Perhaps Still this Month

Here’s a little bulletin from Daniele Passerini on regarding the long-awaited hot cat validation report. (Thanks to ECW reader Renzo for the non-google translation from the original Italian!)

Please have a little patience for news about the E-Cat that you’ve been waiting – as I do – for months after months. I can now tell you that:
1. those independent tests so much expected and delayed are now almost concluded;
2. experimental setting, instrumentation (National Instruments, of course), calibration, procedures, records and so on… this time are “watertight”;
3. nothing is left but the time required to document and communicate all in the standard mode used by the scientific community and those responsible for the tests will certainly do it as accurately as possible.

Passerini is in Bologna and seems to be in contact with some of the key people who are involved in writing this report — people who have yet to be identified. When I recently asked Andrea Rossi if a prediction by ‘Francesco CH’ on who said that the report would be published somewhere around Nov 20-30 was correct, he replied that the timing does not depend on him.

Hopefully these two pieces of information are not too far off the mark, and the report will soon be published.

  • Torbjörn

    “That means, we should be ready to load the Celani wire tomorrow (read Friday), unless we think of something else that is worth doing first. The anticipation is thick here. So is the nervousness. We don’t want to make any mistakes with the wire.”

    • daniel maris

      At the moment, this is more important than Rossiworld. This is a definite fork in the path

    • barty

      News from the MFMP!

      “10:52 pm Minnesota Time: The cell is assembled and has been charged with helium. We have updated the software with the necessary changes to be able to calculate the power out as a function of cell temperature. We are just trying it out and seeing how it works. It takes some getting used to and some explaining. Right now we are testing at 5 bar of Helium and it is showing positive energy, but that is probably because the gas is not the same as the calibration equation. Any time we turn the power down and the power in drops before the cell temperature it seems to indicate excess energy, which has fooled our eager little minds a couple of times already. Because of this, I am hesitant to share the live data stream, for a little while till we can explain things better. Things are moving fast, though and it will be available soon.”

      • Peter_Roe

        Exciting stuff. It would be interesting if helium turns out to be not so inert as it is supposed to be in this experiment!

        • buffalo

          yeah,cudos to the papp nobel gas thingy

      • clovis

        GOOD WORK , GUYS.
        your work is another third party confirmation of lenr.
        And i for one will take your data as correct, because i know you guys are doing things, using scientific methods, and procedures.
        I follow your progress daily, and you seem very dedicated in your work, thank you very much for your openness –clovis

  • AstralProjectee

    Gee, can’t wait. I do have a question though. Is this report suppose to be good enough for mainstream scientists, and the media to start taking seriously?

    • John-xyz

      I guess it depends on who writes it and how much status they have in the academic world, and what the report says. Personally, I’d say no, because often scientific journals have material that contradicts other reports. If there were multiple reports then that would have more effect, but I can’t see that happening. Rossi has been dragging his heels about getting independent testing for so long, can you imagine him loaning out 5 machines to different universities? Me neither.

      • Peter_Roe

        So even a report in the academic press would not be sufficient for you now – it has to be five of them? No wonder Rossi has little interest in going down this path.

        In any case, can you imagine any reason why Rossi would want to spend his own money and risk having his secrets discovered by sending out 5 unprotected e-cats to various universities, while having virtually nothing to gain from such as exercise. Get real.

        • John-xyz

          Well, I guarantee that if the report is positive then it will be ignored by media organisations. Or they’ll say that they need more verification by other researchers, or will play a waiting game.

          • Karl

            Of course – but for most of us that follow this drama it will an important report. The “unscientific” attitude will continue until there is enough numbers and types of working LENR products on the market.

          • Michael

            If a home e-cat shall be sold on the European market and is gas-fired it must fulfil the requirements of the Gas Appliance Directive, including safety and performance tests. Then, there is the market and production control. And in the near future will the ecodesign directive for residential appliances apply.

          • Peter_Roe

            Correct, and equivalent requirements also apply in the US. This is why home e-cats are no longer a Leonardo Corp. priority, and certification will not be attempted until there is sufficient data from industrial low temperature installations to demonstrate safety.

            By this time (c. 2 years I think Rossi mentioned) the technology will have moved on, and I imagine the whole thing will need to be redesigned from the ground up in any case.

          • Peter_Roe

            I agree with Karl. Lack of reporting would be an indictment of mainstream news and science media, not of Rossi.

  • Redford

    If the text is not completed yet, it really does seem way too early for printed publications. And it also means that this will most probably not be peer reviewed. What we’ll have will be something not really different from the last report, except with probably more names, more details, better figures. But I don’t expect any paradigm change. Actually, I am a bit disappointed if it’s not peer reviewed.

    • Karl

      Proper reviewed – be careful – your comment could be seen as a typical unfriendly attitude to cold fusion in general. What you call for is that Rossi has to crack the catch 22 scenario that shamefully has been organised by the main stream scientific community in its unscientific attitude that have kept the door closed for this kind of research and access to publications the last 23 years.

      There has been too many refusal of papers in this research segment and my estimates is that Rossi still has to finally deliver products with satisfied customers before this whole earth saving solution will be opened up and this will not be thanks to the mainstream scientific community.

      Thus, regardless the final paper works of the independent tests of the Hot Cat, it will open eyes for those of us there will want to see the truth regardless the procedure to make it public. Most of us following this drama will not be surprised the resistance from a paid pseudo sceptic community will continue and grow after that. The truth can be a great threat for false prophets.

      • Redford

        I am not friendly or unfriendly to cold fusion. You can consider me as unfriendly, or at least not giving any credit, to people claiming it’s a matter of being friendly or unfriendly. People mocking cold fusion and people flaming any criticism against it are two side of the same worthless coin to me.

        Rossi has announced this report would be publish into a scientific review and that’s why I had what I think is a legitimate hope to see something peer reviewed. OTOH to me any review labelling is not a must. Third party validation is, thus, would it only be because even working stuff without 3rd party validation will not build enough confidence to happen.

        That being said I’ve been advocating the fact that 3rd party validation is here since Levi first, and now with the latest hot cat report. The talk is about getting more of it, but I consider that those who have refused to acknowledge the existence of 3rd party experts who have validated Rossi’s claims are obviously suffering from a bias that will not be challenged by more of the same.

        • Dr. Mike

          As long as the report is written by a truely independent third party, the engineers and scientists following LENR on this website can provide the peer review of the report. We will be able to point out any weaknesses in the report and ask that the reporters clarify any deficiencies.

          Even Rossi’s own cryptic hot-cat report was essentially peer reviewed on this website and his blog. There was several things in his initial report that didn’t make sense to me, but eventually they were clarified in his revisions and by his comments on his blog. The final report with Rossi’s additional comments made for fairly convincing evidence that the hot-cat was working as Rossi had claimed.

          I will be “reviewing” the third party report to see that the experimental work was done using standard scientific methodology, as I am sure others will be.

          • Redford

            I agree on this, and this is one of the reason I come here. That being said it’s not the same, communication wise, that a peer reviewed publication in an established journal.

          • GreenWin

            You guys are both correct in my view. And we may have to accept that Open Source peer review is all that will be available to LENR, until a government agency or large corporation forces review in old school journals.

          • Omega Z

            Dr. Mike

            I would add that if these tests are done by qualified personnel from 2 different Universities, that it would be fairly well Validated. Even without a University taking direct Claim although that would be Icing on top.

            Being False witness to DATA would very likely be Career ending if found out at a latter date. Universities don’t like bad press.

    • Ged

      We could get the submitted article, which will be peer-reviewed.

      Let me just say, as a published scientist, if you want to see this report after peer-review, expect to wait anywhere from 3 to 12 months from now. Peer-review is slow, especially on such a controversial topic. It’s going to be a -long- time before it gets through the literature, more likely than not.

      I’m hoping we’ll get a copy of the submission rather than wait.

      Again, people have not realized just how long scientific publications take; and it is completely out of Rossi’s hands. Manuscript prep takes a month or more to perfect before submission usually, let alone the time till publication.

  • barty

    News from the MFMP!
    They are currently loading the celani wire in their cell!

    “10:52 pm Minnesota Time: The cell is assembled and has been charged with helium. We have updated the software with the necessary changes to be able to calculate the power out as a function of cell temperature. We are just trying it out and seeing how it works. It takes some getting used to and some explaining. Right now we are testing at 5 bar of Helium and it is showing positive energy, but that is probably because the gas is not the same as the calibration equation. Any time we turn the power down and the power in drops before the cell temperature it seems to indicate excess energy, which has fooled our eager little minds a couple of times already. Because of this, I am hesitant to share the live data stream, for a little while till we can explain things better. Things are moving fast, though and it will be available soon.”

  • walker
  • Ged

    Just to re-iterate once again.

    If this report is being made by a university, as expected, and if it is planned to be published in a scientific journal, it’s going to take -a lot of time-. I don’t think folks understand nearly how much time it takes to make a publication in the scientific literature, all of which is outside of Rossi’s hands.

    The manuscript preparation itself, for publication quality, is going to take a month or more (hence why it didn’t come out last month, since they were to finish their testing phase at the start of October). Once submitted to peer-review, reviewer comments will necessitate (almost never does a paper not need revision) considerable rewrites and potentially even more experiments, before acceptance. This process generally takes between 3 and 12 months from the point of submission to a journal, to the point of acceptance for print (and then a month or more before it actually appears in the journal).

    Keep this in mind everyone. Science is -slow-. Agonizingly slow. You have to get used to it and have patience. The science discoveries you read in the news now are stuff that started 3 to 10 years ago, or more. If this report is indeed aiming for peer-review publication, hopefully we’ll get a copy of the submitted text, but we aren’t going to see the finished, published product for a long while.

    If this report is aiming for some other sort of setting, like technical communication for corporate review, then we may get the finished product this month (and again, not getting it last month is normal; it would have been crazy to say they do the tests at the start of October and then publish at the end — no way is that possible. Rossi was way, way too optimistic in his timeline for something not under his control).

    • Redford

      Indeed. That being said the process of revision may actually be well under way and the process of polishing Daniele is mentioning can be actually related to that. Also, it’s not a complicated paper after all, that’s just measurements. Methodology, analysis should be dealt with fast and easy.

      So possibly that’s more likely in the 2 month time frame. Last but not least, if the publishing journal is on line, it can go fast too after validation. So I am keeping some hopes we’ll have it published under peer review – but we can already tell it will not be by a heavy structure.

      After all, what’s the point of taking time to follow the codes if it’s not to get the peer reviewed publication?

      • Ged

        I agree indeed.

        I think the fastest journals can move these days, for “accelerated acceptance” tracks (a very dubious process that has come under heavy scrutiny lately) is about one month. That’s the fastest I’ve ever seen, and it left a lot of people scratching their heads; 3 months is generally the fastest one can hope for in most cases even with on-line journals. And if reviewers throw a lot of curve balls, you are looking at a timeframe much farther down the road. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, curveballs are a high probability unless the data is so enormous as to leave no room for such. Still, there are always outliers on both sides of the time range. Maybe we’ll get extremely lucky.

        It’s one thing to say something is just “measurements”, but all science is just experimental measurements (unless we’re doing computer modeling). The writing takes a longer time to perfect than one might suspect. It isn’t simple to communicate and prepare data for publication level, gather all the references for citation, and flesh out the story satisfactorily.

        I am very much hoping we’ll see it published under peer review, but that’ll be a long time from now. For now, I’m just hoping to see the submitted-to-peer-review paper.

        A technical communication could be ok, depending on who signs off on it, and that would be considerably faster.

        • admin

          My understanding that the report won’t be published in an established scientific journal. I think we will see it in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

          • Ged

            I know that was the case for Zurich’s report, but if this is done by a university, I think they’d want to put it in peer-review by their own accord. Rossi could still put the submitted paper on the JoNP.

            But yes, we’re just wishing for a report that is aiming for that highest standard, but it may well be a technical communication. As long as the organization signing off on that is good, it’ll still be wonderful (for instance, if it is a corporation like NI verifying the product performance, then that is just as good as a science publication I my mind, from a business standpoint).

          • KD

            To Ged
            >>>>I know that was the case for Zurich’s report, but if this is done by a university<<<<

            I don't think it will be done by university but done privetly by scientists employed by universities.

          • Ged

            That is the same difference in my view, as a scientist at a university. The universities don’t tell us scientists what to do; we research what we will, collaborate with whom we will, but all we do is still under the university’s banner.

            I know people want to split those hairs, but I think it is a fallacy.

          • Ivan_Cev

            ….but you having your american idea of a university roll, that could not be applicable in other countries.

          • Ged

            You are wrong about that, Ivan. The idea and the roll of the university in research hasn’t changed for centuries, as it spread from Europe outward. The acadmenic world is its own little standardized microcosm.

          • Renzo

            Frank, my understanding is the opposite… I hope you’re wrong

          • clovis

            Hi, Guys,
            You have to keep in mind, that this is basically just a heat ex changer, the core is the only thing that has to have close scrutiny,and there to not much to see just ni and h.

      • Chris

        “Also, it’s not a complicated paper after all, that’s just measurements. Methodology, analysis should be dealt with fast and easy.”

        Hmmmmm no. To be a peer reviewed paper (which I’m not so confident about) it would have to be not such a simple matter. Just about any paper about experimental physics could be described as “just measurements” except for the slight detail: In order to be the least bit worthy of peer review, methodology and analysis are the very key thing and are never so fast and easy.

        But, measurements of a black box with any secret inside is hardly of interest to other researchers. At the most, they wight count the authors as witnesses to something remarkable. There are some things in science which inherently can’t be done just whenever a group choses to do it and/or obtains the funding for it, but by this I mean naturally occurring events, which is not the case here. In this case they are more picky and they will tend to consider it industrial R&D rather than academic research. And that’s what it boils down to, even if a university is commissioned to carry it out. So wouldn’t be so sure about it showing up as peer reviewed.

        • Ged

          You make great points, all around.

        • Chris, I agree that it’s not common in scientific papers to measure a manmade black box, but I don’t see a reason why it couldn’t be done or why referees wouldn’t like it, provided that the scope of the paper is defined in a proper way. For example in archeology where it’s not uncommon to use physics lab instruments they may study value objects that cannot be “opened”.

          • Chris

            It’s not that it can’t be done or that referees wouldn’t like it, It is simply a distinct thing, an industrial product rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon, it belongs in a different place. The papers by Piantelli et al. belong in research journals, they were peer review published in Il Nuovo Cimento, they described the setup without any secret as to how others might try the same thing. They reported a few cases of positive outcome, but still they weren’t withholding details; the difference between positive or negative cases was simply not yet known.

            Nor is the ecat something that archeologists dug up, you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    • Renzo

      Gerry, you’re right that the actual publication in a scientific journal may take a long time, sometimes a year or more. But usually the unpublished paper is available online as soon as it is ready, it happens all the time, just look at the personal pages of university professors. I can’t see what would be the point to keep it secret for months, it would be obsolete by the time it get published…

      • Chris

        Preprints are indeed a very common thing and often they are eveb quoted as such. But in some cases they end up never becoming an actual, peer reviewed article.

      • Ged

        I agree, and fully hope we get a submitted paper copy at the very least this month.

        • Omega Z

          I believe this is directed more at Business. Potential Customers. Data that Comes from someone other then just Rossi & Leonardo. A 3rd party validation for Business confidence before investing in a Totally new Technology.

          I’m sure once it’s on the Market & Rossi gets his U.S. patent, there will be additional testing & Studies then some peer review. This will probably require more Technical info then Rossi is willing to release at the present. But then, Rossi will no longer care about peer review as it will only be for further research & studies.

          Rossi will already be setting on a beach somewhere having a cool one.
          Not really. I think he’ll slow down but still be very much involved with improvements or new applications of the E-cat. I think that’s just the kind of guy he is. He wouldn’t be happy doing absolutely nothing.

  • freethinker
  • clovis

    Does Leonardo corps have a logo, if not we should come up with a very innovative design that will be very desirable, and if they do maybe they well adopt it, anyway— smile.
    I don’t remember seeing one. so it must not have grabbed me,-lol.
    There seem to be a contest for the best logo,–smile

    • Chris

      Is this attractive enough?

      • clovis

        nah, that is Italiano, smile, we want a world wide view.

        • Chris

          But the logo is the logo mate 😉

          • clovis

            HI, Chris.
            You are correct thanks,— check this out,The noise of an E-Cat of 1 MW is:
            dB(A) < [email protected] 6 m
            Translation: is silent.
            Warm Regards,

            AND CHECK THIS OUT–

          • Peter_Roe

            I don’t like to be too sniffy – but it looks like something from 10 years ago. Time for Hank to update his site creation software I think.

          • Chris

            I think the cat’s cuter. :-3

        • LCD

          I think sometimes it’s forgotten just how big of an impact on science it will be when a fully detailed and convincing independent report comes out.

          If real it should literally change the course of every scientific field imaginable.

          if P&F is any indication, millions of research dollars worldwide will get diverted to replication and or research of the basic phenomena.

          Energy policies of every nation will change overnight.

          I could go on but it’s almost silly to think that the fate of all that rests with some Maverick Italian inventor who’s previously been convicted of fraud.

          Regardless of whether or not it happens, come on, it’s a fantastic story you would expect to see in a movie.

          • LCD, “I think sometimes it’s forgotten just how big of an impact on science it will be when a fully detailed and convincing independent report comes out.”

            Optimist. I’ve been watching the resistance to this discovery for many years. Top scientists have declared that they have achieved LENR. They have published their findings in peer reviewed journals. They have released videos with names like SPAWAR, NASA etc. You can wander down to a demo at MIT any time you want for God sakes!

            This technology will creep out of the closet very slowly. This report will make very little difference. The only thing that would make a shocking difference is being able to go down to Home Depot and buy one. Its hard to argue with a device running in your home. Alas, if I understand correctly, the safety certification is being held up pending certification by the scientific community. A sweet little catch 22.

            It’ll come, but not in a moment.

          • GreenWin

            LCD, by now all who have bothered to check facts know that Rossi’s purported “crimes” stem from his running afoul of local mafia. The Italian government later acquitted Rossi three times of all charges, including any described as “fraud.” “Rossi was sanctioned only for minor events related to non-compliance with permits obtained for the disposal of waste.” Unless you have evidence contesting this.


          • captain

            If, if, if… one thing is sure: this blog is not for U.

            And if U post in other blogs, one day (but this is not sure) U’ll find an inventor that very likely will invent a LENR device.

            Believe me, U’re wasting your time here, U deserve a better place elsewhere.

          • Just don’t expect to read about on the Associated Press wire.

    • Hampus

  • GreenWin

    With respect to any e-cat independent verification by an established university – we should come to grips with current peer-review tribalism. As Admin has indicated, there is little chance the hot cat study will be “published” anywhere except JNP for many reasons. The best are well discussed in an excellent book titled:

    Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication by Gordon Moran, 1998 Greenwood Publishing Group

    “[The] whole picture is one of a power struggle where the odds against innovation are great but the addiction of the innovator to truth is supreme (deGrazia, 1978, p.200). The major forces or factors against innovation would include paradigm protection and so-called turf protection. Along this line, in an article in Science about controversies in astronomy, Burbidge was quoted as saying, ‘When we come across things we don’t like we cut them off, we referee them to death.’”

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Probably not related to LENR but:
    (Reuters) – “Google will increase the cash it allocates to its venture-capital arm to up to $300 million a year from $200 million, catapulting Google Ventures into the top echelon of corporate venture-capital funds.”

    Google reported it used 2.26 million megawatt hours of electricity in 2010. Google did not report on the usage of its data centers but local power officials estimated 50 MW per center.