The drip feeding of information from Andrea Rossi continues on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. A poster asked Rossi why he keeps talking about the possibility of a ‘negative’ report, when he knows full well that the E-Cat works.
You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he can die?
Beyond the metaphor: the test in course is a very long test, with a system of calculation very conservative, prepared after the test made by the same third indipendent party one year ago ( March 2013); during that test and the afterward discussions the third indipendent party has learnt all the possible further controls to make ; all the possible shortcomings have been experienced one year ago and now they are making a very conservative work. If you go to read the report of the March test published on Arxiv Physics, you will see that they had written that a long run test would have been necessary to make better measurements. Now you can understand the metaphor.
So it seems from this comment that the testing is being done by the same team that did the previous report, and that it is being carried out taking into account the feedback received (‘afterward discussions’) where there was substantial criticism from skeptics who thought there was room for trickery to have been behind the published results last time.
He also mentions that this is a very ‘conservative’ work, which suggests that the team will take pains not to overstate the performance, and will (I imagine) probably use the most conservative calculations possible so as to avoid any chance of being accused of exaggeration. This is essentially what was done in the previous report.
I actually wonder if it is possible to put together a truly ‘bulletproof’ test. I am sure that there will be skeptics and critics looking for any way possible to shed doubt on the E-Cat. But I also expect that the test will be much improved over the last one, based on lessons learned, and hopefully there will be much less room for uncertainty.