E-Cat Report Watch Thread (Update #30 — Rumor: “Never Seen So Many Peer Reviewers”?)

Since there is an increasing amount of anticipation about the long-expected report from third party which has been involved in long-term testing of the E-Cat, I thought I’d create a thread where news, links, rumors, etc. could be posted. Remember, in the fog of war there can be confusing and perhaps innacurate messages, so we should be cautious about things we hear. As new reports come up, I will add them to this post.

Update #30 (October 6, 2014)

More from the mysterious ‘Paul’ who has posted here again. This is of course unconfirmed, and must be in the rumor category, but rumors are all we have to go on at the moment:

Looking or not looking for it, the publication is really forthcomimg. I have never seen so MANY peer reviewers involved. It is pretty unusual, and it is seems to be a very special feature of this report. I’ll leave you to asses their names and background when you read the report. If all these people put at risk their own career or, at least, their reputation, they surely have their good reasons. Therefore, I think that it will leave a big footprint…

Update #29 (October 5, 2014)

(Thanks to Deleo77) Andrea Rossi has been asked a number of times on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about whether he has read the report (he has said he would get a chance to read it before publication) and recently his response has been ‘I do not have information to give’. Today when pressed about this answer, he wrote:

I meant: ” I still do not have AVAILABLE information to give”.

I suppose this could be interpreted as Rossi dropping a hint that he knows something . . .

Update #28 (October 5, 2014)

Here’s a little exchange on another thread here that I found interesting. Of course, we can’t confirm this right now, but ‘Paul’ could have some inside information here:

Paul: No, it is not to be published on Science or Nature.

Barty: Okay, then it is in a smaller journal? One not well known and accepted?

Paul: One that can publish very long papers. I “cannot” say more.

Update #27 (October 1, 2014)

Mats Lewan was asked on Twitter if there was any news on the E-Cat:

Update #26 (September 29th 2014)

I missed this comment made by Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics on September 25th when he was asked whether the report would include theoretical analysis of the E-Cat reaction, or just a measurement of energy in/out:

I will be able to answer when the report will be delivered. I have not a clue. I know that the Professors of the ITP asked help from other important institutions. We’ll see.

Professors asking for outside help would be another sign that there was something significant found in the testing. You wouldn’t go to outside institutions for assistance if the E-Cats were behaving just like conventional heaters.

Update #25 (September 24th 2014)

I have heard from another contact who I have communicated with before, and who I trust, that the rumor posted below by demokratininfara regarding an early October timeline is correct.

Update #24 (September 24th 2014)

This is a thread for rumors, which of course must be treated with caution, especially from an anonymous poster. Here are some commentsthat came in this morning from a poster here named ‘Demokratinifara’. It’s here for readers to consider and use their own judgment about (see full post in the comments below):

“The report is to be published in the beginning of October and the results are 100% POSITIVE! No slacks ! What reaction accuring is only to 50% explained/understood, But the e-cat effect is measured and proven. Its a new era for energy policies and our future as well as a new field in physics. Bravo Rossi! Congratulations! To go from caracter assasinated criminal accused loony by the “green” mob to become an hero of humanity and science have to feel unbelivable fantastic! Its so well earned A Rossi! On behalf of the hole world ….. thank you Andrea! . . .
“Im sure this post will accumulate many questions on details. But there is only max a couple of weeks left. But you can prepare for the victory that you where right all along to trust your own mind works much much more than the increasingly rigid politizised unscientific establishment. The internet is fantastic! Its finally settled now despite that very powerful ideological and profit interests have tried to stop the evaluation/tests with all kinds of intellectual dishoest manipulative tricks. The e-cat works … get ower it! Youve lost! Science won!”

Also, see some comments below from long-time ECW poster Barty who shares information that seems to tie in with these comments about a pre-print report that may be circulating.

Update #23 (September 21st, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the JONP why so much time is involved in the publication of a scientific report. This was his response:

Curiosone:
The steps are:
1- make the test
2- data are collected and distributed to all the authors
3- if the data are millions, thousands of discussions and emails will be exchanged by the authors
4- the authors have to make independently their own analisys on data, samples, etc
5- the authors will ask to their peers to replicate the analisys on data, samples, etc
6- data have to be compared with expectations
7- every author writes his part of the report, based on his specialization
8- when a draft of report is ready, every author reviews the parts of the other authors, and they reciprocally review their work and their calculations, analisys, etc
9- when a text of report is agreed upon, the authors ask further reviewing from colleagues
10- the report is given to the magazine, which makes its own peer reviewing.
Said this, use as a calculator your good sense and tell me: do you think a total time between 6 month and 1 year is reasonable ?

I think this gives us a good outline of what we can imagine is going on among the team of researchers involved in the current report. Rossi has mentioned recently that some kind of review has been taking place, so we could be somewhere around steops 8-10.

Update #22(September 17th, 2014)

Many of us have been on the lookout for the E-Cat report this month — September — but there has been a post on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi that puts that expectation in doubt.

Dr Rossi:
Which month will be most likely the publication month:
1- September 2014
2- October 2014
3- November 2014
4- December 2014
JCRenoir

JCRenoir:
October 2014, I think, but I could be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I guess there’s nothing we can do about it, so my plan is to sit tight and enjoy the ride with everyone else. I feel the wait will be worth it.

Update #21(September 12th, 2014)

There are a couple of pictures that have been posted on the Italian Cobraf web site by a poster named ‘nevanlinna’ that look new to me. It looks like three Hot Cat reactors suspended on a metal frame. Could this be a leak from the third party testers? The only text in nevanlinna’s post is ‘Just to stay … on the piece’

Andrea Rossi did say that he had sent three reactors to the independent testers, but that only one of them was used in the actual test, so this picture of three units might be considered to back up that statement.

UPDATE: It seems these pictures do not appear to be new. They can be found at this link on the LENR Cars web site: http://www.lenr-cars.com/index.php/gallery/e-cat The pictures are new to me. Metadata of these pictures gives a date of September 30, 2013 — which I believe is around the time that the recent 3rd party testing began.

I am not sure what to make of these pictures, frankly.

3hotcats

3hotcats1

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747&ps=20

Update #20(September 6th, 2014)

Here’s a post from Andrea Rossi today. He has heard something at least:

JC Renoir:
The news from the TIP is that the report is under reviewing. I do not think it will take a lot of time before the publication. The results, I have been told, will be important, but I do not know if in positive or negative sense.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #19 (August 30, 2014)

Today from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics

The work of the Third Independent Party is the first long term test made upon a LENR device in the last 25 years. The results will be the results that for the first time in the history of the LENR will be released by a third independent party after a test not of hours, but of thousands of hours, without interruptions and without intervention of the inventor or the owner. The results could be positive or negative, as I always said.

Update #18 (August 25, 2014)

News about the report is as hard to find as always — but I have had learned some things which suggest to me that a September publication of the report is increasingly likely. For sure, people shouldn’t take this to the bank; I have nothing definitive on this, but that is just the sense I am getting right now from some things I have heard.

Update #17 (August 20, 2014)

I was able to make contact with one of the people involved in the third party test, asking if they could provide any guidance as to the release date of the report. The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report.

Update #16 (August 17, 2014)

This does not necessarily apply to the TPR2 (although it might be covered there), but I think it is worth mentioning. A question and answer from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

1.-Is the so called Rossi effect explainable through the Standard Model? Andrea Rossi: Yes.

Rossi has said that at some point he will address the theoretical basis of the E-Cat reaction. I don’t know if it will be addressed in the upcoming report; Rossi has mentioned that there may be some theoretical aspects to it. But to have the Rossi effect explained in terms of the Standard Model of particle physics would be interesting and probably helpful in terms of acceptance of the technology as valid, and for a starting point for new research in the LENR field.
Update #15 (August 17, 2014)

Andrea Rossi said today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, ” let’s wait patiently. It will not be for ever…”

Really there’s not really an update here, but I can’t see any other option than to take Rossi’s advice.

Naturally the anticipation is great, and waiting for something as important as this can feel wearisome. There have been some requests about starting a guessing game of when the report might appear — also a ‘date-by-which’ we should either forget about it all, or conclude that some outside force is holding things up. I don’t mind if people want to speculate on those things, but personally I don’t have the heart to do that. Nothing we do or say here can change the pace of events unfolding. All I can think is that we have no choice but to bide our time.

Update #14 (August 2, 2014)

Many thanks to Mr. Moho for the following comment which I have copied over from the Always Open thread:

Reporting some possibly reliable hearsay about the upcoming Rossi “TIP” (“third indipendent party”) here.
Stefano Quattrini, member of the “Movimento 5 Stelle” Italian political movement today wrote on Camillo Franchini’s blog (nuclear chemist and long-time radical cold fusion skeptic who AlainCo should know pretty well by now) this:

http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/brevetto-rossi/#comment-42239

Salve Prof. Franchini,
si riposi bene in questo agosto, perché a settembre ne vedremo delle belle…
dovrebbero infatti uscire i reports ufficiali di tre laboratori diversi dell’apparato Nichel Idrogeno…
Non è una notizia di Rossi, me lo ha riferito uno sperimentatore che ci sta lavorando..
Cordiali saluti
Google Translation tweaked and paraphrased for clarity; I hope there’s a native Italian speaker around to cross check this:
Hello Prof. Franchini
[I hope you will rest] well this August because September will [bring] some good [news]…
Official reports [from] three different laboratories on the Nickel Hydrogen apparatus should in fact [get released] …
It is not news [from] Rossi, [I was] told [this] by an investigator working on it ..
Kind regards
As far as I remember Quattrini already commented on that blog before, by suggestion of others (skeptics?) who advised him to contact Franchini for insights about LENR matters.
Stefano Quattrini is a member of Movimento 5 Stelle Ancona:

http://www.meetup.com/beppegrillo-ancona5stelle/members/85552602/

Didn’t Rossi mention Ancona in one of his latest comments on JONP? I wonder if that was just a coincidence…

Anyway, bottom line:
– Third party report probably out in September
– Report to come from three different laboratories. It’s not clear to me whether there are going to be several (3) reports or a single report authored by professors from three different labs/universities.

To add to the above, The same person, Stefano Quattrini, wrote on the Coherence Facebook page:

“They replied with regard to the results of experiments on the e-cat. Are ending the editors of the publication that should be ready for the end of August, ” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/408675319218437/)
Update #13 (July 19th, 2014)

The way Andrea Rossi has been enthusing about his ‘masterpiece’ E-Cat plant lately, I have been wondering whether it might be seen before the third party report. But according to some comments by Rossi today, it sounds like the 1 MW plant reveal is going to be held until the report is published.

When asked by georghants if Rossi could throw his followers a bone in the form of some information about the plant Rossi responded:

We will publish nothing before the publication of the Third Independent Party. We must confront it before any further communication.

Later he expanded on this:

We will publish, from now on, only results of plants in operation. The Third Independent Report will be the last report published regarding an experiment on the current E-Cat or Hot Cat, , at least until we will not introduce significant modifications. We cannot give any further information about our plants until the opening of visits to our industrial plant in operation. About the TIP Report: it is not “so long delayed”, it is running through the normal reviewing period of any important scientific publication. There is no doubt that the results will be important, positive or negative as they might be.

Update #12 (July 8th, 2014)

In response to a question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about how close the publication of the report might be, Andrea Rossi wrote:

Giuliano Bettini:
Only a guess. Not days, anyway, nor weeks. Several months, is my guess.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #11 (July 1st, 2014)

Here’s another comment from Andrea Rossi on the JONP in response to a question asking about the ‘six month’ comment from Rossi (see below):

“The reviewers want not to risk to make mistakes. An average means that a reviewing can last between 2 and 12 months starting from when the report has been delivered. In this moment I have not the information that would allow me to give specific answers. The experiment has been completed in April, then a report has been written on the base of the analysis of millions of data, confronting calculations of 6 Professors who reviewed each other before delivering the report. After that there is the peer reviewing of the magazine. It is a long, difficult process . . . A Professor of the Commettee explained to me recently, when I made a phone call to ask the scheduling of the publication, that they ( the Professors) need all the time necessary to make a work that gives results beyond any possible doubt, because the results, positive or negative, will have important effects.”

Update #10 (June 29th, 2014)

A couple of comments from Andrea Rossi on the JONP today talk about the report in process, and also the 1MW plant that will be open to visits.

First, Rossi responded to a question about why it take so long to make a report of the 2014 E-Cat experiment. He wrote:

You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average.The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be.

Also in response to a question about the COP of the 1 MW plant that is being installed he said, “At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though.”

This makes me hope that these visits will start taking place this year — and who knows, maybe it will be open before the report is published! I asked Rossi the other day whether the report had to be published before they open up the plant and he said, “The two issues are unconnected.”

Update #9 (June 20th, 2014)

A post on the Swedish IHM Business School website (also on Sifferkol.se) by independent trader Torkel Nyberg gives an interesting psychological analysis of Andrea Rossi and of various types of people who are following LENR. At the end of the article he provides this comment about the timing of the report publication:

“Soon we will probably know a little bit more. The group of scientists from Uppsala and KTH has expanded with more scientists from other countries and the second independent test is about to get published earlyautumn. The test has been going on for months on neutral premises in Lugano, Switzerland with even more thorough measurements than the May 2013 test. It has even been rumoured that an isotope analysis have been made on samples from these tests at several universities in Sweden very recently.”

In following up on this statement it seems that more than one unnamed sources have indicated that a September release date is planned, as those involved want to be sure there are no mistakes, and that an isotope analysis has been ongoing until very recently.

Update #8 

A new comment from Andrea Rossi indicates something about the scale of analysis going on. It seems to me that all this analysis must be being done on the E-Cat fuel, and not simply data analysis which needs no specialized instrumentation.

Giuliano Bettini:
What I found in my experiments does not matter. Anybody can say ” I have found the moon in the well”. Let’s wait for the results of the report of the Professors of the Third Independent Party. I know they are making rigorous, long and difficult analysis in their Swedish laboratories of different Institutes, because, they told me, no one University has all the necessary instrumentation, so they need the help of different laboratories and this takes time. Let them work in peace. We have to be patient; I understand, and sympathize, the anxiety of the public about this issue, but think to my own anxiety…if I can menage it, I think everybody can. Think what will happen to me should the results be negative…still a possible output, though, as far as I know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi emphasizes that this is all ‘taking time’ — another indication of a delay beyond June.

Update #7 

Here’s a new statement by Andrea Rossi regarding the 3rd party testing from the Journal of Nuclear Physics

Giuliano Bettini:
This year the Third Independent Party had the possibility to make paramount measurements in total absence of us. I have no idea of all the measurements they made ( I only know some of them I saw during my presence in the neutral laboratory) and I have no idea of the topics of the report they are going to publish. I also have no idea of all the analysis they made and are still making in their own laboratories in Sweden.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

This statement was made in response to a question about whether the Swedes were authorized to measure the isotopic composition of the E-Cat fuel (as referenced by the Swedish professors’ recent statement), so when Rossi says that analysis is being done in Swedish labs, it indicates they are still analyzing some physical properties of the fuel.

Update #6
On the second part of the Sverge Radio’s programme about Rossi and the E-Cat, Hanno Essen said that the third party testing is not taking place in Sweden (although he said Swedish researchers are involved). So between this statement, and Rossi’s — the testing is not happening in Sweden, the United States, or Italy.

Update #5

Today Andrea Rossi posted this in the Journal of Nuclear Physics in response to a question about the timing of the release of the TIP report:

Andrea Rossi

May 25th, 2014 at 7:20 AM

LMV:

So far the scheduled publication is foreseen around the second- third week of June. I confirm that I di not yet know if the results are positive or negative, because the analysis of the data is still under substantial review. This is the last information I got three days ago.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Update #4

I guess we should not be expecting any early surprises in the form of the publication of the report this month (May) — this just posted by Andrea Rossi.

Eernie1:

The results of the test made by the Third Indipendent Party will be published not before June 2014, as I heard recently from one of the Professors. I have not idea of the results, which could be positive or negative, as far as I can know.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Update #3

I asked Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics whether there was a guarantee that the the report would be published, or if there was a chance that the report might be buried forever. This was his response:

Frank Acland:

It is absolutely sure that the report will be published, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be. This is the imposition given to us from the Third Indipendent Party Professors as a condition to accept to make the test. They demanded that they will publish the results inconditionally, even if the results will be negative. What said above is granted.

What follows is an opinion of mine, that could be wrong: the report should be published by the end of June. My opinion is based upon the fact that yesterday I have talked with two of the Commettee members and they said that possibly the publication could be made by the end of June. I did not get any anticipation regarding the calculation of the efficiency, while they repeated to me that to analyse millions of data takes time.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

From this, it does sound to me like the testing might finally be over.

Update #2 On the Journal of Nuclear Physics Andrea Rossi was asked whether we should expect the report in days, weeks or months. He responded:

Alessandro Coppi:

I can give you my opinion, since this issue does not depend on me, absolutely. My opinion is that the publication will be made within June, but this is an opinion. I cannot give any information about the timing of the different phases of the Professors’ work ( reactor test phase, calculation phase, report writing phase, reviewing phase, publication).

Happy Easter to you,

A.R.

Update #1, April 16th: David Nygren has commented on Lenr-Forum.com, saying, “As you know, Elforsk is one of the players that indirectly finance the evaluation of Ecat, but there are more players who participate in this long-term test. I guess, in May / June, information will start coming out.”

April 15th: there are two reports from Sweden that hint at the upcoming report.

The first comes from the Lenr-Forum.com site with a thread by David titled, “​Ecat report ready – Long time test, almost here!”

He writes, “Within a few weeks we should see an increased interest in the field, we will also see more curious from both the media and the stock market.

If we receive this great reslutat, many will start anlysera how this can affect our world.”

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/255-%E2%80%8BEcat-report-ready-Long-time-test-almost-here/?postID=485#post485

The second comes from the Swedish web site Energikatalysatorn — The thread has been started by someone going by the name Archelon, and the title of the thread is “Now Slamming it soon — have all the belts on?”

Archelon writes, “The report of long-term tests at neutral venue KTH / Uppsala in a few days a new era begins”

KTH refers to the KTH Royal Institute of Technology which is in Uppsala, and this would match the description by Rossi that the testing was taking place at an instutute of science. The thread can be read here (in Swedish):

http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=647

We’ll keep watching!

  • Josh G

    No, you didn’t. But after seeing the reaction to that post, I think our efforts will pay off if we wait for more validation of the report and the technology. I have a feeling that trying to get the word out now may do more harm than good with respect to LENRs credibility.

    I think 3 things will need to happen in order to start changing skeptical minds:

    1. Report accepted for peer review
    2. Patent application accepted based on the report
    3. The 1MW commercial reactor is opened for public scrutiny.

    I think once those 3 things happen, people will really need to sit down and rethink their dearly held convictions about the world and themselves. Many people say, I’ll believe it when I see a working reactor actually supplying power. But you can imagine that in the absence of 1 and/or 2, they will be able to easily dismiss video footage of a working reactor powering a plant. In the absence of 1 and/or 2, I think only a wider adoption of the tech in industry will be enough to convince people that it’s real.

  • jousterusa

    I have talked to editors on the National Desk of the NY Times and LA Times, left a message for CNN and the Tampa Bay Times, and talked it up with an editor at Time Warner’s Bright House Bay News 9 unit in Tampa. I’m hoping one of these outlets will fill in the public pretty soon. I send them to E-Catworld, to the long list of links to news stories about the E-Cat at The American Reporter, and to my book, Power, A Story of Cold Fusion on Amazon – in roughly that order. I hope a lot of you are doing something similar!

  • blanco69

    So is this ITPTR no 2? If so, it’s not as independent as I’d hoped. Posted on ArXiv (and maybe not even there) not a high profile scientific journal then. COP of 3 ish is good but not as much as I’d hoped either. However, I’ll reserve judgement until some real scientific minds post an opinion.

  • pg

    Hi Pekka, what do you think?

  • Andreas Moraitis
  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    For those interested the report shows a COP of 3,2 – 3,6 over a 32 day period and substantial isotope change in nickel and lithium, but with no radioactivity outside the reactor. The report is right now on hold by arXiv for “unknown” (insert any thery you like here) reasons but I’ve posted a copy here: http://www.sifferkoll.se

    • Andre Blum

      Hi Sifferkoll® . Thanks for this. Good news. Were or are there plans to publish this in a higher profile journal than arXiv?

    • Gerrit

      COP of 3,2 – 3,6 because the researcher did not use “self-sustain” mode, which would have increased the COP dramatically. They did this to avoid getting very difficult calculations. At least that is what I make of the bottom of page 7.

    • pg

      thank you

  • pelgrim108

    In the old days they knew how to celebrate a mayor achievement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvq0vwLaeko

  • Mats002

    Good choices, I have to think more…

  • fritz194

    A very slow adagio from Mahler could do the job.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnkVUqvjIxQ

    Or maybe some Wagner to get the ultimate disruptive punch:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0PpTPvbr-4

  • Ophelia Rump

    I did not say it was frowned upon, only that it would be challenged.

    Personally I prefer a good challenge. I do not practice blind faith, or faith of any sort. I was happy for a conflicting perspective, but so disappointed in the delivery that I only referred him to some educational material.
    I think if you read all the responses you will see little faith, and lots of fact.

  • Gerrit

    Just to kill the time, let’s do something creative.

    What music/song fits the suspense of this moment the best in your view ?

    My suggestion is “The Creation” by Haydn. Currently we are in “Prelude: The Representation of Chaos” waiting for the report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_vCptHgyI8

    Then when the report is finally published we will have “And there was light” (at the 2:00 mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmhhJHpn-ps

  • hempenearth

    I’m checking his site every hour or more instead of daily. Is this addiction????

  • Gerrit

    This is how I read it too. Rossi wanted to say that we should forget all “theories” about the TPR, ie when or where it would be published.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Many people believe that the LED was discovered by US researchers working in the 1960s. In fact, Henry Round at Marconi Labs noted the emission of light from a semiconductor diode 100 years ago and, independently, a forgotten Russian genius — Oleg Losev — discovered the LED.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi has never willingly allowed measurement of any type of radiation emissions that the E-Cat produces. These measurements will have provided a fair description of the internal workings of his invention and Rossi knows it. All that the third party test will provide is heat and input power measurements. The major objective of this test is to show over-unity power production and long term operability. This test will not reveal any data that could be used to deduce the theory that underpins E-Cat functionality. On the whole, compared to what data could be revealed, this test will provide very little information about the E-Cat. The Cat will be out of the bag only when it can be studied unencumbered outside of the control of Rossi and his management group. The US patent office wants to know how the E-Cat works in order for a patent for the E-Cat to be awarded. If past is prolog, Rossi is not(maybe never) willing to reveal this type of information. If you expect much, do not be disappointed if little is given.

    • Ophelia Rump

      No, no, no, your statements are clearly indefensible. Please read this:

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/07/17/e-cat-testers-should-take-every-advantage-of-access-to-e-cat/

      If you want to make the argument which you have, you will have do defend it with documentation. Since your statements are all negatives they will be extremely difficult to defend against conflicting positive statements.

      Negativity will be challenged. Do not practice it unprepared.

      • BroKeeper

        Also in JoNP:

        Frank Acland
        April 11th, 2014 at 4:41 PM
        Dear Andrea,
        Are the professors doing the testing at liberty to make adjustments to the E-Cat setup? In other words are they allowed to change performance parameters during the testing period?
        Many thanks,
        Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi
        April 11th, 2014 at 8:50 PM
        Frankk Acland:
        1- yes
        2- yes
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

    • LCD

      I use to think that radiation emissions would provide a fair description but unfortunately Rossi, Focardi, Levi and probably others have had those types of readings available and I’ve not heard any of them claim they know what is going on.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Axil, what do you think of the idea that the E-Cat produces an electric output that is transmitted ‘backwards’ through the input lines? I guess that some power/energy meters might run into problems. Another (possibly related) option would be a high-frequency pattern of resistance fluctuations that would not fully be covered by the sampling pattern of the meter. If one of these scenarios is realistic, was the instrumentation in the previous tests sufficient to avoid any errors in the measurement of the electric input?

    • Obvious

      Does the IR band spectra show a unique distribution?

      • Fortyniner

        Any IR measured from outside a reactor will be simple ‘black body’ radiation and won’t reveal much about the internal environment other than average temperature.

        • Obvious

          Probably. But IR is the only radiative spectra available. I hope we are making the best use of it. Maybe there is a “nickel hum” from the stainless casing, or something…

    • Pekka Janhunen

      TPR1 (first third-party report, May 2013) measured the radiation field outside the reactor and found nothing above background. Since the geometry of the reactor used in that test was also known, the result can be used to constrain theories. In short: 1) if energetically important amounts of energetic photons or beta- is produced, they must be below ~100 keV, 2) no neutrons are produced, 3) no beta+ is produced. On the other hand the measurement implies no strict constraints for high energy charged nuclear products such as protons and alphas.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        In an interview Rossi said some time ago that they had found a 511 keV signal, presumably from e-/e+ annihilation. I assume that this has been measured inside the reactor. Maybe the positrons are generated only under irregular conditions (very high COP).

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Possible. It’s also useful to make a distinction between side reactions and energetically important amounts.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Rossi wrote today that the report (did he receive it yet?) would provide no theory, but only “precise measurements”. That would reduce the circle of possible journals. Maybe it will be one about engineering? I guess that such a journal would be more tolerant, especially when it comes to black box tests. The patent office would be anyway satisfied.

    • US_Citizen71

      I was just going to post something similar. From JONP:

      Andrea Rossi

      October 7th, 2014 at 9:24 AM

      Gian Luca:
      Disregard any theory regarding the Third Party report: there are not theories about the report, there will be a report that will publish precise measurements and that will be all, positive or negative as the results might be.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • PD

        Rossi at his ambiguous best. Reading between the lines, he now seems to have access to the report that has detailed measurements and scientific data on the tested LENR device. I think he is asking readers not to have theories about where the report will be published, or the content of the report.

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

          The question now is, if in the report only the measurements are discussed or if the analysis of the fuel is mentioned too.

          • Daniel Maris

            Yes I think that’s the important issue. The suggestion is I think that the scientists may be allowed to study the ash residues.

        • Giuliano Bettini

          Means:
          “disregard any theory (chatter) regarding the report”. Full stop.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Such as Review of Scientific Instruments

    • timycelyn

      I don’t thnk he meant this. See update #26 above…..

      • Andreas Moraitis

        His statements have some rarity value. “There will be a report that will publish precise measurements and that will be all” seems to be clear, but everything else points into the other direction.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I miss the Jovial rotund older you. You have become severely direct during your younging.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Speak for yourself, I am beginning to twitch already.

  • Omega Z

    The 1st point. This wasn’t directed at you persa. You assumed.

    Papers submitted on the Higgs Boson have nothing to do with the LHC. Just the Data it produced.
    Papers on the Higgs Boson are all about deciphering/interpreting the data.
    Papers on the E-cat are all about deciphering/interpreting the data.

    >”But unlike the ecat, the LHC is a publicly accessible facility, with no secrets about its design. Just as with other experiments, qualified scientists who can raise the funds are given access to the public facility to perform experiments. Not so with the ecat.”

    Qualified scientists did raise the funds for this test & Rossi did provide the E-cats. There is no reason to think it couldn’t be done again, Though it’s likely that if it works, it will be in the market before any further test would be concluded.

    “Qualified scientists” I give who ever put up over a quarter million$ for the E-cat test the benefit that they would assure this fact.

    A Key Point-
    It’s all about how such a paper is presented-It’s purpose.
    If it’s all about the Data, the emphasis would be whether the maths are in error or not. If questions arise to how the data was acquired, then they would be free to raise funds & perform another test or maybe the information is available on request. But as I stated, by the time it’s concluded, the answer will probably already be known. Positive or Negative.

    If there are additional parameters to this paper that directly relates to the E-cat & how it functions, That would probably be an additional separate paper. At least That’s how I would do it, Though that would be more applicable to a patent with the published paper in hand. These are separate Issues.

    I will point out. This test & any possible additional tests does Not depend on Rossi. This technology belongs to Industrial Heat. We tend to overlook that. Yes, I include myself.

    Rules, regulations & policies all have exceptions & are bent all the time. In fact the Government not long ago demanded some information held back on some biological papers being submitted for publication.
    They are not written in stone. If they were, there would be no need for corporate or national espionage to obtain technology. Just subscribe to the journals or scour the patent files.

  • Gerrit

    OT: 2014 Nobel prize for physics goes to LED researchers

    • Mats002

      LED is ‘cold light’. Who could imagine 20 years ago that LED:s could replace a warm white hot 60 Watt light bulb? Indicators yes, ambient light no. It is not unthinkable that LENR evolve like LED over the coming 20 years. Actually it already did! LENR has evolved from wet Palladium-Deuterium mW excess heat to Nickel-Hydrogen MW systems. Who noticed?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Provided that we will see a positive and watertight report on Rossi’s device and a successful market launch, the progress in the field would be indeed amazing – especially if we consider how little money has been invested in LENR up till now, in comparison to the billions that have been spent for R&D on LED’s.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Either one would suffice, for the objective. Both combined should have sufficient momentum to roll over science trolls like a Sherman tank.

          • Alain Samoun

            Hope that it will be better than the sherman tank that was an engineering disaster…

            • Fortyniner

              The Germans called Sherman tanks ‘Tommy Cookers’ as they tended to burst into flame when hit. The British refered to them with very black humour as The Ronson (‘Lights first time, very time’).

            • Daniel Maris

              It’s numbers that count. 50,000 Sherman M4 tanks were produced. The Germans produced less than 500 Tiger II tanks.

      • Giuliano Bettini

        Interesting to note :
        Mats002 gives for granted “Nickel-Hydrogen MW systems”. So the 3rd
        Party Report is positive. A news?

        • Ophelia Rump

          Rossi has already said the 1mw system is operational in the customer site which will eventually allow tours to prospective clients.

          Right now LENR power is providing heat for a factory in production somewhere in America.

        • Mats002

          No new news, just a sum up of other sources over time.

      • Kevin O

        My professor in college said that LEDs would do exactly that: replace light bulbs everywhere.

        • bachcole

          What about the spectrum of LEDs? I suppose that eventually a “bulb” would have a bunch of different coloured individual little LEDS to create a full spectrum “bulb”, but it is certain to be bumpy.

          • Omega Z

            They are getting close, so some say to what you & I would consider acceptable.
            Note that I also wondered if blending the different spectrum’s wouldn’t do the trick. You know, like a reverse prism.
            Apparently, that’s exactly what they are doing.

            Still waiting on someone else to buy 1 so I can compare before I drop a dime on 1. 🙂
            I done been conned before… Over promised, under delivered…

    • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

      LED lights can operate with “over unity”.
      Small steps Gerrit 🙂

      http://www.exposingtruth.com/over-unity-led-light-a-reality/

  • Timar

    From all we know the mousetrap has been made fully available to the researchers.