything.

    • Peter Roe

      Not necessarily ‘screwed up’ – they may have just overlooked something and not built in all the appropriate controls. Peer reviewers can be incredibly nit-picking (they don’t have to do the additional work) – in fact they can go out of their way to find fault and sometimes ‘suggest’ extra experiments that indicate that they have not really understood the material quite as well as they should.

    • Garry

      Incorrect insofar as “screwed up in a major way”. Reviewers can ask for confirmatory evidence. Sometimes one way of validating a result is good, but trying orthogonal approaches to similarly confirm provides confidence. Peter Roe (below) is absolutely correct.

      Sometimes reviewers can’t find anything wrong with a paper, but to justify their existence they suggest things to do.

  • clovis

    Hi, you’ll.
    Well heck someone has to get all the prelimanary stuff out of the way, and because Dr.R is in the lead he has to jump through all the hoops, but all in all i think things are moving very fast with reguards to bringing a new product to market.,
    Once again thank you Dr. R for keeping us in your loop on the latest developments of your world changing device,

  • kasom

    The fact alone, that tests are still going on, proofs that there is a substantial new source of energy. Nobody would invest time and travel expences for a “no show”.

    • Stephen

      No kasom, I am afraid this does not prove anything… this kind of loose logic won’t lead you anywhere, imho.

      Check out the following opposite argument: the effect is supposed to be so huge and self-evident, with huge COP etc etc… that the fact alone, that they still need further test, proves that the effect is way smaller than claimed or, most probably, unexisting.

      • kasom

        If “the effect is way smaller than claimed or, most probably, unexisting”
        Why should anyone invest more (time + money) in reviewing the tests again and again?

        • Stephen

          I don’t know kasom, there could be tons of different reasons…

          Maybe they are just crazy, or they are paid by AR, or they want to finish their job in a professional way and come out with a clear yes it works vs no it doesn’t work… or even if they think all this is fishy they just want to figure out whether the eCat provides any evidence of LENRs at all… or maybe even there’s no peer-review going on at all. Or maybe there is another reason that neither you or me can imagine.

          I am just saying that a speculation about the behavior of third party testers (actually, the supposed behavior: here we are not even talking about first hand facts, this is all based on the words of AR… do you trust him?) – even if apparently dictated by good common sense – does not prove anything at all.

          • Jim

            So, “…do you trust him”. This is just raw pseudo-skepticism. More to the point, do I now trust you? Absolutely not.

            • yamal

              skepticism is well deserved as long as all there is is what rossi writes on his blog. none of us knows whether this 3rd party even exists and the whole case one can build for that being the case is the question ‘why would he lie?’

              • psi

                Exactly. One can only think that a lack of experience with actual lying could induce the conviction that Rossi must be lying. The alternative is not that he is always “telling the truth” with a capital “T,” but that he is doing so, to the best of his ability, like the rest of us, at any given time.

          • psi

            Stephen writes: “Maybe they are just crazy, or they are paid by AR, or they want to finish their job in a professional way and come out with a clear yes it works vs no it doesn’t work”

            This could be, but frankly it doesn’t do much for me. I don’t believe you are approaching this question in a very skeptical fashion or you would be careful about throwing around phrases like “Maybe they are just crazy” or are [maybe they are] “paid by AR.” If the review is published by otherwise reputable scientists writing for a major journal, who have taken the time to insure that they are prepared in advance (by means of repeating tests, among other procedures) for the kind of onslaught that devoured Fleischman and Pons while they were still alive — then I would hope that you apologize to them. The point is that you have zero evidence that either one of these things is true, and yet you can’t wait to see them in print. Hmmm…

    • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

      kasom, there is no fact here. There is only what Rossi said. For all we know he is in a cabin in Northern Canada having a huge laugh. Perhaps he is just down the road from Bruce Fast.

      • bfast

        Nope, not here.

      • Ken L

        Why even waste your breath?

      • Ken L

        You’re just another Rossi Sayer…..Rossi said this Rossi said that. What difference does it make. Saying he’s sippin mojito’s in the gulf is about as retarded as putting your face in a pot of boiling water. Again why waste your breath. Did you bother to read anything on the subject? Rossi isn’t the only one working on LENR.

        • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

          bfast knows, I know, many other people know that I believe in the reality of LENR. I just don’t believe in hot air. That is all that we get from Rossi for at least the past year.

    • RobPG

      These reactions have “blown up labs” and “melted windows” according to NASA. They don’t understand the theory behind them though. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864

    • RobPG

      Here are the companies currently doing LENR R&D:

      Leonardo Corporation
      Defkalion
      Brillouin
      Blacklight Power
      Lenuco
      Energy Jet
      Nichenergy
      University of Missouri and Energetics Technologies
      ST Microelectronics
      Toyota / Technova
      Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
      SAIPEM
      Shell
      Exxon

      • Jim Yates

        These are just the companies we know of. I suspect there are many more.

      • Neil Taylor

        I believe NASA should be on this list too!

      • Hhiram

        I believe there are several other university teams working on LENR as well – Minnesota, Missouri and Utah, if I recall correctly.

      • Ken L

        You forget NASA has announced their acceptance of the latest theory and are working on their own research.

      • Emil

        Just pick one that has a already available one device for sell …

      • Doktor Bob

        Dear Mr RobPG
        The 3 names of the bottom was new for me.
        Do you have any webpages, news sources etc regarding this claim?

  • Demokratinifara

    I would add another thousends possible different resons to way they want more tests.
    But I think that this is the “this it it” for Rossi and his E/hotcats.. He didnt survive the swedish test of the hotcat and another failure means that he is dead meat! But im holding my thumbs for Rossi!!

    • Daniel Maris

      I agree. He’s spun this out as far as it will go. Crunch time. If he doesn’t come through on published results by a credible outfit, then I am afraid this website might as well close down – the E Cat will just pass into history as an object lesson.

      But like you, I am still hopeful. All along there seems to have been a lot more involved here than is normal with such claims. If Rossi comes through I have no problem with the true believers having their day and mocking those who dared to doubt. It will be a happy day for me as well as them. :)

      • Jim

        Except for what Peter said…

    • Peter Roe

      Perhaps we should remember that the bigger story is the work that Rossi says his US partner is doing to prepare a ‘hot cat’ commercial prototype, supposedly ready in March/April. The peer-reviewed paper is a relative side issue that will be further nit-picked and possibly rejected by many ‘mainstream’ physicists and electrochemists, even assuming that the testers come out with impressive conclusions.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    3. They want to show and that the effect is not only scientifically interesting, but also practically useful. It takes less than one day to prove that a 4 kg 10 kW device exceeds the chemical limit. But one has to run it longer if one wants to show that the device has immediate practical value.

    • Daniel Maris

      Pekka – are you saying they didn’t realise that until now? Come on…they would have known that six months ago.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        DM, I don’t think I get your point.

        • psi

          I think Dan’s point was that he missed your point by equivocating on the word “they.” Of course the peer reviewers would not have known about commercial viability six months ago. Doubtless Rossi and his people felt confident of it long before that; but that says nothing about the peer reviewers. Extensive time frames are required to test the commercial viability of a unit like the c-cat. Aren’t they?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I was thinking that something like 6-8 weeks test might be long enough that it shows some kind of commercial viability, although falling short of 6 months refilling period.

          • Daniel Maris

            No, I am not buying any of this. I don’t think commercial viability is normally subject to peer review, not least for reasons of IP. But to establish the scientific principle, that there is an energy release gain, yes. But that shouldn’t take longer than a few weeks as far as I can see, since Rossi says he has a fully working machine.

        • Daniel Maris

          Pekka –

          I’ll spell it out for you.

          You said: “But one has to run it longer if one wants to show that the device has immediate practical value.”

          No doubt. You know that now. Are you claiming the testers didn’t know that six months ago? Of course you aren’t claiming that. So, your comment is of no relevance.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            My theory is that the testers originally planned to demonstrate that the process works, but not demonstrate durability because that would have taken a longer time. But some of the referees wanted to see higher TRL, to which the testers agreed. They think that it’s better to get the paper accepted in a prestigious journal even if it takes some extra time to please the referee. And of course the paper is stronger if the claim is at higher TRL (technical readiness level) which is everyone’s benefit.

            • Mark

              I hope that those professors do not get carried away to much with their scientific objectives/interest and scopes, and forget that Rossi has a business commitment (to himself and his business partner). He needs to re couple his personal investment, invested in the E-cat by selling this product, he needs to pay his bills, he needs to pay wages to his employees and feeds the family and perhaps bank interests. Until his patent is secured and this Third party report is out, his business is practically in limbo (big order contracts are on hold) and is vulnerable to being copied (given enough time, smart people will eventually figure it out or come up with something similar but in a different way). The longer it takes, the riskier he has to face. They could have chosen to come out and declare the beyond doubt/uncertainty findings and then go back carrying on their further studies. As far as securing potential customer contracts for E-Cat/Hot-Cat and turn over are concerned, the names that will appear in the prestigious journal are secondary – that can wait., not much business risk there – fame.

  • Andrea

    Come on Mr Rossi!