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.
– 
