A number of people have commented on Andrea Rossi’s often-repeated statement about releasing testing information whether it be positive or negative, and for some it is worrisome. They feel that Rossi reiterating the chance that results could be negaitive possibly indicates that something is amiss in the development of the E-Cat.
A reader of the Journal of Nuclear Physics called attention to this concern, saying, ‘The word “negative” isn’t clear for me, because we all know that the “Rossi Effect” is real. So I think that the word “negative” must only to be applied to actual developments tending to increase the functionality of your apparatuses…Is it true?’
Andrea Rossi replied:
We are working very hard to merit the enthusiasm of persons like you. We are making a hard work of R&D and validation and we will publish the results after such work will have been completed, whatever the results, positive or negative, as I always said. Until then, my duty as a scientist is to say that no specific answer can be given to questions regarding if the results will be positive or negative. All I can say is that the work based upon the so called Rossi Effect is carried on with scientific rigor.
It seems to me like Rossi wants to emphasize that he is carrying out science in an impartial and unprejudiced manner, and does not want to tip his hand either way. It’s similar to the way he was speaking before last year’s third party tests were published where he said that the results were out of his control and they may or may not validate his work.
My sense is that Rossi is not trying to set up observers for disappointing results, but that as Chief Scientist for his company he wants to act the part appropriately. If he kept saying that the results were going to be good, before the testing was completed, it would sound more like a sales pitch, and to give status updates of the tests before they are completed would be decidedly unscientific, so I think he’s just trying to maintain credibility as a scientist here.