Rossi on Peer Review


I posted a question to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today regarding the upcoming third party report. Rossi has said that the report would be published in a ‘peer-reviewed magazine’, but I recall that prior to last year’s report he said the same thing, and it ended up being published on arxiv.org, which is kind of a pre-publication repository of science papers. So far the Levi report hasn’t made it into a peer reviewed magazine.

So I asked Rossi if he expected the report to be accepted in a peer review journal this time, and if not, whether it would be published on Arxiv.org again.

This is his response:

This is an issue that does not depend on me. I heard that the publication will be made on a peer reviewed magazine, but let me say also that when a paper is signed by 6 Professors coming from different scientific institutes it is already reviewed, because all the 6 must agree on the publication, and each of them reviews the work of the Others. Besides, Arxiv Physics has anyway a preliminar peer reviewing: many manuscripts are not published, because considered incomplete, even if endorsed from well known experts.

I think Rossi makes a good point here — it’s the quality of the report that counts, and the qualifications of the authors, and I don’t think the Levi report was any less important or useful because of where it is published. However, for some reason, many critics dismiss the report, and Rossi’s work in general because it has ‘not been peer reviewed.’ In terms of coverage by the mainstream scientific community and by the media, it does seem to make a difference where a report is published. For that reason, I do hope some courageous journal editor picks up the upcoming report.



  • bachcole

    May I explain things to you so that you will understand? Established science is EXCELLENT when it comes to subjects well within the dominant paradigm. However, if we look outside of the dominant paradigm, then established science has a dreadful record: check out phlogiston vs. oxygen, rocks falling from the sky, the electric light bulb, manned flight, drifting continents, etc. etc. It turns out that the ability to look outside the dominant paradigm has absolutely nothing to do with science or the scientific method or even high IQs. Everyone said that Columbus was wrong, and in FACT he was wrong, yet he managed to change the world.

    If you are looking to see how established science could be wrong in the case of fusion, perhaps realizing that how they look at the atom and it’s constituent parts is to fire elementary particles at the atom at a minimum of 1/20 of the speed of light and faster. There may be other problems with their understanding of the atom. They assume that the Coulomb Barrier is inviolate, and the way that they try to do with is certainly true. But what if there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier rather than slamming two protons together. Our observations suggest either (1) there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier [such as electron + proton = neutron and therefore no charge and therefore no Coulomb Barrier] or (2) “cold fusion” is not fusion but something else (or more than one something else) is going on.

    Your point about scientific instruments is a good one, but Columbus used the standard and even substandard instruments of the day to make his world change discovery: Nina, Pina, Santa Maria. He just used those instruments in a different way.

    And I don’t get your point about Levi et. al. Rossi was never around when they did their testing. There was a Rossi ally around to make sure that the testers did not open up the cell. And Rossi is not the only person holding up LENR and LENR+. We now have at least 4 companies saying that they can do it, repeatedly.

  • georgehants

    Hello Guest, good name, you say “established science is extremely competent.”
    If that is what you believe then I am sure you will be very happy to reply to me giving your personal assessment of the establishments handling of let’s say, the UFO problem.
    I look forward to your carefully thought out reply.

  • bachcole

    You go over the line quite often. I am openly and blatantly and joyfully and obviously biased unequivocally towards Rossi because he delivered the goods in May 2013 with Levi et. al. The evidence biased me. Sorry if you don’t approve.

  • GreenWin

    Considering we have hard documentation of LENR-based anomalous heat going back to 1991 it seems rather plausible, given the geopolitical impact of just such a technology – the whole brew was put behind a curtain. Fortunately large commercial interests have peeked through that curtain and are in process to deconstruct it. That will benefit vast numbers of people on Earth. Doubting scientists, peer review, and orthodox science will frankly look… incompetent.

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

      (done with a smile)
      Ah Ah Greenwin, why you blame nasty intelligent blacksuit…

      we have few egotic scientist and a crowd if coward desperate followers… a gang of incompetent and cowrad journalist… intelligent but focuses on their next elections politicians…

      We don’t need conspiracies… ego, stupidity, incompetence, cowardliness, selfish-interest, explain that story better…

      if they were so intelligent, they would forbid us to use LENR and use it themselves…

      The only conspiracy I see today is when DoD/Darpa is funding LENR at SRI/Brillouin/Navy, while claiming it is unreal… as if they were trying to do what I say: develop it in US and prevent others to develop it.

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m not an EE but you don’t need to be to understand what is involved. Your numbers and my previous comment about needing a transformer all depend on the resistance of the heater coils.

    P = I squared x R, so for your numbers the resistance of the heating coil would need to be 2000 ohms. A typical electric stove heating element is less than 50 ohms ( http://www.appliance411.com/faq/test-element.shtml ). I = V/R So if only one standard heating coil was used and 2kV was run through it I = 2000 V / 50 ohms or 40 amps. But there wasn’t a single coil there were 16 coils believed to be in the Hot Cat tested. So the resistance depends on how they were wired. If in series there would be an 800 ohm total if in parallel it would be 3.125 ohms total. ( http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Series-and-Parallel-Resistance ) I would think the boys from Elforsk at least put an ohm meter on the leads so they should have known what the resistance was, unfortunatly they didn’t include that value in their report.

    My comment was aimed at the December test:
    Page 2 – “Since the test in November shows some interesting features, we shall describe some of the results from this test in some detail before discussing, in the subsequent sections, the results from the December and March runs. Figures 1 and 2 refer to the November test, and show, respectively, the device while in operation, and a laptop computer capturing data from a thermographic camera focused on it. An Optris IR camera monitored surface temperature trends,and yielded results of approximately 860 °C in the hottest areas.

    Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012. Here, the activation of the charge (distributed laterally in the reactor) is especially obvious. The darker lines in the photograph are actually the shadows of the resistor coils, which yield only a minimal part of the total thermal power. The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. The long term trials analyzed in the present report were purposely performed at a lower temperatures for safety reasons.” – http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Aktuellt/Artikel%20Arxiv%201305%203913.pdf

    There is no way lamp cord was able to flow enough power to heat the Hot Cat to a red glow and in the end melt steel.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yes, unknown is unknow, but anyway “it’s not the nuclear reactor your mother told you about” (Ruby Carat)