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.”

Many people who have followed the story of Andrea Rossi and his Energy Catalyzer are aware that Rossi’s claims are poorly supported by scientific facts, yet these people can’t imagine how Rossi intends to profit from this deception.

According to Rossi, his device produces commercially practical levels of excess heat through a nuclear process. Many people are aware that the amount of steam produced in Rossi’s device, as shown in a video from Ny Teknik and a video from New Energy Times, is inconsistent with the amount of steam Rossi claims his device should make.

–
June 14, 2011: Giuseppe Levi, professor of physics at the University of Bologna, holds up black T-shirt to help make the extraordinary amounts of steam exiting from the Energy Catalyzer visible on camera. Detail photo of steam shown on the right.

The rate of steam emanating from the first version of Rossi’s device is exactly the rate of steam that would be produced by the electricity Rossi feeds into the system. In the second version of his device, Rossi located thermocouples in the wrong place even though he was an expert with such devices. (See related New Energy Times stories here and here.)

People who have followed Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer story know that he has claimed to have a market-ready device since January 2011 but that he has failed to show evidence of delivery of any such device. Nevertheless, some people have been impressed with his confidence and the credibility he has obtained through his association with members of the scientific community.

These people have also been impressed with the fact that Rossi has entered into discussions with prestigious companies such as National Instruments and institutions such as NASA. Although Rossi has managed to get his foot in the door, none of those discussions has led to research agreements. Rossi has, however, used those discussions to boost his credibility.

Followers of the Rossi story ask, “What is Rossi’s endgame? If the Energy Catalyzer doesn’t work, how could he stand to profit?” This analysis will answer these questions.

This analysis will also explain the real motive for Rossi’s 13 public demonstrations of the E-Cat.

Click here to go to report.

Roland Pettersson, a retired analytical chemist from Uppsala University , has identified a major flaw in Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer demonstration, but he still believes the device works as claimed.

Rossi claims he has invented a low-energy nuclear reaction device that produces commercially practical levels of excess heat. Pettersson observed demonstrations of the Rossi device on Oct. 6, 2011, and on Feb. 20, 2012.

Pettersson told New Energy Times in a Nov. 18, 2011, telephone interview that the two thermocouples Rossi used as the basis of his claim were incorrectly placed. Rather than put the thermocouples into the flow of water, Rossi attached them to metal flanges that were part of the device, thus giving an inaccurate reading of the water temperature.

At the time, Pettersson did not bring up his concern to Rossi, but he did discuss it with journalist Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik and a colleague of Rossi’s, physicist Giuseppe Levi of Bologna University . According to Pettersson, Lewan and Levi shared Pettersson’s concern.

New Energy Times asked Pettersson if he knew why Rossi attached the thermocouples to the metal flanges.

“Well, I think it’s very simple: Because this is the easiest way to [do it]; to put the thermocouples there,” Pettersson said. “If you want to put it into the flow, you must make some kind of T-connection. If I get the chance, I will do that work. In fact, it’s a piece of cake to do that.”

On Feb. 20, 2012, Pettersson went to Bologna and got a second chance. Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times spoke with Pettersson yesterday.

“When we spoke in November, you said there were some things about the tests that were not very precise and that you wanted the chance to go back and do more precise tests. Did you get a chance to do that?” Krivit said.

“No, it was only a demonstration. Just the same as in October,” Pettersson said.

“Is there anything else that you think I should know or that you would want me to know?” Krivit said.

“No, it’s the same, it seems to work,” Pettersson said.

Pettersson’s interest in fusion goes back many years. He, along with six of his colleagues, published a lengthy report on fusion research performed at Sakaguchi E.H VOC Co. under the auspices of the Swedish Energy Agency. One of those colleagues was Sven Kullander, professor emeritus of high-energy physics at Uppsala University and chairman of the Swedish Energy Committee.

Kullander publicly endorsed Rossi’s device on Feb. 23, 2011 and then went to see it for the first time on Mar. 29, 2011.

Pettersson told New Energy Times that he thought Rossi’s device provided validation for his group’s fusion research.

Here are links to Pettersson’s 2005 and 2006 papers.

Below are the relevant excerpts from the interviews with Pettersson.

Nov. 18, 2011 Excerpt 1

Steven B. Krivit: I want to ask about those temperature sensors, because it sounds like they are a very critical aspect of your analysis because you are basing [your assumptions on them.]

Roland Pettersson: Correct, that was my first remark in Bologna , that they should have done this, put these sensors, these thermocouples, in another position.

Krivit: How many thermocouples were critical to the data?

Pettersson: Two.

Krivit: And what was your critique about the location of the two thermocouples?

Pettersson: I would have put them into the flow of water.

Krivit: And where were they?

Pettersson: Outside of the pipe.

Krivit: Outside the pipe.

Pettersson: Not inside the water flow.

Krivit: What were they surrounded by or what were they adjacent to?

Pettersson: They were attached to the metal input, some kind of flange … it was quite a big metal piece and they were attached outside, I would have put it into the flow.

Krivit: So were they both attached to some pieces of metal.

Pettersson: Yes, but these measurements were only roughly correct.

Krivit: Roughly, meaning, plus or minus how many degrees?

Pettersson: I would say plus or minus 20 percent.

Nov. 18, 2011 Excerpt 2

Krivit: When you saw the location of the thermocouples, did you comment on them?

Pettersson: Not to Rossi. I mentioned it to the colleagues, to Mats Lewan and the physicist of Bologna University .

Krivit: Levi?

Pettersson: For instance, yes.

Krivit: And this was before or after the experiment?

Pettersson: I think it was during the experiment and also after, when everything was open.

Krivit: And what kind of response did you get?

Pettersson: They agreed.

Nov. 18, 2011 Excerpt 3

Krivit: It seems that this is a very key point about the location of the thermocouples. Did you learn of any particular reason why the thermocouples were attached to the metal flanges?

Pettersson: Well, I think it’s very simple: Because this is the easiest way to adapt, to put the thermocouple there. If you want to put it into the flow you must make some kind of T-connection. If I get the chance I will do that work. In fact, it’s a piece of cake to do that.

Krivit: To put the thermocouple in the correct location?

Pettersson: In the flow, yes.

Krivit: You will find a way to suspend it, I presume?

Pettersson: It’s very easy to do that.

Krivit: Right. If it’s very easy, I wonder why it wasn’t done.

Pettersson: In my opinion, it is very easy, but he made the quickest way to do it. That’s my guess.

March 1, 2012

Krivit: When we spoke in November, you said there were some things about the tests that were not very precise and that you wanted the chance to go back and do more precise tests. Did you get a chance to do that?

Pettersson: No, it was only a demonstration. Just the same as in October.

Krivit: Is there anything else that you think I should know or that you would want me to know?

Pettersson: No, it’s the same, it seems to work.