sbkrivit

Mar 122012
 

Hanno Essén, a theoretical physicist and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, told New Energy Times on Friday that he is more interested than ever in Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer invention.

Sven Kullander, a professor emeritus at Uppsala University and chairman of the Swedish National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, has remained silent.

Essén’s Current Perspective
On March 8, 2012, New Energy Times asked Essén whether, considering all that has and has not transpired in the past year, he had any update to his previous endorsement of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer. Essén wrote back the next day. He said that, since he first learned about the Rossi E-Cat in January 2011, the independent tests he has seen have given him more confidence in it than ever.

Essén’s Initial Perspective
Technology journalist Mats Lewan, with Ny Teknik, published a news story on Jan. 21, 2011, about Essén’s perspective about the E-Cat.

“It looks interesting,” Essén said, “just that it is reproducible, that they actually built a solid unit.”

Essén had written a paper in 2006, “Catalyzing Fusion with Relativistic Electrons,” never published, in which he proposed a theoretical explanation for “cold fusion.” According to what Lewan wrote, Essén thought his hypothesis could explain the physical phenomena in Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer.

But Essén had never seen Rossi’s experiment and had read no journal paper about it. How did he gain such confidence so quickly? He got it from Giuseppe Levi, a professor of physics at the University of Bologna.

Levi’s Initial Perspective
Levi, in turn, developed confidence in Rossi’s device from what he heard from Sergio Focardi, a professor emeritus at the University of Bologna Physics Department whom Rossi had befriended.

In an Italian public television broadcast May 5, 2011, Levi discussed his early impressions about Rossi’s device during 2009-2010.

“Focardi kept on giving us results which were more and more thrilling, with energy multiplication factors which were increasingly higher. We were all rather curious,” Levi said.

Then, on Dec. 16, 2010, the first day Levi saw the device for himself, he was convinced. He told New Energy Times what it was like for him in a June 14, 2011, video interview.

“I was feeling like somebody that has arrived on a new island,” Levi said. “Imagine you are traveling on a boat and you see an island that was not on the map. And you just traveled, and you are walking on a new island, and the island is almost completely not known, and you want to tell it to everybody. Then you go back and say, ‘At this coordinate, there is a new island.’ And, of course, you have people saying, ‘Look on the maps; there is not an island there. You are mistaken, you were in the wrong position, and so on.’ But I was quite sure of what I have seen.”

Essén and Kullander Embrace E-Cat
On Feb. 23, 2011, Essén and Kullander told Lewan that the public has to embrace Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer.

Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén in Ny Teknik video

Essén and Kullander hadn’t seen the E-Cat. The only detailed technical report they had on the energy measurements was from Levi.

“Another physicist, Giuseppe Levi, was allowed to test the process independently, measuring input and output power,” Essén said. “And it seems repeatable. And there is a device. And now it has been tested for a longer time.”

Essén believed that Levi, working on Rossi’s device, in Rossi’s garage, under Rossi’s control, had independently tested Rossi’s device. Essén also apparently thought that Rossi was a physicist. As it turns out, Rossi’s only real university degree is in philosophy.

No Output Power Measured
In Levi’s first test, on Dec. 16, 2010, he didn’t measure output power. He measured only output temperature, which could reasonably be used to calculate only the possible excess heat up to the boiling point but no higher. For the remainder of his excess-heat claim from the steam phase, he based his calculation on a dubious assumption and extrapolated his data from that assumption. He saw a few puffs of steam and took Rossi and Focardi on faith that all of the water they pumped into the device was vaporized. This was an ill-advised and, as it turns out, critical assumption. Levi apparently paid little attention to the black hose that was sending some of the unvaporized water down the drain near him. Levi also made no steam quality measurement.

In Levi’s second test, on Jan. 14, 2011, little was different except that a chemist hired by Rossi came and used a device to measure steam dryness. The chemist attempted to measure the steam coming not from the output but from an auxiliary port that could be opened with a valve. By doing so, not only was the obvious problem of the overflow water overlooked again, but also the chemist used an inappropriate instrument for his measurement. Consequently, the steam quality measurement was meaningless. In Levi’s third test, which he ran for 18 hours on Feb. 10-11, 2011, he told Lewan his final conclusion but gave Lewan no report. When New Energy Times asked Levi for a report or data from that experiment, he refused and said he did not intend to release it.

But Essén knew none of this. He took on faith what Lewan printed. For his part, Lewan simply reported what Rossi, Focardi and Levi told him.

A month later, on March 29, 2011, Essén and Kullander went to visit Rossi and see his device for the first time. In their travel report, they wrote that “the only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”

That Rossi paid for their trips to Italy didn’t help. In a July 15, 2011, interview with New Energy Times, Essén acknowledged that that he should have seen 11,200 liters of steam per hour exiting from the Energy Catalyzer when he looked at it, but at the time he did not think about it.

“I must admit,” Essén said, “I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out. I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn’t that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time.”

Kullander Overlooks Criticisms
On July 30, 2011, New Energy Times published an extensive report that included analyses from two dozen scientific and engineering experts. Many of them analyzed the steam flow from Rossi’s device seen in a New Energy Times video. These analyses showed that the steam coming out of Rossi’s device was not consistent with Rossi’s claim of an energy gain of six but that it was consistent with the amount of electrical energy Rossi was putting into the system.

On Nov. 23, 2011, Kullander gave a public lecture at Orebro University in Sweden. In his slides, he failed to mention substantial scientific criticism of the Energy Catalyzer.

The title of Kullander’s lecture was “Tomorrow’s Nuclear Power – It Becomes Cold or Hot?” Most of his slides, however, were about the Energy Catalyzer.

The only critical comment Kullander made in his slides was about the way Rossi measured the steam quality. But by July 30, 2011, the question of steam quality measurement was irrelevant for two reasons. First, Rossi’s colleagues used an instrument that was incapable of measuring steam quality. We documented this extensively in Report #3. We showed that the device Rossi’s chemist used was designed for measuring humidity in air, not for measuring steam quality. Second and far more important, their measurements were made on an auxiliary port, and this allowed them to completely overlook the liquid water that flowed out of the E-Cat into the black output hose and disappeared down the drain. Observers could have identified this oversight. They could have asked Rossi why they didn’t see more than a few light puffs of steam coming out. But they didn’t.

In many of Kullander’s slides, he presented information that appears supportive of Rossi’s energy claims, and he appeared to accept Rossi’s claims as valid. On March 6, 2012, New Energy Times sent Kullander a list of five significant criticisms that other scientists and engineers had identified with the Energy Catalyzer. We asked Kullander why his slides mentioned one largely irrelevant critique of a mass versus volume measurement of steam but did not show anything about the five substantial criticisms.

New Energy Times spoke with Kullander the next day to inquire about a possible response from him. He said that he had received our email but he had not read it. New Energy Times asked whether he could respond within the next day. He said he would try. He sent no response.

Essén Overlooks Crucial Alternative 
On March 8, 2012, New Energy Times asked Essén for an update: “Considering all that has and has not transpired since [last year] and considering your failure to look for 11,200 liters of steam exiting from the Energy Catalyzer when you were there, is there a revised comment you would like to make on this matter?”

Essén wrote back the next day.

“Considering all the tests (apart from Kullander-Essén) I am aware of, at least two other, rather different, independent tests that give consistent results, either not involving steam or measuring it quantitatively, and other information that I have had since I first came across the Rossi E-Cat, I find it more interesting than ever.

“I am not aware that there have been any measurements of the amount of steam that contradict Rossi’s basic claims. Visual inspection cannot determine amount of steam since only condensed steam is visible.”

New Energy Times asked Essén whether there was possibly an alternative explanation to his previous conclusion.

“How did you know that unvaporized water was not, either continuously or periodically, flowing down the black hose and into the drain?”

Essén did not respond.

Mar 112012
 

Two days ago, we reported “Rossi’s Financial and Environmental Criminal History.”

Embedded within that story was a key link: “Rossi’s Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History – As Reported by Major Italian Newspapers.” That page contains more than 100 news reports of Rossi’s Italian criminal history.

On May 5, 2011, Italian public television broadcast a conversation it had with Rossi about his past efforts to convert household and industrial waste into oil.

“But these are things which belong to my past which have nothing to do with what we are talking about at the moment and I kindly ask you now to move on,” Rossi said.

Rossi moved on and left the equivalent of two cargo ships worth of toxic waste, most of it liquid sludge, to poison the environment. He left the residents of the Milan area with the multi-million dollar cleanup bill.

Rossi moved on to LENR.

Mar 102012
 

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer, told an inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that he has no factory in the United States and that no nuclear reactions occur in his devices.

Rossi’s statements contradict nearly everything he has said in the last year about his claims of a factory and his development of a low-energy nuclear reaction device.

Rossi told the bureau that his device produces thermal energy of six times the electrical energy input. However, for the last several years, Rossi claimed nuclear reactions occur in his device.

The bureau responded to a citizen’s complaint, made by Gary Wright of Las Vegas, in February. New Energy Times obtained the report from this blog. Wright was concerned that Rossi’s device had failed proper nuclear certifications or, if not, that Rossi was committing fraud.

New Energy Times spoke with Wright today, but he declined to comment.

Jim Stokes, an inspector with the bureau, interviewed Rossi in Rossi’s Miami apartment on Feb. 29, 2012. Here is the concluding text from his report:

“I spoke with [Mr.] Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-Cat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. [Rossi states that] the output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] does not have jurisdiction. Since there [are] no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste generated by it, the state of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. [Rossi states that] currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. [Rossi states that he] has arranged to meet with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked [Mr.] Rossi for his time meeting with me.”

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/img/20120310-BRC-conclusion.jpg

Click image for larger snapshot.

Click here for the full report.

Mar 102012
 

As New Energy Times brings this phase of its reporting on Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer to a close, it is an appropriate time to reflect on one of Rossi’s previous technology adventures.

In the 1970s and ’80s, Rossi claimed to have invented a process and device which he called the Petroldragon, to convert household and industrial waste, such as old tires and hospital waste, into oil.

In November 1979, journalist Luigi Bacialli wrote a book with Rossi about his life and his Petroldragon miracle, Petrolio Dai Rifiuti (Oil From Garbage).

Bacialli called Rossi the “Sheik of Brianza.” Brianza was the region where Rossi lived. The book is a flattering vision of Rossi and his Petroldragon.

By 1989, Italian newspapers had started reporting on Petroldragon as a scam: “A Tale of Toxic Waste, Billions [of Lira], and Mega-Scams.” Click here for an extensive record of Rossi’s Italian financial and environmental criminal history as reported by major Italian newspapers.

After two decades with his Petroldragon idea, according to a 1990 Italian Senate report, Rossi was still hoping to obtain “steady-state.”

A Senate staff member interviewed Rossi and visited his Petroldragon site as part of a comprehensive review of the status and reconstruction of industries in the Basilicata region after the earthquakes of 1980 and 1981.

The interviewer for the Senate found three Petroldragon ovens on Rossi’s site; only one appeared to be in operation. According to information the interviewer obtained from Rossi, all three units were ready for production and for sale, a scenario nearly identical to that of the Energy Catalyzer.

In another remarkable prequel to the Energy Catalyzer and Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics, the interviewer found that Rossi had created his own publishing house as well as a scientific journal (also see Senate report) and appointed himself the editor.

By 1992, Rossi had been indicted for false invoicing, tax evasion and punishment for environmental damages caused by Petroldragon.

In March 1994, the regional government ordered the closure of the Petroldragon plant and revoked its permits for the collection and storage of toxic waste.

A month later, in April, Rossi was accused of polluting ground water with lead as a result of the Petroldragon. A local prosecutor hypothesized that Rossi illegally disposed of the waste.

In March 1995, there were local protests against the 20,000 tons of liquid toxic sludge that Rossi had accumulated eight years earlier and was still holding in his tanks. At the same time, Rossi was arrested for tax fraud, false billing and illegal trafficking of gold with international accomplices. At least one of them, according to Corriere della Sera, was a well-known figure in the underworld.

Rossi’s magic plan to turn waste into oil imploded: It didn’t work, he had collected toxic waste from companies who were eager to give it to him, it was leaking and polluting the environment, and he ran himself into bankruptcy. He abandoned the site and left it to the people in the region and the local governments to clean up.

At one point in February 1996, during one of Rossi’s 56 trials, he asked to show a miniature demonstration of his Petroldragon in the courtroom.

Apparently, that didn’t work out, and after dioxin was found in his waste in March 1996, Rossi found himself in handcuffs, and the court seized his assets.

By March 1996, the Petroldragon died, according to Corriere della Sera:

“The oil from ‘recycled waste’ never existed, the former Omar refinery of Lacchiarella never brewed any marketable product, and all transfers of waste from other storage facilities occurred without the required regional permits. Yesterday, it was permanently wrecked, and the financial entrepreneur from Brianza, Andrea Rossi, 45, former owner of ‘Petrol Dragon’ received a double sentence from the Court of Milan and the Appeals Court of Turin for the ecological and financial adventure.”

Meanwhile, the storage tanks, which were already leaking, were like ticking time bombs.

By April 1997, the local and regional governments were trying to figure out how to get the tens of billions of liras they needed for the cleanup. Rossi was supposed to have shown up for a trial, but he failed to appear, apparently fleeing the country.

He was wanted as a fugitive, and in June 2000, when he came back to Italy, he was arrested in the Rome airport and sent to jail.

In October 2000, the Corriere della Sera headline read as follows:

“[Rossi] Claimed He Had the Formula to Transform Toxic Waste Into Black Gold, Only Succeeded in Causing Environmental Disaster. “Oil Wizard” sentenced to 8 years. Expenses Enough to Bankrupt Lacchiarella Refinery – Omar Turned Into Warehouse of Tanks Holding 57 Thousand Tons of Toxic Waste – Reclamation Costs More Than 30 Billion.”

On May 5, 2011, Maurizio Torrealta and Angelo Saso, journalists with Italian public television, produced an investigation called “The Magic of Mr. Rossi.”

The following excerpts from that broadcast will complete our report:

Rossi : “But these are things which belong to my past which have nothing to do with what we are talking about at the moment, and I kindly ask you now to move on.”

Edoardo Bai, Legambiente Lombardia Region, Italy: “Rossi basically took a series of old and misused refineries where there are big containers, huge storage containers, and stocked the waste collected in all these old refineries he gathered [from] all around Italy. The largest one was the one of Lacchiarella, and he left the waste there without treating it.”

Bai: “When Petroldragon closed up shop, it left behind 57,000 tons of toxic waste. There were some leaks in the bottom of the reservoirs, and therefore the ground was permeated. Consequently, the underground water was polluted.”

Luigi Mariani, lawyer of Lombardia Region, Italy: “It was necessary to reclaim the land and plough the land and take the waste which was in the ground from Lacchiarella and bring it to waste disposal plants in Germany.”

Luigi Acerbi, mayor of Lacchiarella, Milan, Italy: “To date, the drainage cost [the government] around €22.5 million. To have land which can be devoted to possible public use, a complete reclamation of the land is needed, which will cost around €9 million [more].”

Mariani: “Andrea Rossi has been repeatedly condemned by many tribunals for illegal disposal of hazardous and toxic waste fulfilled without the regional authorization. He was condemned by the [inaudible] magistrate of Lecco and the magistrate of Monza, the magistrate of Milan and the magistrate of Turin.”

Acerbi: “In the years where he was working here, he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade – in a way that I cannot explain – a good portion of public opinion, and that’s exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, [inaudible] the region of Lombardia that he was able to do magic.”

© 2025 newenergytimes.net