Your Predictions — How Will the Report be Received?

Assuming the 3rd party report is issued, and it contains the positive confirmation that Andrea Rossi has reported, it will be interesting to see what impact it might have on the world at large. Certainly it will be received with interest and perhaps with much celebration by people who have been paying attention to the story, but I am wondering how much attention a scientific report on a topic that most people are completely ignorant of will get.

I do have one concern about his report. If it is published by a traditional scientific journal it is possible — even likely — that it won’t be made available in full for free. Many journal publishers charge users over $30 per article, and if you purchase it you do not have permission to put it up on the web. This might prevent news about it spreading very rapidly. I expect in this day and age there will be places where the report will be made available, but I wouldn’t be able to post it on this site without permission.

So how do you think it will be received — will it be hailed by experts as a seminal moment in the history of science? Will it be trashed by sceptics? Will it be covered in the mainstream news media, and thus be ignored by most people? Will it take a long time for the significance of the discovery to disseminate? Will financial markets react in any way to the report, and thus bring attention to the news?

If you have any prognostications to share, let us know.

  • http://www.glialtrionline.it/2013/03/28/napolitano-gela-bersani-e-apre-la-strada-a-cancellierinasce-la-repubblica-presidenziale-italiana/ Vickie

    Terrific work! This is the type of info that are supposed to
    be shared across the internet. Shame on Google for not positioning this submit higher!
    Come on over and discuss with my website . Thanks =)

  • PeterWol

    I would suggest that there is an IP problem here, in that so far it has been not easy to obtain patents: look at the Blacklight Power saga. So Rossi might be wishing to get a very credible and independent report published, confirming the reality of the effect, so that patent offices will be obliged to assess his patent applications and eventually, I suppose, issue patents. Remember that a patent application has to tell the whole story and not conceal essential factors: quite a dangerous action and the whole process needs to be carefully timed. The Wright brothers had a similar problem and took a secretive line not unlike Rossi’s once they had mastered powered flight. Perhaps Rossi will reveal how the process works, for patents, but hold back on steps such as how to keep the reaction stable, so as to preserve a lead and get production going. Just my guesswork above, of course.

  • Jordi Heguilor

    OK, as one of the “skeptics” I’m going to ask the “Believers”: what is your “breaking point”?

    At what point are you going to give up on Rossi? If this “validation” is another piece of b……t, like the one he has been feeding you for years, will you give up on him? Or is this about faith and not science?

    • Rockyspoon

      Conversely, at what point are you going to drop your skepticism and be a supporter, Jordi?

      As an engineer, I can tell you it has nothing to do with faith–manufacturing requires specs to work from and this report will (likely–I haven’t seen the report) provide a more informed way to proceed (and if the results are negative, then the decision to proceed is “No”; otherwise it is “Yes”). I honestly can’t think of a “faith” component at all. “A” is “A”; an engineered solution is based on calculatations and not a belief system.

      That said, there is one peripheral belief I have, and that is the tests are not directed to the general crowd–you and me–because they’re testing new configurations. As such, they’re primarily done to direct development of a new (perhaps marketable?) product.

      Stay tuned–we’ll see how this all shakes out.

      Note: The pessimist looks at the glass of water and complains it’s half empty. The optimist looks at the glass of water and proclaims it’s half full. The engineer looks at the same glass of water, considers it for a moment, and says “That glass is twice as big as it needs to be”. Yet engineers aren’t unemotional people–they just think independently and non-judgementally. We should all be engineers.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        Rocky, I’m a skeptic, not a fundamentalist denier. The moment I see an indisputable third party validation, I will start believing in the e-Cat.

        We ALL want a cheap, non-polluting new source of energy.

  • jambo

    Perhaps less important than how a “report” is received is how that report is presented.

    If Rossi’s history is any judge of this there will be no formal report as the verification was performed “in secret” by a “secret” entity due to an NDA.

    Any release of “information” will take the form of a Rossi blog post that enthusiastically reaffirms earlier claims and then offers summaries of the “data” with no disclosure of the source or methodology.

    Any actual “report” is to be issued “soon”.

    • Roger Bird

      jambo, appreciate you skepticism with regard to “Rossi says”. I hope that it does not extend to LENR, which is proven.

  • Roger Bird

    Credibility is very important in science and in life, whether we like to admit it or not. Wegener did not have credibility for several reasons. 1. He was not a geologist. 2. He did not have a theory to explain continental drift. And there may be others. This does not justify his being ignored and denigrated by MS-science. It is merely more pieces of the puzzle of how people can be so stupid and how great discoveries often take time to be accepted.

    • Jordi Heguilor

      Continental drift is a bit hard to reproduce in a laboratory. Cold fusion isn’t.

      • Rockyspoon

        The Eruopean and American continents are drifting apart at the measureable rate of ~3 cm per year. So it can also be measured. However, like cold fusion, it took a while before meaningful measurements could be performed.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          Rocky, Wegener proposed his theory in 1912, there was no way to measure a 3cm drift at the time. However, we are perfectly capable to measure cold fusion, or LENR.

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

            direct measurement of the drift was not needed.
            Wegener theory was heavily credible when looking at fossiles accross Atlantic and others oceans.
            The explanation was already exising in old papres : convection.

            except conservatism ther vas no reason to reject Wegener theory as much better than existing one.

            this is not an exception but a rule.

  • Omega Z

    While were just Speculating-

    It will receive some mediocre by lines in the news with mention of years to mature to usefulness. Very little fanfare.

    Meanwhile, Behind the Scenes, MS-Science will be playing Catch Up. Investors & Big Business will start gearing up & start the ball rolling. Quietly of coarse. The Silent Frenzy.

    Gradually, The public will be introduced to more info. After a Couple Years MS-Science will Lay Claim To Saving The Day. As they have spent the last 20 plus years Strenuously & Rigorously Researching this New Fire.

    They MAY even give some credit to the likes of Miley, Piantelli, Hagelstein, Celani, Rossi & Focardi. They’ll Name UNIBO & a couple other Universities & organizations.

    We’re all aware of “Credible Deniabilty”

    They Give You “Credible Plausibility” The “New Fire” with the name dropping above. They were involved all along.
    It’s THEIR STORY & Their Sticking to it.

    • Peter Roe

      First step – rename the phenomenon so that it can be detached in the public mind from the unfortunate record of establishment dealings with cold fusion/LENR. Widom-Larsen theory may be a first draft attempt to say “Whatever it is, it’s not cold fusion – OK?” (and that Science has been on the case all along, while the scammers and crackpots have pretended to have answers).

      • GreenWin

        SSF. Solid State Fusion. This would enthuse the Silicon Valley cowboys here in California.

      • Rockyspoon

        I say keep the name “cold fusion” (for that’s what it does) in honor of Pons and Fleischmann, who were unjustly castigated for attempting to change the world’s energy paradigm. A good portion of the public already appreciates and recognizes this injustice and bold pushback would show the powers-that-be they can’t run roughshod over people who are willing to tell the truth.

        • GreenWin

          I agree Rocky. There would be little better balance than to have CF be the re-adopted title of the P&F discovery. On the other hand, media loves buzz words and acronyms, so I have invented SSF Solid State Fusion and tossed it into the namegame ring.

    • Bob

      It all depends on what the COP is. If it’s very low, like 1.1 or thereabouts, then your assessment is spot on and we are in for another 10 years of arguments over whether it is even real.
      However, if the COP comes in anywhere near “stunning” as Rossi says, then I think LENR will be immediately established as the new great energy source and there will be no stopping it.
      I take “stunning” as meaning it will be conservatively measured at six or above, with bursts of up to 20. I would count that as stunning. Sadly, I am not expecting anything stunning. :{

  • Alex

    I don’t really care about this report. I already believe the guy. I want to see proof of purchase, and practical applications. Google bought the Bloombox, whats stopping them from this too.

    • clovis

      +1

    • EduardoRG

      Simple as that. Rossi at the end can sell its product and if their clients show/accept they are happy with the product, Rossi won’t have any obligation to prove anything to any science community or anyone.

  • FlanOBrien

    Peter Poulsen said:

    “if the report has the backing on some well respected scientists, from well respected universites, and they can tell us about vast amount of excess energy”

    Exactly. There is no mystery on how a properly performed experiment by qualified scientists will be received by other scientists. We need hypothesis, data, analysis, error margins and repeatability.
    Repeatability should be no problem. The armed guard and the black box may be readily moved.
    This report is 7 months in the making, so there is no excuse for anything lacking in an experiment to test power in and out of a black box.
    Knowing that human beings have built in status prejudice, it is important that the experimenters are practising (not retired) experimental scientists from a reputable university.

    If independent quality practising scientist + normal scientific report are met, then there will be a big reaction. After all, this would be the greatest discovery ever made.

    independent quality practising scientist
    normal scientific report

    Will these essentials be met?

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

      See you’re already priming a skeptical movement before the report is even released. Your post is like planting a bomb in the woods knowing you’re going to start a forest fire a month later. Priming people to be skeptical is worse than trolling in my book. You’re right, all the I’s should be dotted and all the T’s crossed in order to avoid skeptics having anything to go on. But holy cow give Rossi a break. It’s like (good enough) = (sucks) and (Fantastic progress) = (not good enough). People act like Rossi is developing a new water heater; No! the ecat is a nuclear reactor utilizing ground breaking physics so you can have one under your car seat and not experience doomsday. Give it a break.

      Ken,

      (http://www.Revolution-Green.com)

    • GreenWin

      “…it is important that the experimenters are practising (not retired) experimental scientists from a reputable university.”

      Steaming pile of bulsheit Flan. Retired scientists, government/private sector employees, are out of reach of most corruptible forces. Aside from the ageism your remark reflects, it displays an extraordinary ignorance of common influence peddling.

      • FlanOBrien

        I said “not retired but active”. No age was mentioned, not old, nor young. A scientist may voluntarily halt his science career, as many do because they are sick of building military applications.

        The ageism is a prejudice purely in your mind alone.

        Strange statement ” government/private sector employees, are out of reach of most corruptible forces.” That means everybody is a saint?

        Almost all of us are corruptible, but there are thousands of active respected scientists able to test input/output of a black box, and willing to do so.

        independent quality practising scientist
        normal scientific report

        Will these essentials be met?

    • Thinksforself

      You mean like the charlatans at MIT that half heartily tried to verify Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann experiment?

      • Rockyspoon

        That was a hoot–I remember it well. P & F said the most interesting thing about that whole circus is that NOT ONE investigating lab called them to ask for details:

        Details like it took 4 weeks to load up the fuel cell before the reaction even began, and everybody was making claims in 2 weeks it didn’t work! It boggles the mind.

        And that’s just the beginning. When some labs got results they figured it would be so unsettling, they couldn’t lose their gubmint funding so they lied about the results.

        Like others here, I believe Rossi should just ignore the public and start building industrial units–the general public doesn’t buy those anyway but industrialists do, and they don’t visit pages like this to evaluate (largely) uninformed complaints.

        I don’t mean to be disrespectful–it’s fun to read what people say, but all this has almost zero bearing on whether Rossi’s invention will be successful or not.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          May I ask what prevented P & F during all these years from proving the skeptics wrong?

  • Stephen

    I don’t have a clue… I won’t add the n+1 prediction and anyway it all depends on the kind of report and on the credibility of the third party who supposedly did the test.

    Well… whatever…

    Just a hope. I hope this thing settles down with a clear YES or NO answer. It shouldn’t be hard for such a supposedly disruptive technoloy. I think we all deserve this after 2+ years of story telling.

    Please let me add I am pessimistic: I think this won’t be the case. Please let me also add I hope facts will prove me wrong.

    Good night everybody 😉
    Tired Stephen

    • GreenWin

      Two years story telling? How do you think we who have been strung along hot fusion for 60 years feel?? Deserving? Yes. Will hot fusion ever deliver its limitless energy claims for $270B investment? No.

      • daniel maris

        Yes, but I am not aware anyone in hot fusion (a scam I agree) has ever claimed to have solved the problem of hot fusion.

        • GreenWin

          They claim hot fusion “works” endlessly – just look at the sun. Or an H-bomb. They want the general public to keep the white collar welfare rolling in – even though they have not delivered one watt of useful energy. Scam? Boondoggle? Fraud? Unquestionably.

          But lets tear down the self-financed entrepreneur, because we are too cowardly to finger the real crooks.

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

            Hot fusion is not alone, similar things could be said of many or perhaps even most other areas. Fields of science need to motivate their existence by applications, real or imagined, because to first approximation, pure basic research is not funded. Scientists usually don’t feel guilty about this state of affairs because they consider that by pouring money somewhere, something useful might eventually emerge in the wake of it in unforeseen ways. Innovations are typically serendipitous.

            Trying to build a hot fusion reactor is a bit similar to the Apollo programme: not directly beneficial, but the benefit comes with time from the many spinoff inventions that are spurred by solving the difficult technical subproblems. Applied research at least gets a periodic reality check which tends to keep it on track, while funding pure research generously might increase the problem of dogmatism.

            • GreenWin

              Good points Pekka. Imagine how many useful, new physics applications will arise from the redirect of public funds from hot to cold fusion. Had that happened in 1989 – we would be well ahead of the game.

        • Rockyspoon

          Yes they have. But it isn’t cost effective. THAT’s the big bugaboo. As an engineer, I’d say it’s time to devote half that money toward cold fusion. Give each a 50/50 chance. And I can almost predict a winner…

      • NJT

        $270B and still counting, with no posibilities within site of most of our lifetimes…

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah, does LENR need their seal of approval to be considered legitimate?

          • NJT

            Lets hope not, and the world soon recogizes this “NEW FIRE” of Rossie’s!

      • Bob

        Whatever the case has been for hot fusion, that is no excuse for repeating it again with cold fusion.
        The fact is, someone said they had been heating a factory with a LENR device for two years and had something “ready for market”.
        Since then and another two years later, in spite of a number of public demonstrations, public appearances and hundreds of public announcements, there has still been no proof that it works when it would be so simple to do so.
        If even half the time was spent on a simple and convincing proof as has been spent on all the appearances and proclmations the matter would have long since been resolved.

        Just boil a barrel of water. It’s so simple and if done properly can be totally convincing. The test equipment is dirt cheap and the test results are visable to all who watch either in person or via a video.

        • Fred

          I’m sorry, I don’t understand this reaction. All Bob did was to list a number of observations, all legitimate in my opinion. He did not accuse Rossi of running a scam or anything like that. Accusing somebody of trolling as soon as he/she expresses a somewhat critical opinion kills every discussion. There is a difference between being a supporter (or believer, if you want) and a zealot !

        • Bruno

          Absolutely right, Bob. The thing either works or it doesn’t. Two years ago he said that he had a “working” device, so he should have been able to conclusively demonstrate SOMETHING by now. The whole secrecy angle has been a red herring from the beginning. An apparatus can be “black box” tested without needing to open it up.

      • Stephen

        GW I can even agree with you… but I am not sure how HF failures and the (probably understandable) reactions can justify AR’s twisted behavior. So you see… I don’t really care about defending HF.

        Still, I keep on believing that if AR has a working reactor he can demonstrate the thing beyond any reasonable doubt, within 24h and without releasing any secret. The fact he does not do that disappoints me and makes me very seriously doubt about what he has. Beyond this I wish him best luck and hope he can show he’s right, hopefully in a finite time. But this is an old and boring story: we’ll see what happens with this report!

  • artefact

    From PESN:

    http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/03/26/733/joel-garbon-on-coast-to-coast-about-free-energy/

    “This rush to judgment did a great disservice to the technology, Garbon commented. But now 24 years later, cold fusion has been declared to be real, and a number of companies and start ups, such as Brillouin Energy are experimenting with various techniques. These technologies may eventually be used to heat water, and generate steam. Italian inventor Andrea Rossi has gotten a lot of attention for his process, he added.”

  • machenation

    MY unedumacated guess. There are many possibilities of astounding results
    but my wish is: A C.O.P. of 17.89753345213666.
    Or better than sunlight.
    Best regards
    machenation

    • Bob

      Those last two decimal places look suspect to me. 😉

    • Alex

      Since we don’t put any energy into receiving it how is this not infinite COP? What is the COP of receiving warmth on your face through a window pane in December. If it does the job of a radiating heater, how can that be calculated.

  • Claes

    The fee is no problem – they only need to shell out some $1,000-$2,000 to make it open access. That’s available in most journals. In any event, preprints can usually be made available to the public.

    The problem is getting it published. It’s hot stuff, and they will likely want it reproducible, which is impossible since you can’t tell what’s inside.

    So it won’t be a scientific breakthrough at this point since there is no understanding coming out of it. There may be a strong indication that this is really happening on the other hand – but it is problematic. It leans entirely on the authority of the authors, and science explicitly is not satisfied with that.

    • Roger Bird

      Claes, you may be right.

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

      I think that while referees might grumble a bit at it, in principle it should be OK to have a black box as long as the one who demands secrecy (AR) is not one of the authors. The paper’s scope just has to be defined in an appropriate way.

      • Claes

        That’s probably right – and we should presume that the editors have been approached carefully beforehand so they aren’t thinking of just popping it into the system somewhere.

    • Peter Roe

      “The problem is getting it published. It’s hot stuff…”

      If a journal editor has put the tests through peer review and is satified that due process has been observed, then he/she obviously intends to publish the paper. That isn’t a problem – at least not if the editor isn’t illegally leaned on from above (the scientists concerned would then probably self-publish anyway on a preprint server).

      As far as the ‘black box’ aspect is concerned, science often makes observations (the ‘horizon effect’ in astronomy, the simple but inexplicable ‘Mpemba effect’, wave/particle duality experments, methane on Mars (Viking)) for which no solid theoretical background is available. The observations still get published.

      • GreenWin

        Just my point in quoting the latest observations from the Euro Space Agency Planck spacecraft. All visible matter (galaxies, stars, planets, gas clouds, etc) comprise just 4.9% of the universe. Leaving 95.1% of the universe a complete mystery (black box) to human understanding.

      • danny barnes

        It’s not the lack of a theory. It’s the inability to check the claims.

        The observations you refer to do not depend on anyone’s authority, because anyone can check them.

        • GreenWin

          danny, only those with access to the ESA Planck spacecraft can readily check these observations. Meaning a very small group of authorities. Not unlike those who have observed the e-cat.

          • danny barnes

            It’s quite unlike the e-cat. The number of people involved with Planck is much larger, and the selection process is much more transparent, and there is no commercial potential that produces a conflict of interest.

            The specifications of the craft, and the parameters of the observations are provided in detail to anyone who wants to know, and any qualified scientist can apply to work on the project with a reasonable chance of being accepted. In any case, the team will have an almost continual change of members as students join and graduate or fellows join and leave. This means that the measurements are checked by a wide range of people, and at least in principle, any other team can come in and check the results. The philosophy is different, because, in principle, another organization, like NASA, could construct their own craft and check the measurements. This is not possible with the ecat, even in principle.

            And it’s doubtful that Rossi would accept outside offers to come in and check the e-cat results. If he did, it would certainly improve their credibility.

            • GreenWin

              One should also consider the e-cat is a commercial product headed to market. I expect 18-24 months after the first hot-cat is installed (May 2013?) there will be others up and running. Each commercial installation dilutes the need for academic analysis – by greatly expanding evidence of operation.

              A half dozen functional hot-cats even in black box mode, is hard to refute.

        • Claes

          I think the significance of theory here is that everybody thinks that theory rules out that sort of effect – so they’re very curious about it.

          That said, if it can be sufficiently well established that there IS such an effect. Which I guess in this case involves clearly describing how they have ruled out any alternative explanations.

          Composed in the right way it could be done.

  • artefact

    I don’t know if this was postet here but yesterday the cells 1.3 got installed in the US lab.

    From MFMP:

    Update #1 – Version 1.3 Cells are Installed in the US Lab!

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/220-additions-to-the-lab

    • daniel maris

      No one is going to bad-mouth MFMP but it seems a bit irrelevant – playing with Celani wires.

    • clovis

      +1

  • georgehants

    Wired.
    Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole
    By David Hambling
    27 February
    Four months ago, Andrea Rossi demonstrated what he claims was a one-megawatt “Energy Catalyser” — or E-Cat — which produces power by cold fusion. This technology, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), had been consigned to the deepest cellar of fringe science.
    Now it’s hammering on the cellar door, and Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern are among those peering through the keyhole, wondering if it should be allowed back in with respectable science. As part of Wired.co.uk’s continued coverage of progress in this controversial field, we have investigated recent developments.
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup?page=all

    • Alex

      This was a good read. No Bias, just the story of the circus.

  • Karl

    I expect the main stream media will continue to ignore Cold Fusion just after report is official, except for of the more brave publishers that have already been open to this new energy solution. I guess that major part of the main stream science community will continue its traditional attitude. It is too much at stake here and it takes time to shifts paradigm.

    I believe on the contrary that this report will be a turning point nevertheless, because the ones that have followed the Rossi adventures and the gradual evolvement of CF/LENR will certainly get new ammunition. I believe that the ability and courage to go further and expand the awareness of the new fire to many others will be the greatest benefit.

    • Bruno

      IF it’s a positive report delivered by competent unbiased observers it won’t be ignored. The problem is that I expect this “report” to be another “schlock” exercise so full of holes that no serious journalist will report on it.

  • captain kirk

    Here’s a comment by jed rothwell on vortex on March 25th….

    Jed Rothwell Mon, 25 Mar 2013
    I make no predictions about the specifics of this report. But I do predict three things:

    1. It will be positive, as he claims. What possible benefit would he derive
    from lying about this? As soon as the report comes out people would see he
    is lying.

    2. It will be published sooner or later. Probably. Who knows when. It is
    already a month late, but in this business things are often 5 years late. I
    expect Rossi thought carefully about the timing of this, and he has some
    reason to let it out now rather than a year ago. Some reason related to
    intellectual property I guess.

    3. It really is a third party evaluation.

    Rossi often exaggerates about his business and other personal things, but
    as I have often said, when it comes to technical claims, he tells the
    truth. Also, he does what he says he will do. He said he would make a 1 MW
    reactor and by golly he did. He said he had a factory heater. Focardi said
    on video “I’ve seen that heater and shown it to others” and by golly he did.

    If that 1 MW gadget was fake, it was the most expensive and elaborate fake
    in the history of fake energy devices. (Most fake devices are small, cheap
    and thrown together. I’ve seen many of them.)

    Despite his flamboyant personality and his irritating habits, Rossi is a
    force to be reckoned with. I think it is foolish to dismiss him, or make
    fun of him, or assume he is a fraud.

    I can see why people fall into this trap. As I have said, I think Rossi *wants* people to think he is a fraud.
    Many inventors have wanted this.

    I admit I could be wrong about all of this.
    But history shows you should not bet against irritating, exploitative, monomaniacal geniuses such as Edison or Jobs, and Rossi sure looks to me like one of them.

    • daniel maris

      I think that’s where I am just about with Rossi in terms of probability.

      But I would really like to here from a happy customer next.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I just got an email from my Federal Senator asking for ideas on energy. I have written him no less than five times about LENR, no response. They go through the motions of listening, but don’t listen. They listen only to the lobbyists with green backs sticking out of their pockets.

    • GreenWin

      Bernie, I wonder what your Senator or his/her staffers would say should you appear in their office and demand an answer.

      • Roger Bird

        So you mean what they would say after they called security or before they called security?

        • GreenWin

          Good point Roger. I was thinking the Jesse Ventura approach which is to appear in the office of the people we pay to represent us – even lacking an appointment. But then, Jesse is a former Governor, Navy Seal with a secret clearance and a TV show.

          • NJT

            Hmm, I wonder what Jessie Ventura thinks about all of this Rossie stuff, or perhaps he doesn’t yet even know about it? He certainly is not afraid to confront confrontational issues and gets lots of publicity doing that!

            • Peter Roe

              People like Ventura and Alex Jones should be somewhere near the top of the list of people to contact when a prototype is running.

  • MStone

    WEll…wasn’t there a positive report on the cold cat?

    I don’t think much will happen after the report comes out. I think the e-cat needs a bloom energy moment. Where it is installed with a major corporate client–like google…working….and saving them money.

    Then the world, at large, will take notice.

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

      I’m more pessimistic than you. I believe that this technology will only become recognized when you can go down to Home Depot and buy one. That’s hard to argue with.

      • MStone

        I dont think it will make it to home depot….I the the government will want to make money off it and tax it.

    • Omega Z

      MStone

      Asking most People or Businesses about Bloom Energy would get about the same response as if you ask then about E-cat, LENR, Andrea Rossi, DGT, Etc, Etc…

      Such is the World we live in. Most are Oblivious to reality.

      Now if it started with I-LENR, I-CAT, Kardashian, Bieber, Well you get the drift…

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Mass media will remain stuck on orchestrated political correctness.
    Business and industry will quietly devour every tidbit of LENR news.
    Joe SixPack will not notice unless it affects his job, the price of beer,
    or when Rossi buys a major sports team.

    • Kim

      Very good analysis.

      The Main Stream Media is the Control Point.

      I’m for one am pretty tired of it.

      Their intent is to let the sheep know that
      energy is scarce!

      Respect
      Kim

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Good point Rossi needs a good publicist, I would think his Partner could supply, maybe that is plan after positive third party results.

    • Peter Poulsen

      Stop with the conspiracy talks.
      Rossi have shown no clear proof that the E-Cat is working and producing vast amount of excess heat. It has absolutelly nothing to do about some huge conspiracy against rossi. It has to do with people being naturally sceptical when no clear proff have been shown.

      If the report have been made by a unknown shady group of people, then dont expect the mass media to pay much attention to the E-Cat.
      On the other hand if the report has the backing on some well respected scientists, from well respected universites, and they can tell us about vast amount of excess energy and a revolution within the energy sector, be prepaired to read huge headlines about in in every media.

      2 years ago Rossi promised to show a working engine on a 24/7 stream. We have yet to see that. Over 2 years ago Rossi said a “cold” e-Cat had heated his office for several months. We have yet to see conclusive proof that his cold E-Cat even works.

      I do fear we will get some statement from rossi in a few weeks where he will say the publication will be delayed a few months, because in the 2 years i have followed this news, rossi have kept stalling when it comes to give clear proof that he have any LENR based device that actually works.

      • GreenWin

        The debunkery file:

        1) Certificators will dismiss third party verification as “opinion.”

        2) Rossi must now melt several garbage bags of ice (Most Absurd Award)

        3) Rossi must put a working e-cat on 24/7 video stream…

        4) The October 2011 proofs of e-cat operation were all faked

        5) Rossi’s JNP Board of Advisers are charlatans or actors

        6) Rossi must apply and win the Amazing Randi psi challenge

        7) The refusal to publish ENEA’s Report 41 by 41 “science journals” was not the work of an energy cabal or knowledge monopoly but a prudent dismissal of disruptive science that threatened the cabal’s vacation homes, limos, and swimming pools.

        8) The photos appear round… But the world is flat.

        • Barry

          I tried to send an email to the Amazing Randi but I would have to become a member to do so. He lectures how he doesn’t believe in real magic, God, or Cold Fusion. One of his cronies was making fun of the fact that Rossi went to the University of Bologna. I’m afraid the Amazing Randi’s time has come.

    • Roger Bird

      Iggy, you are the man!!!

      • NJT

        +1…

  • clovis

    Hi, Folks
    I an very excited about finally getting the report out, i have been following, and studying lenr, for about 3 or more years, the old saying that once bitten twice shy,and people will remember the cold fusion story and how it was pou poued, and that little doth will still be there,
    in my opinion, this a new thing, no one knows a darn thing about it much less how to present it in a good light, except for a few of us,all aspects of the new fire is unknown, , so with that in mind we as a group,may be needed to give this thing a big kick off, insuring a great beginning, we could have our own celebration, and invite everyone we know to attend, heck we might even get Dr. rossi to attend, heck i’ll ask him to come, if no one else will. and timing would be critical, to get the right affect. heck why let science or popular science or who ever get all the recognition, heck e-cat world has been a beacon of light to lenr, and to the e cat, and Andrea rossi. guiding like minded people to this new tech.

    • artefact

      I like your enthusiasm.
      On April 14th Frank said he plans to have an online party here for the 2nd birthday of e-catworld. If the Report is in time we just need Rossi. hehe

  • sparks

    What Redford said further down below.

    If this is a well-researched and well-written paper and it is published in a quality scientific jounal, AND if the paper shows proof and validation that LENR is indeed happening on a commercially-viable scale, there will be a tidal wave of researchers jumping into LENR with hands and feet. At that point, it would not be important to publish to the public at large — the scientific journal publication would be sufficient to launch this thing into orbit. The progress would be unstoppable, with numerous projects launched simultaneously in graduate schools throughout the world, probably focused on the issues of stability, efficiency, reliability, and safety. As those issues are resolved, there would spring up numerous startup companies founded in many cases by the student researchers themselves. They would form a competitive landscape in which they would aim to offer a better proposition than Rossi’s cost, efficiency, and complexity profile, at whatever state it is in.

    Or the conclusions might be more vague, with lots of potential but with lots of unresolved issues, and Rossi’s invention(s) will be seen as a work-in-progress. This is much more likely IMHO.

    Based on the comments of the independent examiners regarding the importance of the work, I doubt that the publication will be a refutation/debunking of it.

    • lcd

      Problem is reproduction. There is no way to go out and reproduce the effect without Rossi. Not sure this has robust precedence.

      • sparks

        Quite right. Good point — Rossi’s not disclosing the “how.”

    • NJT

      Yes, for replication and furtherance of the anomaly, researchers would need Mr. Rossie’s secrets, that will not occur until the patents are ALL nailed down tight by him and his partners…

  • Sanjeev

    I wouldn’t worry about the report getting paywalled. It will be available on the net… once its out, its out.

    Its not the report but the names on it that are more important. And these names will be in open anyway. We all know how a report looks like and this time also its result (as per Rossi). Rest is numbers and graphs.

    It will cause (tiny) waves in the world of all the 500 or so individuals who know about it. To the world out there, it means nothing, there are tons of reports and research lying around there, including 50% efficient solar cells and what not. The rulers still want you to buy their war earned oil and msm wants you to believe that the sun only shines on the equator.

    However, a working product, even a small one will cause major earthquakes around the globe. If its banned in one country (Eg no certificates), it will shake another. Until then we wait….

    • Kim

      I agree
      Very Well Stated.

      Kim

  • LilyLover

    Information Vacuum Paradox

    People have ignored the entire banking fraud and tolerated near 30% interest on the credit cards.
    Why? Because they’d rather work like drones than think about anything.
    1930’s generation knew more about banking than today’s “well connected” generation.
    Back then there was not much else to distract; so they knew the real thing.
    Today, unlimited barrage of garbage info is used to camouflage the real information.
    So, virtually, the information vacuum out of lack of resources is replaced by the information vacuum of being able to seek information out of infinite

    trash. Even if the information is found, then unlimited tricks and tactics are used to drive users away from the information, including ghastly images

    surrounding the good info.
    Today’s attitudes towards life has been distorted to the extent that the studious high-school kids become undateable and the mediocrity is labeled as “cool”.
    So, no, the news won’t be hidden per se; but will be marginalized.
    Think about blasé attitude towards 50% of income vs proactive attitude towards 2% of the income. Won’t happen.
    Some small stock brokers will act upon it and cause initial market fluctuations. Then the big brokers will come in to correct the situation. Steady decline of oil etc allows them to extract maximum profit out of public funds. The wall street will knowingly delay acknowledging the significance of ECat.
    This will happen until the ECat is openly available in the market for people to buy off the shelf. Then it’ll be slow but steady adaptation like Prius.
    The forces will try to marginalize it like the Volt, or the Solar energy. Certification and danger card will still be played 10 years after Germany has successfully domesticated the ECats. The “garden” walled nature of journalism will serve thy masters. They lack the courage and creativity to do business differently. Crossing over to the “light” is far more tougher, especially for those who were enticed easily to cross over to the dark side.

    So, only after it’s too late, and China has seized the World Leadership and people are too poor to buy ECat, will they allow the ECat to be displayed on the shelf as a cruel joke.

    I feel alive and in good company on this website. Just like information vacuum paradox, finding thinking people to associate with is very hard.

    No offense to the Chimps – but we are getting closer to the Chimps year after year.

    So, the ECat will be well received by, say, twice the number of people that this website’s contributors have already introduced it to.

    Remember the World Enterprise (Starman?) movie? WE gets bigger without much public education. Same will be the scenario.
    For the rest, it’ll be a word they heard through big media but will not mean much.
    For big media, they’ll make a “very small news” so that later they can grasp some straws of credibility by saying “we told you” / “we were always on your side”.

    Anyways, the deserved fanfare will be absent.

    • Job001

      Well, try to be optimistic!
      After all, the ways of denying, obstructing, marginalizing, corrupting, buying patents, companies, militarizing “secrets”, enacting onerous regulations or market hurdles, slowing introduction, and so forth are not infinite in our global world.
      Example, nuclear has had the capability with energy 2,000,000 times more dense than fossil fuel of producing electrical power for a thousand times cheaper.
      Magic! It doesn’t happen.
      That’s the difference between abundance commodity capitalism and “artificial scarcity” cartel capitalism.
      The optimism is this:
      The pendulum has swung too far as illustrated:
      1.Nationally it’s obvious cartel capitalism is obsolete, the USA cannot compete this way.
      2.The World faces serious undeniable and obvious environmental, climate, and human survival risks.
      3.Cartel capitalism causes unsustainable monetary debt burdens for citizens, banks, and Government.
      4.Cartel capitalism causes unnecessary resource wars.
      5.Excellent “trouble shooters” are defining and debating the problems and cause.
      6.Yankee ingenuity has an excellent track record and shall respond.