NDA Restricts Rossi’s Comments on the Tests [Updated]

Obviously, as time ticks by, people are getting anxious to find out as much as possible about the tests. Andrea Rossi just responded to a question from Giuliano Bettini about whether Rossi could share some impressions about how things are going. Bettini even pulled the’ Italian card’ saying, “since you’re an Italian, it is obviously not credible that at this point you don’t know anything about the “positive or negative”.’

I’m not quite sure what being Italian has to do with that, but I’m maybe of the wrong nationality to understand that! Anyway, Rossi responded to the question as follows:

Giuliano Bettini:
Believe it or not, I have no idea of the measurements made by the Professors, their methodology and their calculations, therefore at the moment I do not know if their results will be positive or negative. They are on the piece, our electronic engineer can only give assistance in case of malfunctions ( no one happened so far), I am distant from the Hot Cat; besides, I have to make my normal work in other places most of the time, so I do not know the numbers obtained in most of the test; I have no access to the registrations too, that the Professors take 24 hours per day regarding the temperatures and the consume of energy. Sincerely, I do not know if the results will be positive or negative. Obviously, to be totally sincere, I have my impression about how things are going, but I signed an NDA that forbids to all of us to give any bit of information to the public before the report is published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

It seems from this that Rossi does have some idea of how things are going, even if he doesn’t know the details of the measurements being taken. One interesting comment here is that no malfunctions have apparently taken place with the equipment — which sounds like positive news. Apparently nothing has melted down as in November 2012. The ‘positive or negative’ mantra we have been hearing for months from Rossi is, I think, a result of him wanting to keep strictly to the NDA he has signed. I expect the NDA has a provision in it that he can’t even hint at the state of progress — and Rossi’s done a good job of giving very little away.

UPDATE: Here’s a new comment by Rossi about the testing environment:

Mark:
They are in the neutral laboratory where the test is done in turns or all together, depending on the work they have to do, they have faculty of access to the laboratory 24 hours per day, at any time and they have access 24 hours per day to the data registration of temperatures and energy, which is permanent 24 hours per day, every day with no interruption of sort. They told me two days ago that they have elaborated more than one million of data already. I have no data at all, being the registration made by their instrumentation and being restricted to them the consultation of the same. In the lab there are four videocameras that make the registration of any leaf that can fly in any part of the laboratory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Omega Z

    Don’t Kid yourself.
    Rossi knows full well what kind of Data their collecting as far as input/output. It’s very similar to what he has obtained from his own tests. Only certain particulars would be unknown to Rossi.

    That said, Rossi has to keep his distance. This test has to be verified independent for business purposes. The Nature of the Technology demands it. Apple, IBM, Whoever would have to meet the same standards as it isn’t accepted by the Mainstream.

    I expect IH to License this technology. That makes these tests very important. Do you License it for 10 Million or 100 Million per client. Yes, This test can add a Big Zero to the right of the Asking Fee.

  • Sanjeev

    You are surely joking, or I don’t understand why you are looking for the exact same phrase by Rossi. More energy out than in is the claim since 2010, said again and again in all possible ways. This blog and Rossi’s own JoNP has every quote of his.

    If you are looking for quantified claims then the Levi’s report is the best so far. I’m sure that your friends at national accelerator lab will not be impressed anyway.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    This all sounds very good. I hope they can eliminate all sceptical points that were found in the 3 month test.

  • artefact
    • psi2u2

      Artefact – Please pass congratulations to Mats for this thrilling read. He deserves highest commendations for steadfastly following this story from the very beginning. His own self critical and reflective process is wonderfully on display in this well-crafted initial chapter of what is sure to become a science history blockbuster.

  • Jimr

    This kind of confirms my suspicions that the professors/scientists are hard at work and they put Rossi off in a corner to piddle around with what ever he likes while they do their work.

    • psi2u2

      “they put Rossi off in a corner to piddle around with what ever he likes while they do their work.”

      Hmmm…

  • artefact

    Thanks!
    A new Book by Mats Lewan:
    An Impossible Invention

    • artefact

      “By the way–just as I’m writing these words I’m receiving new information on events that strengthen some pieces of the story in the book, and also some information that add to my doubts regarding certain stakeholders. I cannot tell you more right now, but I will keep you updated in this blog and in the free newsletter of the book.”

      • pg

        Great news

        • georgehants

          artefact, you seem excited, share!!!! 🙂

          • artefact

            Its in quotes. Its from Lewan on the linked blog. I think we will know soon.

      • ecatworld

        Even though Mats was involved in the 2013 Defkalion demo, he still expresses some reservation in the book about taking the demo results at face value.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Babcock & Wilcox up almost 4% today…..far bigger increase than GE, Lockheed, United Technologies, etc.

        Probably a coincidence.

  • georgehants

    Another major piece of scientific Dogma falls apart, time to consult the holy priests -again!
    ——
    Science dailyNanoparticle trapped with laser light temporarily violates second law of thermodynamics
    March 31, 2014University of Viennabjects with sizes in the nanometer range, such as the molecular
    building blocks of living cells or nanotechnological devices, are
    continuously exposed to random collisions with surrounding molecules. In
    such fluctuating environments the fundamental laws of thermodynamics
    that govern our macroscopic world need to be rewritten. Scientists found
    that a nanoparticle trapped with laser light temporarily violates the
    famous second law of thermodynamics, something that is impossible on
    human time and length scale.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331130848.htm

    • US_Citizen71

      I guess it may be time to change that law back into a theory, a partially disproven one at that.

      • Obvious

        The second law regards macroscopic systems in a statistical sense. In that context, the energy expended to perform the experiment greatly exceeds the microscopic reversal of the general flow of energy. If the nano sphere could consistently give energy to warmer surroundings, then the law may be in trouble. But on average, it does not.

        • US_Citizen71

          At bare minimum the above experiment should cause a rewrite of the second law to include its limitations. After all the glass bead inside the laser trap is a closed system so it should obey the law.

          • Obvious

            The second law includes “reverse” energy situations. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a glib one sentence definition. Since it is a statistical treatment, the less particles involved (or lesser amounts of time of observation), the greater the possibility of noticing some “reverse energy flow” activity, and the greater the proportional effect on the micro system of reverse energy activity. The greater the number of particles (or amount of time of observation), the less likely these events are to have any significant effect on the system. The statistical probability of observing “reverse entropy” decreases exponentially with linear increases in the time period of measurement or the number of particles.

            Fluctuation Theorem has been studied mathematically for 20 years. It is not a new discovery, the implications have been noted since statistical mechanics was developed around the 1880’s.

            The experimental ability to isolate and measure nano particles is fairly new, so the experiment merely demonstrates that the statistical treatment is effective, and possibly refines the system size extent. For nano devices this important, because it is a limit on reaction rates of isolated nano structures.

            • georgehants

              Obvious, I really do understand what you are saying, it sounds remarkably like what was said about the Quantum before it has started to be proven by Research in photsythasis and Hameroff and Penrose microtubles etc. etc. to be a macro effect.

              You are not understanding me.
              I am stating clearly that no law of science is sacrosanct, just a temporary stopgap until more is learnt about reality.
              Even if it turns out in the end to be universally True, it must in the present be treated as temporary or new investigation is stopped.

              Anybody, after realising that science knows nothing beyond a few theory’s and measurements handed to us from years ago, must then become a sensible open-minded realist and deduce that there is far more to learn.
              It is fine for applied scientists to use this ancient knowledge but not actual scientists searching for the Truth, except as a step on the ladder.

              Sitting on our arses worshipping old Dogma is not going to help us find these Truths.
              Theory’s and temporary or local laws are not graven idols to be worshipped by science but challenges to set our young free to learn beyond them.
              Best

              • Obvious

                There is no physical Truth at that scale. It’s all Math, including weird loopholes that exist in the math. Including watching a “closed” system from a bigger system while it is somehow magically “isolated” from the bigger system (the universe).
                Impossible.
                What are they watching the nanosperes with? Certainly not photons that are included solely within the microsystem. Are not the all particles circling the sun at 67,000 MPH, while twirling around the galactic core at 490,000 MPH?

                • georgehants

                  Obvious, Thank you but one has to mix the classical with the Quantum to see clearly.
                  Most scientists only have classical glasses.
                  The Quantum is easy to understand when one moves out of any classical thinking and is willing to just except that it is a World of contradiction and mystery that holds a Truth all of it’s own.
                  Never try to connect the two except ———-
                  It is the Quantum World that makes our classical World, therefore it is the source of all knowledge if and until we find something deeper such as realising that consciousness creates the Quantum World.
                  Have you noticed we are talking real science not the staid religious rubbish of steam engines etc. that is all that most scientists can manage?

                • Obvious

                  We mustn’t disparage the steam engine scientists. We might need them. Making steam is what LENR does best.

        • georgehants

          Ha, typical scientist, if it only happens in Australia then it does not count.
          The law is broken, science is wrong.
          The Dogma is wrong again.
          Science hopefully is going to begin to grow up and start Research on the unknown and forget bloody religious “expert opinion”

  • Ophelia Rump

    I wonder what bump the release of this test will coincide with. Industrial Heat came out of the last one.

    If I understood other articles on this site correctly, they will not be able to publish in a peer reviewed scientific journal unless they included details of the catalyst. I don’t expect too much of a warm reception for this report, no matter how good it is.
    So I think we can exclude that as the bump.

    I am hoping that product visibly ships, that would be an excellent tie in to the report.

  • artefact

    Nice update.

    1,000,000 data.
    I guess they mean datasets (with multiple data in it like voltage temperature etc.) otherwise the million mark should have been reached earlier.
    They do not log every second. That would be too many datasets. Like 15 million with one e-cat now and they need more than one e-cat in case of a failure.
    If the logging takes place every minute and we are now at about the 6 month mark:
    259200 minutes in 180 days. The value that gives us a little more than 1 million data is 4 e-cats: 1,036,800 .
    To reach 1 million datasets with 3 e-cats they would need to have stated the logging early August. With 4 e-cats at the begin of October.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have a good feeling with these statements. Something is glowing prosperous at the end of the deep dark tunnel of dwindling energy sources…..

  • fritz194

    Thats a new version of Schödingers Cat phenomenon.
    (Rossis Cat rotfl)

  • Christopher Calder

    The testers seem to be addressing all the criticisms of the last test report in hopes of getting their long term test report published in a major peer reviewed journal. Obviously, they are getting positive results. If no excess energy was produced they would have ended the test. As I said before, I hope the journal SCIENCE publishes the test. That would really put LENR in the spotlight and have both political and economic consequences.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Scientific journals would usually print it only if the experiment was described in a way that makes it repeatable. In the last report which was published on arxiv, not all the relevant details were revealed. Especially they didn’t disclose the structure and function of the mysterious internal apparatus, which had formerly been called a second “heater”, whereas Rossi later described it as a device that “produces frequencies”. If they keep this information policy, the chance for a publication in a major scientific journal will be near zero. That’s absolutely normal and has nothing to do with ‘conspiracy’. By the way, as soon as enough plants are in operation, the question of scientific validation will be virtually redundant.

      • Fortyniner

        It seems possible that the ‘second heater’ (originally a band heater placed externally around the reactor cooling jacket, where it would have been totally ineffective as a heater) was in fact originally an induction heater using the local mains frequency. I suggested at the time that the stainless steel band heater casing might have contained an insulated copper coil that replaced the original resistance windings.

        I think Rossi may have tried induction heating when resistance heaters failed due to continuous HT operation, and in doing so possibly stumbled on a way of ‘driving’ the CF reaction. An alternating EM field from an external 50/60Hz coil would cause magnetostrictive effects in the nickel matrices as well as random induced currents and local EM fields, any or all of which might trigger the ‘Rossi effect’. If this was the case, then by now this has probably evolved into an optimised frequency generating system and suitable coils or antennae built into the reactor casings.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I guess opinions can differ about this. I would see no reason to a priori reject a paper which describes measurement apparatus M to measure that a specific black box B produces energy E in time T. Put some natural phenomenon such as X-ray burster in place of B and one has a completely standard logical setup of observational science.

        Someone might not like to consider B as a black box because he knows that it’s man-made and he thinks that it would be fair from its creator to tell what it contains. However, such objection would be moot since it would not call into question the validity of the claim of the paper.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Indeed, many scientific experiments are at least partially black box tests. The decisive criterion is reproducibility. It must either be possible to reconstruct the examined entity – like the X-ray source you have mentioned –, or the entity must be provided by nature. For instance, nobody knows all the processes which occur in a human body. But pharmacologists will be able to recruit enough test subjects in order to replicate a published study.

      • JDM

        EM energy in the infrared region would qualify as heat as well as a frequency, no?
        Perhaps resonance in the terahertz range are involved. Heat an element(s) get a frequency, heat a different element get a different frequency that can then modulate the action of the first? Mix the frequencies and get sum and difference, heat, soft X, etc.?? Just like RF comms for local osc, IF, BFO, RF sections? Just a wild-a$$-guess.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Exactly. Something that produces both heat and “frequencies”. Apparently, the device is used to control the reaction.The problem is that you need to know more if you want to reproduce the effect.

          • JDM

            Take it a step further. In radio transmitters, one matches input and output impedance for maximum power transfer to the antenna – a resonant circuit. If untuned, standing waves cause hot spots that can be severe enough to let the smoke and stink out. Take the above elements and “tune” for maximum dissonance (with elements used, particle size, pressure) . Maximize standing waves and hot spots. This would be “completely different” from cold fusion if a sweet spot could be found.

      • Sanjeev

        I think you have brought to light a very important point. Full disclosure of the experiment is one of the requirements, especially when the claims are extraordinary and lack any theory. So I guess this report will not make it to any established journal.
        If the testing team really wants the results to be published in mainstream, all they can do is, perform another test with a watered down version of the hot cat, meaning, one that contains no secret catalyst or uses special frequencies etc. The performance will not be spectacular, but they can reveal everything. Even if it performs underunity, they only need to show that it outputs more energy than theoretical limits. The actual hot cat experiment/test can be added as an appendix, if allowed.
        This test and report seems to be more oriented towards proving the concept to stakeholders, investors and manufacturing partners (perhaps some governments in east also). It will have more impact as a technology breakthrough rather than a scientific one.

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

      Science and nature will not publish a paper before having rewritten the history to prove they were right…
      I don’t imagine today how they will do that, but they are competent in lying.

      • psi2u2

        AlainCo,

        My very open minded colleague, a science journalist with a Masters in Astrophysics, says that the rubric “cold fusion” was wrong all along (he supports Widom Larson weak force interaction as the source of the excess heat). His skepticism of Rossi (up until now at least) has been rooted in this theoretical discrepancy. My response to him has been that Rossi himself has not been dogmatic about the source, and so the theoretial problem cannot in itself be used to determine his credibility. Very frequently skilled inventors can discover phenomenon which they don’t understand from a theoretical perspective and even proceed to fine tune experimental protocols before grasping the theory behind the improved results.

        My hunch is that my colleague’s response would anticipate the revisionism of the mainstream journals. Assuming (which I do only for the sake of illustrating my point here) that this conservative view is correct, and that Widom-Larson or some similar phenomenon that is NOT really fusion is the source of the observed energetic anomalies, then the mainstream physicists have an easy out. They can blame Pons and Fleischman for mislabeling the phenomenon.

        Just a thought.

        Cheers,

        Psi

        • Curbina

          I think that resorting to semantics will not be a scapeway this time. Unexplainable Excess heat, wathever the underlying phenomena can be therized to be, granted further serious enquiry and not corporate denial.

          • psi2u2

            I tend to agree, Curbina.

            I was a bit surprised by the strength of my colleague’s objection to the label “cold fusion.”

            Let me emphasize that I have very great respect for this person, and he genuinely does understand the actual physics and chemistry of the problem much better than I do. He agrees that LENR is real but seemed to want to give the mainstream physicists an out because of the question of nomenclature. Of course, if this is not really a fusion phenomenon then that gets over the strong objection of the Columb barrier, which was the primary source of the physicist’s belief that the phenomenon was impossible – so I do see the point he is making. Then again, it would be important to review the history of the use of the terminology (among other things) to determine how much of an “out” this might give to various mistaken players in the history.

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

          thanks to share thate reality that today scientist think more of models than of experiments.

          They take the map for the territory ind a desperate aristotelian behavior.

          I feel that the theory is the worst enemy of science during a transition. as Thomas Kuhn explain, and Taleb explain, it push academics to deny facts.

          Charles Beaudette in excess heat say it perfectly, and this apply to your friend like on all science planet:

          http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

          “Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

          The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

          The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.”

        • Omega Z

          psi

          IMHO, they will have to rewrite some of OUR Laws of Physics in the Future. Whether it’s Pride, Ego, or Arrogance, We tend to forget that “WE” didn’t write the Laws of Physics. We only try to Observe & Interrupt them.

          No doubt they will find a way to save face. A different label.
          But from the results of multiple players, it does appear that cold fusion plays a roll. The only question is if it’s primary or secondary.

  • BroKeeper

    As far as I see it, Andrea Rossi has demonstrated nothing but integrity. He is caught between two opinions: those who trust he has not disclosing privilege information and those having control of assets and NDA information. I ask, what more can he provide without jeopardizing his Italian (???) integrity? What I believe is jeopardized is our patience and respect for his well deserved position in history as a dedicated engineer for the betterment of society. IMO, longer the time it takes for the test report the more positive the results. So let us at least hang in there a little longer.

    • ecatworld

      I don’t think there’s anything we can do to speed up testing or publication process, and I’m willing to be as patient as it takes.

      My respect for Andrea Rossi is enhanced by his willingness with great patience to answer question after question to the extent that he has for so long. I think he has given us a fascinating, almost daily glimpse into much of what he has been involved in. I can’t think of many scientists/inventors in history who have been so communicative to the general public about ongoing work.

      Sure, he doesn’t tell us everything, but I think he feels a responsibility to be as informative as he sees circumstances allowing, and I’m grateful for that.

  • Sanjeev

    Hot cat not producing any excess heat would be a major malfunction. No malfunctions means it worked for many months, rest of the things are mere details.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As already has been remarked, they would have stopped the test a long time ago if they had found no excess heat. I suppose that the test addresses also the questions of controllability, reliability, and safety. Therefore, the statement that there was no malfunction sounds even better.

      • Fortyniner

        Also power output and stability when cooled I imagine. A great deal of heat must be produced (and presumably carried away by a cooling system) in order to qualify as ‘successful’ in industrial terms. The first (Levi) test established that anomalous heat is produced, these tests are probably much more commercially orientated.