Rossi: Publication ‘Surely Within 2014’ (Maybe first half)

E-Cat watchers are always wondering when the next shoe is about to drop. A comment of Marco Serra on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today expresses feelings that are probably typical of many people hopeful for good news from Rossi and Co.

We all know that a long-term test on eCat is running. Can you tell us when will it be completed ? I mean the data collection phase, because data analysis time is probably hard to predict.
Please excuse my impatience but I read this Journal every morning in the hope for good news. I’m a bit anxious about the increasing global warming because I trust zero the human beings to cut theirself comfort in order to reduce CO2 emissions. ECat is to me the only hope we have.
I pray God for you and your work

Andrea Rossi replied:

Thank you for your attention, I sympathize with you. I do not know when we will publish, because it does not depend on me, but surely within 2014. I dare to foresee before August/September.
But this is not an engagement.

I think here he is referring to the report of the internal long term testing that is being conducted by his US partner. The second long term testing regimen is apparently being conducted by an independent team who Rossi says will publish in their own way on their own schedule — like the Levi team earlier this year.

Once again, we are waiting. I will say that Rossi’s track record so far has been good regarding the things he says will happen. We were waiting for a long time for the Levi report which Rossi said would happen, but he did not provide a set date for it. It sounds like he, like us, is anxious to go public — but is at the mercy of others and has to abide by their timetable.

  • Bruno

    1st half of 2014? On 1 July 2014 (after nothing happened in the 1st half of the year), we’ll say “by the end of the year”. Then 2015 will roll around and we’ll still have nothing. An on and on it will go. I hate to say this, but I believe that the Ecat is a scam. Two years ago I was very hopeful, I really thought that Ross had “cracked the code” so to speak, but after all this time of talk without proof, I’ve given up.

    • bachcole

      The upstairs light {Levi et. al} is on. I have to turn all of the lights out eventually before getting into bed, but if I turn the upstairs light out, I will be in the dark. And I am not too keen about walking in the dark. But I turn off the upstairs light anyway knowing that with a little FAITH I can get to the kitchen light {next solid evidence}. I walk through the living room in total darkness, knowing that nothing has changed, knowing that the absence of light does not mean that there are no light switches and that I won’t soon be in the light again. I get to the next light switch {Kim, et. al.}. Again, I know that I have to turn that light off. I turn it off and walk through the dark, knowing that I WILL get to the next light switch {solid evidence}. Eventually, I get to my bed, and all the lights are as they should be, which is out, and I am warm and comfy in my LENR heated bed. (:->) FAITH in my own decisions and in life keeps us going, even when there isn’t much new evidence. Darkness does not prove that there is no light.

      • bachcole

        This is actually one of the best things that I have ever written. I guess I am so far ahead of my time that no one noticed the quality of it.

        • V….

          Indeed.

          • bachcole

            Thank you, V…., I think. (:->)

  • AstralProjectee

    Can someone please clarify. What they know about the gist of Ross’s tests. It seems like there is two tests going on. Is that right?

    • bachcole

      I also got the impression that it was two tests, at least.

    • ecatworld

      Yes, as I understand things, one internal and one independent.

      • astralprojectee

        When is the independent one due approximately.

        • ecatworld

          It’s really an unknown — I am guessing next year some time. Rossi says he doesn’t know, just like with the Levi report this year.

  • Doktor Bob

    To Admin:
    I thought that there might be some other announcements from the E-cat camp during the year.
    For example, what about disclosing a customer? Or some internal testings?

    • ecatworld

      I don’t know, Bob. We may be surprised, but it looks to me that things are pointing towards more revelations in 2014 at the moment.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Frank…..good question about Ragone scale, gives us a good idea how he thinks testing is going.

  • syam

    I am following this Man Rossi for the past 4 years. He turns out to be super-fraud.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Owa tay goo syam

    • bachcole

      Following does not equal looking at the evidence. And following for 4 years means going back to 2009 when NO ONE knew him. So I am calling you a liar.

  • Ake

    This fits well with some other more unofficial information .
    2014 will be the year of professional validation of Ecat from theoretical and practical aspects .
    In the same time the partner is busy redesigning the product meet marketneeds for cost, reliability and functionality.
    Real deliveries (if all goes well) are expected early 2015.

    In addition:
    – Watch out for the new extensive Elforsk report, now moved towards end of November.
    (provided the Elforsk board of management approves it)

    – Today Best application for 1MW system is not community housing but process industries.
    Only here the continous production of large amount hot water energy can be fully utilized year around.

    • pg

      Are your statements your own interpretation of what you are reading, or you have first hand information of what is going on?

      • Ake

        Read my comment above.

        • pg

          Now it’s clear thanks

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Ake — you say that “Only here the continous production of large amount hot water energy can be fully utilized year around.”

      I take it you mean Sweden?

      • pg

        read his comment above…

      • Ake

        I mean that energy need in process industries could be regarded as 24/7 constant compared with the need in a community heating system which varies a lot during a year.
        This is of course especially valid in countries in northern part of earth.

  • Daniel Maris

    Ironically while progress remains solid, the rate of progress seems to have slowed to an arthritic snail’s pace.

  • MarkD

    Admin,

    Thanks for all your hard work. I will be back in May 2014 to check in.

    Regards,

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Mark!

  • Omega Z

    Fits a previous post I made on another thread.

    I don’t expect anything of a substantial nature from Rossi/Partner to come before July/August 2014.

    It mat be a possibility that 3rd. party tests could beat this by a month or 2, but They are also running a long test that will likely exceed 6 months or thru a 2nd recharge unless funding is a problem. Note, those funding the 3rd party tests want to know as much as possible. This is a product with serious investment implications for them, They are an Energy Oriented Entity. If it works, They will want it.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Same here. I’m actually expecting something significant in 2015. Everything up till then is probably just research and testing. Could even be longer if the research is as difficult as it seems to be.

  • miles

    My prediction is it will go beyond the 6 months. I think they will want to see what happens when the e-cat completely exhausts itself.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Yes, there is another reason to run a long test in addition to commercial viability, namely that then they can hopefully measure the nuclear ash accurately enough to check that the energy produced is consistent with the difference of the binding energy of the ash and that of the fuel. Establishing that is not only important from the science point of view, but also I think it helps public acceptance and certification because then we know “what” the reaction is – even if the quantum mechanical explanation of “how” it occurs might still probably remain mysterious.

      • uuGguurrru

        Dear Pekka, please prepare itself to a heretical possibility, that sum of energy out will more then difference of “fuel” (ash etc.). It is not joke.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Indeed, “let’s measure”, as Rossi said. But thus far nothing points into that direction, as far as I know.

          • uuGguurrru

            Dear Pekka, one heavy suspicious documents: When Defkalion one year back published their XRFS paper, they had ALL values of transmuted elements in PERCENTAGE instead of picograms. So it may be because sum in picograms simply is not right (in compliance with standard physic model). Dr. Keshe is saying something as: producing matter concurrently with producing energy (my own simplification)

        • bachcole

          And to be included in the calculation will be the He produced, which will be a problem for measurement.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            This is true and a good point. But Rossi’s theory probably predicts, for a given energy output, a certain nickel isotope change and a certain helium production (if any). Then if the observed energy output and Ni isotope change match with the theory, it adds confidence to the model, even if the helium escapes and cannot be measured.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Addition: However if there is a catalytic cycle such as Ni60->Cu61->Ni61->Cu62->Ni62->Cu63->Ni60+He4 (proton added in each step and beta+ decay where needed) then the net reaction (for that part) is only hydrogen->helium with no change in host metal composition. In that case the energy output is larger than what one can infer from Ni changes.

  • barty

    and another year to wait…

    • kasom

      C U next year…..

  • bachcole

    What a crock of $H!T: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059989947

    And I have to breathe on my plants just to keep them happy. Carbon sequestration is the essence of my gripe with the CO2 hysteria. Everything else helps to reduce pollution, which everyone agrees is a bad thing. CO2 is NOT a bad thing. Fortunately, LENR is going to make all of this moot.

    And they discover that carbon sequestration causes earthquakes. That’s because they are going against nature, some ONE you don’t want to mess with.

    • Omega Z

      Problem with things like climate & sequestration are Agenda Driven instead of Science driven. Usually Politically or Monetarily motivated.

      You know it’s Agenda Driven when it’s presented as new Findings. That these things cause quakes as implied is a Fallacy. That they can in Fact Trigger a Pending Quake however is likely true. Note they use the word “cause” in a manor that implies we created quakes. Agenda’s use double speak to passively present a fiction as fact. A twisted use of words to start a movement & False beliefs among the masses.

      Triggering Quakes is Old News. Studies way back questioned whether it was possible to cause premature triggering of Quakes. The Idea being that it’s better to trigger a 4.0 quake rather then letting it run it’s course resulting in say a 8.0 or any level that is devastating to a given area at a later date.

      Barring Political or Financial Agenda’s, The Science is intriguing with possibilities of mitigating most/many catastrophes. Triggering Quakes when small & in the process learning how to predict Major Quakes beyond our control & minimizing the societal costs.

      When I 1st read about this, They speculated as to whether we could exert enough force to trigger emanate quakes. Nukes commonly came into the conversations. As Portrayed in several disaster movies.
      Great News. We saved your home from being destroyed by a major quake. better News. You merrily need a Nuclear Thermal Electric converter to produce Electricity. You can now be Off Grid. 🙁

      I find it highly improbable that Man can cause the tectonic plates to shift beyond it’s predetermined course. Those who would imply otherwise, Likely have an Agenda. The required pressures per sq-ft for 100’s or 1000’s of miles are beyond our means.

      • Job001

        It’s interesting to watch LENR and quake science evolve in the midst of Political/Financial Agenda. Theories might include;
        Triggering small quakes that release fault energy may be likely when lubricants like water and CO2 are injected in fault zones. In places where no fault is thought to exist, no quake might be the result.
        On the other hand, in places with high excess levels of fault energy, injections might provide lubrication injection that initiates the release.
        Perhaps Man’s local injections will seldom be at the right epicenter where excess tectonic plate stress energy needs that little push to initiate release.

        • bachcole

          Given how hysterians think that CO2 is so evil, I am surprised that one of them has not suggested that CO2 sequestration hasn’t actually moved the continental plates. (:->)

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I am beginning to understand why no one believes in LENR.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      You said “What a crock of $H!T…….CO2 is NOT a bad thing” Just to clear the air a bit, (sorry for the pun): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

      • MikeP

        Bernie, Wikipedia is not a good source for any controversial topic, especially one where a lot of money is spent to influence what is presented and what is kept out (see William Connelly – I may have misspelled his name).

        • AlainCo

          My experience is that worst influence is not done through money, but through goodwill ideology.
          I can see that corpos have difficulties to set things light, while groups that have good image can bend reality at an unbelievable lever for peopl who know the reality…

          Worst manipulators are not paid for being so, they do it for their beliefs, their ego…
          at most they defend a community which is funded by their myth.

          Hell is paved with good intention, we say in french

  • bachcole

    Asterix, probably not. Perhaps 2015.

    • AstralProjectee

      Probably higher.

  • Asterix

    So no Home e-Cat in 2014?

    • alex

      No. This 6 month test is for the industrial application. This is not the hot cat, the tiger, or the home ecat. Those others will result from a successful market launch into industrial, and then by gathering real time and safety data over the years.

      • Asterix

        So, wouldn’t it be appropriate for some ecat licensees to quit advertising the availability of the Home eCat in 2013 and 2014?

        Just saying that honesty is important for something so radical.

  • PD

    No scientist can afford to suffer the same fate as Fleischmann and Pons. They grabbed the attention of the global media, and came down to earth with a massive crash. So I guess that Rossi and team need to go through the rigor and validation process that is necessary for such an important scientific discovery.

    • catbauer24

      I think that’s why Levi et al. published in a peer-review journal instead of issuing a press conference. Unfortunately they were not given information needed to reproduce themselves. The lack of information is what is killing people (quite literally, in fact). And if all we have is another black-box test, it will really be no different than what was published May 16th of this year.

      There are hundreds of scientists with great credibility who could reproduce in a heartbeat, if it were really as Rossi claims. And the effect is not small or hard to reproduce (supposedly), so it would not have those pitfalls, as Fleischmann and Pons experiments did (mind, both those caveats were clearly stated by F and P).

      • GreenWin

        LENR in general is moving out of the orthodox science world. It is now in the hands of a growing number of commercial organizations who really don’t care about academia – they want to make and sell products & services. The next test WILL be black box – and will confirm (or not) long term viability of E-Cat technology. Frankly, cutting out ponderous academic orthodoxy is the best way to move LENR products to the market.

        • catbauer24

          Judging as how any potential patents will hinge upon knowledge derived from academia, they should care, greatly at that. It’s a new phenomenon, not a new phone or the likes.

          • GreenWin

            A working product is the best lean on the patent office. And with several newly issued cold fusion patents, USPTO can no longer hide behind its ruse that cold fusion is not “real.”

            • catbauer24

              and a valid patent has to have ‘utility’, enough information to replicate.