Rossi’s Responses to “Preliminary Report”
Source: Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Energy Blog
Thread: JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS CONFERENCE
Craig
June 16th, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Dear Mr Rossi,
Can you respond to the recent assertions by Steven B Krivit that the method in which the steam may have been measured previously is potentially giving incorrect measurements of the power capability of the e-cat.
Krivit says in his blog post, “I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.”
I am hoping you can assure us that his concerns are invalid.
Best regards,
Craig
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:38 AM
Dear Craig:
Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me. Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work: maybe he is angry because we had to send him away from the closed boxes and because we had to say him good bye shortly because we have to make our work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows.
Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.
In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work. He also tried to blackmail prof. Levi, and Levi already has given to his attorney due information .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:54 AM
Dear Roger Barker:
Please read the answer I gave to Craig:
AGAIN : WE MADE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE WATER IN WEIGHT !!!!!!
AND WE EXPLAINED THIS TO KRIVIT VERY WELL!!!!! AND HE GOT CONFIRMATION OF THIS FROM AN INDIPENDENT PROFESSOR HE CONTACTED !!!!! NOBODY MAKES THIS KIND OF MEASUREMENT IN VOLUME, BECAUSE IT IS A NONSENSE !!!!! KRIVIT SAID ” I HAVE UNDERSTOOD” WHEN I TOLD THIS DURING THE INTERVIEW.
I HAVE MANY WITNESSES OF WHAT ABOVE ENCLOSED THE PROF. HE CONTACTED TO GET INDIPENDENT COUNSEL !!!!! BUT HE REPORTED THAT WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM: WE. PHYSICS PROFESSORS OF CERN, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVARSITY OF STOCKOLM, WHO MADE THE TESTS!!!!! AND HE COMES HERE TO TESCH TO US PHYSICS!!!!!!
HE CAME TO US SMILING, VERY FRIENDLY, ACCEPTED TO BE INVITED TO GET LUNCH, ACCEPTED TAXI REMBOURSEMENT, MADE FAIR QUESTIONS, GOT PRECISE ANSWERS, AND NOW HE WRITES TOTALLY FALSE THINGS:
THIS IS A SNAKE, NOT A JOURNALIST, AND I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO KNOW WHO SENT HIM (I HAVE A PRETTY IDEA, THOUGH, SINCE HE UNADVERTEDLY GAVE US A CLUE).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
maryyugo
June 17th, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I can understand your upset. But you could put the whole issue of testing to rest by allowing just one E-cat to be given to University of Upsala or any other major research center. They could test it as a “black box” using whatever method they thought best but protecting its secrets. An important part of the test would be that they have full control of both the input power and the output power measurement methods and that they provide the electrical power and water coolant. The test should be done in their lab (not yours). They should use only liquid water eliminating issues about what portion of the steam was dry vapor and what portion was liquid. If you could allow this independent testing, it would make it impossible for anyone to claim that the tests already done are in error.
Best regards,
M. Y.
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Dear Maryyugo:
We have already made enough public tests, either heating the water ( please go to read all our reports and papers on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, or making steam. In this last case we always made the measurement of unvaporized water residue giving the result in mass. Our tests have been made with Professors of Physics working with the Universities of Bologna, Uppsala, Stockolm, with CERN, with INFN, andI think that only an imbecile can think that such Persons are not able to weight water in steam. We are receiving suggestions how to measure the water in steam, and this is like teach to a cat how to miew. By the way: the steam from the reactors which we are testing now, and that will compound the 1 MW plant, is dry.
The steam during the interview of the clown of yesterday was totally dry. Of course, should be this not true, our Customers will be very angry: in that case, that will be an opinion which will be very important for us, while the opinion of our competitors and of their friends, for obvious reasons, have not much importance for us, if any.
Now I have to make my 1 MW plant, then we will make other 1 MW plants for our Customers. That’s all we will do. Our Customers tests are the sole tests that count, for us. Therefore, I have absolutely not time for competitors anxious to test my Cat to make their “validation”.
About the work that we will make with the University of Bologna and Uppsala, this will not be a public demo, but a work of Research and Development, made closed doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 5:10 PM
Dear Dave Stone:
1- I do not care of minutiae.
2- Yes, the operation without energy input is possible, we make it many times during stress tests, but is dangerous. We guarantee anyway to our Customers an output of energy 6 times the input.
3- In October we will start up a 1 MW plant and our Customer will be the sole validator we will care of.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Dan
June 17th, 2011 at 8:12 PM
If you have confidence in your invention. Then you should remember that you will go down in history and your every word will be recorded for posterity. Being skeptical is pretty understandable but I’m sure everyone is praying your findings are correct even those who challenge you.
*************
Roger Barker
June 17th, 2011 at 8:18 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I can understand why you are angry but please try to understand our position as well. Yes, you are right, in October when you do reveal your 1MW reactor all skeptics can go f..k themselves. However till that day comes people will question the E-CAT. Why? Because it just sounds to good to be true.
So please forgive me for asking the question regarding Krivit. I saw it in his blog and simply decided to ask you about it.
If you truly have the answer to all the worlds energy problems then I wish you all the success in the world.
Regards
Roger Barker Phd
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 1:02 AM
Dear Roger Barker:
I am not angry, I just was disappointed that, after we published repeatedly that we made the measure of steam indicating the percentage of water residue in the steam IN MASS, Mr Steve Krivit wrote that we measured it in volume, which not only is a stupidity, but is the contrary of what we explained to him. Also he, who lacks of elementary bases in Physics, has not to offend (and blackmail) a Prof. of Physics of the University of Bologna. Like the rat who teaches to the cat how to miew.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims » E-Cat World
June 18th, 2011 at 1:31 AM
[…] Asked on his website about Krivit’s report, Rossi has had strong words. He believes that they have indeed thoroughly reported on the water-in-steam issue and that Krivit has been unfair in his reporting and questioning.
In the larger picture, Rossi reiterates that he is not interested in getting into any validation in the public arena: “Now I have to make my 1 MW plant, then we will make other 1 MW plants for our Customers. That’s all we will do. Our Customers tests are the sole tests that count, for us. Therefore, I have absolutely not time for
competitors anxious to test my Cat to make their “validation”. Tweet […]
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 4:02 AM
“Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims”:
The content of water in steam is always measured in mass, not in volume, because psychrometers work is based on the heat necessary to the evaporation ow residual water, and the heat is given in Joule/g, wherein g means grams. Krivit is not convinced only because has not the elementary knowledge of the physics involved.
He had all the necessary explications from us, just did not (or wanted not) to understand. By the way: in a statement he released further, he said that while Prof. Levi told him there was a report about this issue, I said in the interview that there was not a report about this issue. This is a translation problem: with the term “report”
I mean an extensive paper, while Prof. Levi referred to the simple communication that we received from the specialist who made the measurement, in which there were just the results. This is a misunderstanding, not a contradiction.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Frank A. DiBianca
June 18th, 2011 at 1:43 PM
Dear Ing Rossi,
In my opinion, your power generator is the most interesting device I have ever heard of. I wish you every success in the future.
However, there seems to be a continuing debate over whether or not the eCAT actually works, so I have been thinking about the possibility of a simple and indisputable test that overcomes all your concerns such as runaway reactions, etc.
As I understand it, there are two basic issues:
1) There are input power and output power, and people continue to argue if output is truly greater than input for a sufficiently long time to preclude the possibility of hidden stored energy (batteries, etc.). This issue would be irrevelevant if the input power were zero and the output power were any significant, positive amount.
2) Since the device apparently produces much more energy than it consumes, it is not difficult to provide the necessary ignition heating from the device itself rather than from an external power source. However, this can be dangerous since there is then no easy control of the input power, and the device may (and has been observed to) go into a runaway condition.
So, here is my suggestion. You operate two eCATs together (maybe this can be done with just one device, but two seem to allow more separation of input and output). Each device is connected to an electrical generator (steam turbine, thermoelectric cell, etc.). Some of the electricity from each electrical generator is fed back to the heating resistor of the OTHER device. Hence, you now have full control over the input power, exactly as you do in the normal eCAT, however, there is NO outside power source. So, you can now channel the remaining electricity from the two generators to power an electric motor, boil water, whatever you wish. Could such electrical regeneration actually be used in your commercial power station?
In summary, a well-controlled machine with no input power could produce observable output powere for many months. Hence, the energy must be coming from the Nickel-Hydrogen (presumably nuclear) reaction. To answer the few remaining skeptics who might assert that energy is secretly being pumped in electromagnetically (microwaves, etc.), that should be easy to rule out by letting them monitor emag radiation,
or apply electromagnetic shielding, or simply show that such emag power would be unrealistic, etc. As I said, maybe you could do this with one eCAT instead of two.
Have I overlooked something in making this suggestion?
I wish you and your colleagues the best success.
Frank DiBianca (bioengineer and particle physicist)
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 3:25 PM
Dear Frank Di Bianca:
People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.
About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our
Customers. I leave to others, more supplied of free time, the burden to chatter of LENR, I have to make them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, we had recently a “fake” journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making
steam without water, I mean perfectly dry steam, and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a 1 MW plant do you think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something? In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my
Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank A. D
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Source: Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Energy Blog
Thread: Patent WO/2009/125444
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Dear Paolo:
The 1 MW plant which we will start up in Greece in October will generate heat. For power we are not yet ready, but we made a very important step forward in this week, because our reactors now produce a totally dry steam (no more traces of water in the steam) and this is a step forward to couple the turbines. We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory, and we are making exponential progress day by day.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
Source: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=8#comment-47160
Thread: A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni
Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM
Dear Staffan:
Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did.
About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that:
1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding
2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason
3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding
All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*************
