Rossi: Peer Review by 'High Level' Magazine to take all of February

I recently made an inquiry of Andrea Rossi regarding the publication of the 3rd party report and today received this message in reply:

Dear Frank:
The report will be published on a very high level scientific magazine. The peer reviewing of the magazine is in course, and I have been informed it will take all the month of Feb. This communication is not confidential.
About the Piantelli patent, Stremmenos has sent a very interesting comment published on the Journal: it will arrive to you in English, I suppose.
Warmest Regards,

This would indicate that the report will not be published until after February once the peer reviewing is complete. On January 17th Rossi mentioned that “Third Party members returned this week to make more tests to clear some points that they had to repeat in the course of the peer review.”

Now we’ll have to figure out which magazine he is talking about!

  • lcd

    Where is the Stremmenos comment

    • admin

      In Italian, it’s here:

      I haven’t seen it in English yet. In the past Stremmenos has published English translations of some of his comments after he has first commented in Italian.

      • Omega Z

        You can also see it here.

        Presently #7 shows a translation

        Also the Original posted by Stremmenos
        Presently #13 There is a translate tab above it.

        The # positions will change with additional posts, but you should be able to scroll down & find them.

        • Ono

          I don’t know much about “high level magazine” or scientific journals, but would one of them ever bother publish a paper on CF if the results of the tests were not positive?

    • captain

      I’ve reported the Stremmenos comment in italian, but duly corrected due to several typos and italian accents, so to render it better understandable thru an english googletranslation.
      My post is waiting for mod.n, anyhow.

      When U’ll see ‘nanopolveri” in italian, write “nano-polveri”, that is nano-powders or nanograins.

      While undergoing further corrections, my post disappeared. Sorry.

      • captain

        further explanations/corrections:

        framento ==> frammento ==> fragment
        microfasi ==> microphases
        nanofasi ==> nanophases
        suop ==> suo ==> his
        polvere ==> powder (better than dust, here)

  • RenzoB

    I have the chance to speak (among other topics) about the Ecat to a group of people, sometimes in march, but if the report doesn’t get published in time I’ll abstain from that part.

  • Joseph Fine

    A do-it-yourself English translation can be obtained using Google translate and I made one available on Facebook. (If you are in the interest group.)


    • RenzoB

      It seems the team of scientists is working like crazy to make sure the results are as unquestionable as possible.

      Andrea Rossi
      January 20th, 2013 at 9:10 AM
      Dear Tommaso Di Pietro:
      The Party is composed by professors of 4 international Universities, and their work is very complex. It does not depend on me, and, as I said, I do not know where it will be published and who are the peer reviewers. It is a very serious thing. I am very worried of this. I do not know the results of the report. I assume it will be published by February, but I cannot say that it is sure, as I expalined. New tests will be made in February, to confirm the results already obtained. Being an international commission ( from different and distant parts of the World) the reviewing times are not very simple to coordinate, I have been told. The news of this week, while I am in the USA, is that the results need further tests to be confirmed beyond any doubt.
      Warm Regards,

      • Can we interpret this statement so that the reviewers of the paper will also visit the lab? Since previously we were told that the writer team was European, what else the other timezoners could be except some reviewers.

        I have not encountered such practice before (reviewers visiting the lab). But maybe it can be used in exceptional cases like this.

        • Omega Z


          Just my opinion, But Rossi has stated that many of those doing the data tests are skeptical of the E-cat.

          If I were 1 of the Skeptics & the Initial Data shown me to be wrong, I would want to check & Recheck before I was to admit that I was wrong. What’s your take on this.

      • Peter_Roe

        I find it slightly disconcerting that “the results need further tests to be confirmed beyond any doubt”. This the ‘hot cat’ that is being tested – a device that produces kilowatts of output over significant self sustained periods, yet that comment implies a marginal result that requires repeating to confirm that it is not some kind of artifact. I hope the test team have not run the thing at some kind or ‘safe’ level at which results might be inconclusive.

        • Invy

          Yes, I was worried about that too… The signal to noise ratio should be large given the amount of power we expect the device to produce.

        • Teemu

          There’s also another way to look at it: The results may be so spectacular as to create a lot of skepticism among the scientific community. In such a case, it would be wise to double-, or even triple-check everything. It can be viewed as a sort of insurance for your career. Maybe I’m just being wishful, but it could happen assuming Rossi’s device really works.

          Another think I found intriguing about Rossi’s comment was that he’s “worried” about this. If he was lying about everything, how would expressing such a sentiment help his narrative?

          What a fascinating story.

        • Pweet

          If the tests are being done by measuring the radiated heat with various instruments then they will indeed be complex and difficult, and worse still, subject to constant argument.
          The only convincing and conclusive test would be to boil a barrel of water, which I have said all along for all the e-cat demonstrations. Mr. Rossi has constantly avoided doing this, even though it is so obvious. The only conclusion I can come to from this is that he knows this test would show it does not work as claimed.

          For a convincing test on the hot-cat, all they need to do is put a water filled sleeve over the device and heat up a small flow rate of water from say 20 deg C to 90 deg C and then dump the water into an insulated barrel, not down a drain, or some other unmeasurable place.
          The calculations for this are so simple that a high school student can do them and the results cannot be in dispute.
          A 200 litre barrel of hot water after a 5 hour test would make everybody sit up and take notice.
          If it makes so much heat that the barrel boils then get a bigger barrel. I would then be twice as impressed.
          The only question would then be whether energy was being fed into the system which was not being accounted for.

          • Peter_Roe

            There is another possible reason that no ‘barrel-boiling’ has been going on – that cooling the reaction to the extent that submerging it or running water through it would do, simply quenches the LENR reaction.

            A company used to taking risks might well see past this problem far enough to acquire the company with the tech, but extracting significant power from the reaction might remain a problem to be solved.

            However as an alternative to radiation measurement, forced gas cooling (possibly using CO2) to a heat exchanger submerged in a fixed volume of water would offer a possible way to perform calorimetry without over-cooling the device.

      • Stephen

        He does not know to which journals they are going to send his results, that’s funny. Why on earth is everything so awkward around AR and his story?

      • Lu

        I cannot find this comment on his journal! Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place…

        I’m heartened to hear that Rossi realizes how important this report is.

        • It’s in the long section near the end of the page which currently has 3314 entries. For some reason that page is not included in so one has to look it up on JONP explicitly.

          • Lu

            Thank you. I did look at the more recent JONP posts to try to find it.

      • Redford

        I must say this is very exciting. This sounds exactly like what a high level validation (who did it) in a high level publication (where it’s published) was in the making. People playing highstakes, ready to enter history or ruin their career, but playing it nonetheless.

        This may take longer than Rossi thinks. Months, maybe one year. Many other verifications. But if he’s real, and patient, this is the good process.

      • David

        Regarding the 4 international Universities: Bologna, Ferrara, Uppsala and Stockholm, upon me.

      • Anonymous

        Rossi is “worried”.

        It is just as possible that the peer review team finds out that it is an exothermic chemical nickel hydride reaction, or the equivalent, because it does not sustain the energy output for sufficient time.

        I give this till the end of March, at which I drop the probability down of real LENR from Rossi to 1% from current 5%. I wish Rossi good luck and I look forward to reading a third party independent test with data.

        I think there is higher probability with Piantelli that at least he has a LENR reaction (20% to 25%), although it appears to be not economically viable at this point (75 watts with all that overhead of apparatus around it). I.e., it is possible that Piantelli has an important scientific curiosity in a working LENR, but that it is not sufficiently powerful enough to supplant other existing technologies, or that it doesn’t self sustain and has a low COP.

        However the breakthrough of proving LENR by Piantelli at least leaves open the possibility it can be economically scaled up to be viable at a point in the future.

        I wish them both good luck, I just find the probabilities lower than I did when I first came across this more than a year ago.

        • Peter_Roe

          IMHO it is literally impossible on the information to hand to estimate the probability of success (however defined) of any of the players. Certainly setting arbitrary deadlines is not helpful as these have no significance outside the minds of the observers who set them (the mistake that Paul Story of ECN made). We are the proverbial mushrooms, sitting in the dark and awaiting more manure.

  • Fyodor

    I am *shocked* that Rossi is missing another of his promised validation dates.

    • Redford

      Can you show us where he promised ? Because I really think he never did. He always said “it should happen that month”, ie opinion. Is opinion was optimistic, sure, but that’s pretty much how things works for people, always optimistic on duration it finally takes for things to happen. There’s not a lot of project I’ve been in that didn’t end up being a bit less than expected, ie later or with less feature.

      Now promise, you say ? I must have missed that part.

      • GreenWin

        This appears to be the last gasp for deniers. Try to blame independent time lines on AR – who says in effect, “I have not control over their work or publication date.”

        Peer review is so tainted today as to mean little. A working hot-cat, with a satisfied customer means more at this stage.

  • We do not deed any ” very high level scientific magazine”. We need only a little, low scientific level, but reliable test on the basic e-cat unit. Not necessary to use very accurate instruments: it is so zfficient that a analogy test would be sufficient. Only independant operators. We promise not to open the reactor.

  • Karl

    I think this is very good news. Rossi seems confident that it is in process and who cares one month more or less. The people from the four universities behind the full validation of the E-Cat and the actual report seem to me even more important than the actual magazine where the report is presented. After the presentation an entire world will be able to dig in and analyse the result further anyhow.

    Many of the so called prestigious scientific magazines have a lot to prove in regard to CF/LENR after all. Regardless the result of the validation report the history of Cold Fusion and the E-Cat deserves to be presented in a highest possible scientific magazine regardless the outcome of the analyse.

    • Björn

      “It is a very serious thing. I am very worried of this. I do not know the results of the report”

      Rossi seems confident?
      Why do he have to worry?
      What is the problem?

    • “regardless the outcome of the analyse”
      What IF the E-Cat gets the same “analyse” as P&F got? The Rossi independent third party validation and peer review should be done by non biased/open minded physicists. We have come too far to be smacked down by pathological/scientists who would use any trick to debunk CF/LENR. jdh

      • Bruno

        The fact of the matter is that you don’t need physicists to determine if Rossi has something. You just need competent engineers to carefully measure mass flows and temperatures in and out and compare the thermal energy produced to the electrical energy used. If you get high temperatures and an out/in ratio substantially higher than 1 (let’s say >3) and the process is sustained for long enough, he has something. Let the physicists figure HOW the device works, but we don’t need them to judge WHETHER it works.

        • Peter_Roe

          Well said.

          I’m still a bit confused about how and why ‘3rd party tests’ (by engineers) has morphed into publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The former would have been adequate for commercial purposes, and a report would presumably be available by now – whether or not Leonardo chose to release it.

          • Joaquim Procopio

            A very good and realistic remark !

        • HeS

          @:”Let the physicists figure HOW the device works”

          You are right, but this is not typical situation. The inventor does not allow for in-depth examination of the device, and the scientists are interested in whether it actually works. A typical compromise. We (the researchers) will investigate whether your device is working for free and perhaps intensify research in this area (LENR).

        • Frank Zamburro

          Hi Bruno,
          Congratulations, the first unbiased, constructive statement,
          which will help the progress of this technology.
          You don’t need all your pseudo scientists, who only try to
          beat their own drum, or the scientific journals, and peer reviews who have vested interests to protect.
          The man on the street is equal to the task, and should take it upon himself to judge the merits of the technology, by leading with his purchasing power, if the product is safe and productive he will be the scientist and promotor.
          We can all note the results of misleading and promoting of
          ideas and products, by our pseudo scientists, which are ongoing disasters, and a threat to our very extistence.


      • Karl

        Of course the validators must be honest. I think it will be much more difficult to repeat what happened to F&P 23 years back today. Rossi have other chances to prove that his products are really working.

        • Peter_Roe

          It’s all too easy to ‘disprove’ something by – in effect – asking the wrong questions, just as happened in the early days following P&F. Rossi says he has given the researcher ‘carte blanche’ in the way they conduct the tests, which would (if the intention is there) offer plenty of possibilities for generating negative results.

          Presumably a set of parameters have been established for producing optimum sustained output, but if these are not used for ‘safety’ or other reasons, performance could be greatly degraded.

          In this event Rossi would need to go back to independent 3rd party testing by a reputable institution in a hurry.

  • Chuck

    He said, if the quote above is accurate, a “magazine”–not a “journal”. So having “Popular Science” perform the test will satisfy that. Unfortunately, given the current level of PopSci journalism, that will solve nothing, other than to get some free publicity. Nothing has been said about peer reviews or juries in this particular quote.

    If Mr. Rossi really wants to be validated, why not send an e-cat to a government testing laboratory, say NIST? Confidence in the quality of the work they do is generally among the highest within the scientific community. I’m certain that they’d be interested.

    If Mr. Rossi would like to keep the tests in Europe, I’m pretty sure that CERN would agree to examine his device, provided that no restrictions be placed on the testing procedure or environment. After all, the e-cat does fall within the purview of “nuclear energy.”

    • Redford

      Getting in depth with english words used by the italian Rossi is not a sensible thing to do. He said that there is a peer review process. Only scientific journal does that. He used the word journal in many other instances. I don’t think your analysis stands, honestly.

      • Chuck

        Well, to be fair, I did say, “If the quote above is accurate.” I’d assume that the translator knew the difference, but perhaps not.

        At any rate, the central purpose of most scientific journals is to report on an event or present a paper. Do I expect “La Stampa” to be more credible in the matter of LENR than the “Giornale di Fisica” (published by SIF)? Of course not.

        Why hasn’t Mr. Rossi submitted his e-cat to SIF for review and testing? That would seem to be a no-brainer, particularly if neither Mr. Rossi nor any of his firm is present to supervise the tests. The idea is to send one of the 1,000 e-cat modules that he’s manufactured with directions for its use to a SIF-appointed facility for testing.

        It might not be perfect, but it would have more of the ring of credibility.

        I’m not trying to be negative here, just trying to come to terms with the idea that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

        This was the idea behind my suggestion to have CERN or NIST test the device. They have their own organs for publishing reports and are generally pretty reliable in facilities and testing (although that bit from CERN about breaking the speed limit on light was a embarrassing–but they did retract the paper).

  • georgehants

    Being slightly biased I would suggest printing the report in the Sun newspaper, as that must be more trustworthy than the main-line science comics where Cold Fusion and many other important subjects are treated as was Galileo.
    Pherhaps time to move on from the middle ages mentality.

  • Jouni

    To be useful the reactor has to be impressive?

    Why not rise the temperature of a swimming pool by a couple of tens of degrees. And then use same electrical power without the e-cat to do it again after the water has cooled down.
    Too obvious?

    • Jouni, I think Mr. Rossi is too busy to play around with swimming pools right now 🙂

  • GreenWin

    “We don’t need some high priests of science to be gate keepers for the rest of us peons.” Mannstein

    Well said.

  • Sandy

    Which “very high level scientific magazine”? My guess is…

    Fusion Science and Technology; “Published eight times a year, Fusion Science and Technology is the leading source of information on fusion plasma physics and plasma engineering, fusion plasma enabling science and technology, fusion nuclear technology and material science, fusion applications, fusion design and system studies. Recent topics have included plasma and fusion energy physics, tokamak experiments, stellarators, next step burning plasma experiments, target fabrication and technology for inertial confinement fusion, inertial fusion science and applications, tritium science and technology, magnetic and inertial fusion energy reactor studies, heating and current drive physics and technology, plasma control, plasma diagnostics, and much more.”

    • Peter_Roe

      This is a journal entirely dedicated to the hot fusionists. LENR would be regarded as heresy of the highest order – practically the work of the Dark One!

      • Roger Bird

        Watch for the report to not be accepted by the magazine. Either it would make a perfect excuse for Rossi to not have to show his empty hand, or else what is in his hand is too far out for dummies at the magazine.

  • Tom Conover

    Get your quotes right please. You may confuse things if you don’t – Tom Conover …

    Andrea Rossi
    January 17th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
    Dear tomconover:
    I did not read the report, yet, because it has not been published yet. By the way, the Third Party members returned this week to make more tests to clear some points that they had to repeat, while I am in Miami. … NOT “…in the course of the peer review.””

  • AlainCo

    The most logical (but is Rossi logical) would be naturwissenschaften. They are serious about LENR, not in denial.

    Otherwise, maybe Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, like spawar.

    No hope for nature/science, they will look so stupid if it work that they will reject any application, if impossible, will fraud the P/R, if impossible will arrange for not having room… as they did before.