Rossi on the Third Party Tests

No, the test results have not been released, but there are some people (including myself) who have been peppering Andrea Rossi with questions about the tests that are supposed to wind up within a few days. He has been opening up a bit about what is going on; it seems that if you ask the right questions, he is happy to provide information (within limits). Here are some of the Q & As that have been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in recent days.

Q. Is the Third party test finishing this week? or they still need more time for more thoroughly study.

A. I do not know. They are working by themselves. The tests were scheduled to finish this week, though.

Q. You say that the conclusions of this Third party would have no impact on the continuation of your project.
But if the conclusions of the Third party are negative, how would you market a product which a Third party says about it that it doesn’t work ?

A. Yes, your comment is intelligent. This is the reason why I am very worried, because the pact we made with the Third Indipendent Party is that they will pay all their expenses and will publish the results, whatever the result. They didn’t even want we to pick up them at the airport.
In any case, we are close to the conclusion. I do not know what will be the result, I am not participating personally to the tests and obviously I do not participate to the briefings of the professors that are working on this issue. But my Cats are good, I’m sure they are working well. In any case, should the results be negative, under a commercial point of view what will count will be only the tests made by our Customers on the plants they bought.

Q. What restrictions, if any, are the scientists under regarding what they can do with the devices they are testing?
A. The sole restriction is that they cannot open the reactor and get information about what happens inside.

Q. Will they test in self sustain mode?
A. Yes.

Q. Can they push the E-Cat to its limits?
A. No, for safety reasons. They are measuring the efficiency of a Hot Cat working in a normal way, as it will do when working for a Customer

Q. Do the testers have to publish their results within a specified time frame (if yes, what is the deadline)?
A. No. They will publish where they want, when they want, but surely will publish.

Q. Is the contract with the testers covered by an NDA?
A. There are no contracts, we do not pay them, they do not pay us, the pact is that they are free to publish the results, whatever the results are, just for scientific purpose. They want to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, if there is an effect that is not of chemical origin and if the energy at the input is less than the energy produced. This is their scientific goal and this is the reason they are making this test. About why I accepted this torture, do not ask me, because I don’t know: many times I make things against my will, as if somebody drives me like a resistance drives an E-Cat.

Q. Do you have a representative or assistant present at the tests to help the scientists?
A. We have put at their disposal an assistant in case of necessity. The assistant does not participate to the data collection and to the discussions and cannot share with them papers and information. I do not participate at all and do not assist either.

The whole process seems to be somewhat informal, but guided by a gentlemen’s agreement which I hope will result in a thorough and candid report of the proceedings when all this comes to a conclusion. It seems like we are not the only ones being tortured by this whole affair!

  • Nixter

    Looks like Rossi just announced the release of the test;

    Rossi’s all caps, not mine.

    THE TESTS OF THE THIRD INDIPENDENT PARTY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED YESTERDAY.
    I DID NOT ATTEND, THEREFORE I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY THE RESULTS, THAT WILL SURELY BE PUBLISHED BY THE EXAMINATORS, PROBABLY AROUND THE HALF OF APRIL. I MET THE 11 PROFESSORS AND EXPERTS THAT MADE THE TESTS WHEN THEY ENDED THEIR WORK AND THEY WERE VERY POSITIVE. ONE OF THEM TOLD ME ” WE GOT EVIDENCE THAT THE ‘ EFFECT’ IS REAL BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT”.

    • Bob

      He also mentioned in reply to another post that the output is now 1Kw, whereas the originals were 10kw. I wonder what that’s all about?
      It means you would need about 10 of them to heat a house. In any case, so long as it works it is a step forwards, and the greater the COP then the bigger the step forwards.
      We await the report for output power and COP’s etc.

  • Roger Bird

    I don’t suppose that anyone has noticed that nothing has happened so far with the tests that have been going on for a while. If the testers were to discover that the HotCat was bogus, then they would have found out by now. If and when they discover that it is bogus, then they would end the test immediately and reported a negative result. They haven’t ended the testing. Discovering that the HotCat is bogus should take a maximum of about 5 hours. But no one is reporting a negative result. So either it is a New Humanity, or else it is more hot air. So, my odds for positive are 65 and for negative are 35.

    There is also the problem of could we really expect Rossi to trust someone to not open up the inner cannister?

    • captain

      I’d add one more consideration: supposing that in the 3rd parties team there are also the swedish scientists Essen and Kullander, as soon as the testing period is over with not satisfactory but excellent results, then the real play’s going on.

      Sweden could decide to replace its nuclear energy plants with Rossi’s LENR hot E-Cat plants. And Babcock and Wilcox should be ready to carry out that pleasant job! Without waiting for USPTO and UL certifications/validations…

      Clear?

  • georgehants

    From Big Think
    Renewable Energy in 50 Years: 3 Predictions.
    Sometimes we dream up winged peacekeepers, but other times, we prove ourselves precocious. In the world of sustainability, we’re always looking onward and upward to the next big development which will finally strip us of our dependence on coal and oil. While we’re not quite there yet, much of what we’ve predicted for green energy has actually hit somewhere close to the mark. International reliance on dirty energy is subsiding, solar power is becoming less expensive (some say even cheaper than coal) and, in all, renewable energy is becoming more accessible.
    http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/renewable-energy-in-50-years-3-predictions

  • RenzoB

    Daniele Passerini was asked on a Facebook group if, without revealing confidential informations, he had good news:

    dear Giuliano, in all honesty it is from january 14, 2011 that I have only good news about the E-Cat. And in particular, it is from the summer of 2012 that I get entrusted with only good news about the functioning of the Ecat and the Hotcat… the problem is that the disclosure to the world gets steadily postponed forward from month to month. With regard to the Italian front, the only one I can say I know, it wasn’t Rossi who slowed things down… on the contrary it was because of all stumbling blocks created against anyone who tried to work with him, much more than because of himself, that he was convinced to move the center of Ecat production from Italy to the USA. Sooner or later the Ecat will be a commercial reality, but of course the product will arrive from the U.S. and Italy can only cry on spilled milk. But now, about the fulfilment times I will not say more… I swallowed too many delays. A hug.

    • Peter Roe

      Given the history of CF in the US this superficially looks like a case of ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’. Rossi must have received encouraging assurances through his US military/scientific contacts before making such a decision.

      Of course this doesn’t necessarily mean a clear run for any non-military applications, unless a strategic decision to implement the technology in the US for power generation has been taken at the appropriate level. Even in this case it could be quite some time before anyone outside America is allowed to acquire ‘hot cat’ power generators.

      It would be interesting to learn who has been behind the creation of the ‘stumbling blocks’ that Passerini mentions.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      January 30th, 2013 at 6:03 PM
      “Dear Brian:
      Our factories are in the USA. We have a R&D center in Italy, wherein we also manufacture prototypes. We are programming a manufacturing center in Sweden.”

      Also, reactor production is only a small part of the business possibilities that will emerge upon disclosure.

      • Peter Roe

        If we take this comment at face value then I would assume that the Italian R&D centre is concerned only with the LT e-cat, as Rossi claims to no longer own the IP for the hot cat. While this technolgy might be useful (not least in confirming the reality of CF) it is not likely to be world-changing due to the relatively low COP of 6, which limits the potential for electricity production.

        What will be happening in Sweden is anyone’s guess, but unless ‘the partner’ is a multinational concern with a production base in Sweden, then this base must also be related to the LT unit. ‘Programming’ implies automated mass production, which in turn takes us back to the ‘robotic factory’ in Miami for producing domestic heating units, OR an intention to mass produce container units to be distributed via the dealer network.

        Personally I would consider the latter far more likely, as European governments are considerably more reliant on fuel revenues than is the case in the US, and would be most unlikely to countenance sales of domestic heating units that could reduce revenues, unless some tamper-proof method of ‘metering’ output is included in the boxes. On a personal level, if owning a low-COP heater put me at the mercy of government ‘revenue increases’ through a telemetric system that could also turn the unit off, I would simply continue to burn gas and logs.

        Either way LT units are only viable for heating purposes rather than powergen (and then only marginally so, given the modest COP), unless the COP=6 story has been fabricated to conceal an ability to produce much greater output, i.e., the technology is potentially extremely disruptive.

  • John-64

    If the test results are negative, I wonder if Rossi will say “that was the old version which was a bit flakey, the new version is guaranteed to work”, and we’ll be back at the start again.

    • creep

      If the result was positive, would you never appear on this site again. And don’t buy an Ecat in your life

      • SolarSurfer

        Rossi is absolutely right when suggesting that the test means nothing. If it is negative, nobody will care if the E-Cat is on the market and works. If it is positive, nobody will care if no E-cat is on the market. People only talk about the test because there are no customers or at least no customers talking about the product. So what is the testing good for? As I understand it, it won’t even advance the understanding of Cold Fusion because they’re doing it “black box” style.

        • Bob

          There are no customers because the number of customers who are willing to cough up 1.5 million dollars for something which has no proven specifications are few and far between.
          If he was selling home units for $2000 he would have sold thousands by now just on the promise that it works.

  • Roger Bird

    For me, we are approaching the moment of truth when it comes to Rossi. One of three things is going to happen. The report will be very positive, and I will become wildly enthusiastic about Rossi and the future of our environment, the economy, our energy future, and even our household finances. The report will suspiciously never appear, and I will lose interest in Rossi by 99% and in LENR by 20%. The report will be negative, and that would be a ditto. My belief right now, I give a positive report a 55% likelihood, a negative report a 5% likelihood. And the report never showing a 40% likelihood.

    • Gerrit

      reasonable

      • Roger Bird

        Thank you, Garrit. It is nice that we agree.

  • Barry

    Hi All,
    Much to my dismay SmartPwr ended up getting rewarded and made it into second place after Future Energy looked into the questionable votes they received. As far as “likes” were concerned they came in ninth. The staff didn’t pick LENCO. Guess I’m a naive person to think justice would prevail. I’m going to the event at MIT and it will be a real let down to watch them present rather than George Miley. Feels like a step backwards for CF. I sure hope Rossi doesn’t let us down.

    • NJT

      I think I have made my last visit to their so-called (Future Energy) website – a real waste of my time…

  • Redford

    I’d be very, very surprised if anything is publish before months. June seems like the most optimistic window for a paper journal.

    • NJT

      I agree…

  • sparky

    If they cannot open the reactor, how will it be determined that a chemical reaction is not causing the heat? Prepare for buzz kill.

    On another subject, why hasn’t Rossi sold a thousand of these wonder machines- he must be refusing orders. Is he paranoid of copy cats? Unable to patent it? Does it work?

    • Roger Bird

      sparky, a chemical reaction could last just so long. Batteries are chemical reactions and they do not last forever.

    • HeS

      @sparky:” how will it be determined that a chemical reaction is not causing the heat?”

      Read about energy density and power density (Ragone diagram).
      The most energetic (chemical) substance is liquid hydrogen.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes. For example, one kilogram of uranium-235 has the capacity to produce as much energy as 1,500 tonnes of coal and Rossi’s reaction (although we don’t know all the details yet) would have a higher energy density than that.

    • Redford

      If you monitor a solid moving toward the ground at 12879 km/h, how do you know it’s not gravity ? Because gravity can’t accound for such speed. Same goes for chemical reactions : you can’t expect more than a certain amount of energy generated by a certain amount of material reacting. For instance, the MFMP has already established than the excess heat they are monitoring can’t be due to sole chemical reaction, and their reaction is far weaker than the one Rossi claims to have. If the results are consistant from the first publication (september 2012), chemical is completely excluded as an explanation (COP 11).

      • MStone

        I am a supporter of Rossi; but do have a question for those more knowledgeable in physics and engineering.

        I understand how they are ruling out chemical reactions. But, would it be possible to fake it with a fission reaction? Like the nuclear battery powering the new rover on Mars. Given the size and construct of the hot cat…would it be possible to fake with a nuclear battery or some other nuclear device? Are there shielding issues? Things I haven’t thought of?

        • Warthog

          Simple answer…..no. A “nuclear battery” doesn’t produce a high power level….it produces a relatively low power level reliably for a long time. To get to the energy densities demonstrated for LENR, you would have to use a fission process with HIGHLY enriched plutonium or uranium to get to a device that small, and that has all sorts of “radiation signatures” (tons of neutrons, gamma rays, and similar). So yes, there would be “shielding issues”, and lots of them.

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            there is a minimum mass (the critical mass to start a chain reaction) in classic fission reactors… but maybe it can be modest.. it cannot be small like a celani or fleischman reactor.
            Maybe it can be in a few kg like a rossi box.

            the big point is that it will produce neutrons, and they cannot be shielded without huge shields.

            if there is more heat than chemical, and no huge neutron flux, forget about classic nuclear reaction, fusion or fission.

            I don’t care if it is LENR or magic, it works, with much heat and no deadly radiations.

        • Omega Z

          MStone

          No expert by a long shot, But anything that compares to a Hot Cat would need a lot of Shielding.

          There would also be the Problem of- It would always be on as it comes from Decay. No way to turn it off.

          • MStone

            Thanks to everyone who responded above. That clears up something that I have been wondering about for a while. It is good that classic fusion and fission can be ruled out as strongly as chemical reactions. Less fodder for the detractors. And, how about that positive 3rd party test that just came in. Excellent news.

    • zvibenyosef

      The amount of excess heat will eliminate the possibility of a chemical reaction.

    • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

      Ulitmately they cannot. The only thing that they can confirm is that the reaction produces more power than any know chemical reaction produces. This would eliminate fraud, some sort of hidden battery solution. If, however, the e-cat produces far more power than any known chemical reaction, but proves to be a chemical reaction, then the discovery remains to be huge. However, if a new amazing chemical reaction is found, why would it be promoted as something else?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Come on all you skeptics, take Roger Bird’s ten dollar bet!

    • GreenWin

      Amazing Randi?

  • georgehants

    Science News
    Multi-Purpose Wonder Can Generate Hydrogen, Produce Clean Water and Even Provide Energy
    Science fiction? Hardly, and there’s more — It can also desalinate water, be used as flexible water filtration membranes, help recover energy from desalination waste brine, be made into flexible solar cells and can also double the lifespan of lithium ion batteries. With its superior bacteria-killing capabilities, it can also be used to develop a new type of antibacterial bandage.
    Scientists at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore, led by Associate Professor Darren Sun have succeeded in developing a single, revolutionary nanomaterial that can do all the above and at very low cost compared to existing technology.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320094856.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fchemistry+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+–+Chemistry%29

    • GreenWin

      It is wonderful to see so much attention being paid to water treatment and desalination – although titanium dioxide’s desal effect is minimal compared to thermal or membrane systems. However, it demonstrates a raised awareness of the need for clean, potable water, and non-fossil/fission energy. Unfortunately this substance has had a shadow cast upon it by Health Canada:

      “Titanium dioxide has recently been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen “possibly carcinogen to humans.”

      • Peter Roe

        That could be unfortunate – TiO2 or ‘titanium white’ is the main pigment used in white and pastel paints of all types. Millions of people every year probably sand the stuff down prior to re-painting, and I doubt that many bother with dust masks (I know I did’t – ’til now!).

        • timycelyn

          Problem is Peter, that whole classification system has been so over-used and abused, that I’m afraid a lot of people (myself included) treat it with scant respect nowadays.

          A classification along the lines of “Highly dangerous. Guaranteed to cause you parts to swell up, you limbs to drop off, and purple stuff to come out of your nose” translates in reality, IMHO, to “Mild irritant, may cause a minor rash if you insist on bathing in it.”

          God save us from this safety culture….

          • Peter Roe

            All true – labelling seems to veer between warning the user not to eat the packaging or to stick sharp things in their eyes, and glossing over real dangers.

            The fact is that many possible problems are simply not known because adverse research findings on additives and drugs were discarded or no proper testing was ever carried out in the first place (aspartame, vioxx, sucralose, msg, synthetic food dyes, etc. etc.)

      • Lukedc

        It also tints the toothpaste that we use every day and also is used on meat to enhance its visual appearance. It is widely used in all sorts of food as colouring.

        • NJT

          Its in almost everything we use and consume as a modern society. Maybe you have hit on the the big contributor to CANCER in our modern food chain?

        • Peter Roe

          Rather ironically it also seems to be one of the main ‘fillers’ used in vitamin and mineral supplements, some of which (vit D, vit C, selenomethionine etc.) are often taken to reduce the risk of developing cancers.

          • georgehants

            Is there any in Viagra.

            • Peter Roe

              Hi George. It might be worth checking the pack for anything about bits falling off, per timycelyn’s suggested warning above!

              • georgehants

                Could this be why some of my old friends are beginning to talk in the countertenor range.

    • Jim

      Notwithstanding the health concerns, the article has links to related articles that suggest that using nanoparticles to split water is quite doable. So it may be a question of finding the right nanoparticles for the right purpose.

      Also, this suggests something about how LENR might work, in a very general way. I don’t know the science language for this, however, here’s a try…

      There’s some fundamental difference between sticking a raw alloy ingot into a beaker of boiling water, and producing no hydrogen, and putting alloy nanoparticles in a beaker of water at room temperature and producing hydrogen. In the nano-electronic geometry of the alloy particles it is apparently possible to create forces that can pull hydrogen from water H2O (and then from OH). That’s because it’s operating on one water molecule at at time. Whereas in the boiling water example, there might be more energy in the system as a whole, but it’s not focused in a useful way.

      Translating this to LENR-space, we have to up the energy levels by n orders of magnitude. However, the same principle may apply, i.e. it’s not the total energy that matters (which is the approach of hot fusion, acting on an aggregate of hydrogen protons), it’s the focused energy that matters, acting on a single hydrogen proton. Hot fusion science is fixated on the assumption that you have to raise the energy of the entire system (the boiling beaker) to get a proton-proton fusion reaction. Where cold fusion may operate on the principle of getting the right nanoscale geometry in place, at the right temperature, with nano-reaction sites in close proximity, to get a proton/electron/neutron transformation event (the nanoparticles in the room temperature beaker).

      Using nano-alloys for hydrolysis, which appears to be a fairly new discovery, thus creates a bridge paradigm for cold fusion. Maybe.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    An e-cat operating in a self-sustaining mode is firm proof that it is what it purports to be. What is the need for a third-party test? It’s not that complicated. Rossi himself could prove everything by exhibiting an unencumbered e-cat inside a vented glass case operating in the self-sustaining mode and boiling water for a month or two.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      This is really funny, Rossi has demonstrated his E-cat eight or more times. More test results are scheduled to be released in a month or so and now Rossi should put his E-cat in a glass case to prove it works. How much you want to bet, after the successful “third party” test results are released someone will want it to run for a year in self sustained mode before they will believe it works.

      • Fibber McGourlick

        He has not demonstrated it to the general public in a “hand’s-off” (glass case) mode for a month or two.

        • Omega Z

          Fibber

          In fairness, None of Rossi’s test were checked 100%.
          This wasn’t Rossi’s doings, but those who monitored them.

          In 1 of them they Didn’t unwrap the Insulation on 1 pipe.

          1 OF 3. Rossi had no way to know that they would skip 1 & that is the Only reason it wasn’t consider 100% even tho it was considered Highly improbable that anything could have fit in the Pipe to have given False Results.

          There is 1 thing few if any posting here would probably have thought to check for that they did Check.

          They Monitored for Radio Frequencies to Eliminate the Possibility that power was being transmitted to the E-cat by Radio waves.

          They also checked the Calibration of all Equipment both Before & After the tests.

          While it’s always possible to slip something by people once by pure chance, It’s extremely improbable to slip something by all of them in a dozen different tests.
          If He did, He’s extremely Lucky. He should play the Lottery. No way he could lose with that kind of luck.

      • GreenWin

        Bernie, a truly perceptive s-kep would insist on far longer than a year. Depths of nefarious trickery are stock in trade of the career s-kep. And a year of e-cat self-sustain likely comes by hidden magnets, transparent fish line, nano-methane boilers, etc.

        “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England, 1895.

        • Fibber McGourlick

          Considering all the interest in the e-cat, such a demo would be viewed and watched by the whole world. If successfully mounted so as to satisfy true and honest skeptics like the Amazing Randy, it would end the speculation and fully open the dammed up hope for a better world. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not a skeptic. I’m a hopeful Rossi watcher who’s getting tired of waiting when I think there’s a way to prove the principle by means of demonstrated self-sustainment and thus end the speculation once and for all. This has nothing to do with Lord Kelvin’s rash statement.

        • timycelyn

          Indeed. The capacity of the human mind for denial in the face of strong evidence to the contrary will remain a fruitful ground for psychological research for some time to come..

          • mark

            Religion !
            Strong belief without much evidence

            • Peter Roe

              Hallelujah!

        • John-64

          Lord Kelvin was an idiot because birds and insects are heavier than air flying machines.

          • GreenWin

            How does that reflect on The Royal Society??

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            not more stupid that claiming that LENr was impossible…
            any expert, even simple engineer, in super-conduction or semiconductor, or material physics know such claim is stupid.
            At F&P time it was hard to accept, but not impossible.

            also not more stupid that claiming that lack of reproducibility, despite multiple success, mean it is false, and even unproven.

            anyone knowing history of science, early moments of great discoveries know that…

            that apparent stupidity is not stupidity.

            it is unconscious fraud, collective denial, manipulation of media.

            they claim stupidity thinking that the incompetent media and the laymen will believe it, and that anyway even false it is THE TRUTH, because THEY ARE RIGHT.

      • Paolo

        The new tests have not been done on the low-T E-Cats, whose performance are not easy to measure requiring calorimetry in which not all people are expert, but on an Hot Cat, which is very easy to analyze for physicists regarding COP and overall performance using the Stephan-Boltzmann Law and other independent strategies for confirming the results. Measuring the COP of an Hot Cat is a problem that can be easily solved by a 2nd year student in Physics with some skills in thermodynamics and electric measures, it does not require a Nobel laureate.

    • Redford

      Actually if you’re familiar with how science work it’s the opposite. Replication is mandatory. Replication of self susaint mode is the icing of the cake : simple replication of COP>1.5 is enough to demonstrate non chemical reaction.

  • Lu

    Hi All. Still lurking and waiting patiently for 3rd party test results and commercial party validation of an actual sale and application. Maybe 2013, LOL?

    A question I have that Rossi should be able to know and tell us is how many Hot-Cats the independent testers are using to test the Hot-Cat?

    Well back to lurking. Here’s to hoping the tests are positive…

    • Ged

      That would be a good question, especially if they asked for additional units at any point in time.

      • Lu

        Yes. If a test was negative, surely they would ask for a second one or rely on a second one to verify the results. Also an important part of this is to see how uniform the results are. So I would expect that there would be at least 2 Hot-Cats being tested at any one time, possibly even the testers themselves should be testing the Hot-Cats independently (according to an agreed upon protocol) to rule out certain things (like operator error).

        • NJT

          Good question for Frank to posit to Rossi…

  • buffalo

    can anybody tell me what the COP of the device being tested is supposed to be?if its small then those guys are gonna have to really sweat it out to reach a definite conclusion.

    • Adrian Ashfield

      Rossi’s initial test showed a COP 10 but he is not claiming it will be more than a COP 6 in actual commercial use.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      It’s supposedly similar to the one in the Penon report which was over 12, in practice I suppose about 16-18.

      • buffalo

        holy macaroni

  • Adrian Ashfield

    It makes no sense that Rossi would provide third party testers with a Hot Cat if it didn’t work. He must know if they work.

    One can speculate on why there have been three tests and it has taken so long. I think one can rule out a null result. ie no anomalous heat, as it wouldn’t take long to establish that.

    It is not easy to measure the heat output without placing the E-Cat in a calorimeter. My guess is the testers found a COP around 6 and wish both to confirm it meets the claimed performance and also be absolutely confident of the results by measuring it in different ways.

    • Dana

      I agree, it is obvious that to him it works. But what about the possibility that he may have overlooked something. His group seems rather close knit. Like MFMP when you open things up to outside Ideas you see things that you haven’t before.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        I think that all scientists have a constant worry (usually small and sometimes larger) that their results are wrong because they have overlooked something, despite years of effort to make everything watertight. I get the feeling that AR also has similar, “normal” scientific worries.

        • buffalo

          well if the COP is 12 then you can rule that out totaly.there is nothing that one can ‘overlook’ at such power densities.his worries are probably hoping that the thing runs smooth without probs.

          • NJT

            There will ALWAYS be something else. You apparently have never worked with the unexplored!

            • buffalo

              uhhmm,lets see.at a cop12 i overlooked that piece of plutonium239 lying in thar,dam!

      • Omega Z

        Considering what this technology would mean to the world–

        If We Scientists were testing it & found Nothing, We would test it again. If We Found Nothing We’re Gone. Sorry Rossi.

        Now, If We found Positive Results, We would test it again & We would compare these results with the 1st. What if any variances, how easy was it to replicate the results. We Would look for Any & All possibility of Error.

        If Everything was Still Positive- We Would Check It Again.
        We Would want to be absolutely Positive that it wasn’t a Fluke. That Nothing was possibly overlooked. That it works Every time.

        Why be so Cautious. Because we’re Scientists. With prominent Jobs at Universities. About to Confirm a technology that isn’t supposed to work. Jobs & Reputations are at Risk, Because if the Results are conclusively Positive, There will be Others who will do more tests at a latter time to confirm the results. If they aren’t confirmed by latter tests, Well, What happened to P&F will happen to these Scientists.

        Should also Note: There is a Flip/dark side. 100’s of Billions even Trillions of dollars are at stake. Many Scientist, Possibly even those involved with the test may be bent on Proving E-cats don’t work even if they do. They can lay claim to thorough scrutiny with multiple tests for their results. Or Even a Reason to keep them under control by TPTB.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          if it was not working and rossi know it, he would not have send it for tests.

          if it works, as you said scientis, but not engineers, would simply try and retry until they have a theory compatible wiothn their education, this mean for decades.

          one problems, nasty or not,could be that they test the reactor in a badly working domain, wher the performance are ridiculous.
          It happens with Nelson’s tests of Hyperion R5, which was tester around non-boiling water, while it was designed around 300C minimum… performances were ridiculous, around COP=3.

        • kasom

          + the persons (or organisations)involved can use the insider informations to better position themseves for the time when the hot cat will hit the market.

          Knowing for sure that the Rossi-Cats are real is an enormous amount of advantage to distort competition in the marketplace.

          The more they slow down the process of coming out, the more time thex have to prepare for the following.

          Nobody can overcome the power of money……

  • Torbjörn

    Andrea Rossi

    January 20th, 2013 at 9:10 AM

    “Dear Tommaso Di Pietro:
    The Party is composed by professors of 4 international Universities…”

    Andrea Rossi

    February 5th, 2013 at 1:19 PM

    “Dear Broenink:
    The third party indipendent validation tests have been funded directly by the scientists and some of the Universities ( not Italian )…”

    Andrea Rossi

    March 22nd, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    Dear JJE:
    …”They didn’t even want we to pick up them at the airport.”

    I wonder if the professors are doing the testing only in Italy or USA.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      January 15th, 2013 at 12:00 PM
      “Dear Franco:
      The third party validation commission is European.”

    • admin

      Could be Sweden. No direct evidence, but some unconfirmed rumors point there. We know Rossi has trust for some in Sweden.

  • clovis

    Hi,folks,
    Great, article, frank it’s good to see that god is still in control.

    (“About why I accepted this torture, do not ask me, because I don’t know: many times I make things against my will, as if somebody drives me like a resistance drives an E-Cat.”

    This to go with a video of Mr. Rossi, saying that he was not in control of the process, but that god was moving his hands,
    this is my hope, if the big guy is in control nothing can stop the progress of e-cat, nothing, get ready for the new world that’s is coming, but it will be in his on good time.

    • http://rossifocardifusion.com/author/john John De Herrera

      “…god is still in control”
      While it is possible that “God” is advising Rossi on how to extract heat energy from Nickel+Hydrogen+catalyst, most likely God(He/She) is NOT. There is little evidence that a higher power/intelligence get’s involved in human affairs – except on rare occasions: Joan of Arc obviously WAS advised by a higher power/intelligence and the thousands of people who really knew her (children, adults, soldiers, military leaders) all testified that she obtained information from somewhere that NO human could know!
      As an amateur philosopher on Science and Religion and a consultant on product/process/equipment validations, I do a lot of research and intend to validate the existence of a superior intelligence existing very near us. jdh

  • SolarSurfer

    Excuse me but I have not followed cold fusion for a couple of months. Is this still the test which started last July with six Professors from two Universities? If it is not, could anybody tell me where the results of that report were published? Thank you.

    Andrea Rossi
    August 27th, 2012 at 4:20 AM
    Dear Larry Jameson:

    The rigorous publication deriving from the third party validation that we will make, as I said, within October by a University will be made by the professors who will make the validation, so I do know where it will be published. Please do not ask me which will be the University, I am under NDA and, by the way, three Universities are candidates for this work, should the one that has been chosen since now will retreat for any reason. We have to respect the rules and the decisions of the Universities, who, obviously, do not depend from us. I can anyway say that the test made on the 16th of July has been made with 6 professors of 2 Universities, but unofficially: it has been a preparatory test.
    I am under a strict NDA for this test, whose results will be published in the context of the Certificator’s work, not of the Universities.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 4th, 2012 at 9:27 AM
    Dear Brian:
    Yes, we will have another third party validation very soon of which a video will be produced and diffused.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 11th, 2012 at 6:44 AM
    Dear Gene Quong:
    We are measuring the energy in different ways, to get data undisputably reliable. Within 2 months we will publish the data obtained wiithin the third party indipendent tests in course.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 11th, 2012 at 2:12 PM
    Dear G.luca from Italy:
    At the end of the indipendent third party validation in course a report will be published on a scientific magazine.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 12th, 2012 at 12:23 PM
    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    I agree totally with you. Nevertheless we will finish the third party validation in course, which will be the last, because shortly after that we will deliver our plants.

    Andrea Rossi
    November 6th, 2012 at 11:45 AM
    Dear Georgehants:
    As I said , I think that by November the report could be issued (Actually, I said by October/November…).

    Andrea Rossi
    November 21st, 2012 at 10:09 AM
    Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
    You merit this info: yesterday the third party validation of the Hot Cat has been completed.
    Has been good.
    The results have been better that in the July 16th preliminary test.

    • Peter Roe

      I don’t wish to sound unhelpful, but you seem to have been pretty busy scanning Rossi’s comments on JONP for any mention of the tests, so why not just press on and fill in the story up to the present for yourself? No-one here has any information over and above what is available on Rossi’s blog.

    • robyn wyrick

      SolarSurfer – Back in December we learned from Rossi that the third party testers were re-testing. And then again, they re-tested.

      During that first re-testing we understood to look for something in Feb or March, but then came word of the new tests, and it appeared that we would learn nothing until end of spring (or early summer).

      And while all of this is frustrating, I find it entirely plausible. If I were one of the testers I’d want to make sure that whatever I published was solid

      If their results are positive – in light of the Fleischmann and Pons experiences – they’d better be sure, and they’d better be specific and correct in their measurements. They don’t want to say “yes it works” and end up discredited.

      And if the results are negative – in light of the *many* recent reports about Cold Fusion successes on the other – then again, they’d better be specific and correct in their measurements. Because, equally, they don’t want to say “no it fails” and end up discredited.

      It’s probably pretty critical that they are correct, whatever the outcome.

      That said – and acknowledging my personal bias for optimism on CF – I actually think the repeated tests bode well more than ill for the outcome. I think the risk of being discredited for endorsing LENR far outweigh the risks of being discredited for trashing it.

      “Everybody” trashes it.

      • timycelyn

        Robyn, this captures nicely a point I was trying to get clear. The risks these testers are running are substantial. We all saw what happened to Pons & Fleischmann, and if the testers goof up in either direction, or even if there is just room to point out remaining uncertainties that they have ‘missed’ they will be crucified.

        So far the entrenched scientific establishment – at least publicly – seems to be stuck in denial and claims along the line that there’s nothing additional happened of moment since their ‘debunking’ of P&F. All the news coming out from ICCF 17, NASA, Celani, etc etc are just waved away as cranks and kooks, and generally beneath their august notice.

        The fear in the tester’s mind must be that in particular a positive report might finally break the media logjam and cause Rossi and his works to go high profile. In that case, entrenched establishment has two courses of action:

        1. Perform an amazing volte-face [which would certainly be entertaining for a bystander] or
        2. Go for these tester/validators as a bunch of incompetent charlatans no better than P&F.

        Scientific reputations will be at stake, and it won’t be pretty. No wonder they are being very, very, thorough!!

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          the theory of Roland Benabou
          http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf
          is that :
          – F&P rejection was initially based on sane rejection based on “3 miracles” and unconvincing measurements compared to the challenge. Based on those good estimation, many commitment were made, many insults, many critics, many frauds to “circle the wagon” against what was sure a gang of scammer, clowns and crooks. There was also a great movement to fight against pseudo-science at the period were soviet were falling, and a new world seemed open. Not a surprise that at that time many new pseuo-science started to flourish, hidden as fight against the past conspiracy.
          – Quickly (1991 as hans gerisher was saying) facts were clear that F&P were right. however there was too much asset invested in the rejection of cold fusion, too much public words, too much unacceptable policies, too much frauds, too much manipulation, that would be made public if the facts were accepted. Collective denial became a requirement to protect the group from reality, from facing their own “assety losses”.

          – the more facts were produced the hardest the insults, the menace against dissenters HAVE TO be violent and strong. this added to the horrors that have to be hidden from public, making denial more and more needed.
          -Beside that the community of experimentator was looking for a new energy source, hiding their results in the hope to discover the new fire. they respected that denial in silence.
          – hopefully it worked for mainstream, because PdD did not work industrially, and the facts became less numerous to appear, and hidden in well identified organization that were easy to ridicule and contain behind an “iron curtain”.
          – few tries to get out of denial in 97, 2005,2007,2009, were fought efficiently, with the help of incompetence of the journalists, of science decision makers
          – hopefully Rossi claims were ignored because he behave like a clown
          – Defkalion being Greek was efficiently ignored because non american. Nelson confirmation was blocked from mainstream despite clear evidence of possible reality, mainly by information containment.
          – Brillouin and SRI validation was rejected too because not yet industrial, yet scientifically undeniable, and SRI having loss credibility earlier by accepting LENR….

          now the goal for the mainstream deluded group will be to deny any claim of LENR, using more and more containment techniques, violence, ridicule, pathological arguments, reverse logic, authority arguments, ad hominem and straw-man attack, bureaucratic opposition, funding blocking, lobbying.

          it is a question of survival, so don’t expect that reality will be a problem. They are fighting like the pope about God reality.
          If LENR win, THEY WILL DIE (or at leas they think so… in fact I forecast that they will survive and pretend to have invented LENR. they just don’t know yet)

          There is NO HOPE FROM SCIENCE.
          FORGET IT

          in betrayers of the truths book by wade and broad, it is well said that THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MYTH
          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671447696/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0671447696&linkCode=as2&tag=techfuture06-20

          only hope is as nassim nicholas taleb says in antifragile, from outsiders, garage inventors, engineers from unfunded zone…
          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400067820/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400067820&linkCode=as2&tag=techfuture06-20

  • Gerrit

    March 23

    it was 24 years ago today …

    • Leo Kaas

      Gerrit, Happy Cold Fusion day!

  • Garry

    Hmmm… In thinking about it don’t know what major journal such a paper would be published. Would be unusual for a major journal like Nature or Physical Review Letters to publish a result on a black box– no matter what the confirmation. They are more about mechanism and theory. They would have to take an affidavit on what is in there from Rossi, who will not provide it.

    Do others know the kinds of journal in which a confirmation might be published? It’s outside of my experience, at least, given the lack of detail that will be available about the contents of the eCat black box. Should Nature or Science publish it I would love to see the contortions they use to justify the publication. Not that I don’t think it should be published, but it seems it would be a major departure from standard practice.

    A fine pickle…

    • http://www.Revolution-Green.com Ken

      I’m sure that wherever it is published it will make it’s way here. I’m positive Rossi will publish it on his website and it will be linked here. 🙂

      Ken,

      revolution-green(.)c0m

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      I consider it likely that it’s Nature or Science. They are the default choices for publishing high profile results and they have strict embargo rules which is consistent with the secrecy surrounding the 3rd party effort.

      • Ged

        Even if they can’t open the device, there are ways to detect things going on inside, oh yes. If these folks are clever, and I am sure they are, could be some very interesting reasons for the re-tests and all this time spent. Let alone what reviewers would ask for after submitting a paper on it all.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I am sure that is why Rossi’s “observer” is there to make sure no detecting equipment is used. Don’t worry from what I have heard Rossi is very protective of his IP.

        • NJT

          Rossie has stated in the past (at his demonstrations) that it radiation measurements are not permitted as they would reveal his secrets…

  • Dana

    From AR’s description, they gave the testers what they believed was an obviously functioning system. The Rossi teams only real legitimate concern would be if the testers discovered a previously unaccounted for energy source that they had overlooked that turns the obvious excess power into questionable excess power. More truth is good for everyone involved in this process though.

  • rolando

    “About why I accepted this torture, do not ask me, because I don’t know: many times I make things against my will, as if somebody drives me like a resistance drives an E-Cat.”

    He did this for Professor Focardi, who survives cancer. Rossi could have let the market/customers decide whether his Cats are working or not, rolling them out slowly.

    • http://rossifocardifusion.com/author/john John De Herrera

      Because of Professor Focardi, we can be reasonably sure Rossi and his E-Cat and Hot Cat are real and produce over-unity heat. That the Skeptics and pseudo-skeptics conclude that Rossi is a fraud and a con-artist (using the same information we all have) tells me there is a very serious character flaw that motivates Skeptics. That character flaw needs to be examined and corrected in our schools, so that we do NOT dissuade/derail new science and technology BEFORE it can be examined and tested (P&F). jdh

      • GreenWin

        John, that flaw IS being examined now on a much broader platform than before. E.g. the latest blowup over TEDx Talks censoring two Whitechapel videos from Rupert Sheldrake “The Science Delusion” and Graham Hancock “The War on Consciousness.” This incident inflamed admirers of TED and raised so much flak that TED was forced to retract its most highly biased accusations of fraud and “pseudoscience.”

        Both speakers rebutted the TED “Science Board” pointing to glaring hypocrisy, denial, and slanderous accusation. The public has supported the authors by a 90-10% margin; and even TEDx Whitechapel staff has come down firmly in support of the authors.

        The old gatekeepers of knowledge (LENR skeptics in lead) have lost massive mindshare these past few years. Incidents like “TED-CensorScience” only hasten their demise. http://www.c4chaos.com/2013/03/tedxwhitechapel-calls-out-ted-to-reinstate-sheldrake-and-hancocks-talks/

      • Dave

        John De Herrera, maybe Focardi just assumed the E-Cat worked because Rossi said so?

        In any case, a rational person uses the evidence, not what others believe. What does the evidence we have about the E-Cat so far tell you? If you’re thinking clearly you should assume based on the evidence so far that the E-Cat doesn’t work until either an independent 3rd party confirms that it works or a reputable company is providing an E-Cat product.

  • Kim

    The Report will be either inconclusive or show
    LENR as border line technology.

    If the report supports Andrea Rossi and LENR
    Then the world of money and control will be lost.

    I think its a no brainer as to the what the report
    will show and infer.

    Respect
    Kim

    • Paolo

      On the opposite, I think the report will be very conclusive, due to the level of the people involved and of their academic institutions, the simplicity of the methods adopted, and the total liberty they have had to make, for some months, ALL measurements they wanted on the E-Cat treated as a black box. I think that it will reveal to be an earthquake, in the scientific and financial world.

  • Roger Bird

    We could be on the verge of a New Humanity. Or we could be on the verge of more hot air. This report does sound very plausible. If it is more hot air from Rossi and the third party results never get reported, then I will lose a great deal of interest in Rossi. But I am very skeptical that there could be a negative report. Even Rossi of 2 years ago should impress any real scientist. Even if the Hot Cat has no control or even reliability, what we saw in October 2011 should blow the socks off of any real scientist, assuming that Rossi wasn’t fooling us.

    • Roger Bird

      I am now ready to bet even money that Rossi and his Hot Cat are for real. Who wants to bet $10?

      • Kim

        Real or Not Real?

        Its Real.

        The ones in the Rafter are having to
        make hard choices right now.

        Its their call.

        The Report will reflect their decision.

        Simple as that.

        Respect
        Kim

        • buffalo

          its not quite as simple as that guys.you have to follow the money trail.who is financing the 3rd party? Would it be to the financier,s benefit to declare a breakthrough?would it be to their benefit to declare null and void?its gona take a hardass head to be truly impartial.on the bright side there are so many entities involved with lenr research right now that they may give a straight answer.

      • http://rossifocardifusion.com/author/john John De Herrera

        “Who wants to bet $10?”
        I bet $10 that Rossi E-Cats are READY for commercial applications. jdh

      • John-64

        I don’t get out of bed for any bet less than $500. Anyone interested? I’ll be betting against Rossi. There needs to be a specific date in the wording of the bet.

        I’m not worried about losing money, because if Rossi is about to provide a new source of low cost energy, I’ll be saving anyway.

        I really do believe that the probability of Rossi selling an e-cat within 5 years that produces usable power at less than 50%.

      • Dave

        Roger, in person I’d bet you $100 to your $10 that Rossi and his Hot Cat are NOT for real. Easiest $10 I’ve ever made, if we could ever come to a conclusion about it. Rossi will never admit the E-Cat doesn’t work, and either there isn’t a current 3rd party test or Rossi will never allow the negative result to be published.

        ALL of the evidence we have so far points to the E-Cat being a hoax/scam. His own silly desktop demonstrations don’t output enough steam to account for the amount of heat he claims in his calculations of COP. When you combine that with his refusal to reveal any of his customers or allow a 3rd party test you have to come to the conclusion that the E-Cat doesn’t work.

  • http://www.PastExpiry.com j j

    I have followed Ecat off and on for a few years, and pretty skeptical. There should of been some super-positive report by someone credible by now, if it is what it says it is.

    • NJT

      “There should of been some super-positive report by someone credible by now.”
      You mean like NASA?

  • V.p.S.

    This all sounds quite plausible. What I think about the results, if Hot Cat is working, they cannot be negative, simply because the participating scientists will thereby threaten their reputation – as soon as information about working commercial Hot Cat factory will be revealed, those scientists will be exposed as not competent enough to make appropriate measurements or as liars trying to deliberately disredit the cold fusion phenomenon.
    So in my opinion, Rossi doesn’t need to worry. But on the other hand, if the results would be really negative…

    • Peter Roe

      Even if Rossi genuinely knows nothing about the 3rd party results, he will obviously know what progress has been made with building a hot cat prototype. So, as you say, he would know that even if for some reason the test results were not that good, that when a working prototype is unveiled, a ‘null results’ paper would be swept aside – along with the reputations of the testers.

      The academics doing the testing are being quite brave I think. In the scenario above they look incompetent, but if they produce positive results (even if that is a modest output, but proven beyond doubt) then they face the prospect of ridicule, cold shouldering, questioning of their competence, possible academic sanctions and ad hominem attacks from many of their erstwhile colleagues. My guess would be that they are all a year or two from retirement and willing to take their chances for humanitarian reasons, if this resolves the doubts about the existence of cold fusion.

      • V.p.S.

        Good guess on the age of participating scientists. I doubt anyone still heading for the zenith of his scientific career would risk his name to be involved in the “pseudo science”. Of course, if his has not already been doing steps into that direction or may be simply venturesome. But that would be also something interesting to find out!

        • Peter Roe

          I suppose we should also remember that the names associated with the first successful set of tests of a new cold fusion device to be published in the academic press, will also go down in history – which may have been a factor influencing some decisions to join the team. What better way to end your career – one way or another!

          They would have to be either ‘believers’ or completely open-minded (no-one else would agree to the task), and presumably whoever set the thing up would want at least 3 or 4 to be well-established scientists with histories of achievement – another indication that they are probably not spring chickens.

        • NJT

          So you are implying that scientific inquiry is impossible for up and coming scientists?

          • Peter Roe

            In general, due to the structure of science funding, I would think that that is pretty much the case. Very few younger scientists work undirected, and the ‘direction’ will be governed by funding priorities and limited by the belief system of the supervising scientist. It has been a long time since young scientists could just follow their whims or hunches into new and unexplored areas, particularly if this would involve going against an established dogma.

          • Peter Roe

            Young, ‘up and coming’ researchers will tend to be too constrained, established scientists with more freedom of choice will have too much to lose professionally by veering off the tracks, which tends to leave the field to the bearded, bespectacled greyhair brigade that has been so much in evidence throughout this saga.

  • guga

    These comments sound honest and make some sense.

    But what I don´t get: I remember AR had commented earlier that he is in contact with the third party. There seems to be no reason why they should not at least say: “Andrea, your device is awesome, it works as you said.” or otherwise “This is a waste of time, we don´t see an effect.” or “If there is an effect, it is minimal”. Why is there no such communication? Or is there such a communication, the results are bad and AR does not want to tell as long as possible?

    • Bob

      I think all this sounds up front and plausible.
      I think he has been in contact with the people but they have not passed on any information regarding the test results. The contact has only been of a general nature and mostly for the purpose of organising further tests.
      I think the testing people have a genuine and unbiased interest in showing whether the ecat works and how well (or not) it works, to the extent that they are happy to spend their own time and money to do so unpaid. It would not be hard to find such people and my guess is, they would have been people recommended by those he already knew and trusted.
      I think that if the results were very good they would have said to Rossi without being too specific, that it all looks good and he would have passed that on by now on his blog.
      I think that if the results did not look good, they would not tell Rossi because they would lose his support for further testing to verify these findings.

      So, in view of what we have seen so far my conclusion is the tests will show the hot cat produces no excess power, which is consistent with what the Swedish tests indicated six months ago, and probably consistent with the results of the October/November tests which were not released because it was said they met serious problems, which were never specified.

      • guga

        You are right, no info is not a good sign.

        Though I remember now that towards the end of last year Rossi had said that the third party results were good. I had forgotten about that. Later he said that they need more tests. So maybe results are not bad and the additional tests are made just to be completely sure about the good results.

      • HHiram

        Independent testing is exactly that: *independent*.

        That means Rossi should NOT have involvement with the folks doing the testing. It is no surprise that he is getting no information from them while the testing process is ongoing.

        What will be more confusing is if these scientists do not announce preliminary findings before publishing. For high-profile work, the general picture of the results are commonly disclosed before the final papers are submitted for peer review.

        I will be much more suspicious that everything is a scam if these “scientists” maintain secrecy after their work is completed.

        • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

          “For high-profile work, the general picture of the results are commonly disclosed before the final papers are submitted for peer review.”

          Nature’s embargo policy: “Material submitted to Nature must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media only once the publication date has been confirmed and no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken.” (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/embargo.html).

          • GreenWin

            Thanks Pekka. It appears Hiram has a confused idea of publishing. A report of this caliber is bound to be highly embargoed.

          • HHiram

            Very interesting. I wasn’t aware Nature had that policy. Most journals are not so strict. I guess we’d better cross our fingers and hope the testers don’t submit to Nature! If they do, it may be another year before we hear anything about it…

            • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

              You are right, most aren’t, but those two are. But why a year? When N. or S. accept or like something, they can print it relatively fast. They also have the guts to urge the referees to work fast. Other journals are typically slower.

              • mark

                Likely in June or July

      • Omega Z

        Bob

        These are all the Same 3rd party independent tests ongoing Since October. Their finishing up their “3rd” round of followup tests.

        Rossi Stated-“By the way, the third party independent test in course is dealing thoroughly also with this item.” in regards to Gamma Rays.

        If there are Gamma rays emitted, Rossi definitely has a LENR reaction happening.

        Considering the time spent testing Plus Gamma emissions, It’s likely the tests are Positive.
        Question is how Positive. COP????
        Is it Commercially Viable.
        Or will they say it needs further development to be Viable.

        • Bob

          My impression is that these tests are not the same tests as were being done in October and due to be released in November last year. The wording on Rossi’s blog gave the impression that the “serious problem” which was reported on November 30th was overcome by the new partner arranging new third party tests. It is these test results which we are now waitng on.
          If you can point me to anything which contradicts this I am interested.

      • Peter Roe

        Bob – That seems to be a lot of speculation to base on nothing more than your own negative opinions. You seem to be suggesting that the ‘independent’ test people were in fact carefully selected by Rossi’s acquaintances, when in fact you have absolutely no information on who is doing the work. You also suggest that ‘no news is bad news’, again on the basis of zero information, another speculative assumption and an innuendo.

        Lets stick with the facts shall we – we don’t know who is doing the testing, we don’t know what the outcome of the tests is, and we don’t know when, where or even if, the results will be published. Your negative speculations are without any basis in fact, and no more than hot air.

        • Bob

          You are seeing negative opinions and innuendos when I am merely stating the obvious.
          Do you think for one minute that the testing people were not carefully chosen?
          Do you think they were names picked out of a telephone book?
          Rossi would have asked for advice from many people regarding who could be trusted and who was qualified for the job. Nothing I said was in any way suggesting that there was anything underhand in the selection of the testing people.
          As to it being all speculation based on my own negaive opinions, it is speculation based entirely on what has been reported so far. That’s all any of us can do. If you read the same reports and come to the conclusion that everything is just great then that’s entirely fine by me, but I don’t agree that it is and that’s all I have stated. It would be airbrushing over some very contrary indications.

          • Peter Roe

            You are quite right – there are some problems with the ‘narrative’ we have been presented with, and your comments are reasonable. As an ex-ECN contributor I’m afraid I am probably a little over-sensitive to comments that seem to use forms of camouflage in order to deliver a negative ‘payload’ – a technique that is sometimes used here by pathoskeptics. From your other posts this appears not to be the case and I apologise for suspecting your intentions.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        Bob “I think that if the results did not look good, they would not tell Rossi because they would lose his support for further testing to verify these findings.” If the HotCat type device would be only a resistive heater, it would be evident in hours to physicists who brought their own equipment to measure inputs and outputs. If by “not look good” you mean that there is no anomalous heat then I can’t follow your logic.

        • Bob

          The logic is, at the temperature the hot cat operates it would be difficult to determine the difference between a COP of 1 and a COP of 1.1 or even 1.2 , therefore the difference between no excess power and a small excess power would be hidden in the range of experimental error. Logically, they would therefore ask for more tests re-designed with a smaller margin of error. They would not want to report there was no excess power if it could later be shown that there was even a small level of excess.
          If the measured COP was 6 or anywhere near it, they would not have bothered. They would simply report they found a COP of 6 plus or minus 10% or whatever the error range was. Who would care. At 6 plus or minus 10 % or even 20%, the thing works and all would be well.
          If the COP is 1 or 1.1 the difference is very important but harder to detect. At a COP of 1 it is all hot air, at 1.1 it is still mostly hot air but there is something to work with and improve, so it is essential to be accurate if the level is small. Not so important if the level is high.
          Perhaps my conclusion should have been stated as “my conclusion is the tests will show the hot cat produces minimal or no excess power,” . I did think of this after I posted it and read it but the last time I tried to edit a post it didn’t accept the edit and renamed the poster as undefined, so I left it as is.

          • buffalo

            aha,aha,margin of error is indeed the critical mass of this whole episode.so f*****g true man.quite pointless to even examine the thing in the first place if its COP is only around 1.1 or 1.2 or even 1.5 due to the laws of entropy and human error in heat measurement.