October 12, 2014 – By Steven B. Krivit –
In a document recently circulated on the Internet, collaborators of Andrea Rossi, a convicted white-collar criminal with a string of failed energy ventures, have again tried to establish credibility for the device that Rossi calls his “Energy Catalyzer,” or “E-Cat.”
His collaborators said that they performed an independent test, despite the fact that Rossi’s hands were all over the device. It’s been a while since New Energy Times has written anything on this topic, so this latest claim offers an opportunity to review the broader situation for newer readers.
Most of the authors of this latest document have been collaborating with Rossi for several years. With one exception, the authors are the same as those in a 2013 document that New Energy Times discussed in our news articles “Rossi Manipulates Academics to Create Illusion of Independent Test” and “Scientific Ethics of E-Cat Promoters Questioned.”
New Energy Times covered Rossi’s claims extensively in 2011 and, after several months of investigation, visiting the empty garage that Rossi called his laboratory and interviewing him and his key collaborators, determined that his claim lacked scientific credibility.
In July 2011, we published “Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims.” The 200-page report included scientific and engineering analyses from 20 independent experts. The following month, we condensed that report into two pages.
A few weeks later, we distilled our findings into four sentences: ” In a seven-month period, the Rossi group sought credibility for its claim of extraordinary levels of excess heat through scientific and academic validation. In seven public attempts, the group tried to demonstrate convincing experimental evidence for its claims. In all attempts, the group failed. It has no experimental evidence on which to base its extraordinary energy claim.”
Rossi responded to our and other scientific critiques, saying that he didn’t need scientific validation and that he would go directly into commercial production of a working 1 MW reactor.
He wrote on his blog, “We have already passed the phase to convince somebody. We have arrived at a product that is ready for market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypotheses, conjectures etc. is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that works and go and sell it, as we are doing.”
A year later, on Feb. 17, 2012, he wrote on his blog, “In Autumn we will surely send the detailed offers to all the horde of pre-orderers. The deliveries will start hopefully within the next winter, surely within 18 months.”
The drama surrounding Rossi’s proclamations about a working 1 MW reactor available for purchase soon escalated. (See articles “Rossi E-Cat Never Delivered To Customer; Needs Gaskets” and Rossi Blames E-Cat Delivery Discrepancy on Translation Error.”) There is no evidence that Rossi has produced and delivered a single working commercial reactor.