Mats Lewan Announces New Energy World Symposium in Stockholm, June 2016 (Provided E-Cat Test ‘Clearly Positive’)

Today author and journalist Mats Lewan has announced that the first conference of the New Energy World Symposium will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on June 21, 2016 — providing that the result’s of Andrea Rossi’s 1MW E-Cat plant are ‘clearly positive.’ More information here:

From the announcement:

… abundant, cheap, carbon-free and clean—may change the world. It promises Planet Earth clean water, zero-emission vehicles with unlimited mileage, a solution to the climate crisis and much more (read more below).

At the New Energy World Symposium, holding its first session on June 21 in Stockholm, Sweden, high-profile speakers (see below) will address the disruptive implications that this energy source will have for industry, finance and society.

PRE-REGISTER NOW to be among the first ever to prepare for the radical changes that energy disruption will bring. Participants who pre-register receive a 10% discount on the symposium fee.

Speakers announced so far are: Mats Lewan, Jed Rothwell, Brian Josephson (Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cambridge University), Jean-François Geneste (Vice-President Chief scientist, Airbus Group), Harry Frank (Professor in innovation management within energy at Mälardalen University College, Sweden), and Bob Greenyer (Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project).

There are other speakers, not yet announced, slated also: a technical expert, a financial expert, and a research expert.

Mats Lewan writes in this blog entry ( that initially the number of attendees would be limited to 500, but that could be adjusted upwards if interest justifies it. He also states:

“The one-year test is being undertaken by the aforementioned Italian inventor Andrea Rossi and his US industrial partner Industrial Heat, and should be concluded in March 2016. The results should be released shortly afterwards, controlled by a third-party certifying institute based on scrupulous peer review.

Since I have covered the development of Rossi’s energy device, the E-Cat, I know that there are good reasons to believe that the the technology is valid and that positive testimonials from the ongoing test, that I have received, are true.”

  • Bob

    Somewhat related to the symposium…

    On Vortex-L, Jed Rothwell has made some very interesting and worthwhile posts. A partial one is that “…This 1 MW plant is a crude prototype. It was fabricated without deep
    knowledge of how cold fusion works at the theoretical level. Without such
    theoretical knowledge, there is no chance cold fusion will ever be
    controlled or made into a practical source of energy. In the 21st century,
    the public and the regulators will *never* allow a nuclear reactor to be
    used. That is out of the question. It is unthinkable.”
    To get the full context of his posts, you need to read the entire thread.
    Anyway, it will be interesting if the symposium will have a speaker address this topic.
    As Mr. Rothwell stated ” …. this is a nuclear Reactor! Not some toy!”. It does have a lot of implications. While most of us on this site have assumed that the eCat (or cold fusion in general) is very safe, we MUST consider this issue. Since we do not have a thorough understanding, one cannot guarantee what the true implications might be. In a fission reaction, there is no explosion until one reaches a critical mass. (among other parameters). At this time, we do not have any inkling if there could be a “critical mass” with cold fusion or the eCat. It may be that this scenario has simply never been reached yet. No one on this lists knows or has any factual basis to express a position on. I am not saying there is a critical mass, as I have no facts to state that. But I cannot state there is not one either for the same reason.
    On the plus side, one can look at the amount of material in a reactor and compute the energy boundary (explosion) or worse case radiation emission potential, So it might be that a Hiroshima type explosion would be impossible. But could a reactor threaten a couple of blocks in a city? Possibly.
    In certain cities, that could be thousands.
    I do not bring this up as a scare tactic at all. I bring it up because there will be people that consider it and push the issue. Some because of competition (hot fusion crowd, solar interest etc.) Others because they are truthfully concerned. So I think it wise for the pro-LENR crowd to consider it also, so that an educated and well presented answer can be given. A rose colored view… “hogwash! There ain’t no safety concerns with the eCat! Rossi said so!” is not a good answer. Without a factual basis to make the statement, Mr. Rothwell’s statement may very well come true!
    So it will be interesting to see if the symposium covers this subject and what the conclusions or suggestions will be. Mr. Rothwell is scheduled to be a speaker, perhaps he will address the subject? In any case it is worth considering.
    To clarify what some might think about the unknown “Certification Company”. They will not be certifying a nuclear cold fusion reactor. There are no established standards to certify to. They will not be certifying the reactor as “safe”, because again there is no standards to certify too. Hot Fission standards would not apply (and cost millions upon millions anyway and much longer than a year. More like 10!) No, this unknown company will only be “certifying” the following :
    1) that the recorded data was accurate. (I suspect this to be 99% of their scope)
    2) possibly that external electrical and mechanical components meet existing electrical and mechanical standards. They will specifically void any reference to the reactor or reaction process. How could they certify the reactor? There is no standard.
    It will be very interesting to ponder these implications as we continue to wait….

    • Winebuff67

      I would have liked this test better with someone documenting this whole 400 days with video and interviews it would have been nice to release after the product went to market.

      • Hi all

        Until the test is complete no one will believe the energy is at nuclear levels. Rossi and others going all the way back to Fleischmann and Pons tried the scientific route and were barred from it. A few Scientists are now getting funding and activley researching LENR, but I have to say without Rossi that would never have happened.

        So in order to get the science recognised you need some one to start manufacturing working examples and grind the scientific communities face into it. That some one is Rossi he put his own fortune in to it.

        Do I think what Rossi does has risks?

        Not on the evidence so far shown, though the incidents with Neutron and gamma bursts have made even Rossi wary.

        I have warned people to be wary of pumping LENR with lasers, masers, electron beams, or nuclear fission material. I think such hybrid methods may contain very high risks.

        Will the energy levels LENR is capable of create new challenges for peace? Yes I think so, though I do not think they will be the brute force way Jed envisages, I think we are into a far more complex set of security issues. Think drones. Think economics. Think radical societal change and push-back from radical conservative groups afraid of loosing their position in the socio-economic paradigm shifts.

        It is noticeable that the US Navy has been very heavily involved in LENR research for many years, we see glimpses of this every so often, though the silliness of Krivit in announcing to the public a confidential meeting on LENR within the US Navy made them once again hide the projects more carefully. I am of the opinion that Krivit lost his security clearance then.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Bob

          Yes, I am glad Rossi is doing the testing and the 1MW plant trial.
          And yes, not many have believed CF claims. Rossi’s 1MW plant test
          might change that tide some. However it will be completely dependant upon who the certifying company is AND IF they are allowed to publish a report. This still will not certify a LENR / CF reaction, but if they certify that the recorded data is accurate and the data shows over unity in excess of chemical sources, it will be hard to argue.
          That said, even if CF / LENR is “confirmed” by the data in this report and it is published, what will happen then? Will government and safety watchdog (with input from competing industry) allow the product to go public use market?
          I am not a historian on CF / LENR research, but the following are interesting incidents that provoke some thought.
          P & F reported that they left their small beaker reactor running one night and when they came in the next morning, it had “super heated” so much that it melted through the metal table and then melted through the cement floor. At least several inches of solid concrete. This was a significant event. I do not have a link at the moment to the account, but one should be able to search for it.
          Jed Rothwell stated that there have been 5 other incidents where LENR reactor tests exploded rather violently. I believe that even MFMP saw a bit of a bang, but I have no data as to whether it was simply build up of pressure from heat or something else..
          As you state, I also remember reading where Rossi stated he saw radiation at high COP. Also Celani measured extremely high radiation at a 2011 eCat test, but it lasted only a short time. (I think Rossi kicked him out afterward as he had the detector hidden in his pocket. Spy action!)
          I guess we will wait to see what happens!…..

    • Mats002

      Good one Bob. During ECW life span almost every aspect of LENR has been covered but you hit the tabu which has been thorowly avoided.

      • Even if forbidden for personal or even business use out of safety concerns, the technology can be deployed as replacements for large plants and still revolutionize the world environmentally and economically.

        It could be decades before we see them in our houses or cars, sure. Doesn’t matter. It’s a game-changer.

    • LarryJ

      The device may be crude and is definitely nuclear but that won’t stop or even slow it down. The fact that it may be crude is irrelevant. Every new technology without exception is crude when it is introduced. In the beginning all new techs are expensive and work poorly without exception. Then they are improved, work dependably and become inexpensive.

      The fact that it is nuclear will have no effect either. There is simply too much demand both economically and environmentally for it to be stopped. Every effort will be made to ensure that it operates within safe parameters but that’s all. Do you suppose that the US who are currently far in the lead with this tech are going to simply stand back and watch Russia, China, India and others develop, what is arguably, the greatest technology discovered by man to the great benefit of their economies at the cost of the US economy. Given that the US is probably the most entrepreneurial state on the planet, that notion simply defies logic.

      • Bob

        I do not know what will happen. Germany is shutting down every single nuclear reactor in their country. Even though they have not had one accident.
        The current administration stopped the Keystone pipeline. Even though significant economic interest was related. (Not opening a political issue, just giving an example and yes, I recognize other issues other than economics were involved)
        Coal plants are having to spend billions to add scrubbers or they will be shut down. (A good reason for LENR) but if there is a fear of even a 2 block Fukashima incident, who knows what will be legislated. Oil spill versus radiation spill?
        I do not believe it defies logic. Actually logic states that this is a nuclear device. It is unknown why it works. It is unproven if it is 100% controllable. A nuclear device that is in it’s infancy has a logical conclusion that it should be taken seriously. Economics should not trump safety or well being.
        (no pun intended).
        Due to these possible concerns and possible pressure from current power utilities, I think is is not far fetched that legislation could be passed that only allows the reactors to be used and “monitored” by power plant operators, much like today’s fission plants..
        Yes, it could eventually spread out to private use if it proves safe as we think it is, but I am not too sure the government will give it cart blanc to begin with..
        I can see some “garage mechanic” trying to supercharge his reactor to heat his swimming pool in the winter… and irradiate the neighborhood! It would take only one case of it happening and the clamps would come down. (I was going to use the term “redneck” but did not want to be PIC)
        But before we have to worry about that, I have to wait for truly significant reports……

        • Bob Greenyer

          You don’t have an accident until you do. When they do happen, they can be cataclysmic with the old designs. Moreover, the unseen, insidious an indiscriminate nature of the effect is more what concerns people. The Plutonium in the fuel pool at Fukashima is enough to kill all life on earth given the wrong set of events – but because the death and genetic decay would occur over 100,000 years, it will never be a headline.

          It will start in the sea… maybe it already has.

        • “not far fetched that legislation could be passed that only allows the reactors to be used and “monitored” by power plant operators, much like today’s fission plants.”

          I’ve been predicting that this will probably be the case for many years. I would rate it as a near certainty rather than a possibility. This is not (necessarily) because of any real dangers, but because the only option open to the energy cartels if they want to stay in business is to control the technology. The obvious way to do this is to bring it into the existing framework for controlling commercial nuclear operations – easily accomplished by using the MSM to raise false safety ‘concerns’ and lobbying or otherwise ‘persuading’ politicians to introduce the appropriate legislation.

          The fact that no safety certification can be forthcoming because there aren’t any applicable standards (other than those for nuclear systems) will also play into this scenario, and Rossi’s sponsors – whoever they are – will quickly find that the path of least resistance is to go with the big boys who are already inside the nuclear tent.

    • Omega Z

      The Banksters and Wall Street are going to get Gloriously rich off of this technology.
      The Al gores of the world will make 100 times more then they could ever have made from Cap & Trade.
      It wouldn’t matter if it ultimately killed half the worlds population. If LENR works, it will come to market & be in every home and car on the road.
      Money Talks, Sheet walks.

    • Jonnyb

      If it does get slowed down just move it to areas of the World that desperately need cheap energy. I am sure they will be happy if it can be proved no harmful omissions or bye products. In the end the rest of us will have to follow.

      • Bob

        The only problem is that the areas of the world that need this technology probably will not be able to afford the technology! I have a 5000KW (8000 peak) backup generator for my house. It cost me $650 a few years back. That does not seem like much at all. eCats will almost certainly cost more and you still need electrical power for start up. Batteries are expensive. An eCat to produce electricity and it’s auxiliary power source will certainly cost more than $650.
        However, while vast areas of Africa have little to no power and could really use this, they cannot afford even the $650! Actually most cannot even afford the gas to run it, even at the lower $2.00 per gallon of today.
        Also, corruption and war lords in many of these areas would simply confiscate the equipment anyway and use it for killing and terror. Or sell it off and pocket the money.
        We have rather inexpensive methods for modest energy generation today that could assist with clean water, etc. but these areas do not have it because of the above reasons. It is a pity.
        We will have to wait for other answers to the problems of these areas… along with significant news for LENR.

        • GreenWin

          Bob, your observations re our poorest nations are not wrong. Tribal conflict is in large part, the result of Darwinian “survival” mentality. That mentality is driven by primitive fear that there is not enough. The introduction of technology raising standards of living – lowers this fear and subsequently, resource-based tribal conflict. Further, higher standards of living lower live birth rates, contracting population expansion in emergent nations.

          IF a reasonable standard of living is available to all human beings, one major source of conflict is minimized. The remaining major challenge is faith tradition and religious differences. This requires consciousness-spiritual raising which may not be as simple as a standard of living. Technology is a simple challenge compared to benevolent acceptance of cultures and species different from our own.

          Perhaps a community of enlightened NGOs and government can mount a “Manhattan Project” intended to evolve human consciousness, allowing differing cultures to live and let live.

      • Alan Smith

        Hi JonnyB – Why do you think Tom Darden is spending so much time in China? He knows very well the Chinese have the money and the desire to clean up their coal-based energy policy. And they don’t have a vast amount of indigenous oil or gas AFAIK.. Once the Chinese bite and adopt LENR the rest of the world will want it too. Cheap labour, cheap energy and modern manufacturing systems is a scary prospect for the rest of the world.

        • Jonnyb

          Hi Alan, don’t forget India, Japan. What we really need is the automobile market to get cracked, then we could see massive progress in a short time.

  • Omega Z

    “The results should be released shortly afterwards, controlled by a third-party certifying institute based on scrupulous peer review.”

    SGS. A Certifying Agency.
    Merely a few months ago, Rossi mentioned in an interview that he is Still involved with SGS. I came to mind at that time that Rossi’s referee was probably an Agency such as this. Regardless, any certifying agency would give very conservative numbers. To over evaluate something of this nature would be the end of business for them. They will be cautious.

    It also fits with some of Rossi’s recent statements about certification of the home unit & things such as maybe everything will come together after the test. A lot of business hurdles will have been achieved by a single pilot plant test.

    No doubt additional certifications would be required, but a precedence will have been set.

  • raindeer

    The most likely scenario is that the current test leaves us with unclear results and we never get to know exactly what happened. Rossi then continues working on his new E-Cat X, which is even more promising, to keep every ones attention. New tests are conducted with unclear results, and the story repeats.

    • I fear this scenario too…

    • LarryJ

      Why is it that people adopt such a negative outlook towards such a promising technology? We already know from the Lugano report that the reaction is nuclear and that it produces a cop > 1 with what appeared to be an uncontrolled reactor. That alone puts the current game score at Lunatics 1 Cowards 0.

      Is it the fear of disappointment that keeps your cup half empty? Even if the test results were inconclusive it would mark a huge achievement and the recognition of a new scientific door that we didn’t even know existed. It is the start of an entirely new field of research and it’s possibilities are unbounded in terms of what it means for a beleaguered eco system and economy. It is aptly named the New Fire and it’s impact on modern society will be no less than the discovery of fire by our primitive ancestors. Not only that but we are talking months to a year or two for it’s introduction, not decades. Be happy and thank your lucky stars that you get to watch it unfold. So few are in your position.

  • Sanjeev

    Lets not forget that even if the test fails, it will not mean that the ECat doesn’t work, as there are possibly multiple criteria involved in this test.
    If you see a negative result and the COP still shows up around 6, it will be a positive result for the rest of us, provided such report is officially released with measurements and names etc.

    • Omega Z

      Correct, A Failed test could just indicate it is not ready for industrial use.
      Dependability would be a Big Factor.

      Business looks at it from this point of view. It’s not what it saves me, but what it could cost me.
      Example, I’m producing a Million$ a day in product. Each day it is broken down, costs me a Million$ a day.

  • GreenWin

    Good idea and great news Mats. It is now a penciled-in date on my calendar. It would be illuminating to hear from a few of the Lugano Team, or Elforsk scientists as well. Looking forward to this symposium!

  • Bob

    This would look to be a positive announcement. From what I have read, I would consider Mats Lewan not only a qualified reporter from an education point but also one of sincere and unbiased view point. His involvement in this eCat story seems to be very positive.
    According to the link, the symposium will only take place if the one year eCat test is “clearly positive”. If not, then no symposium.
    I personally believe,(opinion formed from recent Rossi posts only and past history, no hard facts known), that the results of the 1 year test will not be published or released in any detail. Rossi has never actually promised that a full report will be published that I know of “F9”. Prior secret test reports (i.e. 2012 secret customer) have never been published nor revealed, so I have my expectations dampened on this one as well. I hope I am proven wrong.
    In any case, what will the measurement be for “clearly positive” ? A certain COP average over the 1 year test? How will one know if no detailed test data is published? For me, to be “clearly positive”, a report with significant detail and realistic amount of independence would be needed. However I am not conducting the meeting…. will a “it was positive test” post on JONP from Rossi be enough? “Clearly positive” is a bit subjective. I am curious if there has been parameters set.
    If Mats reads this post, can you provide what the “clearly positive” measure will be and can you reveal if any representative from IH, Tom Darden, secret referee or even Leonardo Corp. will attend / give a presentation? Since the Symposium is dependent on the eCat test, I would think it logical that a representative from that eCat test give a presentation.
    Another event to which I look forward to waiting for….

    • Teemu Soilamo

      I am interested in what “clearly positive” means as well, Mats!

    • Bob—good question. I know that there’s a major third party certification institute continuously involved to certify the measurements. I would expect a general report, not necessarily detailed but yet conclusive, from this third party, officially published, of course with the explicit name of the organisation.
      Unfortunately I’m not yet sure of getting this, but I believe it could be reasonable if the result is positive. A statement from Rossi or IH alone is not really sufficient.

      • ecatworld

        The question I have is whether this institute will issue a report publicly, or whether they will keep it confidential. If they do not go on record, then like you say, Rossi may make a statement, but it alone would probably not carry much weight beyond the small community of people already following his work.

        Even if reporters were able to visit the plant, you wouldn’t get much verifiable information unless this referee went on record with its results.

        • LarryJ

          Why would Rossi want to release any details at the conclusion of the test. There is absolutely nothing to gain from doing that except possibly a worldwide economic upset. He already has investors, a solid backlog of orders and it’s likely the powers that be know it’s coming and would appreciate all the lead time they can get. A worldwide economic upset might be inevitable but if I was him I would sure want to have product on the shelf before I triggered such and event. Rossi has said time and again that until he has products in the market it is as if he has done nothing. Do you really think a man who feels he has nothing to offer yet will want massive publicity. He may be eccentric but he’s definitely not crazy.

          • Owen Geiger

            Exactly! Well put. This is the message that should be repeated over and over when this question comes up.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        For sure any conference with the speakers noted is great for the LENR community. So on this note, a real thumbs up! I much believe this is one of the great stories of our lifetime, and in fact of history being made.

        As for the “positive” part? The question is a bit more nefarious. No real commitment exists WITHIN a timeframe to release or state to the public anything about the test results (good or bad).

        Rossi likely now knows much the results. Wear or tear, or some fuel exhaustion issues certainly remain to provide useful data, but Rossi is likely long past basic knowledge of having a “viable” package.

        The conference clearly can (and should) stand on its own! The conference really cannot “hinge” on the results of the test (since release of results are not a given).

        A positive announcement from Rossi certainly WOULD be a cherry on top of such a conference and would “bask” in the glow of positive results.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Albert, I understand your point. Unfortunately I believe that outside this limited community of already informed and interested, where I want to reach out, it will be difficult to get attention and interest without a solid and certified example of a commercially viable technology. But, I might find myself in a situation where I have to consider what you say. We’ll see.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, that just makes your goals all the more wonderful! I appreciate you “qualifying” that your target is not those of forums like ECW – we don’t need convincing!

            We still need some kind of “circus” stunt that will impress everyone! The public demo of the 1MW plant a few years ago was close, but not really sufficient. Perhaps a ascent up Mount Everest in which heat and oxygen is supplied by a small LENR backpack! (with a internet video at the summit also powered by the same LENR backpack!).

            Looking at the past say 5 years, LENR has made HUGE gains. We seeing high level Silicon Valley people take notice of LENR being the next great thing.

            I think one of the BEST things in say past 5+ years was the 60 minutes video “cold fusion is hot again”.

            I think we are close to some “major” event that will “bust down” the general public resistance to LENR. In many ways, LENR does “parallel” that of powered flight – a demonstration is rather convincing when combined with a credible source!

            Once again, I much appreciate and thank you for your tireless efforts in bringing the LENR story to the World.

            Keep up your work and efforts – this story matters to anyone who ever used energy beyond their own muscle power!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Bob

        It would certainly be excellent and welcome news if the certification company would publish results!
        However I am doubtful. I have been involved in several certifications ranging from UL, NAFTA, ISO and others. All that I have been involved with, the services of the certification company were paid for by our corporation. That said, the contracts clearly stated that the certification results were the property of our corporation and not public record. So the certifcation company was not free to divulge anything without permission…. the only exception was when our corporation wanted to use certain approved certifications in public business, such as UL listings / Logos, NAFT and ISO compliance. The certification company would then list that our company was certified. Even then, the details of the certification was not public..
        So unless IH or Leonardo Corp. (which ever is paying for and controls the contract with the certification company) gives the them the OK to publish a report, they will not being doing so. History has shown that Rossi has not let much of any data out to the public, so this would be a departure.
        I would encourage you to communicate with IH / Darden / Rossi on the details of your symposium if possible. Ask them to participate by giving a presentation. Perhaps by including them up front, they will then be more inclined to release the reports.
        You probably have already done this, so hopefully they will cooperate. Otherwise, I do not think we will see much of anything from the certification company.
        I thank you for your work on this ongoing story!

        • Bob, this is correct. The certifying institute will not publish anything unless the clients allow this. And as far as I understand, Rossi, IH and the customer (buying the energy from the plant) all need to agree. So nothing here is evident, but since I think chances are good that something conclusive will be communicated, I believe it’s important to be ready to raise the public awareness on LENR, if possible.

          • ecatworld

            Andrea Rossi says this today:

            Andrea Rossi
            January 11th, 2016 at 3:29 PM
            I do not know when and in which measure the results of the test on course will be published, also because this issue does not depend only on me and it is conditioned to when the test will be completed. The results, anyway, in some measure will be published, positive or negative as they might be.
            Warm Regards,

            • Bob

              We can keep our fingers crossed! But as I have been posting lately, I am trying very hard not to read too much into Rossi’s statements. I am very confident that, as Rossi states, he will publish a result. Rossi almost always comes through when he posts something…. it is just that what he originally posts often gets blown way out of proportion here. (Not that you have done this).
              So Rossi has posted that the results “ some measure” will be posted. I fully believe they will. However, I also fully believe that “ some measure” could very well be a ones sentence report… “the test was positive” or “the test was negative”. I feel that is more along the lines of what we will see. It will also probably include that the customer did not agree to publish.
              It is interesting that he states he does not know when. I am confident from my experience, that the certification company has a very defined date. These tests are clearly outlined and unless the contract is modified, it will have a end date for the test and a date (or number of days from the end) that the certification company will have their report done. This is standard. They would have supplied a quote for the test that included the dates. If something arises that requires the dates to be changed, the contract would be modified. Again the dates would be known. This is how it works!
              Whether any report is released is totally dependent on IH / Darden if they have any contractual control or Rossi. Perhaps some undisclosed party has contractual control as well. The customer would have very little to say about the report, other than their name and location, unless they were paying the bill or part of it.
              Like so much of this story, … we will have to wait and see….

              • LarryJ

                The conclusion date of the test depends on when 350 days of successful operation over a 400 day period are reached. A breakdown between now and then would delay the results until the breakdown was resolved, assuming it could be resolved before the 400 days elapsed. If that criteria cannot be met then the test would fail but only as far as immediate commercial readiness was concerned. As Rossi has earlier stated, they have a massive work to do if the test succeeds and and even more massive work to do if it fails.

                • Bob

                  Companies such as UL or SGS are for profit entities. They do not give their time away. When this project was started, IH / Leonardo would have approached one and stated, we want to run a test and have the results certified.
                  (Please note that the certification company is not going to certify that the eCat works. They will certify that the test results were accurately measured and the data is “certified”.)
                  The cert. company would have responded along the lines of “what standards are you testing to.. or what exact protocols do you want us to follow, etc.” They will never simply state, OK, we will certify you in some unknown way or method. It will be very clearly laid out with all details in writing.
                  Once the protocol is established, it would have to be agreed on by both parties. For Rossi/IH, they would have to agree that the protocol meets their requirements/intentions and for the certification company, they would have to agree that they could actually measure, control and certify the measurement data to the protocol. The cert company will not agree to the project if they are not certain they can complete the protocol without controversy. That is what their “product” is… certification of accurate data.
                  Part of this protocol would be the length of test. Possibly as given, 400 days. The cert. company then would provide a quote for cost and it would clearly state for 400 days. Report due “30 days after completion” (some number they come up with). It might have a rider on the contract that for every day less than 400, a credit of $500 per day would be given and every day over 500, additional $500 per day. (Numbers for example only) But even then, there would be limits on the extended time. Such as not to exceed 30 days without contractual review.
                  So there is little doubt that the finish date is known. Certainly within a week. Is a company going to pay large dollars for additional 10 days of running a test when it has been running for 400? Very doubtful..
                  I think Rossi’s statement is more his cautionary approach on announcements. Yes he stated a report “in some measure” will be released. This statement leaves little responsibility to Rossi! He can release a full blown, detailed report or he can simply state “Positive”. Both would accurately fulfill his statement. He also can state “I do not know when the report will be released”. If it is released the day after the test is completed OR if it is never released, his statement is still true.
                  I personally believe the finish date has already been decided and set. All the parties involved are the ones in control of the test. No outside influence here. They will make the decision based upon what all companies do…. what makes the most profitable / monetary sense.
                  5 additional days will not change the outcome of a 400 day test!.
                  We continue to wait to see if the report will be of significance or not!

      • Omega Z

        Rossi recently mentioned he is still working with SGS in an interview.
        They would be fully qualified for such a test.
        I only question if this was a slip of the tongue or misdirection from the Agency actually involved.

  • georgehants

    The most important thing is that Mats does everything possible to raise the value of my first edition, signed copy of An Impossible Invention.
    All this publicity can only help, just need Mr.Rossi to announce a fantastically successful test and I can book my World cruise.

    • GreenWin

      Well put George. However take caution in booking that cruise. Residents of Penzance Harbour are oft considered pirates of some order.

      • georgehants

        Morning, the Pirates of Penzance are a motley crew, but regarding Cold Fusion there would certainly be a few people walking the plank.

  • Private Citizen

    Stockholm in the summer sounds good in and of itself.

  • Curbina

    Now, that’s a disclaimer, or perhaps a Caveat Emptor. If I were organizing this, and had that doubt, I’d wait until the test ends before announcing anything. But that’s just me.

    • Yes it actually looks like Mats Lewan knows a bit more.
      Simply the fact that he’s sure to see any results indicates this 😉

      Mats Lewan: announcing New Energy World Symposium in Stockholm, on June 21, 2016.

      • Barbierir

        I wonder if Mats is sure that something will be released or he’s just taking a chance that it will. Rossi, for once, has been very explicit that the publication of the
        results doesn’t depend on him but on other third parties involved. I hope we get some info but I wouldn’t be surprised if things remain under wraps for much longer.

      • Mats saying things like: “Since I have covered the development of Rossi’s energy device, the E-Cat, I know that there are good reasons to believe that the the technology is valid and that positive testimonials from the ongoing test, that I have received, are true” and Darden’s statements at the last ICCF are major reasons to believe that what “Rossi says” does have a strong connection to the truth.

        It amounts to enough corroboration that you either have to go all conspiracy theory or imagine a scam of unprecedented proportions in order to dismiss the potential reality of LENR and Rossi’s E-Cats.

        • Yes of course, this are a lot of signs which indicate “positive” results.
          But we can’t be sure.

          But we know from the past that Mats has good relations to Rossi. So maybe he visited the plant himself and/or has enough confirmations from insiders in which he trusts.

          I can’t imagine that Mats is organizing this just into the blue. Therefor Mats is too professional 😉

          • I wish Mats could be a little more specific about the testimonials he has received. If his inside info comes from the referee or owner that would carry more weight than a thumbs up from Darden or an engineer inside container.

            But I suspect he got his info from someone at ICCF, maybe Darden.

            Mats? Any peanuts for the peanut gallery?

            • Omega Z

              You’ll have to wait for-

              AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION Part 2
              I’m waiting for the Movie…

          • I have not visited the plant. Yet.

            • Teemu Soilamo

              So, you will be visiting the plant, then? Perhaps prior to the conclusion of the 1-year test?

              • I hope to visit it. Don’t know when.

                • Omega Z

                  Does this mean that you have a conditional invite.

    • Just you 😉

      • Or, in other words, after five years I’m still almost the only journalist in mainstream media thinking that it’s completely natural to give this story attention. So probably there’s something wrong with me.

        • Curbina

          I doubt there’s anything wrong with you, Mats. I was just referring to the anticipation, specially when the tests its circa 50 days to its end, and the event you are organizing is in June.

        • Omega Z

          Probably Mats, there is something wrong with ALL of us for daring to Hope.
          Note: If not for dreamers, we would still live in caves…

  • Zephir

    This is just all wrong. The scientists shouldn’t wait for A.Rossi, but they should do and publish their own research. We have thousands of publications collected already – it’s more than enough for qualified decision about feasibility of cold fusion.

    If the scientists decided to ignore it, it just means, they don’t trust their own results and work. I can see lotta cowardliness and also calculation in their reference to E-Cat tests, which cannot be verified anyway. It’s the scientists, who should lead the research of new findings. Are we really paying scientists for waiting for results of private entrepreneurs?

    • f sedei

      Your “better to be safe than sorry” position is highly respected among many scientists and professionals. But, without a contrary position we would still be looking at the Moon instead of traveling to and from it. Loosen up on Rossi, and maybe patience will prevail. In the meantime, try to enjoy the ride. In the end you always have the luxury of saying to all we believers “I TOLD YOU SO”

      • Zephir

        I just wanted to point to contemporary situation in physics, where the existence of physical phenomena is judged by scarce reports of private companies working at megawatt scale. It’s like the dismissal of general relativity, until the GPS satellites will not pay for itself.

    • Brent Buckner

      It’s not a scientific conference.

      I don’t find anything wrong with not finalizing payments until after “the result of an important ongoing one-year full scale commercial test of the energy source should be released.” Some people may not want to pay to attend a symposium where “high-profile speakers will address the disruptive implications that this energy source will have for industry, finance and society” unless there’s a catalyst such as the prior presentation of that result.

    • GreenWin

      Zephir, those of us long critical of $B of public money invested in hot fusion agree. Consensus science has kept LENR stigmatized since Johnny Huizenga’s illiterate excretion: “The Scientific Fiasco…”

      One explanation for this mass ignorance is simple: cold fusion and derivatives is in many western countries an issue of national security.

      • Zephir

        On the contrary, the dependence on volative oil prices/reserves is what threatens the national security of most countries the most. Not to say about global warming and environment pollution problems, etc..

        IMO the main obstacle in research of cold fusion are the scientists itself – particularly these ones, who are already engaged in alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and/or storage have good reason for to ignore the cold fusion at all cost…

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope Rossi will be one of the speakers too. Anyway I have pre-registered. Let it be ‘positive’!

    • Alan Smith

      I expect to be there too Gerard. Look forward to sharing a glass or two with you.

      • Gerard McEk

        Would be nice Alan, also because it will have been ‘positive’. We surely will drink a glass on that!