Rossi: This Report is the Uncut Version

Today was an interesting day for me. I woke up and looked as usual for the report. Nothing. But I did find an email from Dr. Hanno Essen who I had emailed last night asking if he had seen the report. He responded, saying that it had been turned in on Sunday to Arxiv and had been held up. Naturally I was disappointed to hear that, and wondered what might have been the hold up.

Soon afterwards I find an email from a contact in Sweden with the Report attached! Naturally I was excited, but very surprised. I wondered if it was a leak, and if I now had a hot potato in my hand that I had to sit on! The next thing I know, is that there was a comment on ECW with a link to the report on Sifferkol.se. So the cat was out of the bag, and there was no putting it back in.

My surprise was apparently matched by Andrea Rossi who wrote (after putting an incorrect link to the report on the JONP)

You are right!!! I wrote an incomplete address, it was the emotion, because I was not expecting it. It has been a big surprise, also because I did not expect that publication…I know the length of the report created difficulties to other publishers and the Professors wanted not to cut the report. Probably they have chosen this solution to be fast and complete. They wanted to be independent to the last, so I was totally not expecting this. I have been informed of this publication this morning at 8 a.m. from a bloggist, while I was going to see my 1MW baby.

So this unexpected turn of events has actually led to us being fortunate enough to have an ‘uncut’ version of the report. I don’t have any idea what the holdup was at Arxiv.org, but perhaps they were wanting the report to be shorter, and the testers were not in a mood to cut anything out.

Honestly I haven’t had time yet to study the report in detail yet. Thanks to all who have commented so far — that is helping me a lot.

  • psi2u2

    Frank, thanks again for the great work! We are privileged to be a part of the story, sitting in the front row, hands in the air, eager to offer comments, questions, knowledge…..and to celebrate such milestones as this one.

  • Ged

    Interesting day so far indeed, eh Frank? And not even done yet. Looking forward to Pekka chiming in with an analysis if he has time.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I wrote some comments in the earlier thread (“not conventional source of energy” thread).

  • Christopher Calder

    I have been up since 6 AM e-mailing politicians, news organizations, and environmental groups. I urge others to do the same.

    Frank – Don’t forget to email that reporter at the LA Times.

    • jousterusa

      That is what all of us should be doing – calling all the newspapers and tv and radio stations in our local markets and bringing them in! Oil prices took a huge hit today WTI crude off $1.54!

    • mytakeis

      I salute you. I have added a comment to a conflict enticing article in the Stars and Stripes that I tied into the reality of its purpose now that an e-Cat is demonstrable, I commented: “…a broad international consensus had emerged that the Islamic State
      group poses a threat to the world’s security…. their barbaric behavior
      has to be dealt with.” says our President. So now it is no longer
      national security that we police, it’s the world’s security. While;
      “…At the White House, officials conceded that air power alone would be
      insufficient, … until a viable fighting force emerges from the
      splintered and poorly equipped Syrian opposition.” So vital is this
      struggle over the oil seized by Islamic State forces. It is as if the
      world’s security depends on keeping this oil in the right control
      channels and not in the hands of black marketing IS operatives. Well,
      there is a new kid on the block that will keep this oil in the ground
      and make this reason for conflict obsolete: “Google Observation of
      abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes
      in the fuel.” It is “A new scientific report on the E-Cat has been
      released, providing two important findings from a 32-day test run of the
      reactor — together leading to the clear conclusion that the E-Cat is an
      energy source based on some kind of nuclear reaction, without radiation
      outside the reactor.” This is the true beginning of the energy
      revolution, and you heard it here, first in relation to our national
      energy policy which has become obsolete, itself, overnight.

    • psi2u2

      Thank you Chris!

  • Billy Jackson

    because most of the people that are here are self motivated and interested in finding out further information. You get outside of this small sphere and people have no clue except that your going on about that conspiracy thing again with cold fusion .. 🙂

  • jousterusa

    Hip Hip Hooray! Welcome to a brand new world. America! God in Heaven has saved us!

    • Andre Blum

      I, atheist and European, am happy too, Joe. Welcome to a brand new world.

  • jousterusa

    Isn’t it amazing how small these new E-Cats are – especially considering they can generate 2,460 degrees C, a million and half watts of power! A thousand of these things would fill one of the old containers and power New York City!

    • psi2u2

      Indeed.

    • Um, no. 1.5 megawatt hours of energy, the amount you’d get running your 5 kilowatt Honda generator for 300 hours or 12 1/2 days. Nothing to sneeze at for a reactor of that size and with that input (assuming it’s true and accurate about which I do not opine here). In terms of power, 1.5 megawatt hours in 32 days is about 2.1 kilowatts. I’m not sure where you got 2,460 degrees C, I see no such number.

  • Julian Becker

    I wrote a mail to Spiegel Online with the link to the report and the results mentioned. They published two articles on Rossi in the past which were kind of neutral, slightly positive. Lets see if I get a reply tomorrow.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • psi2u2

      oops. someone is about to eat crow for breakfast.

  • Ged

    Not everyone who participated in some way on a paper gets their name on it, depending on how much they contribute individually. Those with the primary naming were the leads who intellectually authored and verified all of the work. Different fields have slightly different philosophies on this. At any rate, in all fields, make sure to check the acknowledgements for the rest of the folks who had a hand in making the paper a reality. If you count all those people (such as the entire Industrial Heat that participated in making the reactor for testing), and there are a lot of new people, then you get the different continents and such.

    I.e.:

    “Acknowledgments

    By this work the authors would like to deeply and at heart honor the late Sven Kullander, who initiated this independent test experiment. He was a great source of inspiration and knowledge throughout the course of this work. The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent test measurement. The authors would like to thank Prof. Ennio Bonetti (University of Bologna) and Prof. Alessandro Passi (University of Bologna [ret.]) for critical reading of the manuscript. All authors of the appendices are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable contribution to this work. This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB. We would also like to thank Officine Ghidoni SA for putting their laboratory at our disposal and allowing use of their AC power. Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.”

    So it’s really a game of splitting hairs; but we should be used to that by now.

    • adriano

      Thanks for the reply. I’m one of those who were waiting so much for this report so im just trying to be sure that there is nothing to complain about it. So, is it true that Andrea Rossi never get involved in the very same room at the very same time the test were performed?

  • psi2u2

    Broncobet,

    You will communicate better if you write in paragraphs. Its hard to follow your big slab of uncoordinated words and ideas.