sbkrivit

Energy Catalzyer: Extraordinary Scams Require Extraordinary Claims

Oct 282011
 

In a few hours, promoter Andrea Rossi will, for the 12th time, demonstrate how he is able to make boxes of pipes and wires heat water and, possibly, bring it to a boil. What makes Rossi’s device different from an ordinary electric tea kettle is his claim: massive amounts of nuclear-scale heat.

I don’t doubt the legitimacy of the underlying science — apparently copied from biophysicist Francesco Piantelli — which has been published in peer-reviewed journals. But I do doubt the extraordinary magnitude of Rossi’s claim. And I certainly have very low confidence in the one and only paper that Rossi published with his associate Sergio Focardi. They self-published their paper on Rossi’s blog, which Rossi calls Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Readers may find this timeline of events helpful. It provides an excellent track of the Rossi story from the beginning to perhaps the end. I have recently added many new details.

One of the main reasons I doubt Rossi’s claim is that, when I went to see his device in person and filmed it, the visible steam output looked even less than what would come out of an ordinary tea kettle. Yet, according to Rossi, it was producing kilowatts of heat at the time.

Another reason I doubt the claim is that his numerous attempts to present credible scientific evidence have failed.

After several dozen New Energy Times readers analyzed Rossi’s claims and left no doubt about the lack of scientific credibility, Rossi said that he didn’t need to provide scientific evidence because he would prove himself by producing an operating reactor.

Thus, as the sun rises over Bologna this morning, there will be no need for data, thermistors or flow measurements. Rossi will turn on his device, then unplug it from the wall and show that his reactor can do real work: light a light bulb, turn a motor or warm up the room for his guests. Or he won’t.

Another reason for my doubt is that multiple customers, apparently with ample financial resources, have lined up to perform due diligence, and they all seem to lose interest. First, it was Defkalion, then Ampenergo, then Quantum Energy Technologies. Quantum’s engineers observed tests on Sept. 5 and 6 in Rossi’s showroom. The potential customers come, they look, they don’t come back. Same with NASA. NASA engineers went to see Rossi’s show along with the representatives from Quantum, and they came away empty-handed.

If I spent the time to count the inconsistencies presented by Rossi and his collaborators, I could list dozens of examples. Here’s a crucial one: In their 2010 self-published paper, they claimed an energy gain of 213 times. Yet, in January 2011, Rossi downgraded the claim to a 30 times energy gain. In April, he downgraded his claim again, to 6 times.

Here’s another example: Rossi and Focardi have said that they submitted their self-published paper to several journals but that it was rejected with prejudice. Yet, on June 14, I asked Focardi in which journals he and Rossi had attempted to publish their paper. Focardi revealed that they had not submitted the paper to any journal; he said they submitted it only to the arXiv pre-print service, but the administrators rejected it.

Another example: Rossi claimed he had a factory in Florida where he was testing 300 of his devices, yet the address listed on his corporate documents shows that to be a fifth-floor apartment.

Another example: Rossi claimed he was heating a building in Italy with one of his reactors, yet there is not a single piece of evidence to support that claim.

Another example: Rossi has claimed that the key to his technological innovation is a secret “catalyst.” Yet, in my video interview with him, he said his crucial discovery had everything to do with “pressure.”

How has Rossi been able to perform his magic show for so long? Technology journalist Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik gets some of the credit for this. Lewan has consistently failed to ask Rossi tough questions, turned a blind eye to crucial inconsistencies, and acted as Rossi’s scribe by writing his technical reports for him.

No wonder mainstream science media have not picked up on this Internet miracle. But two mainstream journalists have noticed the story. The first is David Hambling, a freelance journalist who wrote an article for Wired U.K. on Oct. 6, 2011. The second is Peter Svensson, a technology writer with the Associated Press who contacted me on May 20.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/images/LewanMats.jpg http://newenergytimes.com/v2/images/Svensson%20Peter-AP.jpg http://newenergytimes.com/v2/images/HamblingDavid.jpg
Mats Lewan                Peter Svensson       David Hambling

“I’ve been using your site quite a bit in my researches, sparked by my interest in the Rossi affair,” Svensson wrote. “The site is impressive, and I thought I might introduce myself to a fellow journalist.”

Before I left for my June trip to Bologna, I told Svensson that I was headed out to meet Rossi and see his device.

“I would be interested in hearing what you think,” Svensson wrote. “I’ve met Rossi. Give my regards to him when you see him!”

Svensson was interested in hearing my opinion about Rossi and his claim. I cannot say it any better than Daniel Larsson, the owner of the Energy Catalzyer blog, did: “Maybe Andrea Rossi knows: ‘Extraordinary scams require extraordinary claims.'”

[Update Oct. 28, 19:34: Rossi’s 12th demo. No light bulbs are lit, no motors turn, no room is heated. Italian engineers with unknown affiliation take and report data on behalf of unknown “customer.” Rossi uploads documents to his Web site which say that unidentified customer accepts delivery of his device. Document is signed “For the customer – Ing Domenico Fioravanti, (signature) ” “For Leonardo Corporation” (signature). Words “For the customer” are partially redacted by Rossi.]

Rossi’s 11th Test, 11th Failure

Oct 102011
 

On Oct. 7, promoter Andrea Rossi gave a public demonstration of his “energy catalyzer” in his showroom in Bologna, Italy. This was his 11th attempt and his 11th failure to show unambiguous evidence of the release of heat in excess of the input of electrical energy.

Journalist Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik wrote a technical report and presented data on Rossi’s behalf. Lewan also wrote a news story about his own report and Rossi’s test.

I wrote an article the next day based on Lewan’s news story.

In my article, I stated, based on data reported by Lewan, that Rossi’s device demonstrated a net energy loss rather than a gain. When I read Lewan’s news story, I understood that Rossi heated the E-Cat with an electrical resistor for about four hours before the test began.

Here is what Lewan wrote: “As in previous tests, the start-up was affected by heating the E-cat with an electrical resistor at about 2.7 kilowatts, this time for about four hours.”

Lewan mentioned nothing about heat output measurements during this phase. I assumed that the well-insulated device was retaining the heat and there was no flow.

Before I published my article, however, I sent my calculations and conclusion to Lewan. In his reply, Lewan said nothing about any heat output during the heating phase. In fact, he denied a net energy gain for the overall test.

“I don’t think I reported a net energy gain. I only reported the energy developed during self-sustained mode,” Lewan wrote.

According to Lewan’s report, the energy balance in the heating phase was irrelevant. As I pointed out in my article, this was his mistake.

But I made an assumption that there was no appreciable heat output during the heating phase. This was my mistake, and I should have stated that assumption.

I went back to Lewan and asked him to help me and my readers complete this equation:  (31.5  + x)  [Output]  –   (38.88 + 1.44) [Input] =  – 8.82, where “x” is the possible heat output during the heating phase.

I made three successive requests, and Lewan gave me three successive ambiguous answers and failed to provide me with the missing value. (See communication log below.)

My conclusion is that Lewan and Rossi made no flow measurements that would allow them to directly calculate the energy output during the heating phase.

My speculation is that the energy input during the heating phase was a significant contributing factor to Lewan and Rossi’s published claim that the device “ran in a completely stable self-sustained mode for over three hours.”

My first concern is that Rossi, as well as Lewan, knew specifically that the applied energy in the heating phase was required to support their claim and that they were both not forthcoming about it.

My second concern is that Rossi, as well as Lewan, knew that complete accounting of the energy balance was the most legitimate way to support their claim and that they chose not to do this.

My third concern is that, in the absence of a complete and clearly measured energy balance and in the absence of a schematic clearly showing the placement of all components, Rossi can too easily deceive others or himself. For example, he could locate a thermocouple in a place that would give a false reading, which would cause an overestimation of heat output. All temperature measurements would be meaningless.

This most recent test of Rossi’s illuminates the obvious question: Why has Rossi continued to obfuscate the details of his device which could be very helpful for substantiating his claims?

I believe he doesn’t have what he claims. I believe he knows it. I believe he’s hoping that, if he can just get enough money, he can eventually make it work.

 

Oct. 8 and 9 Communication Log Krivit – Lewan

Measurement of Energy Output in Heating Phase
SK: Can you please tell me the kj of heat released during the heating phase? And tell me how you derive it?
ML: You have it all in my pdf report. Energy (kJ) is obtained by multiplying power and time (actually integrating power over time, or rather dt). If you use watts and seconds, you get joules (not kilojoules).  Power is obtained by multiplying current and voltage (amperes x volts = watts). Current and voltage for each interval can be found in my report.
SK: Let me be more specific with my question: How did you measure the kj of heat released during the heating phase?
ML: The same method as during the self-sustained phase. Delta T of the water in the secondary circ. Although I didn’t specifically report it. But the values to do it are in the pdf report (T values in the 2nd circ; flow was the same).
SK: In your news story, you provided simple and straightforward information about measured power output and time during the second phase, and measured power input and time for both phases. Some of my readers have assumed that there was significant power output during the heating phase. If this is the case, there is a major omission. One last time, can you give me a simple and straightforward answer about average measured power output and time during the heating phase, or total measured energy output during the heating phase? And if not, why not?
ML: Let me repeat – the energy output during the start-up phase can be calculated from the data I provided in my pdf report. The output was significant and of the same order as the input energy. This is why I didn’t focus on this interval of the process. If you need help to calculate this, you can have a look at the graph attached. It’s made by a reader according to basic rules of physics, as I explained to you above, and I consider it accurate.

Measurement of Flow in Heating Phase
SK: I don’t see any evidence that you measured rate of outflow of primary circuit during the heating phase. Have I missed this information?
ML: I measured the flow rate in the 2nd circuit continuously, output flow in the primary circuit only twice, as written in the pdf report.
SK: Do you know for a fact whether water and/or steam was flowing out of the device during the heating phase, and if so, how do you know this?
ML: I know steam was entering the heat exchanger when the internal temperature in the E-cat reached about 100 degrees, as I felt the heat from the output hose from the E-cat = the input hose in the primary circuit in the heat exchanger. It was clear that steam was flowing, and as I have already seen a similar experiments with the same object when I also measured the output flow, I base my assumption on the output flow in the primary circuit on this.

E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss

Oct 082011
 

Promoter Andrea Rossi’s most recent test of his “energy catalyzer” failed to demonstrate the production of excess heat.

On Oct. 7, “the ‘E-cat’ invented by Andrea Rossi ran in a completely stable self-sustained mode for over three hours,” journalist Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik wrote.

According to Lewan, Rossi’s device released an average of 2.5 kilowatts of heat in 3.5 hours. This amounts to 31.5 megaJoules of energy.

However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. He also heated the device during the phase which Lewan called “self-sustaining.” The input was 115 Watts for 3.5 hours. That’s 1.44 megaJoules of energy.

Let’s do the math of the total energy input versus energy output: (38.88 + 1.44) – 31.5 = 8.82.

That’s a total energy loss of 8.82 MJ during a 7.5-hour period*. In other words, Rossi has demonstrated a water heater that is 78 percent efficient. This is inconsistent with his claims of having a device that produces substantial amounts of excess heat in comparison to input energy.

On Oct. 7, New Energy Times asked Lewan how he justified his and Rossi’s implication that the Oct. 6 experiment showed a net energy gain, as well as their claim that the device was self-sustaining.

“I don’t believe I claimed anything at all,” Lewan wrote. “And I don’t think I reported a net energy gain. I only reported the energy developed during self- sustained mode.”

These are glaring inconsistencies.

Furthermore, in his technical report, Lewan ignores the input energy from the first four-hour warm-up period.

“The E-cat was considered to be completely operating only after reaching self-sustained mode,” he wrote.

Lewan’s and Rossi’s choice to ignore the input energy from the four-hour warm-up period is like saying a sailplane can fly without power, so long as it is first carried aloft by a tow plane.

* Minor radiative losses are not included in this rough calculation.

Wired UK Article on Rossi Today

Oct 062011
 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion
By David Hambling

Excerpt:

Surprisingly enough, Rossi’s most severe critic is Steven Krivit, editor of the New Energy Times. Krivit has had years of experience at looking at all sorts cold fusion devices which have been claimed to produce power. His team have carried out a very thorough analysis of Rossi’s demonstrations and they have their doubts.

“According to my analysis, his claim has no scientific credibility,” Krivit told Wired.co.uk. The device he claimed to heat a factory in Bondeno seems to exist only on paper.”

Krivit’s analysis looks at the amount of steam that actually comes out of the device and the way it is measured. He concludes that the E-Cat does not have nearly the output he suggests, and may not even be producing excess energy.

Krivit’s answer to the question of whether Rossi’s demonstrations support his claims is: “Definitely no.”

There is some irony at work here: we apparently have a number of mainstream scientists backing an outlandish project which investors are putting money into, while the most vocal critic comes from the world of cold fusion.

Who’s right? The only way to find out will be to watch out for what Rossi does later this month.

NASA Won’t Confirm Relationship With Rossi

Oct 062011
 

NASA has nothing to say about Andrea Rossi’s claim that he has a relationship with NASA. Rossi is an Italian promoter who says he can produce commercially practical levels of LENR-based heat.

A source, who asked to remain anonymous, told New Energy Times that, on Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group and NASA visited Rossi’s showroom in Bologna, Italy. The team went there with an explicit agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims. The team members did not observe any positive results.

The Sept. 5 test was inconclusive because Rossi’s device sprang a plumbing leak. The Sept. 6 test was inconclusive because there was no outflow of steam or water.

However, when reporter Mats Lewan from Ny Teknik showed up the next day, Rossi’s device produced an outflow of steam and water. But by then, the NASA observers had gone.

On Sept. 14, Lewan wrote that he observed Rossi’s “one megawatt [power] plant” and that the plant “is now being shipped to the United States.” The same day, Lewan wrote that he observed Rossi’s device producing excess heat without external energy input. Lewan produced and published a scientific-appearing technical report on behalf of Rossi.

The tests on Sept. 5, 6 and 7 were Rossi’s eighth, ninth and 10th attempts to show proof of his concept.

On Sept. 15, New Energy Times asked Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, whether he attended the Sept. 5 and 6 Rossi tests.

“We can’t discuss anything about that,” Bushnell said.

On Sept. 23, New Energy Times asked Jim Dunn, the former director of the NASA Northeast Regional Technology Transfer Center, whether he attended the Sept. 5 and 6 Rossi tests.

“You know I can’t answer that,” Dunn wrote. “All I can say is that I was ‘out of the country.’ The rest is up to your imagination.”

On Sept. 28, New Energy Times published a blog article saying that NASA engineers did not observe any positive results when they went to see Rossi’s device.

On Sept. 29, Rossi responded on his blog:

WARNING: THE SNAKE HAS WRITTEN IN HIS BLOG THAT NASA MADE A NOT POSITIVE TEST WITH US. THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. I AM BOUND FROM A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND I CANNOT GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT I CAN SAY THAT:
1- WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH NASA, WHO WANTS TO TEST OUR ECATS TO TEST THE POSSIBILITY TO MAKE THEM USEFUL FOR THEIR PURPOSES
2- NASA’S DENNIS.M.BUSHNELL HAS SAID PUBILCLY THAT NASA WILL BUY AN E-CAT AS SOON AS IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TEST IT
3- OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NASA IS TOTALLY POSITIVE

On Sept. 29, New Energy Times sent a query to Robert Jacobs, NASA deputy associate administrator for communication.

We showed him Rossi’s comments and asked him these questions:

1. Did NASA personnel observe any positive results in September?
2. Do any NASA personnel have, at this time, any interest to participate in or observe additional tests of Andrea Rossi’s “Energy Catalyzer” device?
3. Does any NASA employee have any intention to buy one of Rossi’s devices under any circumstances at this time?

Jacobs replied on Sept. 29.

“I’m not personally aware of such activity, but I will check with Langley, which is where Dennis Bushnell is located, and I will have someone there contact you,” Jacobs wrote.

New Energy Times then sent the questions to Robert D. Wyman, NASA Langley news chief, on Sept. 29.

New Energy Times spoke with Wyman on Oct 4.

“Dennis Bushnell is out of the office this week, and I don’t have any further information,” Wyman said.

In other related news, Rossi is going to attempt today, for the 11th time, evidence for his claim.

This is not, however, Rossi’s promised and long-anticipated October public demonstration and delivery of a 1 megawatt power plant. The test today will be performed only on one of 52 units composing the promised 1 megawatt power plant.

On Sept. 14, Lewan published photos and video of an impressive-looking shipping container that housed 51 individual boxes, each containing a 30-litre tank, with interconnected plumbing and electrical parts sticking out of each one. The 52nd unit was on the bench for testing.

Rossi has failed to demonstrate excess heat in a single device 10 times in a row.

A recognized technology expert who saw the 1 megawatt shipping container in September told New Energy Times that he wasn’t able to overlook the obvious.

“You can’t deliver one megawatt of steam through a 2½-inch pipe unless you go hypersonic,” the expert said.

So observers of the big 1 megawatt demonstration that Rossi promised for October should look for steam exiting the shipping container in excess of 768 mph.

Internet rumors that the Rossi test would be performed using University of Bologna facilities are incorrect, according to an e-mail New Energy Times received yesterday from Paolo Capiluppi, the head of the Physics Department, in response to our questions.

“The contract is not yet active,” Capiluppi wrote. “The university is not involved with the demo by Rossi tomorrow and is not providing any university facility or laboratory.”

Other Internet rumors suggested that Rossi had granted Lewan an exclusive on the story. But Lewan told New Energy Times that is also incorrect.

“I haven’t been offered any exclusive,” he said.

As of 11 p.m. Stockholm time on Wednesday, Lewan would not say whether he would attend.

The E-Cat story has 26 days left to play out.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2025 newenergytimes.net