On his official website Journal of Nuclear Physics, Italian inventor Andrea Rossi gave the following statements to a poster named Clovis Alan Ray:
“You merit this info: yesterday the third party validation of the Hot Cat has been completed. Has been good. The results have been better that in the July 16th preliminary test.We are presently manufacturing 3 1 MW E-Cats: 1- Low Temperature 1 MW E-Cat, 1- 1 MW Hot Cat, and 1- 1 MW Hot Cat gas fueled. A Report will be published after peer reviewing. We are working very hard.”
This is quite a revelation because Rossi has never mentioned about the third party test result on his previous comments. Perhaps, Rossi already understood the need to release the latest update of the test because many e-cat followers have been waiting for it. But it is wonder why Rossi refuses to give an official announcement about this important news. Anyhow, what matters is he already disclosed it. It is hoped that he will provide us further details about it even before peer reviewing.
On the other hand, Forbes columnist Mark Gibbs wrote another interesting article about cold fusion. It is already a public knowledge that Rossi e-cat is a cold fusion based device that promises safe, cheap and clean source of energy. Gibbs, in his latest article, attempted to look at the possible unintended consequences of cold fusion. He stated:
“The experimental stuff is all well and good but so far no one has managed to definitively demonstrate that whatever the effect is can be reliably harnessed to provide a useful energy source. So, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume cold fusion can be turned into a practical technology, that cold fusion generators can be built, and that they will be sold incredibly cheaply.”
He then talked about the downside, if there is any, of practical cold fusion. In his explanation, Gibbs explained that the most serious problem is radioactive waste. He said:
“Let’s say each CF device produces, on average, one picogram of waste per day and there are 5 billion CF generators then the entire planet would produce just over 1.8 grams of waste over the course of a year … should no problem there. But increase that to 1 milligram per device and, as a consequence, globally you’ll have just under 2,012 tons of waste per year to deal with, a not inconsiderable amount. And if it is significantly radioactive, that’s a really serious problem.”