Rossi to Josephson — Report Publication ‘Probably’ Around End of March

Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Josephson posted today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics and asked whether the 3rd party testers might be able to provide an update, since Rossi is not able to. He wrote:

“In view of the repeated and unexplained delays, it would be comforting to those wondering what is happening if your Third Party would issue their own announcement, summarising progress or otherwise. Perhaps this view, which I am sure is shared by many others, can be passed on to them.”

Andrea Rossi responded:

“The work of the Indipendent Third Party probably will finish in March. The publication probably will be made by the end of March or close to it and it will be made whatever the results, indipendently from us. In the meantime we are completing the construction of the first non military 1 MW plant. You are in the list of the persons that will be invited to visit it. The timing of their work does not depend on me: you are among the most important scientists of the World and a Nobel Prize, so you know perfectly how can work a validation of a thing that is as complex as ours. In the meantime we are completing the construction of the first 1 MW plant for civil operation. You are in the list of the scientists that will be invited to visit it.”

Rossi always seems to be very honored by the attention of Josephson, and seems to want to be able to pacify Josephson who seems to be somewhat perplexed by the delays that many other people have mentioned. It will be good to get beyond this stage in the story, and will be nice to hear from scientists who visit a working plant. I will add here that some time ago I somewhat impudently asked if I might be able to secure an invitation to visit a working plant, and Rossi has seemed happy to assure me that I will get one. I hope to be able to make the trip whenever that occasion might arise — although I don’t know when or where it might be.

  • Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Thank you, However I am having difficulties with your RSS.
    I don’t know the reason why I cannot subscribe to it. Is there anybody else having the same RSS problems? Anyone who knows the solution will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

  • Chris I

    I don’t get the point of Josephson seeing the entire 1 MW plant. He could have been letting him test a sungle unit, doing his own calorimetry and so on.

    Rossi never reasons like a real scientist.

  • Admin, I certainly won’t be getting an invitation due to all of my “hot air” comments. But if you come back and say that it is for real, I will be a strident and fanatical believer. I promise you that.

  • Daniel Maris

    Why is Rossi talking about inviting people to a “demonstration” (another six hour event?) when he could simply rig up a webcam for the internet so millions can look at it operating on a 24/7 basis. Very, very odd when you think about it. It’s not as though he doesn’t care what people think – otherwise he wouldn’t bother corresponding via JNP.

    I hope he proves the doubters wrong – but if so it’s been a long and unnecessary wait.

  • Demokratinifara

    Does anyone know who is operating the e-cat during the test?

    • hes

      Test team. A.Rossi comment:

      Dear Broenink:
      The third party indipendent validation tests have been funded directly
      by some of the Universities ( not Italian) which are making the tests.
      All the expenses for instrumentation, men hours, hotel, restaurants,
      taxi etc have been paid indipendently by the Entities who are making the
      indipendent validation. This is the reason why
      1- the report will be published indipendently from the results
      2- we cannot know anything of the date of the publication
      3- we do not know where the publication will be made
      4- we do not know exactly when the tests, that are still in the making,
      will be finished. Lately I have been informed that more tests will be
      made to be sure of the results, repeating again the tests.
      5- we can assist to the tests, but we cannot make any operation during
      the tests.
      6- the reason for which all these scientists are making these tests and
      for which their Universities are paying the expenses is merely scientific
      Thank you for your questions,
      Warm Regards,

  • Andre Blum

    I asked this question today:

    Andre Blum

    February 21st, 2013 at 5:54 AM

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    May I recommend putting Frank Acland of E-CatWorld on the invitation list for visiting the first non-military 1 MW plant? As a daily reader of his site, I for one will be happy to contribute to his expenses.
    Best regards,
    Andre Blum


    Andrea Rossi

    February 21st, 2013 at 9:06 AM

    Dear Andre Blum:
    The visits will need the permission of the owner of the plant. When visits will be allowable, we will check all the requests.
    Warm Regards,

    • ecatworld

      I saw that — thank you, Andre!

    • Daniel Maris

      Isn’t that about the most embarrassing answer? – apart from a straight refusal.

      Very sad.What’s Rossi playing at?

  • Shiv

    If a Nobel laureate visits and approves a commercial 1 MW plant, that would settle the argument, either for or against. Since the device has already been built for miitary, Rossi should indicate when the commercial unit will be available for review by external scientists. He can control that and project that.

    • yamal

      i don’t care who visits it as long as neither those who visit and those who own the plant aren’t under some sort of nda and can openly talk about it. as far as proof is concerned, it either works or it doesn’t. no nobel laureate can tell that from just looking at it and so it will depend on the customer testifying they really do get more energy out than they put in. (and i hope the customer won’t be leonardo or one of rossi’s distributors or an obscure and unknown italian company that happens to own a garage in bologna)

      • tim jones


  • Sergio

    Never, ever, ever, ever, ever assume anything. I can post on that website right now and pretend to be Bill Gates, does that mean that I’m Bill Gates? It’s possible that someone has pulled off a neat trick to get some answers from Rossi, and if it was, my congrats and well done!

    • Omega Z

      Ahh Yes,

      But first you would need to hack Brian Josephson’s E-mail account in order to pass yourself of as him.

      Rossi has been in contact with Brian in the past & would have that info available to verify the sender…

      • Sergio

        His e-mail address is on his website. Perhaps he communicated with Rossi using a different e-mail, but we can’t know. The thing is, if there was a post by Brian Josephson on the site, and Rossi didn’t reply to it, that wouldn’t look good. So either Rossi was 100% sure it was Josephson, or he didn’t bother to check, and was conned. In any case, I’m happy to learn of the new details.

  • GreenWin

    Part of the fascination with LENR is that it is an off-beat, non-orthodox method of producing heat energy. But there are dozens of energy harvesting methods that see little light of day. Peter Hagelstein at MIT has suggested in recent theoretical work that LENR may be precipitated by an electromagnetic or physical vibration – initiating one or more atomic reaction. Indeed, vibration and resonances of nano-and quantum energies are fundamental to the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles.

    The earth itself has its own vibration or “heartbeat” defined as the Shumann resonance – at about 7.83Hz and harmonics thereof. What if we were to harvest this ELF vibration and convert it to electrical energy? Albeit at energy levels a fraction of nuclear. Low and behold there are devices that do something just like this:

    Here’s a fascinating twist; Lumedyne Technologies is a commercial spinoff from Navy’s SPAWAR unit. A member of the MEMS team is one Mr. Paul Swanson. The very same Paul Swanson of SPAWAR who attended Ing. Rossi’s October 2011 demo of the 1MW e-cat in Bologna Italy. Small world.

    • georgehants


    • Jimr

      Not knowing a thing I’m talking about, I was wondering when NASA mentioned lenr freq,s of 30 PETA hertz needed, that we may be getting into the frequencies or harmonics of peta,exa cycles associated with string theory.

      • Jimr

        Just found the piece I was referring to and it was Tera cycles not PETA, even thought it may have to do with transmutations also. Never mind.

  • cx

    Once again rossi giving timelines when he saying he has no control

  • GreenWin

    Frankly, I find the completion and public review of a “non-military” 1MW hot cat, just as, if not more interesting than the long touted third party report. The presentation of a working commercial product trumps IMO the glaring weaknesses in CF (and other non-orthodox) publishing and “peer review.” If, however someone were to explain in detail why 41 editors of noted “science journals” refused to publish Nobelist Carlo Rubbia and ENEA’s “Report 41” – this e-cat report might carry more weight. But such an explanation is probably a “secret.”

    • Peter Roe

      You are right of course. Some of us may be getting a little blase about this stuff. We want the shiny one with bells and whistles on it – and we want it now! (stamps foot).

    • SteveW

      For those who think peer review is some kind of infallible system- this article describes it differently.

      • GreenWin

        SteveW – thank you for this excellent article on peer review. The conclusion states, “How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” And yet, LENR skeps insist it is The Believers who are the fringy kooks.

        George will find the section on placebo especially interesting:

        “But assuming a placebo is inert, can it still impact your ability to heal? Absolutely! Many illnesses, from Parkinson’s disease to irritable bowel syndrome, have been proven to improve after placebo pills and treatments.”

        • georgehants

          Agreed. thanks SteveW, GreenWin good to know some others actually look at other things that are mostly hidden away.

  • georgehants

    Just interesting ——

    The Century Of The Self
    This is an amazing BBC documentary that looks at
    various factors that have forged Western economics and attitudes since
    the 20th century. Using
    vintage footage clips and historical evidence, it packs a punch even for
    non- history buffs and those who generally dismiss non-fiction. A
    look at the dominance of capitalism and social engineering in our 21
    century world.

    • Bertus

      The documentary is made by Adam Curtis. One of my favorite docu makers. I strongly recommend also watching
      All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace (2011)
      The Trap- What Happened To Our Dreams Of Freedom (2007)
      The power of nightmares (2004)

  • David D Morgan

    If they are serving the scientific purpose and therefore the larger public community, why don’t they do this:

    “In view of the repeated and unexplained delays, it would be comforting to those wondering what is happening if your Third Party would issue their own announcement, summarising progress or otherwise.” ?

    Honestly, I find that its a bit arrogant and lost touch

  • Miles

    Not much longer now I hope…I’ll just wait for another reason why the publication has been delayed. Don’t know why so much secrecy behind LENR !! Just give us the third party confirmation so we can start a party n break out the champagne.

  • jidlak

    This is so freaking funny. Either Rossi is a scam or made a lie and believed it him self. First was the report was supposed to be published sept 2012 and then since then he is just pushing it away every 2 weeks, unbeliveble.

    • Peter Roe

      Thank you for that insightful and fascinating comment. I’m sure absolutely no-one had noticed the ‘slippage’ until you so astutely pointed it out. No flies on you then – well done.

      • GreenWin

        Peter, while flies might not alight on such a creature, they do hover affectionately nearby in the manner of the great Charles Shultz’ “Pig Pen.”

  • georgehants

    From Fox News

    Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?
    Researchers have discovered a stunning new process that takes the
    energy from coal without burning it — and removes virtually all of the
    The clean coal technique was developed by scientists at The Ohio
    State University, with just $5 million in funding from the federal
    government, and took 15 years to achieve.
    Read more:

    • B

      Foxnews ….

    • Pekka Janhunen


      “The SGR process is capable of converting 74% of the coal energy into
      hydrogen energy (higher heating value (HHV) basis) while delivering a
      pure CO2 stream without the need for costly separation technology.”

      So it does seem to produce CO2 whose sequestration and storage remains another problem to solve. Compared to other coal burning methods followed by sequestration, here the benefit seems to be that there is no need to separate the CO2 from atmospheric nitrogen.

      • georgehants

        As we are slowly concreting over large portions of the Earth I suppose that would reduce the CO2 uptake proportionally.
        Has a calculation been done to ascertain the extra CO2 floating around from this source.
        Maybe a little more effort to reduce the birthrate rather than seeing it as the only way to increase productivity and justify capitalism, that would fall apart if reducing populations lowered demand.

        • Omega Z


          Aside from slabbing ground that no longer grows plants for CO2 mitigation, Concrete creates 1 ton of CO2 per yard of concrete produced.

          They’ve developed a new type of concrete(More ExpensiveX3) that produces 90% Less CO2.

          1st. Upside is this new concrete can last 5K to 20K years depending on the specific formula.

          2nd. It will absorb 1 Ton of CO2 over several years.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z
            Now That sounds good.
            If we concrete the whole of the Earth we can now do without trees and stuff.
            As long as we all stop breathing Oxygen. Ha.

      • Omega Z


        There is a ready market for CO2 if you don’t have the separation/capture costs. Most don’t realize that we manufacture CO2 for other processes all the time.
        Dry Ice, Manufacturing processes, Etc.. It can even be used in Green houses to speed up plant growth & size.

        Under Cap & Trade, Burning wood is allowed. It’s considered part of the natural cycle. It will be re-assimilated back into plants.

        If I Operated a Coal Plant, I would argue that I’m burning wood. Really, Really, Old Wood. Haa…

    • Peter Roe

      Morning George. It’s an interesting idea, but it only seems to push the CO2 ‘problem’ one step away – at great expense. The process would require vast quantities of iron oxide, which would (I assume) be converted to iron carbonates during the reaction. There is no mention of the energy (and monetary) cost of providing the oxide or of disposing of the carbonates.

      My guess is that the most feasible route would be to recycle the carbonates by heating them (using the coal-oxidising process (?) and loads more energy) to decompose the material back to iron oxide and CO2! (Fe2(CO3)3 ——–> Fe2O3 + 3CO2). The only advantage seems to be that the CO2 would be contained and so (by using still more energy and resources) might be chemically bound with soluble calcium or magnesium salts to produce solids that could be disposed of to industry. Alternatively the carbonates could be used as feedstock for iron smelting – again just liberating the CO2 at a different location.

      Either way it just looks like a potential sleight of hand to satisfy the green lobby – probably with an energy cost much higher than just burning the stuff and filtering/scrubbing the exhaust, and also creating a huge recycling/disposal cycle that would actively consume energy.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Peter and Pekka, just put these things up as interesting regarding the publicity they receive as against proven Cold Fusion.
        Signor Rossi certainly did not give ground to Josephson, he seems to be very firm on his method of releasing full proof of his (alleged) discoveries.
        O well what is another couple of months to people “dying” for a glass of water.

        • Peter Roe

          Thanks for all the interesting diversions, George!

          Regarding the water crisis in some parts of the world, I think this may be more a matter of lack of will on the part of aid donors, and local instability, than any other factors. Many hot dry places are not short of sunshine, and designing solar-driven seawater evaporators/condensers or solar-powered membrane desalinators would not be an immense challenge. Solar power could then be used to pump the clean water along pipelines. Unfortunately this, or any other, new infrastructure would be vulnerable to destruction during warfare, just as CF powered desalinators, water purifiers and pumps would be.

          Perhaps the endothermic CF reactors occasionally mentioned would be more valuable in this respect, as they might allow collection of atmospheric moisture locally, using a portable device (and ‘air conditioning’ as a probably welcome ‘side effect’).

  • Patrik

    What kind of publication is Rossi talking about? Is it a test report or a reviewed paper?

    • Peter Roe
      • Patrik

        OK….it seems to be a test report. In the thread you linked to it says …. “Rossi reported, “I have been informed today that the third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.”….” It is difficult to imagine that a peer reviewed paper is finished at the same time as the tests and test report.

        • Peter Roe

          When it’s complete the test report will be written up as a paper and submitted to a peer-review journal – hence ‘both’.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            With review ongoing, the paper is essentially ready, waiting only for some details from the ongoing experiments. Adding those can be done in one day. High value journals are published weekly, so if the test cycle ends on third week of March, all in all it means that in the best case the paper could be published on…. first of April!

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Sorry I see now that Christopher already had made this joke.

          • Patrik

            I checked a few papers from reviewed journals. From the day the paper was accepted it took from one month to one year until the paper was published. Why are we assuming that the paper is published more or less immediately? It may take a year, in the beginning of next year in the worst case. At least not before May 1 is my guess.

            • Peter Roe

              Yes you’re right – the process can take some time. In this case the experimental side will be complete and written up by the end of March, and presumably a second draft will be submitted at this time. There will be a bit more ‘to and fro-ing’ as a sub-editor proofreads the copy and perhaps raises minor queries of his/her own to remove inconsistencies or ambiguities, but communications are via email and this is relatively quick (typically, a week or less).

              That means that the paper should be ready for publication by the end of the first week of April (it should miss April 1st comfortably!) and will be accepted for the next publication deadline after that, which could be between a day and 3 months away. If what we are told is correct, it will therefore appear in print some time between mid-April (if publication is weekly and a ‘slot’ is immediately available)) and July or even later (if publication is quarterly).

  • georgehants

    Admin, nobody deserves an invite from Rossi more than you for the time and effort put into these pages.
    That word Hope that you used on one of the topic pages is still relevant I think.

  • bfast

    I think you are right that Rossi holds Dr. Josephson in high regard, hence his answer is more likely to be the square truth.

  • Christopher Calder

    I just hope it is not published on April 1st.

    • praos

      I hope for February 29.