Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics a reader told Andrea Rossi that in some ways he was his own worst enemy because he has left open the door where his harshest critics can criticize him. He mentioned specifically that the Levi et. al report left open a question about a hidden source of DC power because of the lack of control over input power. Rossi responded by explaining how the current testers have made modifications based on criticisms of the last report:
“The issue of the lack of control of the direct current arrived into the reactor’s resistances is true, as we have seen, but nobody has thought , when the report has been written, to check this point, that was totally out of the minds of all, when the test protocol has been made. As you surely know ( I can see that you have some source of information) new report is in preparation, for a long run test, and this time the Professors of the Third Independent Party have taken advantage of the experience of the last year test, and have considered all the observations made after the test of 2013 from all the Readers of the report that made comments about it and criticized it. The issue of the measurement of the direct current, for example, has beet taken in strong consideration, as well as many other particulars. Two factors have strongly improved the test made this year: the experience that the Professors made in 2013 and meditated upon for 1 year in the particulars, also studying all the critics they received, and the length of the test, that allowed a deep knowledge of the operation. Another important factor of difference is the fact that the test has been made in a neutral laboratory, not of our property, where the energy source ( PLUG) was not of ours and the Professors made the set up from the plug to the control box.”
It seems then that there have been important modifications made to the test setup in the current regimen, and one would expect the testers will have, as far is reasonably possible, eliminated the possibility for people to make accusations that the E-Cat is receiving some kind of hidden power source.
The last test was done on Rossi’s own premises — this one is apparently in a neutral location — and as Rossi has mentioned above, the testers have been involved in constructing the experimental setup. It all sounds very positive to me, and I am expecting this to be a much improved test compared to the first one.
But my question here is, regardless of how careful the testers are — is it possible to create a really bulletproof test that will silence the critics? I would like to think, yes — but my life experience tells me no. It seems that there is usually a segment of critics in all fields of life who will find one way or another to try to justify their position, and I suspect this will be the case with the E-Cat report.
I think it is great that the ‘professors’, have been taking the objections raised about last year’s test seriously. I think it will lead to a more convincing test — and my hope is that many people will find it convincing enough to start to take the E-Cat more seriously, and that many people will climb off the fence following the publication of this report (assuming it’s positive). But I won’t be surprised if the harshest critics find some other justification to carry on their opposition and raise objections. In the end I don’t think that matters very much — because eventually I expect that working E-Cats will be demonstrated to work well in the real world, but until them, I am not expecting that all the critics will be silenced.