There are only four options:<p>1) this works
2) this is a scam, and the reviewing authors are collaborators
3) this is a scam and the reviewing authors are being duped by Rossi
4) it isn't a scam but it doesnt work as advertized either, it's honest scientific mistakes both by Rossi and reviewers.<p>Earlier, My scam-meter was at quite a high reading. Now I'm not so sure. I'm still sceptical, but what's interesting is the fact that the other options now also look a lot less appealing.<p>The authors come from very respected institutions and would be jeopardizing their careers by participating in a scam. Could this be the case? Certainly, but it would be one of the largest academic scandals ever, at least in Sweden (UU and KTH are two of the most regarded universities)<p>Thr experiment appears to do what it can to rule out them being scammed by Rossi. The probability that a group of honest researchers could be fooled in an experiment like this feels quite slim. There would have to be a LOT of smoke and mirrors in order to tamper enough with instruments, swap samples of fuel to show isotope changes and so on.<p>I don't want to use circumstantial reasoning like "If this worked it would be in journals" or "if this worked he wouldn't need funding". What I will say is: if this works then it can and will be repeated. I'll remain sceptical until it's repeated by several groups of researchers. It's s fantastically simple device and an experiment that is relatively small and easy to perform.<p>If the past is any indication this won't be followed by repeated experiments by independent groups, but by a long period of silence. That won't raise credibility.
If this were a real discovery, why wouldn't it be published in a peer reviewed journal of some kind?<p>Pretty pre-eminent organizations with their names on this though - Hanno Essén, (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n</a>) Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, which, according to Wikipedia, "KTH is one of the leading technical universities in Europe [and highly respected worldwide, especially in the domains of technology and natural sciences."
Trying to read up on "Rossi Effect" I found an interesting article from a year back [0]. Simply looking at the economics in question, a working cold fusion device would be net-positive money maker. Quote from the article:<p><i>I am convinced that the E-cat simply doesn’t do what we’re told it does. Because if it did then Rossi would need no outside money as he’d already be making good money, and expanding fast, simply by selling this cheap power to people through the grid. But he’s not doing that therefore the product doesn’t work as advertised.</i><p>[0]: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/29/why-im-certain-that-the-rossi-e-cat-doesnt-work-as-advertised/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/29/why-im-ce...</a>
Tell people there is a God they beleive you with no prof. Tell them the paint is wet they need to touch it.I have been watching this man for 4 years. I have looked into what everyone is saying. I know for a fact that this is real. He is not the only scientist working on this. You people talkng trash are nothing. This is going to happen with or with out you. When you are cooking and cleaning and driving around with this technology you will never admit that you the problem. Look what they did to Tesla. Hewas discredited for coming up with science that benifits mankind, but you still use his technology. Support the new science or get out the way. Oh my god you have to forget evrything you were told. Lets save the world for our children. I think we need to pull the scientist that are trying to stop to advancement of mankind out of their house and blow their brains out on the front lawn, than go after the corparations who are paying them to discredit people who think outside the box. All you other people who think they know what they are talking about should have ended up as a stain on the bed sheets or on their moms face.
This paper is the third? which has supported the project and this paper takes special care to try to remove all doubt by having the experiment out in the open and monitored by different methods almost continuously. There are some pretty famous places putting their name against this 'thing'.<p>The ECAT is about as fringe as I'm willing to accept might actually be worth our investment. I'm reading the report and I can assume they'll try to get it published in a more mainstream physics journal soon for others to review.<p>Scientific progress is made of baby steps and I've been watching the ECAT crawl for the last few years. Let's see if this thing has legs.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer</a>
Somebody with the power should downvote this. Maybe it's worth talking 20 years ago, but after so many years of dubious results there should be a much high threshold for it to be worth noting.
Is it possible that they measured the output incorrectly? Input was measured differently than output which was just radiation.<p>---<p>I took a look at the paper. Authors are the same people as the paper from the last year. ;)<p>Don't waste your time on this.