E-Cat Action Moves to 2013

For those of us watching and waiting for news on the E-Cat, it seems that we won’t be getting the third party report this year. Andrea Rossi today announced that he had been told by those doing the tests that they would be finished by December 16 (this Saturday) Then, according to Rossi, “It will take some time to collect the papers and the data and more time for the peer reviewing. My opinion is that the publication will be made not before January, considering the mole of the papers . . . I suppose that to write the report will take at least 2 weeks and that the peer reviewing will take at least other 2-3 weeks.”

The Christmas and New Year holidays are bound to be slow times, so it would seem that realistically it could be February before anything is published, possibly even later, depending on the work involved, and the time available for the people involved.

And speaking of February, Rossi also said that, “as for the 1 MW plant of the Hot Cat we are on schedule to complete the plant in February.” he has said that after the Hot Cat is up and running for a while, that invited people will be able to visit and report about it — that may be a few months after it is installed and running.

I am not trying to be pessimistic here, and I don’t feel pessimistic. Things take time sometimes, delays happen for understandable reasons and we just have to wait things out. Meanwhile there are interesting things going on in the cold fusion world to keep our attention, such as the work of the MFMP and Celani. I’m hopeful that we’ll hear something more from STMicroelectronics and their testing of a Celani cell in the next few days.

  • timycelyn

    Also, to try and keep our expectations correct, we need to remember that regarding Announcements that are then delayed, or even withheld, Andrea Rossi has little control over events.

    Firstly, he is no longer captain of his own ship, so what he can and cannot say regarding Leonardo ‘News’ is now subject to the control of others. Which, I bet with his emotional psyche, can easily lead to something starting to slip out to us all, to be corrected by a horrified ‘You can’t tell them about that now…’ from his internal Powers that Be.

    Secondly, as some of the contributors here have to be frequently reminded, in this instance the publication/announcement/whatever it is will be coming from a third party group, NOT Rossi. Why should they announce it at all, I would question, what is their agenda? Keeping us happy? Hardly!

    Finally, from his comments about the timescale,peer review etc., this is quite clearly not a formal publication via journal, where months and sometimes years can go by in this sclerotic and a discredited process.
    I feel he is using the term rather loosely – another Rossi-ism. To me, these timings seem more about publication by the body themselves (eg someone like SGS) after a good internal proof-check.

    Cheers

    Tim

    • Redford

      “To me, these timings seem more about publication by the body themselves (eg someone like SGS) after a good internal proof-check.”

      Would make sense indeed. And be great!

    • sebastian

      “this is quite clearly not a formal publication via journal, where months and sometimes years can go by in this sclerotic and a discredited process.”

      Have you ever published a paper? I don’t hink so…
      My paper(s) always got through in a few weeks (four maybe). There is no need to discredit the system with nonsene “facts”.

      • timycelyn

        Actually I have. Depends on the nature of the subject matter, journal, etc. In the context of this area, this seems to be a particular problem.

        • Warthog

          Most journals have available an “expedited publication” route for controversial/obviously important discoveries. How they handle peer review in those instances probably varies from journal to journal.

      • Peter_Roe

        I’ve published a few papers too, mostly as a co-author. Average time from submission to a decision was 3 or 4 months in my field, but was often longer. If revisions were suggested (=required) this would typically add another month or so (or much more if additional new experimental data was needed), and if a paper was rejected by a journal it was on to the second journal, starting at square one.

        On top of this, scientific journals are often published quarterly, meaning that if the editor’s deadline was missed, or if the editor was unhappy for some reason, or had no space left, it could be necessary to wait three more months for the next publishing date.

        All told it was a labyrinththine process that depended more on politics and the disposition of the people involved than on scientific merit of the paper. Peer review was a dinosaur 30 years ago when I was involved – it has long outlived its usefulness now.

        • georgehants

          Peter, publication time on the JONP would be about 20 minuets.
          Let all the journals copy from there if it is a good report.

          • Peter_Roe

            It’ll certainly appear there – but I think he may want to publish a bit more widely for publicity reasons. When he has publishable news about the US pilot unit he’ll probably send out ‘press packs’ that include the report, in the hope that the embargo will end at some point.

        • Peter_Roe

          Incidentally, I don’t think that Rossi has any intention of going down the formal ‘peer review’ route, and will simply release a report certified as accurate by SGS which may or not be uploaded to an e-print website for ‘open review’.

      • HeS

        @:”My paper(s) always got through in a few weeks (four maybe).”

        Maybe, but I think that your papers are not in such a controversial area (LENR, CF).

      • psi

        I have been waiting for over a year on a particularly controversial article submitted to a peer reviewed humanities journal. I don’t know where you get your “facts” from Sebastian, but in the humanities 6 months is not at all unusual.

        3-4 weeks? Wow. What field do you publish in?

      • Redford

        My wife has too. The standard in her field is between 6 months and 2 years.

  • Redford

    What about the regular 1MW plant of ECat that was supposed to be accessible for the public ? Has it turn into the Hot Cat delivery or is it a separate thing ?

  • Chris

    I’d like to use the analogy of battery technology to discuss the chances of a product actually hitting the market, regardless of LENR being real.

    Every year we hear about this amazing new battery technology that will revolutionize energy storage. faster charging, more charge, holding the charge for longer, more efficient.

    Every year we wait, they hit an insurmountable problem and the idea is shelved.

    Basically what I’m trying to say is, making a product is hard. It’s obvious now LENR is real. Converting that into something you can make money off of, at sufficient energy levels? Yeh. It’s going to take a while before we can buy one of these. Rossi is a showman, and easily excited and overly optimistic with his timescales. Who knows how many insurmountable problems they’ve hit that have lead to a redesign.

    Alternatively, Rossi doesn’t actually have exactly what he claimed in 2011 (he does exaggerate we know this) and the delay is trying to get the technology up to that level so he can actually deliver what he promised.

  • dzejk

    So, Rossi has this wonderful machine that will save mankind. We just have to step in line and wait few more months for the paper work. Yeah right, why would anyone hurry to release such boring news.

    BTW, an idea for total energy independance (no natural gas or external power supply needed): plasmic transition proces engine coupled with ecat.

    • Chris

      I’m sorry, but announcing publishing in official journals when your case is less than airtight is stupid. That kind of behaviour has already derailed cold fusion for 20 years.

      • georgehants

        Chris, why do you always say “I’m sorry” as if your opinion is more important than anybody else’s.
        Lets talk Facts —-
        There is no such thing as an “airtight” report only a temporary amount of evidence to work away from.
        The only thing that has “derailed cold fusion for 20 years.” is the total incompetence of science to take P&F seriously and do the bloody research.
        Journals are there to report Evidence not give opinions about if that Evidence is worthy of reporting, only further research will determine that.

  • georgehants

    It would certainly be disappointing if the third party report appears in any of the main-line censored journals (comics).
    They do not deserve the publication of such an important paper after their bias shown on Cold Fusion and many other scientific subjects.
    The place to publish the paper is the JONP where it has been shown it will be argued and debated openly without interference from the editors etc.

    • Redford

      Life doesn’t work like that. Being fair and achieving the goal doesn’t get along together very often. A comics would do him way more good. Sad fact.

  • GreenWin

    Dr Rossi’s peers are those who attend ICCF conferences. Plenty of talent there.

  • John-xyz

    My money is still on MFMP to deliver undeniable proof of LENR before Rossi’s E-cat does the same.

    They seem like genuine people. Rossi – not so much.

    • all will be denied.
      there is no way to convince non greedy scientists, because they have nothing to win and all to lose.

      I only expect (beside the honest witnesses – there is no believers, just witness) to have people who have a business plan around LENR, whatever it is… only those who can lose to make a mistake can be honest.

      It is too comfortable for many deniers, and some believers, to be wrong…

      Prepare to bet your balls and your realism won’t be an option.

      Sadly once you bet them, it is possible that you refuse you were wrong if it turns bad. but that is another story.
      In fact that is the story of the mainstream denial, based on too early big mistakes by F&P and some intern-designed quick experiments. Todays tragedy is just a sequel of that rational but too quick judgement.

    • Ash

      Except the MFMP people are also showing exactly how hard it is to accurately do the calorimetry on this type of setup. It’s possible they will end up just showing that Celani’s energy result is just a measurement error.

      The US cell was clearly a measurement error (power varied with H pressure), and the EU cell is looking likely at this point. They need to redo their calorimetry to know for sure.

  • Garry

    No mainline journal will “peer review” in 2-3 weeks. More like 2-3 months to come back with with severe critiques, requests for confirmations, side experiments, etc.

    The peer reviewed journal will have to be a 3rd tier journal for such a short review.

    • dzejk

      Do you really believe that it would take more than a few days to arange an article in any magazine on earth, about a machine that ‘will’ change our lives for ever (assuming that the article/study is backed by a trustworthy scientists or organization).

      Personaly, I do not need a scientific article. Brief confirmation from any established university/company would be enough.

    • it seems realist. In 93, it took me 3 month to tune a simple tech-review report in a small IT corp.

      I suspect that this delay might explain the delay about Defkalion testings. And even on that subject, much more sensible, 6-12 month with experiments seems needed.

      We already have many articles, some peer reviewed, some validated by big serious organisation around the world, and nothing have broken the wall of delusion…

      The paper will be rejected by big “reference” magazine without any question (like nature and science did).
      Most small magazine a little serious will reject just being afraid of critics from mainstream.

      Only big commercially managed magazine, hoping to ridicule Nature and Science, will take the risk (like national instruments dis) to check every character, every digit, every comma, in the report, so they can publish “the paper of the century”.
      I think about Naturwissenschaften, who have nothing to lose, and all to win.

      about papers I think that the first PR science paper of the century might be from Defkalion, or by a discrete outsider like Brillouin, maybe Toyota or Mitsubishi…

      MFMP have another mission, it is to convince businesses and labs directly, but through the oligopoly of magazine.
      It can also make the buzz and raise awareness in the public.
      Maybe is it the best method, since I’m afraid that convincing scientists with a paper is impossible. They will only accept when they touch it, and they will mostly refuse to touch it, unless you more or less force them. Businessmen can help them to accept to touch at LENR, just to earn their living.

      First scientists refused to look at LENR to avoid being ostracized and fired, about now they are convinced by the official groupthink. Stockholm syndrome.

    • Ged

      In my field in science, you are completely right. There are fast-track journals now though, top tier ones actually, that can do peer-review in 2-3 weeks in my field. They are a new phenomenon that’s grown in the past year.

      I don’t know how it is in the field of engineering however.

      • HeS

        It would be funny if Rossi partner began to sell a product without any scientific basis. Any public demonstrations, scientific papers. Simply will sell just functioning devices.

        • jpelsor

          Ahhh There’s the solution – FUNCTIONING DEVICES.
          Shown in public. Better yet pair two devices together and let them power a light bulb,IN PUBLIC VIEW, for several hundreds of hours. It jut isn’t that difficult folks. If it’s real and reproducible, to prove it to us all.

          • Peter_Roe

            Explain why Rossi needs to prove anything to you or anyone else please.

          • Blah43

            He doesn’t, but it would be nice. In ten years the world will have been profoundly changed by LENR/E-cat or it will be a disappointing footnote.

  • MarcIrvin

    My only comment is that if anyone is serious they would be doing an irrefutable report or demo video by next week. Timing is paramount. If someone delivers the goods on December 21st, 2012 they will forever be recognized as the inventor of the technology, period. The world is that simple. Even if its a COP of 1.1, the history books would remember, the news media would remember, and people everywhere would never forget. The patent is the date, and it is world wide. The owner becomes whomever discloses.

    • clovis

      Dr.Rossi is an honorable man, doing his dead level best to bring something good to the world, and all he ever gets is bad mouthed,
      he does not lie, that is not his way.He has always said that the proof was in the pudding, has he not, and no one is even close to doing what his device is doing,he is the father of the e-cat that will change the world , believe it,if you need the facts about the e-cat read his report, remember it,the new one will say the same thing and maybe be even better than his, believe it,.
      We need to get behind Dr. Rossi, not in front of him , he is on the exploration of the unknown, you think you know better than he, i don’t think so, so please join the revolution or get the hell out the way, because this group is bound for the further and many other wonderful thing are coming just be patient.
      ,

  • georgehants

    Void

    • Patrik

      Could you elaborate? I am specially interested whats your take on this news.

      • georgehants

        Patrik, do you mean the post I cancelled as it is now on a new page or the topic on this page.

  • Roger Bird

    I am an LENR, Mike McKubre, Celani, et. al. believer:

    First sentence: “For those of us watching and waiting for news on the E-Cat, it seems that we won’t be getting the third party report this year.”

    What a BIG surprise!! (sarcasm galore!) I fell on the floor I was so flabbergasted.

  • H. Hansson

    Mr Rossi is not a fraud, just nuts. Time after time he have ended up in legal problems because he is nuts. Every time the Court have found no fraud (just a guy that is nuts).

    Said that, if he insist to run the project on a CEO basis LENR “À la Rossi” will only be the first not the most produced. We are looking for a guy with another sets of skills.

    Does it works.. I don’t know. But Mr. Rossi have put the final nail in the coffin as far as investor confidence is. If the 3 part report is a joke….

    • Dave

      According to Rossi he once had a company that produced oil from biological waste (using well known principals, nothing special). The problem however was that he was not allowed to sell his product because his oil was classified as a waste product. Labeling his products as waste and preventing him from selling it (he already had costumers) ruined him and his company and left him with a lot of “biological waste” and no resources to dispose of it. We are talking about Italy of many years ago and the officials who were responsible for ruining his company were controlled by the mafia. The mafia were major players in the energy sector of that time.

      If you think all political systems in this world are send from holy heaven… you live in a big lie.

  • Go Katto

    Why should it be so important to have a paper peer reviewed that says a machine is truly working over the fact you could get your hands over that machine? Did not Rossi promise “soon on the market” more than a year ago? And now, after all this time you’re waiting for a piece of paper? Why not ask for the machine itself? It might be cause you can not? It might be you can not as Rossi “soon” is far beyond 2012, so far and so beyond that all you (your sons and your nephews) can hope for is a piece of paper? And in 2150, when Rossi will no longer be there, should the sons of the sons of your nephews wait a 3/6 months more to see a paper stating the “Wireless Cat” of the son of the son of the nephew of Rossi is truly working?…