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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Pretty pre-eminent organizations with their names on this though - Hanno Essén, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n) 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."
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.
[0]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/29/why-im-ce...
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.
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.
Changing goal posts, changing terminology, an inventor with a shady past, loudly seeking funding, disallowing most peer-review, invite only 'demonstrations', no technical side to the patent.
The only thing that has changed, for me at least, is that the discussion about Rossi being full of shit has moved from phys.org to news.ycombinator.com .
Yes, it might all be utter bullshit, but it may also not be. If you refuse to accept or even explore anything which contravenes your worldview - your world will never change.
Also, I don't know how you linked downvoting to witch hunting. I thought downvoting is a vital part of how HN works, I would downvote it myself if i can do it. Is it something that you can do but can never recommend others to do?
[0] : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-...
---
I took a look at the paper. Authors are the same people as the paper from the last year. ;)
Don't waste your time on this.