Your Predictions — How Will the Report be Received?

Assuming the 3rd party report is issued, and it contains the positive confirmation that Andrea Rossi has reported, it will be interesting to see what impact it might have on the world at large. Certainly it will be received with interest and perhaps with much celebration by people who have been paying attention to the story, but I am wondering how much attention a scientific report on a topic that most people are completely ignorant of will get.

I do have one concern about his report. If it is published by a traditional scientific journal it is possible — even likely — that it won’t be made available in full for free. Many journal publishers charge users over $30 per article, and if you purchase it you do not have permission to put it up on the web. This might prevent news about it spreading very rapidly. I expect in this day and age there will be places where the report will be made available, but I wouldn’t be able to post it on this site without permission.

So how do you think it will be received — will it be hailed by experts as a seminal moment in the history of science? Will it be trashed by sceptics? Will it be covered in the mainstream news media, and thus be ignored by most people? Will it take a long time for the significance of the discovery to disseminate? Will financial markets react in any way to the report, and thus bring attention to the news?

If you have any prognostications to share, let us know.

  • Zan

    Never. Simply because we are still waiting for millions of ecat build by robot in a highly automated factory. Simply because we are still waiting to see a real prototype capable to heat a cup of water just for a tea.
    ..I can continue with many other reasons

    • dzejk

      It is probably a scam, but there is still some hope left in me. If there is no credible 3rd party report within 2 months, this hope will completely disapear.

      • GreenWin

        Very much like the p in disapear.

      • Job001

        It’s more likely not a scam. The ongoing dominate scam is “artificial scarcity” cartel capitalism. Think!

    • Lukedc

      Looks like something has upset the balance…

  • R101

    The skeptics and deniers are already bunging on about the 3rd party testers not being able to see within the device (though they go have a point).

    Maybe they think it’s powered by a stack of AAA’s 🙂

    • GreenWin

      More likely a hidden pack of double As with higher mAH.

      • Peter Roe

        Wasn’t thermite the maryhody explanation of choice? At least before he latched onto the ‘power through the earth connection’ idea.

  • georgehants

    A reply that contains all the right things.
    Not trying to delay but putting forward that a delay is not exceptable.
    —–
    Andrea Rossi
    March 26th, 2013 at 11:55 PM
    Dear John L:
    It will be applicable to all, but the plant we are going to deliver in April is close to be ready, no time is left to modify it. The next plants will have the new generation of reactors. Good question…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • John-64

      If the plant is delivered in April (are we talking 2013?) then it won’t really care if the report is late or not. All it takes is one customer to say they’ve bought it, and demonstrate it, enclosed in glass. They’ll say “we bought the first e-cat”.

      • Teemu

        However, that customer won’t speak for several months still.

  • georgehants

    I would like to receive any comments on my post.
    ——
    Something good is happening, but one has to be careful with the delicate minds of most people.
    I try to stay with the clear Evidence for subjects like The Placebo Effect that could improve life for millions and where the scientific proof is beyond any rational dispute, but still the average scientist is full of imposed denial.
    Unfortunately most of the general population is so caught in the trap of all populations since the dawn of time, including the apes, of following a “leader” who by definition will be the strongest “manipulator” able to achieve that position not by personal Moral strength but by utilising the weaknesses and desires of those willing to follow for their own personal advantage at the expense of others.
    Hitler and many others are good examples of this effect, but most of us try in many ways to achieve things in this unsavory way, by manipulating others to our own advantage.
    Only when each individual takes the responsibility of a non-religious but Spiritual stance, learning that the only thing that matters for all in this World is a Loving, Caring, Concern for Everybody, every Animal and Everything will it be possible for things to improve for all.
    The Enlightenment is not some Wonderful thing that is going to arrive from Heaven but the learning that we already have around us a Heaven that is mostly being destroyed and abused because people in general refuse to open their eyes.
    Enlightenment is opening ones Mind, which first means opening one’s eyes

    • Andre Blum
      • georgehants

        Andre, would you like to make a point on my comment containing your own thoughts on the subjects posed.

        • pg

          I usually enjoy your comments but I am inclined to agree with Andre on this one

          • georgehants

            pg, may I ask your reasons why.

          • pg

            because using the Hitler card, anyone not agreeing with your point of view is either an involuntary nazi follower, or in the case of scientists must be part of the nazis themselves, making a fair discussion of this subject not possible.

            I know this is not your intention, but Hitler/nazi reference is notorious for poisoning civilized and fair discussion. That’s all.

          • georgehants

            pg, I therefore renounce my use of the Hitler word and replace it with one that just conveys my meaning.
            Now I have done that would you reply to my the points I have made, as I would appreciate any disagreement to see my errors.
            Thank you.

          • pg

            I don’t disagree with your reasoning, I just disagreed with the way you would indirectly paint whoever does not share your view in this case

        • Andre Blum

          I didn’t read your post and I have no thoughts on its subject.

          • georgehants

            Andre, interesting, how then did you “invoke Godwin’s Law” without knowing its relevance.

          • Andre Blum

            I diagonally scan your postings to see if they have any relevance to cold fusion, because occasionally they do.

            This time I stumbled upon the man’s name, rolled my eyes and invoked the law.

    • I am forever on record in the databases of the world and the minds of those reading this post (and/or their personal computers…) and officially on record stating that: “This moment is a game changer.”

      The competition for resources game has run its course. The responsible sentient beings, the empowered, the very real live “Gods” who control the reins of power, need to attain personal and collective Universal Alignment with resource allocation methods and seek out some other system that is allows for maximum human happiness.

      The entire leadership structure everywhere needs to become Competitively Enlightened and stop being sore losers. If you are wrong promptly admit it and go about changing for the betterment of as many as possible.

      “They” have enough money, power, and influence…enough. The centralization of power inherent in our religions and political systems is flawed by design. This starting point needs to change.

      Retiring the leadership into luxury and comfort is not punishment nor is it a crime, but it is necessary for something else to arise. Competitively Enlightened are not sore winners who punish dissent or block their rivals voice yet the size of one’s audience is a public asset. You can have your money but power is the publics’.

      I am Matthew Chute: Chutechi.com and universalalignment.com. I am a golf pro and artist’s salesman http://www.patriciachute.com. This may be it.

  • Betuswonkel

    I agree. Maybe there will be a report but it is not likely to be published in respectable Journal. It usually takes months to get a paper accepted and published. If the test have finished last week, then there is no way the paper can be written, accepted and published in less then a month. That alone would be extraordinary.
    My guess is that it will be a similar report as the hot cat report of last year ie. not credible. The fact that the reactor cannot be open is a serious flaw in the whole test, not only for obvious reasons. Transmutations provide solid evidence for a nuclear process but since the reactor may not be opened this cannot be tested. Rossi must know this, so the fact the reactor cannot be open is reason for suspicion.
    I wont get my hopes up for this report, it is likely to be one big disappointment. I hope i am wrong though! Maybe he will surprise me but i seriously doubt that considering Rossi’s history.

    • Ash

      Rossi will ‘publish’ it in JoNP, if at all. Expect more delays.

    • LilyLover

      You must be the petroldragoneer. T R olls existed back then?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This will be a nightmare for the marbled institutions. It’s the elephant in the room they’ll have to ignore or else they’ll have to admit that they set LENR back a quarter of a century.

    • NJT

      +1
      YEP!

  • MK

    Off topic but maybe interesting….Sterling Allan from PESWIKI is raising funds to visit the demonstartion of a “magnet motor”.
    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/send-sterling-allan-to-the-yildiz-magnet-motor-demonstration-in-geneva?show_todos=true
    I am very, very sceptic, but I´m even more curious ;-)…….

  • georgehants

    (Phys.org) —Phinergy, an Israeli developer of metal-air energy systems, has demonstrated a new type of aluminum-air battery that is capable of providing enough energy to power an electric vehicle (EV) for up to 1000 miles at a time—with occasional stops to take on more water. The company claims they have developed new technology that prevents carbon dioxide from entering the system, which in the past, has led to breakdowns of the materials used in such batteries.
    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-phinergy-aluminum-air-battery-capable-fueling.html#jCp

  • georgehants

    Science has discovered that trees etc are “Efficient Solar Cells”
    Goodness, my admiration for science goes up by leaps and bounds.
    It only takes them thousands of years to realise something known to the first peoples who rightly worshipped the Sun and not as now wrongly worship money, because they where aware that all surface life comes from it.
    ——-
    It Turns Out Trees Are Recyclable, Efficient Solar Cells
    Solar cells act something like leaves, capturing sunlight and turning it into energy – unfortunately the manufacturing of solar cells, unlike trees, is something of an environmental disaster. From rare earth metals to all kinds of other materials due to substrates and cells, solar panels have to function for decades before they break even, as far as any ecological savings are considered.
    If only solar cells could instead be made from trees.
    Georgia Tech and Purdue researchers say they have done it; they have developed efficient solar cells using natural substrates derived from trees. Just as importantly, by fabricating them on cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) substrates, the solar cells can be quickly recycled in water at the end of their life cycle.
    http://www.science20.com/news_articles/it_turns_out_trees_are_recyclable_efficient_solar_cells-107548

    • GreenWin

      The big difference is attempting to capture, store and utilize the energy of a distant sun, compared to creating local, in situ, clean green energy. We have passed the day of centralized power plants. We have a new way to deliver energy to the point it is needed, without transmission losses, and the vulnerability of a grid. Things keep getting better.

  • Ag

    Unfortunately, I think the report will be largely ignored by most. As Rossi says, “the proof is in the delivery of working plants to the customer”. I think that one of these customers (with a reputable name) coming forward will be the milestone that we are all hoping for. I hope I’m wrong though and that mainstream media runs with it. We shall see shortly (or not, depending on your level of confidence…).

  • Teemu

    I think the real question is, “is there going to be a report at all”. But if there is a report, I can’t imagine Rossi lying about it being positive.

    • Betuswonkel

      Some people are in fact pathological liars. They cannot help themselves and even enjoy fooling people as much as they can. I am not saying Rossi falls under this category but it is a possibility. I recommend watching the documentary ‘BBC Panorama, The Spies Who Fooled the World (2013)’ to get an insight into the mind of pathological liars. It is absolutely stunning to what extent people can lie, even if they know it can lead to war.

      • georgehants

        It must be sensible to assume everybody is a “pathological liar.”
        But it must be foolish to prejudge such a condition and not allow the person concerned time to prove their point.

        • Betuswonkel

          I said some people are, not everyone.
          Rossi has had ample time to prove his point. How many year are you willing to wait? Maybe the new report will provide the evidence but i seriously doubt that considering the quality of the reports published before.

          • georgehants

            How without assuming everybody is a “pathological liar” would you be able to discern those that are before the event.
            If you cannot, then prejudgment is in error.
            Your decision of how long to wait is your own concern and has no bearing on how long others are willing to wait.

          • Barry

            He claims to be so close to offering a motherload. Hot fusion people always told us “Twenty more years”. Rossi is saying “Twenty more days” Why not wait a few weeks and give him a chance? He just might deliver.

  • Admin asks good questions, but they are not easy to answer at least for me. My judgement of the report depends on the details: (in no particular order) the journal, the authors, the quality of the measurements, internal consistency of the report, language, data, images, formulas. Basically, for good impact all these factors should support each other and paint a consistent and credible picture. Treating the reactor as a black box is not a problem as such.

    On the other hand the technical task at hand (to prove large excess energy) is simple enough that there should be a good chance that the paper indeed meets all the above criteria.

    • georgehants

      Pekka, do you agree it is totally irrelevant to the Truth as to how the report is received.
      Any judgements not based on the Facts and Evidence will only be mirrors of the people judging and therefore to be disregarded immediately.
      Science is not a place for “opinion” expert or otherwise.

      • If one asks how the device works, then the response is irrelevant. If one asks how it impacts the world, then it’s relevant, and I think admin was asking the latter question.

        Science is a consensus opinion about facts, and the scientific method is the presently preferred way of approaching the truth and modelling it.

        • Science is a human process, involving complex communities, battle of power, and a great myth around scientific method, that all history have proved was never seriously applied.

          No hope it change anything more than demo of plane have convinced Scientific American.

          It is an old repeated story that nobody want to accept.

          Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain wall that process of amnesia in AntiFragile.

          • HeS

            @:”No hope it change anything more than demo of plane have convinced Scientific American.”

            But it is fair. Risk-takers and those who believe in this technology (without evidence) will be the winners.

        • georgehants

          Pekka, Agreed your first sentence, with your last sentence, I am trying to get my head round this “scientific method” that treats Cold Fusion in the way that it has.
          Would I be wrong to believe that my “method” which is to be certain (by consensus) that we are following the Truth or if in doubt, do not deny but keep quiet and do more Research, is far more scientific than any “presently preferred way of approaching the truth” which leaves itself open to abuse and misinterpretation.

          • There are several questions, 1) to what extent is what we call “the scientific method” an optimal way of approaching truth or modelling reality, 2) the semantic question where does “science” stand between opinion and truth, 3) to what extent has the scientific method been followed in case of CF. My short opinions: (1) don’t know but it’s not impossible that one day we might have something better, (2) I leave it to linguistics, (3) has been significantly abandoned although partially followed.

    • SolarSurfer

      Well said, Pekka. However I wouldn’t care about the journal if the authors are truly independent and not part of Rossi’s circle. We certainly can’t expect Science or Nature but even an anonymous FTP download for a PDF would be acceptable for me if the authors are named, in deed scientists with a decent publication record in experimental physics and willing to acknowledge their participation. If they turn out to be Levi, Fioravanti, Nelson and an undisclosed NATO colonel, I doubt anybody would pay attention – no matter what the report says.

      • Thanks, but … I would actually bet for Nature or Science. Concerning other points I mostly agree with you except that I would pay at least some attention to what Levi says, in the hypothetical case that he was an author.

        • Garry

          I have a number of “free dinner” bets I will be calling in should it be Nature or Science.

  • Curbina

    I share the concern about the report not being free, but I’m sure we will be able to read it even so. But no website shoudl publish it without getting in a copyright mess.

    • Or maybe we should get into a copyright mess. There’s nothing like a little legal quarrel to get the news spread around.

  • Jimr

    I beleive the report will be positive however it will be written very cautiuosly. They will not be overly optimistic in thier comments,you have to remember that thier reputations are also riding on the results they report, and all twelve or is it eleven have to agree with the terminolgy that is written. There should be several graphs , etc included. Don’t count on the middle of April as a release date, i beleive that date is what Rossi is hoping for, it will be nearer June.

  • georgehants

    From Wired, just forgot to use the word Truth as an end goal.
    ——
    Three Science Words We Should Stop Using.
    Take out all three of these “science” words from introductory texts. They do more harm than good. The problem is that people have firm beliefs that they mean something other than what they are supposed to mean. I don’t think we can save these words.
    We do have a word to replace them. Are you ready? It’s the model – or you can call it the scientific model if you prefer.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/three-science-words-we-should-stop-using/

  • buffalo

    mmm.i doubt such a test on a black box will do anything substantial to any msm but maybe thats the way rossie and other lenr champions wants it to be at the moment,ie.cause an underground stir and let the pot cook(peoples overenthusiasm and hunger to ‘know’) until it just ‘boils’ over in2 msm on its own time and steam.

    • artefact

      I think it will at least help. I expect many main stream media to wait for something they can cite from a respected source regarding Rossi. Many of them should know about him (AP for example 😉 ).
      I also think some of them are watching this blog. The report by the four Universities is all they need. They have someone to blame if the whole thing collapses. In earlier days that was (not justified) Pons and Fleischman.
      The msm will have something very good to sell (money money) and have someone to blame just in case.

      If they do not write articles after the report I ask me when will they? If the first customer says: “The E-Cat runs perfect” and the media reports about it, everyone thinks, “hey, why didn’t you report about it earlier?” Everyone will get the feeling they missed the break through moment!
      Now imagine again the report gets spread far through media reports. A huge wave of excitement appears globaly and Rossi sais that the first industrial plants will be delivered at the end of the month. – my perfect world.

      • NJT

        +1
        Fingers are crossed here!

  • georgehants

    Brought from below —
    pg on March 27, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    I don’t disagree with your reasoning, I just disagreed with the way you would indirectly paint whoever does not share your view in this case

    • georgehants

      pg, then if you agree with my view, by definition you are also—” indirectly paint whoever does not share your view in this case”
      Explanation please.

      • pg

        I agree with your point of view about the placebo effect.
        I don’t agree with you about the kind of portrayal painted of who does not agree with it.

        I agree with Senator McCarty that the Usa should not be a communist country.
        I don’t agree with Senator McCarty with his portrayal of communist people.

        • georgehants

          pg, I cannot answer your point unless you state clearly something I have said that you disagree with.
          Please quote my point and then put your disagreement.
          Thank you.

          • pg

            I try to stay with the clear Evidence for subjects like The Placebo Effect that could improve life for millions and where the scientific proof is beyond any rational dispute, but still the average scientist is full of imposed denial.
            Unfortunately most of the general population is so caught in the trap of all populations since the dawn of time, including the apes, of following a “leader” who by definition will be the strongest “manipulator” able to achieve that position not by personal Moral strength but by utilising the weaknesses and desires of those willing to follow for their own personal advantage at the expense of others.
            Hitler and many others are good examples of this effect.

            The last sentence disqualifies the rest

          • georgehants

            pg, I am afraid your reply is illogical.
            You take exception to my use of the name “Hitler” and yet it conveys my point that you seem to agree with exactly.
            You seem to be reacting to something from a personal point of view that has no place in our debate.
            I have taken out (below) Hitler for you and replaced it with any other manipulator of the masses and yet you still hold the same point.
            Do you have a disagreement with my comment beyond my appropriate use of the name Hitler.

          • pg

            That word is the whole point. Given the word Hitler personifies the image of the antagonist of the placebo effect, your view (although reasonable) gets poisoned by the very portrayal you make of those not shearing it. I do not know how to put it any better than i did.

          • georgehants

            pg, thank you for your debate, I am sorry that the name Hitler spoiled it a little.
            But your agreement on my general points is very welcome.
            Regards to you,

  • GreenWin

    We have now 23 years of precedent with peer reviewed published and unpublished LENR papers. The record is clear. Over and over again we have hard evidence of nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments (starting at Los Alamos 1989); later attacked, ridiculed, found “lacking,” and subsequently forgotten.

    For me it was Pam M. Boss et al’s work at SPAWAR, presented March 23, 2009 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting (note the date, 20th anniversary F&P.) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm

    But even this level of study from well qualified United States Navy scientists was attacked, ridiculed and made to appear by (professional cartoonish) debunkers – insignificant. The 2009 CBS 60 Minutes story “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” likewise raised public perception for a while, then fell back into a hot-fused abyss of silence… except that it convinced Dr. Robert Duncan at U Missouri to head the SKINR Center – poised now to help unravel LENR theory.

    IMO, we will have an e-cat report that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt LENR produces very real and valuable over-unity energy. It demands a rewrite of physics; it upsets the century old physical “laws” we have come to worship. Change is hard, even hateful to some. But change has come to science and it is for the good. This e-cat report will be hard to deny. As will the working e-cat unit delivered in May.

    But the Catholic church refused to acknowledge their ignorance of the Copernican, Keplar, Galilean cosmos for 400 years. It is hard for some to accept they are no longer the center of heavenly orbit. Such is the stuff of human progress. And Easter is a time of rebirth.

  • AB

    Assuming the report is positive and of high quality as Rossi is saying, then I expect mixed reactions and delayed acceptance due to human tendency to cling to established beliefs. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for people to get over themselves and accept the reality of LENR. Of course there will also be a probably surprising amount of people who were just waiting for something like this to come forward and support LENR.

  • Peter Roe

    I can’t see Rossi or his associates allowing the paper to languish in some firewalled journal, or even on a preprint server, and would think that they will prepare an illustrated publicity piece based on the results, and simply referencing the peer-reviewed paper. They must be aware that the news will be unwelcome in many quarters, and so the test findings will inevitably be ignored, denied, ridiculed etc. by anyone who stands to lose income or prestige, or is simply too hidebound to accept new information. There is also the question of the reactions of ‘TPB’ – essentially the banks who in turn own many threatened industries, and incidentally have control of the mainstream media – and of governments faced with the prospect of losing much of their revenues from ‘fossil’ fuels.

    Overall I think it is reasonable to assume that Rossi et al. are fully aware of the fact that they will be ignored by the MSM and I sincerely hope that they have some plan that will integrate the publication of the report with a publicity splash when the prototype has been installed at the customer’s premises (end of April) and commissioned. There will inevitably be a ‘troubleshooting’ period and I wouldn’t expect to hear much before June or July, when a few weeks of operation have proved the viability of the prototype beyond doubt. They (Rossi & partner) will be extremely cautious about releasing information publicly without this in place, and more than a few ‘fence sitters’ will probably have thrown up their hands and marched off by then – which of course will not make any difference at all to the outcome.

    As I said in the previous thread, there will probably not be many overnight epiphanies among the ‘movers and shakers’, but more of a process of seepage as the truth is literally forced on deniers by slowly spreading public knowledge of the facts. Admin’s suggestion that financial markets may react to the public disclosure in a way that might bring attention to the news is IMO a good one. Lobbies such as anti-nuclear groups may also be instrumental in bringing the development to public attention.

    As I also said, I hope that many of those who have posted or just ‘lurked’ here will play their part in spreading awareness when undeniable proof is available (but not before – that is a waste of time). We may also have to do our best to try to counter a surge of disinformation that might be commissioned by TPB to coincide with any ‘launch’ of cold fusion. The process of integration will be difficult and I think that a small buch of blog posters could actually make a significant difference to the speed with which awareness spreads, if they pick their targets well.

    • “…many of those who have posted or just ‘lurked’ here will play their part in spreading awareness when undeniable proof is available…”

      Yes Peter Roe. This will be a royal battle for the minds and hearts of the people and their leaders. jdh

  • Redford

    The accessibility of the date is probably not the key issue here. Very little, even here, went through all the datas of people measuring ecats, even the september report. The point is about 1) 3rd party verification 2) institutional support. 1) We will get as long as the name are published. That being said it’s not something entirely new, just more of something we already have (Levi and the engeneers from September report are already here). More is always welcomed, thus.

    2) depends on the publication. If it really is high standard, then expect some noise. But note that when media have a bias, they can entirely deny the value of a serious, reputable peer review publication in favor or any crap. I’ve seem them doing this on the Seralini paper on GMO – depsite a publication in the top review on its field they managed to ask advice to plenty or actually not as relevant as him or the reviewers expert that opposited to his finding on very thing ground and managed to give the public the impression that the scientific community was agains him which was pretty much the opposite of the truth.

    So if there is a bias, we’ll start to see it from there. So far Rossi’s too much below the radar for the media to have a stance specific to him but if the journal is notorious, they will slowly start to have one IMO.

  • Barry

    Cold Fusion is our generations Theory of General Relativity and though the times are much different than 90-some years ago, I expect a lot of parallels. Einstein impassioned so many of his colleagues who found the possible implications enlightening, but the general public did not even know who he was until his theory was proven 15 years later by a carefully photographed total eclipse. When the first pictures were scanned some said it disproved his theory. Other pictures were claims of proof. So many in the scientific community tried to tear him apart, until proof could no longer be denied by a scrutinized photo. At this point of greatness I think the negative critics are actually disappointed and would have been happier to have witnessed failure. Newspapers hardly mentioned Einstein and his TGR until it was proven, when it was the world followed him into a new dimension of spacetime.

    This has been an incredible ride like a material version of spiritual enlightenment. My Chakras can’t tell the difference. I already believe, but forgive me brothers (and sisters) in the wee hours of the morning my faith wavers. What if A. Rossi is exaggerating? He seems sincere, but what if he’s one of those people? I would be a happy man simply knowing the phenomenon of Cold Fusion is proven to be nuclear rather than chemical beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if there is a low COP. The rest would someday follow.

    This feels like it must of felt in the 1920s when the photos of the total eclipse were finally taken but had to be analyzed for over a month. Maybe I lack imagination, but for so many of us I don’t think we will see something of this magnitude again in our lifetimes. It would be one of the greatest of joys to watch the results follow and unfold across our planet. I have music prepared just waiting to release.

  • daniel maris

    To state the obvious, a lot will depend on the quality of the report. If for instance, the authors can show the machine was watched 24/7 either in person or remotely, and if they can show that the machine was placed in a special location and wired up according to their instructions – rather than them being presented with a “black box” in situ – then that will add hugely to their credibility.But if any possibility exists of the machine being tampered with before or after the process started, then doubts will remain and that will reflect its reception.

    Given all we know about this story, I cannot see how any serious evaluator would not insist on 24/7 monitoring and also witnessing the machine being put in place, to ensure there are no hidden cables of wireless transmission points. Ideally I think you would have an isolated hut or similar where you would carry out the research.

    We shall see!

    • robiD

      >”to ensure there are no hidden cables of wireless transmission points”

      Are we here jet?
      Hidden cables? Did you see the pictures form the Penon’s report? Where would you hide cables inside that chunk of iron?
      The hot-cat has been dismounted and shown inside and outside, where do you put a couple of wires that have to bring tens of Amperes with temperatures up to 1000°C?

      wireless transmission? Do you think to transmit wireless the excess power? 300-3000 W transmitted wireless from tens meters distance and focused on a cylinder 40x8cm ? Wow, that would be the real invention not the E-Cat.

      The only things you can expect now are:
      1. Rossi said a bs (no independent test at all);
      2. they did wrong measurement;
      3. Something real is happening.

      in all cases we will see very soon the truth. By now hidden cables or stupid tricks are only inside poor minds.

  • Blackligth Power issued 5 signed reports by know people of know places and it didnt shock the world, i dont see any different with Rossi’s case, al comes down to attract investment as i see, but no near term final products, we just aint gonna know if the thing is real or a bad mistake/ scam yet.

    If you wanna know the blacklight reports are here:
    http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

    • Torbjörn

      Apparently you haven’t read the reports.
      History of BlackLight Powers claims:

      March 1999: 1000 W, within 4 month.

      May 2008: 50000 W, within 12 to 18 months.

      May 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013.

      • Ok, lets see how many W cames in this report.

    • LCD

      Yes but they also have zero viable products as far as I know and for a much longer time than Rossi. Additionally they have a theory that does not correctly predict the energy levels of the hydrogen atom AFAIK so why would you believe it.

      They are a whole other case on their own.

    • Gerrit

      Most of the world will not notice the report at all.

      For us (the “Rossi observers”) it will be very nice that we have proof that Rossi was at least telling the truth about the 3rd party validation. We will gain confidence that Rossi is also be telling the truth about the 1MW plant shipments and his big US partner.

      The world will (start to) change when energy generating devices are verifiably in operation at several places in the world.

      In short: The report will increase our confidence, but it won’t change the rest of the world.

      • Andre Blum

        +1

      • HeS

        @Gerrit:”Most of the world will not notice the report at all.”

        It also depends on our (belivers:) activity. We can increase the impact of this report by placing information about this event on portals and blogs.

  • I think the report will only be another straw on the back of the camel. After all, right now you can wander down to MIT, and see a running LENR reactor. You can talk with the MIT professors involved. Yet MIT itself is oblivious of LENR.

    Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Very unlikely. Could it be? Well, only if one or two of the scientists have incredible name recognition, or great marketing skills.

    Will the report be enough to quell the venom of Steve Krivit? Now that’s a question. Probably not.

  • Robert

    I am guarded about the expectations on the report. Remember, you have to be very careful about reading Rossi’s words.

    “Professors from four universities” does not mean that the four universities have sanctioned the tests. As mentioned before, last year’s test was done by a NASA scientist, but not “by NASA”. That test was not recieved well at all. (Other reasons involved as well)

    There has been a long running “dispute” about the involvement of UNIBIO. As far as I know, a few professors from there have been involved with Rossi. Rumor has that the university has been readily involved. However, official statements from department heads absolutely deny any formal involement. Thus the UNIBIO connection has little credibility in many people’s eyes and for good reason.

    So I believe a couple of “key” items will make or break this report.

    1) If the testers are simply acting as individuals, regardless of thier education, experience or title, the report will have little impact. If the testing is being done under the umbrella of organizations that formally acknowledge the owernship of the test, then it will have much more impact. I.E. if “University X has released the results of sanctioned testing conducted by thier department of Physics” instead of “Professor Bob, an associate professor in physics from University X issued a report today” will make a very significant difference. (Even though in reality the tests would be exactly the same, the acceptance would be vastly different)

    2)Because the tests are being done via a black box, for the report to be taken seriously, it will need to make clear and precise statements such as “no chemical reaction possible” or “ALL possibility of fraudulant trickery”, or “energy density MUST require a nuclear type event” will have to be stated. If the report simply states that more energy output was measured than input, but no definitive statements about primary cause, then I believe it will be disregarded. Even if it supports net gain energy, it will need to clearly put to rest issues of fraud. This might be difficult to do but not impossible.

    It will be interesting.

    • HeS

      @Robert:” I.E. if “University X has released the results of sanctioned testing conducted by thier department of Physics” instead of “Professor Bob, an associate professor in physics from University X issued a report today” ”

      Do not forget that the tests are done at the expense of those universities (measuring devices, working people, transport, hotels, …).

      • Robert

        Possibly but not necessarily. Again, a NASA engineer conducted tests last fall, but NASA did not pay for anything.
        Remember, Rossi said that HE did not pay for these tests, which might very well be true. He did not specifically say that Aldo Peroria(?), his unknown USA partner or some other unknown party did not pay for them. Just that he did not.

        I do not mean to imply that this is not on the up and up. I just know that, in the past, I have taken Rossi’s non-native translatations either literally or to my interpetations and my interpetations were not accurate. The prime example was last fall’s third party test. Was it a third party as Rossi claimed? I believe YES. Was it what many people would call a third party test, obviously no. Was Rossi telling a lie? I believe NO. Was the test a “standard third party”? I believe NO.

        So again, I am hopeful but guarded. I can hope that this test will be everything beyond doubt. BUT I can also see it being another situation where my interpetation of what Rossi said will not coincide with what actually transpires. Not that Rossi told untruths, but I “read between the lines” too much.

        Who knows?

    • Redford

      What’s the nonsense about university supporting this or that? Science doesn’t work like that. It works with publication. New finding become akcnowledged not because of the reputation of who wrote the paper, or who pays his bills, and at least in theory not even on the reputation of the publication itself, but because of the quality of the article and more importantly, because there are replications/confirmations of the result by 3rd party. And that’s all. An university doesn’t endorse or invalidate a finding by one of its professor, it just takes pride or prejudice to their reputation depending on those. I am really tired to see people trying to get quotes from an university official supporting this or that. They are administrator in the first place, for Christ’s sake! What do you expect ? The know perfectly well that they don’t even have a legitimacy to express position on edgy matter they’re nearly never specialist of.

      All this time & discussion wasted on meaningless debate of people who lack the very basic understanding on scientific procedures. Stunning!

      • clovis

        +1

      • Garry

        +1

        If the Deans had to agree to everything I did and said I’d have left academics a loooooong time ago.

        Redford has it EXACTLY right. Universities don’t endorse. They only step in to allow, or not, certain hazardous materials to be brought onto or shipped from campus, or to allow monies to be spent in ways sanctioned by the funding agency from which the payments will drawn for the project.

        Otherwise– tenure is a license to intellectually roam.

        Whether the academic cares to hew to the crowd or strike out and ignore consensus is up to their conscience.

      • sparks

        +100.

        • Robert

          Like many things, we can agree to disagree. In this case I disagree.

          Robert Duncan carries a lot of “weight” due to his OFFICIAL position with a major university that has recognized and established a program in this area.

          A professor from MIT supposedly has a working LENR unit on his desk and cannot even get the time of day from his school. They do not officially support the project.

          There IS a BIG difference.

          If last year’s eCat test was conducted under formal NASA oversight and ownership, you can be certain there would have been MUCH more coverage and brough ha ha about it.

          There are a lot of posts from skeptics pointing to the fact that Zawadowy(?) is a NASA engineer working on HIS LENR theory, not that NASA has an engineer working on LENR project! Much arguement has even been given due to the fact that the NASA logo was on some of his presentations. But the fact that NASA does not state “Yes, NASA has a LENR project” it does not get any attention.

          Who were the actual people who “discovered” the Higgs Boson recently? (Or at least conducted the tests?) Only if you are very close to the subject will you know. However, the announcement was plastered all over the world that “CERN” released the findings.

          Do not give oneself so much credit. Unless you are a Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, you will not get any MSM attention unless your Univeristy or Major Corporation releases formal announcements. I have given examples. Can you supply any names of widespread MSM announcements from individuals not associated to a University or major corporation?

          Does not mean that individual testing is not correct or valid, just that it will not be noticed outside some low circulation periodicals.

          This thread has the title “How will the report be recieved?” I am very confident that if Redford or Gary published a paper, regardless of content, that it would not be noticed at all in MSM unless thier university, major corporation or related fraternity made it an issue to advertise.

          Just like the names of the very intelligent scientists conducting the Higgs Boson experiments…..everyone knows CERN announced it, but 99 out of 100 will not know the scientists names. If CERN had not announced it, we still would not have heard about it.

          • GreenWin

            Robert, you rely on the MSM as arbiter of truth. Unfortunately few people read MSM that way any longer. Which is why newspapers, magazines, radio, TV networks continue to lose market share to online alternatives.

            The priesthood is dying.

  • Stringbustr

    Andea Rossi needs to now stop being so secretive about so many things.
    That will also help move this along with the public.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Nonsense, he is just protecting his IP, and believe me it is necessary

    • Andea Rossi could set out a working reactor, under glass, and protected by an armed guard, for all to see it working. A single E-Cat would be best, avoiding the complexity of the 1 MW Industrial Unit. Now, at the release of the 3rd party report would be effective. Some people get more out of a physical device, rather than a published scientific report. jdh

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Rossi has demonstrated the E-Cat at least eight times!!! After each successful demonstration there were people who said, he needs to demonstrate it this way or that way. One guy said “it is the electrical plug, he is getting power from the ground wire”, so Rossi unplugged it and ran it in self-sustained mode for a couple of hours. Everyone said we need a “third party” telling us it works, so Rossi agrees to have Third party tests. Now we need it put under glass, with arm guards. There is no wonder Rossi says the only way people will believe is having a customer making or saving money using the E-Cat.

      • Omega Z

        jdh

        “Andrea Rossi could set out a working reactor, under glass, and protected by an armed guard, for all to see”

        EXCEPT- No Media would cover it & any individuals who witness it personally would be called Fools or quacks to believe.

        Thinking Wright Brothers.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Those interested in delaying LENR will denounce it as “Edisonian”, describing it as dangerous to use something we do not understand, like electricity and gravity. (:
    But if major media honestly reports the results, this will be the “LENR Spring”.

    • AB

      Independent media is pretty much dead. Much of the media is owned by the same people who own the energy industry (and pretty much every other major industry). No conspiracy here, just a lot of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. So generally there is a conflict of interest in regards to reporting something that will cause massive losses for the energy industry. I’m not sure how the media will react exactly, but I think there’s a good chance they will ignore it for as long as they can.

      Anyone remember the Associated Press during the 1 MW demo? They sent a reporter and thus invested some money in the story but no article ever came out of it as far as I know.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        And the onsite reporter refuses to talk about it, and has been transferred.

        • GreenWin

          The backstory is here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696792

          Why has AP refused to acknowledge the 1MW test? Can we expect different when the Report arrives?

          • artefact

            IF some respected Persons/organisation stand behind the report then hopefully.

          • GreenWin

            The U.S. Navy has backed e-cat development and attended the 1MW demo. Respect has no effect on people clinging to a hoard of cash and power.

      • Kim

        The main stream media is like asking the
        fox to guard the hen house…

        Respect
        Kim

        • Kim “…like asking the fox to guard the hen house…”

          The News Media people will ask the establishment Physicists if this CF/LENR is REAL? Their answer will be NO – end of discussion. jdh

  • Al_D

    I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of important people and news organizations following this. I think that there will be an official yawn followed by a flurry of activity in the background. The news organizations will summarize the reports, hesitant customers will come forward and order, there will be a run on stocks of nickel producers, and there will be a lot of head scratching in the vein of “OK, it works, now what do we do with it”. There will also be a lot of analysis on the economic aspects of using it in it’s present form. A lot will also depend on whether A.R. is issued a US patent, how broad it is, how liberal his manufacturing licenses are (i.e. technical disclosure and freedom for innovation) and what royalties he expects. I’m also fairly certain that the president is aware of the project and his reaction would have a great effect on the amount of publicity that the report and the project receives.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      How about just recognition by our new DOE head!

      • NJT

        Yeah, read me resonse above regarding that old movie…

    • already happening.

      you can talk of LENR to old-fashioned industrial, provided nobody else knows.

      Governments are late and fearful.

      Science community is rejecting it to avoid ridicule, for few more minutes.

  • Mike Kahan

    Mike Kahan
    the report is not important, we all know there is product (yes it needs to improve and perfect but it works) that has great
    benefit in freeing society and therefore changing a landscape from empires’ attempts to keep total control of people. All this does is extending oil cartels influence and destructive involvement in societies,
    However tide of strong ideas is hard to stop. Things are changing, remember three years ago, who except 50 scientists in the whole world even talked about this, only three years ago. Times will be a little brighter.

  • GreenWin

    Slightly OT but fascinating is confirmation from the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft that all known matter, galaxies, stars, planets, gas clouds, etc. comprise only 4.9% of the entire universe. Making humans ignorant of 95.1% of our surroundings.

    We have now 23 years of precedent with peer reviewed published and unpublished LENR papers. The record is clear. Over and over again we have hard evidence of nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments (starting at Los Alamos 1989); later attacked, ridiculed, found “lacking,” and subsequently forgotten.

    For me it was Pam M. Boss et al’s work at SPAWAR, presented March 23, 2009 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting (note the date, 20th anniversary F&P.) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm

    But even this level of study from well qualified United States Navy scientists was attacked, ridiculed and made to appear by (professional cartoonish) debunkers – insignificant. The 2009 CBS 60 Minutes story “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” likewise raised public perception for a while, then fell back into a hot-fused abyss of silence… except that it convinced Dr. Robert Duncan at U Missouri to head the SKINR Center – poised now to help unravel LENR theory.

    IMO, we will have an e-cat report that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt LENR produces very real and valuable over-unity energy. It demands a rewrite of physics; it upsets the century old physical “laws” we have come to worship. Change is hard, even hateful to some. But change has come to science and it is for the good. This e-cat report will be hard to deny. As will the working e-cat unit delivered in May.

    But the orthodox church refused to acknowledge their ignorance of the Copernican, Keplar, Galilean cosmos for 400 years. It is hard for some to accept they are no longer the center of heavenly orbit. Such is the stuff of human progress. And Easter is a time of rebirth.

    • GreenWin

      At the peril of suborning subterfuge, I will add that following Dr. Duncan’s appearance on “CBS 60 Minutes” – he received a phone call from an ivory tower college. The caller told Dr. Duncan in no uncertain terms, to refrain from ever speaking of cold fusion again. To our nation’s great benefit Dr. Duncan did not heed that warning.

      • NJT

        Greenwin,
        Somehow your analysis conjures up my memories of the first movie “Planet Of The Apes” and those old silverback ape scientists that held back the real explanations…

    • Jim

      Just a correction. The church didn’t actually jail galileo over the science he did. It was over his insistence that it was fact rather than still theory. The church was actually fine with the concept.

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Roman_Catholic_church_oppose_Galileo's_ideas

      • GreenWin

        Jim, this is one area it is best to leave Wiki-anything far behind, as they are easily rewritten to suit orthodox agenda.

        “In 1630 Galileo completed his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are discussed and compared and was cleared (conditionally) to publish it by the Vatican. The book was printed in 1632 but Pope Urban VIII, convinced by the arguments of various Church officials, stopped its distribution; the case is referred to the Inquisition and Galileo was summoned to Rome despite his infirmities.

        In 1633 Galileo was formally interrogated for 18 days and on April 30 Galileo confesses that he may have made the Copernican case in the Dialogue too strong and offers to refute it in his next book. Unmoved, the Pope decides that Galileo should be imprisoned indefinitely. Soon after, with a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition and sentenced to prison and religious penances, the sentence is signed by 6 of the 10 inquisitors. In a formal ceremony at a the church of Santa Maria Sofia Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors. He is then put in house arrest in Sienna. After these tribulations he begins writing his Discourse on Two New Sciences.

        Galileo remained under house arrest, despite many medical problems and a deteriorating state of health, until his death in 1642.”
        University California Riverside, 1998

        http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html

  • artefact

    Jam
    March 27th, 2013 at 5:20 AM
    Hi,
    Can you post a picture of the truck being loaded with the latest 1MW power plant to be deliver in April?

    Andrea Rossi
    March 27th, 2013 at 7:43 AM
    Dear Jam:
    Why not?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Sanjeev

      That will surely satisfy the show me guys.
      Unless its a stock photo of a shipping container on a truck…..

      • artefact

        or again the security officer photo with the text: “ok, put it in the truck!”.

  • Felis Fervens

    With sufficiently obvious COP, the report should be able to rule out chemical energy.

    Not sure what they will do to be able to rule out a nuclear heating element in the black box.

    Mainstream media will only report positively when the ruling oligarchy is positioned to exploit the news.

    • Ruling out a nuclear heating element is easy because such element produces constant heat output which cannot be regulated at all.

    • Sanjeev

      A nuclear source will keep heating even without any input and the radiation is hard to conceal.

  • Garry

    Much depends on the quality of the journal. If Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters then chances are it will NOT be ignored. Every week the major journals send out PR notices on the articles being published. These are pick up by AP, Reuters, etc. I would be surprised if, should the report be published in a top journal, that it is ignored.

    I sense a lot of “defeatism” in the comments. Perhaps well justified given the past. But… optimism should be the order of the day.

    • artefact

      +1

      Btw: how often is there a report written by 4 universities? I know of collaborations of two teams but 4? Somebody knows?

      • Four is not too rare, example with 13 institutes: Janhunen, P., P.K. Toivanen, J. Polkko, S. Merikallio, P. Salminen, E. Haeggström, H. Seppänen, R. Kurppa, J. Ukkonen, S. Kiprich, G. Thornell, H. Kratz, L. Richter, O. Krömer, R. Rosta, M. Noorma, J. Envall, S. Lätt, G. Mengali, A.A. Quarta, H. Koivisto, O. Tarvainen, T. Kalvas, J. Kauppinen, A. Nuottajärvi and A. Obraztsov, Electric solar wind sail: Towards test missions, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 81, 111301, 2010. (http://www.electric-sailing.fi/paper9.pdf)

        • artefact

          yea, but that was your super solar wind sail! 🙂
          Thanks.

    • Sanjeev

      In past, I don’t think lenr was ignored or suppressed by msm. F&P became a famous name all over the world overnight, they were on the front pages of many magazines and all.

      This is not the case for Rossi, because he has erected a fortress of doubts around him making everything about him suspicious, and no publisher would touch him for this reason…..

      If you think I’m blaming Rossi for the world not knowing anything about lenr, then its only partially true. I can understand that PR is not his best skill and many of us came to know of lenr only because of him…

      • LENR was victim of initial unreasonable expectation, enthusiasm, and some errors and problems.
        then it was sentenced officially as a pseudo-science.

        like for many jurisdiction it is nearly impossible for the judge, or the pope, to reverse a sentence, because they are assumed infallible.

      • Peter Roe

        I think P&F rather took the establishment by surprise and as there were probably no gagging orders on CF then, they made a splash. As soon as the opposition realised what potential the apparatus represented things changed rather drastically, and the defensive walls remain in place today. As you say, Rossi’s antics probably haven’t helped, but I doubt they’ve changed the situation much either, just provided a bit of fuel for the naysayers.

  • LilyLover

    Information Vacuum Paradox

    People have ignored the entire banking fraud and tolerated near 30% interest on the credit cards.
    Why? Because they’d rather work like drones than think about anything.
    1930’s generation knew more about banking than today’s “well connected” generation.
    Back then there was not much else to distract; so they knew the real thing.
    Today, unlimited barrage of garbage info is used to camouflage the real information.
    So, virtually, the information vacuum out of lack of resources is replaced by the information vacuum of being able to seek information out of infinite

    trash. Even if the information is found, then unlimited tricks and tactics are used to drive users away from the information, including ghastly images

    surrounding the good info.
    Today’s attitudes towards life has been distorted to the extent that the studious high-school kids become undateable and the mediocrity is labeled as “cool”.
    So, no, the news won’t be hidden per se; but will be marginalized.
    Think about blasé attitude towards 50% of income vs proactive attitude towards 2% of the income. Won’t happen.
    Some small stock brokers will act upon it and cause initial market fluctuations. Then the big brokers will come in to correct the situation. Steady decline of oil etc allows them to extract maximum profit out of public funds. The wall street will knowingly delay acknowledging the significance of ECat.
    This will happen until the ECat is openly available in the market for people to buy off the shelf. Then it’ll be slow but steady adaptation like Prius.
    The forces will try to marginalize it like the Volt, or the Solar energy. Certification and danger card will still be played 10 years after Germany has successfully domesticated the ECats. The “garden” walled nature of journalism will serve thy masters. They lack the courage and creativity to do business differently. Crossing over to the “light” is far more tougher, especially for those who were enticed easily to cross over to the dark side.

    So, only after it’s too late, and China has seized the World Leadership and people are too poor to buy ECat, will they allow the ECat to be displayed on the shelf as a cruel joke.

    I feel alive and in good company on this website. Just like information vacuum paradox, finding thinking people to associate with is very hard.

    No offense to the Chimps – but we are getting closer to the Chimps year after year.

    So, the ECat will be well received by, say, twice the number of people that this website’s contributors have already introduced it to.

    Remember the World Enterprise (Starman?) movie? WE gets bigger without much public education. Same will be the scenario.
    For the rest, it’ll be a word they heard through big media but will not mean much.
    For big media, they’ll make a “very small news” so that later they can grasp some straws of credibility by saying “we told you” / “we were always on your side”.

    Anyways, the deserved fanfare will be absent.

    • Job001

      Well, try to be optimistic!
      After all, the ways of denying, obstructing, marginalizing, corrupting, buying patents, companies, militarizing “secrets”, enacting onerous regulations or market hurdles, slowing introduction, and so forth are not infinite in our global world.
      Example, nuclear has had the capability with energy 2,000,000 times more dense than fossil fuel of producing electrical power for a thousand times cheaper.
      Magic! It doesn’t happen.
      That’s the difference between abundance commodity capitalism and “artificial scarcity” cartel capitalism.
      The optimism is this:
      The pendulum has swung too far as illustrated:
      1.Nationally it’s obvious cartel capitalism is obsolete, the USA cannot compete this way.
      2.The World faces serious undeniable and obvious environmental, climate, and human survival risks.
      3.Cartel capitalism causes unsustainable monetary debt burdens for citizens, banks, and Government.
      4.Cartel capitalism causes unnecessary resource wars.
      5.Excellent “trouble shooters” are defining and debating the problems and cause.
      6.Yankee ingenuity has an excellent track record and shall respond.

  • Sanjeev

    I wouldn’t worry about the report getting paywalled. It will be available on the net… once its out, its out.

    Its not the report but the names on it that are more important. And these names will be in open anyway. We all know how a report looks like and this time also its result (as per Rossi). Rest is numbers and graphs.

    It will cause (tiny) waves in the world of all the 500 or so individuals who know about it. To the world out there, it means nothing, there are tons of reports and research lying around there, including 50% efficient solar cells and what not. The rulers still want you to buy their war earned oil and msm wants you to believe that the sun only shines on the equator.

    However, a working product, even a small one will cause major earthquakes around the globe. If its banned in one country (Eg no certificates), it will shake another. Until then we wait….

    • Kim

      I agree
      Very Well Stated.

      Kim

  • sparks

    What Redford said further down below.

    If this is a well-researched and well-written paper and it is published in a quality scientific jounal, AND if the paper shows proof and validation that LENR is indeed happening on a commercially-viable scale, there will be a tidal wave of researchers jumping into LENR with hands and feet. At that point, it would not be important to publish to the public at large — the scientific journal publication would be sufficient to launch this thing into orbit. The progress would be unstoppable, with numerous projects launched simultaneously in graduate schools throughout the world, probably focused on the issues of stability, efficiency, reliability, and safety. As those issues are resolved, there would spring up numerous startup companies founded in many cases by the student researchers themselves. They would form a competitive landscape in which they would aim to offer a better proposition than Rossi’s cost, efficiency, and complexity profile, at whatever state it is in.

    Or the conclusions might be more vague, with lots of potential but with lots of unresolved issues, and Rossi’s invention(s) will be seen as a work-in-progress. This is much more likely IMHO.

    Based on the comments of the independent examiners regarding the importance of the work, I doubt that the publication will be a refutation/debunking of it.

    • lcd

      Problem is reproduction. There is no way to go out and reproduce the effect without Rossi. Not sure this has robust precedence.

      • sparks

        Quite right. Good point — Rossi’s not disclosing the “how.”

    • NJT

      Yes, for replication and furtherance of the anomaly, researchers would need Mr. Rossie’s secrets, that will not occur until the patents are ALL nailed down tight by him and his partners…

  • clovis

    Hi, Folks
    I an very excited about finally getting the report out, i have been following, and studying lenr, for about 3 or more years, the old saying that once bitten twice shy,and people will remember the cold fusion story and how it was pou poued, and that little doth will still be there,
    in my opinion, this a new thing, no one knows a darn thing about it much less how to present it in a good light, except for a few of us,all aspects of the new fire is unknown, , so with that in mind we as a group,may be needed to give this thing a big kick off, insuring a great beginning, we could have our own celebration, and invite everyone we know to attend, heck we might even get Dr. rossi to attend, heck i’ll ask him to come, if no one else will. and timing would be critical, to get the right affect. heck why let science or popular science or who ever get all the recognition, heck e-cat world has been a beacon of light to lenr, and to the e cat, and Andrea rossi. guiding like minded people to this new tech.

    • artefact

      I like your enthusiasm.
      On April 14th Frank said he plans to have an online party here for the 2nd birthday of e-catworld. If the Report is in time we just need Rossi. hehe

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Mass media will remain stuck on orchestrated political correctness.
    Business and industry will quietly devour every tidbit of LENR news.
    Joe SixPack will not notice unless it affects his job, the price of beer,
    or when Rossi buys a major sports team.

    • Kim

      Very good analysis.

      The Main Stream Media is the Control Point.

      I’m for one am pretty tired of it.

      Their intent is to let the sheep know that
      energy is scarce!

      Respect
      Kim

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Good point Rossi needs a good publicist, I would think his Partner could supply, maybe that is plan after positive third party results.

    • Peter Poulsen

      Stop with the conspiracy talks.
      Rossi have shown no clear proof that the E-Cat is working and producing vast amount of excess heat. It has absolutelly nothing to do about some huge conspiracy against rossi. It has to do with people being naturally sceptical when no clear proff have been shown.

      If the report have been made by a unknown shady group of people, then dont expect the mass media to pay much attention to the E-Cat.
      On the other hand if the report has the backing on some well respected scientists, from well respected universites, and they can tell us about vast amount of excess energy and a revolution within the energy sector, be prepaired to read huge headlines about in in every media.

      2 years ago Rossi promised to show a working engine on a 24/7 stream. We have yet to see that. Over 2 years ago Rossi said a “cold” e-Cat had heated his office for several months. We have yet to see conclusive proof that his cold E-Cat even works.

      I do fear we will get some statement from rossi in a few weeks where he will say the publication will be delayed a few months, because in the 2 years i have followed this news, rossi have kept stalling when it comes to give clear proof that he have any LENR based device that actually works.

      • GreenWin

        The debunkery file:

        1) Certificators will dismiss third party verification as “opinion.”

        2) Rossi must now melt several garbage bags of ice (Most Absurd Award)

        3) Rossi must put a working e-cat on 24/7 video stream…

        4) The October 2011 proofs of e-cat operation were all faked

        5) Rossi’s JNP Board of Advisers are charlatans or actors

        6) Rossi must apply and win the Amazing Randi psi challenge

        7) The refusal to publish ENEA’s Report 41 by 41 “science journals” was not the work of an energy cabal or knowledge monopoly but a prudent dismissal of disruptive science that threatened the cabal’s vacation homes, limos, and swimming pools.

        8) The photos appear round… But the world is flat.

        • Barry

          I tried to send an email to the Amazing Randi but I would have to become a member to do so. He lectures how he doesn’t believe in real magic, God, or Cold Fusion. One of his cronies was making fun of the fact that Rossi went to the University of Bologna. I’m afraid the Amazing Randi’s time has come.

    • Roger Bird

      Iggy, you are the man!!!

      • NJT

        +1…

  • MStone

    WEll…wasn’t there a positive report on the cold cat?

    I don’t think much will happen after the report comes out. I think the e-cat needs a bloom energy moment. Where it is installed with a major corporate client–like google…working….and saving them money.

    Then the world, at large, will take notice.

    • I’m more pessimistic than you. I believe that this technology will only become recognized when you can go down to Home Depot and buy one. That’s hard to argue with.

      • MStone

        I dont think it will make it to home depot….I the the government will want to make money off it and tax it.

    • Omega Z

      MStone

      Asking most People or Businesses about Bloom Energy would get about the same response as if you ask then about E-cat, LENR, Andrea Rossi, DGT, Etc, Etc…

      Such is the World we live in. Most are Oblivious to reality.

      Now if it started with I-LENR, I-CAT, Kardashian, Bieber, Well you get the drift…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I just got an email from my Federal Senator asking for ideas on energy. I have written him no less than five times about LENR, no response. They go through the motions of listening, but don’t listen. They listen only to the lobbyists with green backs sticking out of their pockets.

    • GreenWin

      Bernie, I wonder what your Senator or his/her staffers would say should you appear in their office and demand an answer.

      • Roger Bird

        So you mean what they would say after they called security or before they called security?

        • GreenWin

          Good point Roger. I was thinking the Jesse Ventura approach which is to appear in the office of the people we pay to represent us – even lacking an appointment. But then, Jesse is a former Governor, Navy Seal with a secret clearance and a TV show.

          • NJT

            Hmm, I wonder what Jessie Ventura thinks about all of this Rossie stuff, or perhaps he doesn’t yet even know about it? He certainly is not afraid to confront confrontational issues and gets lots of publicity doing that!

          • Peter Roe

            People like Ventura and Alex Jones should be somewhere near the top of the list of people to contact when a prototype is running.

  • captain kirk

    Here’s a comment by jed rothwell on vortex on March 25th….

    Jed Rothwell Mon, 25 Mar 2013
    I make no predictions about the specifics of this report. But I do predict three things:

    1. It will be positive, as he claims. What possible benefit would he derive
    from lying about this? As soon as the report comes out people would see he
    is lying.

    2. It will be published sooner or later. Probably. Who knows when. It is
    already a month late, but in this business things are often 5 years late. I
    expect Rossi thought carefully about the timing of this, and he has some
    reason to let it out now rather than a year ago. Some reason related to
    intellectual property I guess.

    3. It really is a third party evaluation.

    Rossi often exaggerates about his business and other personal things, but
    as I have often said, when it comes to technical claims, he tells the
    truth. Also, he does what he says he will do. He said he would make a 1 MW
    reactor and by golly he did. He said he had a factory heater. Focardi said
    on video “I’ve seen that heater and shown it to others” and by golly he did.

    If that 1 MW gadget was fake, it was the most expensive and elaborate fake
    in the history of fake energy devices. (Most fake devices are small, cheap
    and thrown together. I’ve seen many of them.)

    Despite his flamboyant personality and his irritating habits, Rossi is a
    force to be reckoned with. I think it is foolish to dismiss him, or make
    fun of him, or assume he is a fraud.

    I can see why people fall into this trap. As I have said, I think Rossi *wants* people to think he is a fraud.
    Many inventors have wanted this.

    I admit I could be wrong about all of this.
    But history shows you should not bet against irritating, exploitative, monomaniacal geniuses such as Edison or Jobs, and Rossi sure looks to me like one of them.

    • daniel maris

      I think that’s where I am just about with Rossi in terms of probability.

      But I would really like to here from a happy customer next.

  • Karl

    I expect the main stream media will continue to ignore Cold Fusion just after report is official, except for of the more brave publishers that have already been open to this new energy solution. I guess that major part of the main stream science community will continue its traditional attitude. It is too much at stake here and it takes time to shifts paradigm.

    I believe on the contrary that this report will be a turning point nevertheless, because the ones that have followed the Rossi adventures and the gradual evolvement of CF/LENR will certainly get new ammunition. I believe that the ability and courage to go further and expand the awareness of the new fire to many others will be the greatest benefit.

    • Bruno

      IF it’s a positive report delivered by competent unbiased observers it won’t be ignored. The problem is that I expect this “report” to be another “schlock” exercise so full of holes that no serious journalist will report on it.

  • georgehants

    Wired.
    Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole
    By David Hambling
    27 February
    Four months ago, Andrea Rossi demonstrated what he claims was a one-megawatt “Energy Catalyser” — or E-Cat — which produces power by cold fusion. This technology, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), had been consigned to the deepest cellar of fringe science.
    Now it’s hammering on the cellar door, and Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern are among those peering through the keyhole, wondering if it should be allowed back in with respectable science. As part of Wired.co.uk’s continued coverage of progress in this controversial field, we have investigated recent developments.
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup?page=all

    • Alex

      This was a good read. No Bias, just the story of the circus.

  • artefact

    I don’t know if this was postet here but yesterday the cells 1.3 got installed in the US lab.

    From MFMP:

    Update #1 – Version 1.3 Cells are Installed in the US Lab!

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/220-additions-to-the-lab

    • daniel maris

      No one is going to bad-mouth MFMP but it seems a bit irrelevant – playing with Celani wires.

    • clovis

      +1

  • Claes

    The fee is no problem – they only need to shell out some $1,000-$2,000 to make it open access. That’s available in most journals. In any event, preprints can usually be made available to the public.

    The problem is getting it published. It’s hot stuff, and they will likely want it reproducible, which is impossible since you can’t tell what’s inside.

    So it won’t be a scientific breakthrough at this point since there is no understanding coming out of it. There may be a strong indication that this is really happening on the other hand – but it is problematic. It leans entirely on the authority of the authors, and science explicitly is not satisfied with that.

    • Roger Bird

      Claes, you may be right.

    • I think that while referees might grumble a bit at it, in principle it should be OK to have a black box as long as the one who demands secrecy (AR) is not one of the authors. The paper’s scope just has to be defined in an appropriate way.

      • Claes

        That’s probably right – and we should presume that the editors have been approached carefully beforehand so they aren’t thinking of just popping it into the system somewhere.

    • Peter Roe

      “The problem is getting it published. It’s hot stuff…”

      If a journal editor has put the tests through peer review and is satified that due process has been observed, then he/she obviously intends to publish the paper. That isn’t a problem – at least not if the editor isn’t illegally leaned on from above (the scientists concerned would then probably self-publish anyway on a preprint server).

      As far as the ‘black box’ aspect is concerned, science often makes observations (the ‘horizon effect’ in astronomy, the simple but inexplicable ‘Mpemba effect’, wave/particle duality experments, methane on Mars (Viking)) for which no solid theoretical background is available. The observations still get published.

      • GreenWin

        Just my point in quoting the latest observations from the Euro Space Agency Planck spacecraft. All visible matter (galaxies, stars, planets, gas clouds, etc) comprise just 4.9% of the universe. Leaving 95.1% of the universe a complete mystery (black box) to human understanding.

      • danny barnes

        It’s not the lack of a theory. It’s the inability to check the claims.

        The observations you refer to do not depend on anyone’s authority, because anyone can check them.

        • GreenWin

          danny, only those with access to the ESA Planck spacecraft can readily check these observations. Meaning a very small group of authorities. Not unlike those who have observed the e-cat.

          • danny barnes

            It’s quite unlike the e-cat. The number of people involved with Planck is much larger, and the selection process is much more transparent, and there is no commercial potential that produces a conflict of interest.

            The specifications of the craft, and the parameters of the observations are provided in detail to anyone who wants to know, and any qualified scientist can apply to work on the project with a reasonable chance of being accepted. In any case, the team will have an almost continual change of members as students join and graduate or fellows join and leave. This means that the measurements are checked by a wide range of people, and at least in principle, any other team can come in and check the results. The philosophy is different, because, in principle, another organization, like NASA, could construct their own craft and check the measurements. This is not possible with the ecat, even in principle.

            And it’s doubtful that Rossi would accept outside offers to come in and check the e-cat results. If he did, it would certainly improve their credibility.

          • GreenWin

            One should also consider the e-cat is a commercial product headed to market. I expect 18-24 months after the first hot-cat is installed (May 2013?) there will be others up and running. Each commercial installation dilutes the need for academic analysis – by greatly expanding evidence of operation.

            A half dozen functional hot-cats even in black box mode, is hard to refute.

        • Claes

          I think the significance of theory here is that everybody thinks that theory rules out that sort of effect – so they’re very curious about it.

          That said, if it can be sufficiently well established that there IS such an effect. Which I guess in this case involves clearly describing how they have ruled out any alternative explanations.

          Composed in the right way it could be done.

  • machenation

    MY unedumacated guess. There are many possibilities of astounding results
    but my wish is: A C.O.P. of 17.89753345213666.
    Or better than sunlight.
    Best regards
    machenation

    • Bob

      Those last two decimal places look suspect to me. 😉

    • Alex

      Since we don’t put any energy into receiving it how is this not infinite COP? What is the COP of receiving warmth on your face through a window pane in December. If it does the job of a radiating heater, how can that be calculated.

  • artefact

    From PESN:

    http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/03/26/733/joel-garbon-on-coast-to-coast-about-free-energy/

    “This rush to judgment did a great disservice to the technology, Garbon commented. But now 24 years later, cold fusion has been declared to be real, and a number of companies and start ups, such as Brillouin Energy are experimenting with various techniques. These technologies may eventually be used to heat water, and generate steam. Italian inventor Andrea Rossi has gotten a lot of attention for his process, he added.”

  • Stephen

    I don’t have a clue… I won’t add the n+1 prediction and anyway it all depends on the kind of report and on the credibility of the third party who supposedly did the test.

    Well… whatever…

    Just a hope. I hope this thing settles down with a clear YES or NO answer. It shouldn’t be hard for such a supposedly disruptive technoloy. I think we all deserve this after 2+ years of story telling.

    Please let me add I am pessimistic: I think this won’t be the case. Please let me also add I hope facts will prove me wrong.

    Good night everybody 😉
    Tired Stephen

    • GreenWin

      Two years story telling? How do you think we who have been strung along hot fusion for 60 years feel?? Deserving? Yes. Will hot fusion ever deliver its limitless energy claims for $270B investment? No.

      • daniel maris

        Yes, but I am not aware anyone in hot fusion (a scam I agree) has ever claimed to have solved the problem of hot fusion.

        • GreenWin

          They claim hot fusion “works” endlessly – just look at the sun. Or an H-bomb. They want the general public to keep the white collar welfare rolling in – even though they have not delivered one watt of useful energy. Scam? Boondoggle? Fraud? Unquestionably.

          But lets tear down the self-financed entrepreneur, because we are too cowardly to finger the real crooks.

          • Hot fusion is not alone, similar things could be said of many or perhaps even most other areas. Fields of science need to motivate their existence by applications, real or imagined, because to first approximation, pure basic research is not funded. Scientists usually don’t feel guilty about this state of affairs because they consider that by pouring money somewhere, something useful might eventually emerge in the wake of it in unforeseen ways. Innovations are typically serendipitous.

            Trying to build a hot fusion reactor is a bit similar to the Apollo programme: not directly beneficial, but the benefit comes with time from the many spinoff inventions that are spurred by solving the difficult technical subproblems. Applied research at least gets a periodic reality check which tends to keep it on track, while funding pure research generously might increase the problem of dogmatism.

          • GreenWin

            Good points Pekka. Imagine how many useful, new physics applications will arise from the redirect of public funds from hot to cold fusion. Had that happened in 1989 – we would be well ahead of the game.

        • Rockyspoon

          Yes they have. But it isn’t cost effective. THAT’s the big bugaboo. As an engineer, I’d say it’s time to devote half that money toward cold fusion. Give each a 50/50 chance. And I can almost predict a winner…

      • NJT

        $270B and still counting, with no posibilities within site of most of our lifetimes…

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah, does LENR need their seal of approval to be considered legitimate?

          • NJT

            Lets hope not, and the world soon recogizes this “NEW FIRE” of Rossie’s!

      • Bob

        Whatever the case has been for hot fusion, that is no excuse for repeating it again with cold fusion.
        The fact is, someone said they had been heating a factory with a LENR device for two years and had something “ready for market”.
        Since then and another two years later, in spite of a number of public demonstrations, public appearances and hundreds of public announcements, there has still been no proof that it works when it would be so simple to do so.
        If even half the time was spent on a simple and convincing proof as has been spent on all the appearances and proclmations the matter would have long since been resolved.

        Just boil a barrel of water. It’s so simple and if done properly can be totally convincing. The test equipment is dirt cheap and the test results are visable to all who watch either in person or via a video.

        • Fred

          I’m sorry, I don’t understand this reaction. All Bob did was to list a number of observations, all legitimate in my opinion. He did not accuse Rossi of running a scam or anything like that. Accusing somebody of trolling as soon as he/she expresses a somewhat critical opinion kills every discussion. There is a difference between being a supporter (or believer, if you want) and a zealot !

        • Bruno

          Absolutely right, Bob. The thing either works or it doesn’t. Two years ago he said that he had a “working” device, so he should have been able to conclusively demonstrate SOMETHING by now. The whole secrecy angle has been a red herring from the beginning. An apparatus can be “black box” tested without needing to open it up.

      • Stephen

        GW I can even agree with you… but I am not sure how HF failures and the (probably understandable) reactions can justify AR’s twisted behavior. So you see… I don’t really care about defending HF.

        Still, I keep on believing that if AR has a working reactor he can demonstrate the thing beyond any reasonable doubt, within 24h and without releasing any secret. The fact he does not do that disappoints me and makes me very seriously doubt about what he has. Beyond this I wish him best luck and hope he can show he’s right, hopefully in a finite time. But this is an old and boring story: we’ll see what happens with this report!

  • FlanOBrien

    Peter Poulsen said:

    “if the report has the backing on some well respected scientists, from well respected universites, and they can tell us about vast amount of excess energy”

    Exactly. There is no mystery on how a properly performed experiment by qualified scientists will be received by other scientists. We need hypothesis, data, analysis, error margins and repeatability.
    Repeatability should be no problem. The armed guard and the black box may be readily moved.
    This report is 7 months in the making, so there is no excuse for anything lacking in an experiment to test power in and out of a black box.
    Knowing that human beings have built in status prejudice, it is important that the experimenters are practising (not retired) experimental scientists from a reputable university.

    If independent quality practising scientist + normal scientific report are met, then there will be a big reaction. After all, this would be the greatest discovery ever made.

    independent quality practising scientist
    normal scientific report

    Will these essentials be met?

    • Ken

      See you’re already priming a skeptical movement before the report is even released. Your post is like planting a bomb in the woods knowing you’re going to start a forest fire a month later. Priming people to be skeptical is worse than trolling in my book. You’re right, all the I’s should be dotted and all the T’s crossed in order to avoid skeptics having anything to go on. But holy cow give Rossi a break. It’s like (good enough) = (sucks) and (Fantastic progress) = (not good enough). People act like Rossi is developing a new water heater; No! the ecat is a nuclear reactor utilizing ground breaking physics so you can have one under your car seat and not experience doomsday. Give it a break.

      Ken,

      (http://www.Revolution-Green.com)

    • GreenWin

      “…it is important that the experimenters are practising (not retired) experimental scientists from a reputable university.”

      Steaming pile of bulsheit Flan. Retired scientists, government/private sector employees, are out of reach of most corruptible forces. Aside from the ageism your remark reflects, it displays an extraordinary ignorance of common influence peddling.

      • FlanOBrien

        I said “not retired but active”. No age was mentioned, not old, nor young. A scientist may voluntarily halt his science career, as many do because they are sick of building military applications.

        The ageism is a prejudice purely in your mind alone.

        Strange statement ” government/private sector employees, are out of reach of most corruptible forces.” That means everybody is a saint?

        Almost all of us are corruptible, but there are thousands of active respected scientists able to test input/output of a black box, and willing to do so.

        independent quality practising scientist
        normal scientific report

        Will these essentials be met?

    • Thinksforself

      You mean like the charlatans at MIT that half heartily tried to verify Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann experiment?

      • Rockyspoon

        That was a hoot–I remember it well. P & F said the most interesting thing about that whole circus is that NOT ONE investigating lab called them to ask for details:

        Details like it took 4 weeks to load up the fuel cell before the reaction even began, and everybody was making claims in 2 weeks it didn’t work! It boggles the mind.

        And that’s just the beginning. When some labs got results they figured it would be so unsettling, they couldn’t lose their gubmint funding so they lied about the results.

        Like others here, I believe Rossi should just ignore the public and start building industrial units–the general public doesn’t buy those anyway but industrialists do, and they don’t visit pages like this to evaluate (largely) uninformed complaints.

        I don’t mean to be disrespectful–it’s fun to read what people say, but all this has almost zero bearing on whether Rossi’s invention will be successful or not.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          May I ask what prevented P & F during all these years from proving the skeptics wrong?

  • Alex

    I don’t really care about this report. I already believe the guy. I want to see proof of purchase, and practical applications. Google bought the Bloombox, whats stopping them from this too.

    • clovis

      +1

    • EduardoRG

      Simple as that. Rossi at the end can sell its product and if their clients show/accept they are happy with the product, Rossi won’t have any obligation to prove anything to any science community or anyone.

  • Omega Z

    While were just Speculating-

    It will receive some mediocre by lines in the news with mention of years to mature to usefulness. Very little fanfare.

    Meanwhile, Behind the Scenes, MS-Science will be playing Catch Up. Investors & Big Business will start gearing up & start the ball rolling. Quietly of coarse. The Silent Frenzy.

    Gradually, The public will be introduced to more info. After a Couple Years MS-Science will Lay Claim To Saving The Day. As they have spent the last 20 plus years Strenuously & Rigorously Researching this New Fire.

    They MAY even give some credit to the likes of Miley, Piantelli, Hagelstein, Celani, Rossi & Focardi. They’ll Name UNIBO & a couple other Universities & organizations.

    We’re all aware of “Credible Deniabilty”

    They Give You “Credible Plausibility” The “New Fire” with the name dropping above. They were involved all along.
    It’s THEIR STORY & Their Sticking to it.

    • Peter Roe

      First step – rename the phenomenon so that it can be detached in the public mind from the unfortunate record of establishment dealings with cold fusion/LENR. Widom-Larsen theory may be a first draft attempt to say “Whatever it is, it’s not cold fusion – OK?” (and that Science has been on the case all along, while the scammers and crackpots have pretended to have answers).

      • GreenWin

        SSF. Solid State Fusion. This would enthuse the Silicon Valley cowboys here in California.

      • Rockyspoon

        I say keep the name “cold fusion” (for that’s what it does) in honor of Pons and Fleischmann, who were unjustly castigated for attempting to change the world’s energy paradigm. A good portion of the public already appreciates and recognizes this injustice and bold pushback would show the powers-that-be they can’t run roughshod over people who are willing to tell the truth.

        • GreenWin

          I agree Rocky. There would be little better balance than to have CF be the re-adopted title of the P&F discovery. On the other hand, media loves buzz words and acronyms, so I have invented SSF Solid State Fusion and tossed it into the namegame ring.

    • Bob

      It all depends on what the COP is. If it’s very low, like 1.1 or thereabouts, then your assessment is spot on and we are in for another 10 years of arguments over whether it is even real.
      However, if the COP comes in anywhere near “stunning” as Rossi says, then I think LENR will be immediately established as the new great energy source and there will be no stopping it.
      I take “stunning” as meaning it will be conservatively measured at six or above, with bursts of up to 20. I would count that as stunning. Sadly, I am not expecting anything stunning. :{

  • Roger Bird

    Credibility is very important in science and in life, whether we like to admit it or not. Wegener did not have credibility for several reasons. 1. He was not a geologist. 2. He did not have a theory to explain continental drift. And there may be others. This does not justify his being ignored and denigrated by MS-science. It is merely more pieces of the puzzle of how people can be so stupid and how great discoveries often take time to be accepted.

    • Jordi Heguilor

      Continental drift is a bit hard to reproduce in a laboratory. Cold fusion isn’t.

      • Rockyspoon

        The Eruopean and American continents are drifting apart at the measureable rate of ~3 cm per year. So it can also be measured. However, like cold fusion, it took a while before meaningful measurements could be performed.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          Rocky, Wegener proposed his theory in 1912, there was no way to measure a 3cm drift at the time. However, we are perfectly capable to measure cold fusion, or LENR.

          • direct measurement of the drift was not needed.
            Wegener theory was heavily credible when looking at fossiles accross Atlantic and others oceans.
            The explanation was already exising in old papres : convection.

            except conservatism ther vas no reason to reject Wegener theory as much better than existing one.

            this is not an exception but a rule.

  • jambo

    Perhaps less important than how a “report” is received is how that report is presented.

    If Rossi’s history is any judge of this there will be no formal report as the verification was performed “in secret” by a “secret” entity due to an NDA.

    Any release of “information” will take the form of a Rossi blog post that enthusiastically reaffirms earlier claims and then offers summaries of the “data” with no disclosure of the source or methodology.

    Any actual “report” is to be issued “soon”.

    • Roger Bird

      jambo, appreciate you skepticism with regard to “Rossi says”. I hope that it does not extend to LENR, which is proven.

  • Jordi Heguilor

    OK, as one of the “skeptics” I’m going to ask the “Believers”: what is your “breaking point”?

    At what point are you going to give up on Rossi? If this “validation” is another piece of b……t, like the one he has been feeding you for years, will you give up on him? Or is this about faith and not science?

    • Rockyspoon

      Conversely, at what point are you going to drop your skepticism and be a supporter, Jordi?

      As an engineer, I can tell you it has nothing to do with faith–manufacturing requires specs to work from and this report will (likely–I haven’t seen the report) provide a more informed way to proceed (and if the results are negative, then the decision to proceed is “No”; otherwise it is “Yes”). I honestly can’t think of a “faith” component at all. “A” is “A”; an engineered solution is based on calculatations and not a belief system.

      That said, there is one peripheral belief I have, and that is the tests are not directed to the general crowd–you and me–because they’re testing new configurations. As such, they’re primarily done to direct development of a new (perhaps marketable?) product.

      Stay tuned–we’ll see how this all shakes out.

      Note: The pessimist looks at the glass of water and complains it’s half empty. The optimist looks at the glass of water and proclaims it’s half full. The engineer looks at the same glass of water, considers it for a moment, and says “That glass is twice as big as it needs to be”. Yet engineers aren’t unemotional people–they just think independently and non-judgementally. We should all be engineers.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        Rocky, I’m a skeptic, not a fundamentalist denier. The moment I see an indisputable third party validation, I will start believing in the e-Cat.

        We ALL want a cheap, non-polluting new source of energy.

  • PeterWol

    I would suggest that there is an IP problem here, in that so far it has been not easy to obtain patents: look at the Blacklight Power saga. So Rossi might be wishing to get a very credible and independent report published, confirming the reality of the effect, so that patent offices will be obliged to assess his patent applications and eventually, I suppose, issue patents. Remember that a patent application has to tell the whole story and not conceal essential factors: quite a dangerous action and the whole process needs to be carefully timed. The Wright brothers had a similar problem and took a secretive line not unlike Rossi’s once they had mastered powered flight. Perhaps Rossi will reveal how the process works, for patents, but hold back on steps such as how to keep the reaction stable, so as to preserve a lead and get production going. Just my guesswork above, of course.

  • Terrific work! This is the type of info that are supposed to
    be shared across the internet. Shame on Google for not positioning this submit higher!
    Come on over and discuss with my website . Thanks =)