Rossi: Third Party E-Cat Test Taking Place in Neutral Venue — Not in Italy or USA

Here is another little drip of information from Andrea Rossi regarding the location of the E-Cat test:

April 10th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When you say that the Professors are conducting their work “in a neutral laboratory”, do you mean they are still in your premises, or instead situated in a laboratory that is not owned by you?
Best Regards,

Andrea Rossi
April 10th, 2014 at 6:02 PM
The Professors have worked and are working in a laboratory that is not owned by us, is totally out of our premises and that we never used before. We knew of it few days before the beginning of the test and sent there the E-Cat. It is located in a Country that is not Italy and is not USA. I cannot give further information, but, obviously, the precise location where the test will have been completed will be described in the Report that will be written by the Third Indipendent Party. When we arrived there for the assembling of the reactor, some of the components of the t.i.p. were already there for the set up.
Warm Regards,

This is a bit of a surprise to me, because I thought the test was taking place in the USA, but apparently not. It does make sense that since the authors are apparently all European, that it would not be taking place in the USA. If I was to make a guess, I would say that the test is happening in Sweden. The Swedish connections to Rossi and the E-Cat are quite strong, with five of the authors of last year’s test being Swedes. However, I’m prepared to be surprised.

I don’t know if is significant, but it is a little interesting to me that he says he sent the ‘E-Cat’ (singular) rather than mentioning multiple E-Cats.

Having a neutral location for this testing is very important, I think, since one of the big issues that skeptics raised about the last test was that it took place in Rossi’s own factory — which raised the possibility that he could have set up things in advance to rig the test results. I reject that theory, but it was a factor that seemed to affect some people’s reaction to the test. I hope they have taken every precaution make sure this test can’t be accused of being fraudulent

  • Omega Z

    I’ll stick my neck out.

    Same Original (7) Testers.
    Financed by ELFORSK & maybe Jointly by others.
    Done in Stockholm Sweden
    At a facility in or near(RIT) Royal Institute of Technology??
    With some additional support staff.

    The other Scientists will not be involved in the test itself.
    If involved at all, it would only be to consult pre-test to Insure Best Practices of the Data Collection.

    Any further contact would be limited to transfer Data collected during the test if at all. IMO, If data were passed during the test,(Because there is so much of it) it would be for the sole purpose to expedite the peer review process, And Maybe, if there were some questions or doubts of some data collected, it could be taken care of during the on going test rather then going unanswered. Thus possibly requiring an addition test to answer those questions.

    For all intents and purposes, These other Scientists have to keep as much distance as possible between themselves & those doing the tests.
    It wouldn’t be a Valid Peer Review if they were all directly involved. Would it.

    I placed Question marks at (RIT). There could be a Pompous reason for not having the Test on site. 🙂

    There was also a sighting of Rossi in Sweden meeting with the testers last fall. Likely when he helped them setup.

    • LENR G

      I really hope you’re right about the 7 peer reviewers from America, Europe and Asia having some input before the conclusion of the data collection. I have a feeling it’s all going to come down to the reliability of the data collection devices and so I hope the calibration, monitoring and triple-checking of the measurements was done to the reviewers’ satisfaction. If they had any reasonable concerns I hope they conveyed them to the investigators already, so they don’t have to go back and run additional tests before publication.

      They were at it for 6 months. They had time to get this right and time to address any data collection concerns.

  • Christina

    I’ve had a really, really wild thought!

    What if the test is in China because it’s a closed country and it’s not likely that anyone would be able to spy on them and they already have an agreement with the Chinese government.

    Do you all think this a possibility or not?

    At any rate, everyone have a great day and may God bless you.

    • LENR G

      We’ve been surprised once already by a China connection so it can’t be dismissed as a possibility.

      However, we’re told that the investigators are all European, so hosting the test in China but not including any Chinese scientists would be weird. Not to mention IH’s/Rossi’s legitimate concerns about IP protection.

    • Chris I

      You mean… nobody except the Chinese would be able to spy on them.

      Hmmmmmmm. o.O

  • Donk970

    I fail to see the point of all this testing. The question of is cold fusion a real effect or not has been answered and certainly doesn’t need another test of the e-cat to make it more answered. So why all this public testing? At this point Rossi has a financial backer, is the board of directors not entirely on board with this? Are they asking for independent validation before they commit money? This would seem at odds with the claim that IH is busy perfecting technology.

    It seems to me that all of these companies need to quit screwing around with trying to prove that LENR is real and finish building prototype power plants that actually make electricity. Once there is electricity being generated the science will get plenty of funding.

    • LENR G

      I think it makes sense for Industrial Heat to augment their own internal testing with independent validation, given that current physics says what they have can’t possibly be real.

      Plus it’s in their own best interests to have independent confirmation when they actually try to sell these things. They won’t sell many if there is a thick wall of disbelief between them and signed contracts. They need some kind of public acceptance… or at least industrial acceptance.

  • Chris I

    It remains a blackbox test so I’m not sure which journal will consider it suitable as a scientific research article. I can’t be replicated by others following the description, so it remains a techy doc more than anything else.

    • Gerrit

      In the end measurements of cosmic radiation is a black box test also, not much you can do to influence the radiation is there ? There seems to be no issue in publishing scientific research papers on such cosmic black boxes.
      Replication of higgs boson can’t be done by anybody else but the people at LHC and even if there were two teams, they all know each other, so you can hardly call them independent teams.

      • refusal of blackbox test is a tactic by unethical desperate deniers.
        however businessmen will not be that stupid, they are already not that stupid.
        black or not, they know that the box works.

        whether it is pixie dust or LENR, it works. however I agree that nature and Science will find that bad excuse to justify their stupidty…
        “no no we are not deniers, we are scientific, we want theory and total knowledge or we refuse to confirm the evidence…”

        (which is not scientific at all)

      • Obvious

        Indeed, most of the universe is “black box”. Astronomy, geology, medicine, sociology, archeology… It is pretty rare to be able to manipulate one factor at a time, let alone control all aspects of an experiment.

      • Chris I

        Gosh, amazing how some folks still don’t get the distinction between:

        a) Investigating a natural phenomenon (which per se is available to all) and sufficiently describing the method and any apparatus/instrumentation used (which is NOT the object of the investigation) that anyone (that can afford to, or is ready whenever the same kind of event occurs) is able to replicate the experiment equivalently.

        b) Testing an apparatus/instrument even in a way that is well described (perhaps even the object of investigation) without any investigation of the phenomenology on which its (claimed or doubtless) functioning is based, nor any interest in such principles as being the object of the same investigation.

        The former case is scientific research. The latter one is industrial/technical verification, or proof of concept in cases when the prototype is an especially novel invention.

        Folhs, I wasn’t talking about denial. If, say, Zeitschrift Zur Physik refused a paper about embroidery patterns, would it be sly denial? Neither was I on about one factor at a time.

  • LENR G

    Rossi’s comment that there were no breaks or malfunctions during the test is actually HUGE.

    If we assume that means the E-Cat was running the whole time at COP >> 1 then we have the first experimental confirmation that the “six-month charge” of nickel powder is more than hot air.

    If you recall my Ragone chart, this means that the E-Cats are operating in the neighborhood of the specific energy of nuclear fission reactors…. way above anything remotely possible via a chemical source.

    This is a truly astounding energy source, undoubtedly nuclear in origin (whether it’s fusion or fission or some other quantum nibbling at the stored energy in the nucleus remains to be seen, but clearly some nuclear reactions are involved).

  • Andre Blum

    I like how you write indipendent 🙂

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Yes.. That is how Rossi always spells it, but forgiveness for language barriers must be in account.

  • PD

    Rossi’s comments over the past few days have started to reveal information about the testing process and location. This is an indication that the testing cycle has been completed, and the reactor has been powered down. He would not have revealed this information while the testing was in progress, as he would have been in breach of the NDA. He has so often speculated that the results can be positive or negative, but his recent postings on JONP show that he is is confident about the final result.

    The seven professors will be busy finalizing the report that needs to be submitted for a peer review. Perhaps the peer review has already started.

    • Gerrit

      Yes, I was thinking the same. Rossi’s latest comments have revealed interesting, if small, bits of information. That makes me believe that something has changed behind the scenes, which could well be the successful completion of the tests.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    It’s obviously Switzerland. What country could be more ‘neutral’?

    • not obvious (I bet on sweden), but possible.
      Great autonomy of each “canton”, high lelvel research, and recent lobbying by LENR-Cars and LENR-Cities…

      My insider bet is that Switzerland will show great news, but not on E-cat, and not on short term.

      • Obvious

        It might be easier to move stuff from the US to Canada than to Sweden.

  • georgehants

    For maximum prestige etc. we can be sure the test is happening in the U.K.
    I would certainly suspect that the high class area of Hampshire would be top of his list.

  • artefact

    Andrea Rossi
    April 10th, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    Frank Acland:
    We sent 3 of them, as spare parts, but ( this I can say) we did not have breaks or malfunctions, so far, so the spare parts are intact.
    Warm Regards,

    • Ophelia Rump

      Very nice, thank you for sharing that!

    • LENR G

      If we can assume then that the E-Cat ran for something around 6 months at a COP of 3 or greater then this we be extremely hard to fake. Here’s how I think it’ll go.

      There will likely be very little controversy over whether the measurements indicate excess energy. The energy out and in will be carefully measured, hopefully using more than one technique and after rock solid calibration.

      The conspiracy theorists will have to rely on a couple of things:
      1 – The person primarily responsible for conducting the tests is in on the fraud. If Levi is in there again then they will have any easier time with this line of reasoning (as unlikely and insulting as it is).
      2 – Inflating energy-out readings is next to impossible so the fraud would have to be accomplished by sabotaging the energy-in calculations. That will be whatever device or devices measure the electrical input. Things that I’ll be looking for in the report that can mitigate or eliminate this concern are:
      a) an interrupted record of data from and video of each device
      b) device(s) supplied by someone other than the primary investigator/alleged co-conspirator
      c) more than one input energy measurement device, each showing the same energy values within some small error
      d) careful calibration of each measurement device
      e) supportive measurements of electrical energy used by facility that indicate no massive power surges or unexpectedly large drains
      f) additional calibration tests of the measurement device after E-Cat test completion with no adjustments by the investigators
      g) a power source with a known power output limit below that of the power generated by the E-Cat during steady state operation
      h) extended periods of heat generation without any power input
      i) the use of wires that would fail if they carried the amount of energy posited by the doubters

      If the 7 reviewers from the US, Europe and Asia cannot find any fault in the measurements I would expect them to demand some airtight proof that the measuring devices were not faulty or tampered with. Hopefully the investigators anticipated this. If not we could see a situation where no report is released until the test is run for a few weeks again with some additional conditions to determine the input energy beyond any possible significant doubt.

  • artefact

    “he sent the ‘E-Cat’ (singular)”
    It could be that it is something like the 1mw but with hotcats. Multiple e-cats in one big e-cat.
    We saw the hotcat in the last test with a metal plate on it to implement it into something.
    On the other side: half a year dissipating a lot of energy is also not easy.

  • LCD

    I can see the ultraskepts now basically saying that as long as levi is conducting the test, the test is rigged. Rossi can’t win.

    • Gerrit

      The ultraskepts will complain that, as long as the e-cat isn’t dismantled and the physics explained and published in textbooks, it is not a “scientific” experiment. They will find something to complain, because the reality is too difficult for them to grasp.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        It’s not an idle complaint, though. The E-Cat is too important to rely on the reliability of one man, no matter how reliable.

      • US_Citizen71

        The ultraskepts could be boiled alive in a large pot heated by an ECat and they would complain the entire time that it was to cold.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It would make an interesting business move if Industrial Heat donated a couple of Hot-Cats for scientific research at some early point.

    If they got CERN to accept them for study, that would be monumental. Maybe this will come out of the latest round of testing.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      That’ll never happen because Rossi & IH are concerned about industrial espionage. Neither IH nor Rossi needs your approval nor mine.

      • Ophelia Rump

        At some point the E-Cat will be out of the bag. Gifting a few would not be a plea for approval, it would make Industrial Heat’s product the default lab test rig for future research. IH would gain the benefits of the research in the long run. The prestige would just be a bonus.

        When they reach the point that they can no longer protect by hiding, they will not need anyone approval. Approval has no relation.

    • georgehants

      I don’t think CERN would dirty their hands with anything that did not need at least several billions to just to set up the refreshment and entertainment facilities.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You are probably correct. Great reply! I had a good laugh.

        I am not sure if your second statement is an insult to physicists or just a fact statement about physics.

        • georgehants

          Ophelia, Ha. funny but probably not far from the Truth.
          Second sentence is of course a statement of Fact, so not something that is going to interest many “scientists”

        • Loni Hull

          It’s whatever you want it to be. You make it true by influencing the matrix with your wish. 😉

  • LukeDC

    If I was a betting man, I would say that the test is being performed in Sweden and it will involve the same faces that were involved in last years as lead scientists.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Rossi loves Sweden as he trained there when he was the fastest runner (junior) in the world.

      I doubt he would use the any of the same faces though. That would not be a new verification if he used any of the same team. It would simply be “further testing” by them.

      If I were a betting man I’d say Professor Brian Josephson of University of Cambridge is involved somehow. He has advocated for Rossi in the past and is a Nobel Prize winner. He has lost some respect as a scientist because of his fringe studies (telepathy,etc.), but I bet he likely knows what is going on. Just a guess.

      • LCD

        It will probably be the same faces. Rossi trusts them. That’s okay though you don’t want new people making the same mistakes in checking for fraud.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          I don’t think that would be a new third party verification (see above answer)

          • LCD

            Depends on what NEW means right.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        If I recall correctly, Rossi said that it’s the same team, but expanded.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          If the same team verified I would think that would be continued verification, and not really a new one at all, as if the team just got another ecat to measure at a new location. I would be disappointed if he did not use entirely new people.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Good bet. Northern Europe.

  • SiriusMan

    Perhaps the ‘scientific institution’ is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences? And maybe the report will be published in one of their journals? :

    I doubt it will appear in Science or Nature, since the risk of political interference is too great. It is also strange that Rossi seems to know something about the background (nationalities) of the 7 reviewers of the paper – that would preclude most mainstream journals, where the review process is supposed to be totally anonymous…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess it could be the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm:

      It’s the place where Hanno Essén works, one of the authors of the Levi et al. report and – together with Sven Kullander – participant in earlier investigations of the E-Cat.

  • ecatworld

    Rossi mentioned that reviewers of the paper would come from “Nuclear Physics Institutes of Europe, Asia, America” . There can’t be too many of those. CERN would be one, others?

  • Mr. Moho

    What if it’s Switzerland, at CERN (a “scientific institution”)?

    • Quiet Wine Guy

      Wow . . . this would add a very strong layer of ‘Objective Assessment’ to the final report. It would provide a fundamental argument for legitimacy to the results, especially if some of the CERN staff is part of either the testing team or 2nd layer of the 7 report assessors.

      • Alain Samoun

        Celani works(worked?) at CERN. But I would be very surprise that CERN was the place where the test is done. Especially since that some of their scientists made a report last January saying that LENR was no fusion (No neutrons detected according to them). Those people are not ready to change their mind and let go their bread and butter…

    • LENR G

      That would be pretty bold. If I were IH I’m not sure I’d place my faith in any institution that had a vested interest in the E-Cat’s failure.

      But a positive result from CERN would break down the wall for sure.

      Too much to hope for. I’m expecting a high quality Levi II with impressive double-checkers.

      • LCD

        Agreed. Levi II

        • artefact

          but without Levi I guess 🙂

  • Quiet Wine Guy

    Strictly for sentimental reasons, I like the idea of doing the testing with Stanley Pons, in honor of Fleischmann & Pons’ efforts. I gather this means the testing would be done somewhere in France.

    However, I agree that Sweden is most likely. What are the odds of it being done in the Elforsk labs?

    • Alain Samoun

      In France??? With their 56 fission reactors,EPR,AREVA,EDF Wishful thinking to say the least…

      • I don’t think it will be the biggest problem.
        France is working on two system.
        The public/state system is based on groupthink, tradition, protection, consensus. Cold fusion is forbidden there.
        See how Biberian described how CEA engineer Longchampt had to stop searching for cold fusion, to protect the chance of the boss to have a Nobel.

        then there is the private and underground system, where people get around the groupthink, the system, the consensus… See Biberian, Valat, Micher Vanderberghe, me…

        There is no problem to find a Rossi in france, we have many good candidates.

        However you will find no institution with international recognition with a boss having the bollocks to face any consensus, any politician, any journalist.

        one country, two system.

        And forget about money… France works by conviction, for the best and the worst. We are the kingdom of Maverick and Groupthink.

  • Daniel Maris

    Agreed! Sweden has got to be favourite.

    If we can take Rossi at face value, I like what he’s describing about the test. Makes it sound very removed from him. But, as always, we await full details.

    • LENR G

      Sweden: favorite. Previous involvement of Swedish scientists and ELFORSK. Volvo interest disclosed in Lewan’s book.
      Germany: mudder. Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics.
      Japan: late entry. Motivated. Aware.
      England: also ran. No obvious connection… but shouldn’t there be?
      China: long shot. IH parlays its China connections into them hosting the test?
      Greece: nag. The “falling out” with Defkalion has all been a smoke screen?

  • jousterusa

    Whether it will suffer such accudsations will depend if there was any connection between Rossi and the testing scientists prior to the test that can be proved by critics. To a lesser degree, it may depend on the world’s estimate of the integrity of whatever country it was conducted in. I think the USA wiuld fare well on that scale, but Mexico or Iraq, for instance, would not. I think the best place would be Switzerland, but I suspect Frank is right and that it is being tested in Sweden, which may make it more likely Rossi will get a Nobel Prize when the tests are concluded!

  • Barry8

    I’ll bet my newly arrived Mats Lewan book you’re right about Sweden Frank.

    • LENR G

      Any updates you can share re: Nanors?

      • Barry8

        Not since the Colloquium. I know he was really busy putting it together. Did you see his videos at Cold Fusion Now?

  • Warthog