Energy Catalyzer first test videos – January 14th 2011 – Bologna-Italy
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 1/3
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 2/3
Energy Catalyzer Bologna University Test 3/3
Today, Saturday january 15th, at 10:00 AM Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi will be on-line for the press conference with Journal’s readers.
The press conference will start at 10 a.m. Italian Time.
To put questions, you will have to send your inquiry as a comment of this post, you will receive the answer in real time online.
Warm Regards,
The Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics
Dear Mr Rossi
I have a question or 2 regarding the implementation of an ecat in a space heating application. The current design of your ecat seen in videos has you pumping a volume of water through a chamber resulting in dry steam. Would it be feasible to submerge an ecat chamber into a large tank of water for hydronic floor heating? Would it be possible to create a radiant heater using fins attached to an ecat chamber? Would it be simple or difficult to retrofit existing heat systems? Would it be feasible to embed an ecat into a large mass such as stone or concrete and run the ecat like a wood stove?
Thank you
Jon Soderberg
Dear Paul Segers:
Sorry, commercial issues will be decided in November.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I know the answer you will provide may be “Please contact us in November for commercial issues.”, but I was wondering if you could please provide me with some additional details on the marketing/functionality side of the E-cat.
1) If the maximum output of the current reactors is 10kWh, and a factor of 6 is guaranteed for home use, what will the actual output of the home device be? Can the amount of output power produced by adjusted, or is it at a set rate?
2) Will the unit that is sold commercially include the device to convert the heat to electricity? If it is, or one can be purchased from the company directly, what is the efficiency of the device? I know there has been a lot of development in the direct heat to electricity sector lately, so I am curious as to what will be used.
3) Are there plans to sell E-cats that are coupled together for commercial use, or is it too early to tell? What I mean is, will there be 10, 20, and 30 kWh devices (comprised of several E-cats), produced for home/commercial use this November?
Thank you, and God bless!
-Paul
Dear Jozef:
When you are ready with a real proposal, let me know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for your interest about engine. Working media is very near superkritical conditions, even small temperature difference create big volume difference. 10 years ago we have built 7 engines, each of them was different. They was created for measuring of parameters. More details on your email
Regards
Jozef
Dear Mr. Rossi,
firstly, let me congratulate my self with you, Mr. Foccardi and everyone else involved on the project that could (and hopefully will) mark the beginning of the second industrial revolution.
Now, considering that the world revolves on petrol and on the US dollar, I would like to remind the dangers that you (and specially your E-Cat) are facing.
I know that you are surely aware of this dangers, and that you surely keep the secrets of your machine in a safe place, but please let me underline the amazing power of petrol companies and nations that thrive from this outdated source of power (like the US)
For example, the dollar has value mostly because it is the main currency for petrol. If petrol devalues 95% (and your E-Cat can do that), the dollar will soon follow! So it is very likely that they (US and many other nations and corporations) will do anything in their power to stop you, or, more likely, stop the E-Cat from being sold to the world.
For example, they could buy the licence of your product, sell it, and make one “explode” and set the stage for a small scale nuclear disaster. I know this is impossible, but remember that masses are stupid by definition and spreading terror towards the E-Cat is as easy as drinking a glass of water.
I think we should all pray for the best and prepare for the worst.
Sincerely yours,
Federico Bellelli
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I don’t think you have much to worry about from the world’s capitalist establishment as some have suggested. If the ECat comes through they will be falling over themselves trying to get on board. With cheap, mobile energy, desalinated ocean water will become the new oil. There is nothing left but to prove your invention to the world.
Gentile ing. Rossi,
I have a question about 1 MW central:
Having the first e-cat of the series to work with saturated liquid, while the following with wet steam and the last with superheated steam, in your tests you have had to adjust the setup of the e-cat under various conditions of hydrogen pressure?
I imagine that the different temperature conditions of the exchange surfaces, and in particular the limited heat transfer of dry steam, going to affect the heat dissipation even where the reaction occurs.
Warm regards,
Matteo
Dr. Rossi,
you are the only keeper of a secret (the mysterious catalyst) which could easily change the world forever, something so important that could actually be a Copernican revolution not only for the energetic field, but for the whole world order!! Remember that they will try to obstruct your project, the media will try to depict you as an impostor and try to discredit you but please don’t give up, we all are with you! Just remember to provide a way for the secret to be known by someone you trust, just in case something happens to you, because they’ll try to stop you in every possible way!! Be safe and God bless you!
Dear Argon:
The series connections are necessary when you must reach a delta T that a single cat is not able to reach. If you have to reach differences of temp. that a single cat can reach, then serial connections are not necessary, as you correctly say.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jozef:
Interesting, can you send us a proposal for your apparatus?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
We are very pleased to know, that your equipment is succesfully producing heat. NEAT – New Energy Alternative as a R&D company was working for several years on engine, which is powered by low temperature heat difference (Not Stirling motor). The lowest temperature difference was 7°C. I think, that it could be succesfuly powered by hot water from your reactor.
On the other hand in the case of your interest we could offer marketing research for your technology in Slovak and Czech market, preparing projects and also servicing of your units. (We have highly qualified service technician with certificates for working with high pressure flammable gases and ATEX).
We have also developed software for remote monitoring of technology, which allows automatic testing of thousands units over Internet. Units, which parameters are out of regular values are automatically turn off and also software is sending automatical emails and SMS reports with error desciption. Our system is adaptable for different technology and it is used by big international company.
Sincerely
Jozef
Hi Mr Rossi,
Sorry to return on this again, but what you explained is exactly what I don’t get on planning to connect e-Cats in serial.
Let’s take few examples (with 5 e-Cats):
a) On serial with certain water flow X, first e-Cat raises temp from 20C to 40C, next 60, 80, 100 and last one boils water to hot/dry > 100C steam (not accurately, but just for simplified example).
b) Putting same e-Cats in parallel would divide same water flow to 1/5X through each e-Cat. Each one should be spitting out dry steam since flow is 1/5 from original. So same total flow X same temp and total amount of steam out!
What is the difference? In my mind Heating X amount of water from t1 to t2 takes same amount of power and time (=energy) in both cases, but controlling each e-Cat is easier in parallel configuration since you could control each device individually. To say either power of device or its water flow by monitoring out coming steam dryness or its temperature (again just for example). How to optimally control same in serial configuration (only by water flow I think, since you would not know which one is running in too high/low power).
I could understand if you meant preheating in totally parallel configuration (offering small flow resistance) and only final steam generation and dryer layers in series to ensure steam dryness.
Anyway this is not e-Cat theory problem, just engineering consideration, but I wanted to share my thoughts.
Thanks for sharing your time and excitement with us.
Dear Prof. Slussarenko:
First, I am not a Professor.
Thank you for your kind attention; you can contact me at info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm regards,
A.R.
CAro professore Rossi,
grazie per un lavoro impressionante.
Penso, que sara molto utile fare contatti diretti.
Sergei Slussartenko
Dr. Sergei Slussarenko
Senior Researcher
Institute of Physics NAN Ukraine
tel +38 067 447 8948
slussarenko@yahoo.com
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you again for your insight.
About the very important contacts: I think that it is better first to put in operation our 1 MW plant in Greece. After that We ( I mean Defkalion and me) will contact and be contacted upon solid bases. For now I have just to work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Richard:
Please contact us for commercial issues in November.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Malcom Lear,
Yes, this is correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I assume that a 6:1 energy gain reactor which suffers loss of input drive, shuts down. Is that correct?
Regards,
Malcolm
Dear Mr Rossi, I have eagerly sought news of your progress for the last few months never dreaming that I would be able to address my appreciation to you in what appears to be a fairly direct method. In my part of the world (Australia)the people are facing massive hikes in energy costs and while the resultant declines in living standards are no where near as dramatic as in other countries it has still never the less severely compromised life for many families here. Hearing about the progress you have made certainly makes me as a father more hopeful about the type of world my son will be living in. I am fully aware of the dangers that pioneers of alternate energy often face, especially energy devices such as your E-Cat that could potentially free so many from economic slavery. So Mr Rossi – stay safe – The good people of the world are with you.
With Appreciation
Richard Becker.
Dear Andrea Rossi: Obviously you’ll better keep on for now with the already proven technology, I just would gave you a (theoretical!) suggestion on how to better control a future zero power e-cat. That is, if you stay “sub-critical” with the hydrogen pressure and the nickel temperature, you’ll get no power at all. If you add a sound wave the reaction will be started on each positive half wave and stopped on the negative one. You could so throttle the output power by varying the sound strength.
Best regards,
Italo A.
p.s. I think that prof. Carlo Rubbia should be very interested of your e-cat. Have you tried to contact him?
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.
Dear Andrea Rossi: Very interesting your test with zero input. If you try to control the output power by varying the hydrogen, in my opinion it could be useful to use a pulsed pressure. Just set the base pressure low enough not to start the reaction, and let the additional pressure of the sound waves “ignite”. With a simple loudspeaker in the hydrogen vessel, and the proper resonant geometry, you can get very high instant pressures. BTW, when the front wave hits the nickel core, the temperature rises too. So you could have a double control system, temperature and pressure at the same time.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Dear Frank A. Di Bianca:
Thank You for your warmness. Yes, October will be the keystone.
Your Italian is good, but I prefer to answer in English because more that 90% of our Readers speak English .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Argon:
Serial connection increases the temperature, parallel connection increases only the power, but not the temperature: it is very simolar to the connection of batteries to make direct current generators.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Eng. Rossi,
I have no no doubts for your invention and matter a fact don’t understand readers repeatedly asking new for new proofs. It is good to learn sometimes to wait patiently and October will tell everybody anyway.
One question I haven’t been able to figure out is, why you mention both parallel and serial configurations depending on needs? Wouldn’t parallel be always most optimal and safe to control?
And please have Sunday off, take relaxing walk and good dinner after that. Me and many others can wait your answer easily until next week. You have deserved that!
Caro Ing. Rossi,
Grazie molto per occorrere tempo rispondere a me e ad altri che stanno seguendo il vostro lavoro nella produzione di energia. Sto attendendo ansiosamente il giorno in cui i vostri dispositivi entreranno in funzione commerciale ed i particolari possono essere conosciuti al grande pubblico.
saluti migliori,
Frank
(Spero che il mio italiano non sia troppo difettoso!)
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.
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)
Dear Herald OPatterson,
Here are the additional answers:
3- the maximum safe output level is 10 kW per module
4- Not so far, it is too dangerous. So far. We are making modiles operate without input in this precise moment, but under my direct control.
Thans to you for communicate with me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Herald Patterson,
Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers:
1- 50 cc total
2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the output doesn’t change. It ends within 20 minutes after you stop it.
3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I’m not sure if my post went through, so I will post it again.
Thank you for sharing the information about the test of an E-Cat with zero input. It is very exciting and interesting!
Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment?
– The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume).
– How high the output went before the test had to end.
– What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero input.
– Anything else you would like to add.
If you don’t feel like answering any questions, that is perfectly fine. I realize you are very busy and have lots of work to do. I do not want to get in the way of your efforts. I am just very excited about your technology, and cannot resist asking questions. If I am being rude by asking, I apologize.
Sincerely,
Herald
Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,
It is exciting that progress is being made towards producing E-Cats, that are safe when operated with zero input. Would you mind answering a few questions about the experiment?
1)What size of E-Cat were you testing? Was the reactor vessel 50cc in size, or 1000cc (one liter)?
2)What variables are you testing/changing that could allow an E-Cat to function safely with no input?
3)How high did the output go, before you needed to stop it? What do you consider is the maximum “safe” output level?
4) Do you think the one megawatt power plant being opened by Defkalion might operate with zero input?
Thank you again for being willing to communicate with us!
Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
Herald
Egregio Ing. Rossi
Lei non ha certamente bisogno di complimenti, chissà quanti ne riceve continuamente!!
Io sono un suo profondo ammiratore e non vedo l’ora che arrivi la fine di quest’anno per assistere alla svolta epocale che
l’E-Cat produrrà nell’economia mondiale appena sarà in funzione l’impianto in Grecia.
A proposito di tale impianto, con le mie esperienze di automazione impianti ho voluto immaginare come potrebbe essere, ed ho
fatto uno schizzo P&I che si può vedere qui:
http://www.favorscake.com/public/ecats.jpg
Ovviamente è solamente una mia idea molto approssimata che non corrisponderà certamente alla realtà, ma abbozza i principali
parametri che sono da misurare e tenere sotto controllo.
Sulla parte sinistra in alto c’è un serbatoio di idrogeno gas che pressurizza un collettore ad una pressione resa costante
dal controllore PC-01.
A sinistra in basso c’è un serbatoio di acqua demineralizzata dal quale una pompa centrifuga preleva ed invia in
alimentazione al primo reattore.
Sulla mandata della pompa è inserito un riciclo che tiene costante la pressione tramite il regolatore PC-02.
Su tale linea c’è un regolatore di portata FC-01 il cui set point è funzione del carico totale dell’impianto.
La misura di portata può essere fatta con disco calibrato o con tubo Venturi o con boccaglio.
La portata di idrogeno in alimentazione a ciascun reattore è regolata tramite una valvola di regolazione a microflusso
comandata dal relativo regolatore di temperatura TC-01 (o TC-02 ecc.).
La misura della temperatura dell’acqua (o vapore) all’uscita dal reaatore può essere eseguita con termocoppia tipo J o tipo
K. E’ da escludere secondo me una termoresistenza Pt100 per la sua fragilità in un impianto industriale.
Il regolatore di temperatura potrà essere del tipo PID, con l’aggiunta cioè dell’azione derivativa per poter anticipare o
compensare eventuali ritardi termici tra azione regolante e misura della temperatura.
Alla fine del treno di reattori in serie e parallelo il vapore surriscaldato entra finalmente in turbina.
Il vapore espanso in uscita viene rinviato indietro al serbatoio di alimentazione dopo essere stato condensato tramite uno
scambiatore per recuperare il calore residuo.
Le invio cordialissimi saluti, e seguo costantemente on-line l’evolversi degli eventi…
Italo Romano
Dear Dr Stefano Marcelli, MD:
1- I am not a Professor
2- I ask the protection of God.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear C.Monti:
Thanks for your smart insight.
About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I’m very impressed about your incredible personal “energycat” .. .let me joke with words! Mr Rossi sometimes we should also try laughing just to relax weight of life controversies. This doesn’t mean being less professional but taking the right distances from certain life events! Of course I’m referring to the last “Krivit report” controversy about which I would comment with the following:
“Dante, Inferno Canto III
…
Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;
misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:
non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa.
…”
I believe it is really a nonsense debating about “water MASS vs steam VOLUME” and so I’m suggesting who still has doubts on this to read carefully the “Essen-Kullander report” in which it is clearly described the principle used in calculation. Water mass checking is used since it is the easiest and more common sense methodology to be used. Other methodologies are simply “not workable” because more complex and maybe not easily feasible and effective in the results.
Mr Rossi , coming back to your E-CAT I would like to make a comment about your answer to Mr. Dave Stone in which you said:
“2- Yes, the operation without energy input is possible, we make it many times during stress tests, but is dangerous.”
The question is:
Assuming that E-CAT without input energy can be dangerous, how can be managed a failure event with a lack of input electric energy? Is there any safety mechanism which automatically (without the need of electric energy) shuts down the exothermic reaction preventing dangerous situations?
Wishing all the best with you I thank you for your kindness.
Warm regards
c.m.
Dear Prof. Andrea Rossi,
thank you very much for you ideas.
In my opinion, E-Cat is a device that concentrates what Life does everywhere and everytime inside their evo-devo creatures. At this moment, E-Cat belongs to non-conventional physics, so it is suffering from the same troubles of non-conventional medicines. Don’t be worry, think Galileo and Sommelweis. Have you ever thought to ask the collaboration and protection of Elisabeth II, who’s the Queen of Meridian Zero of all google mapped people?
I am sincerely,
Stefano Marcelli
“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.
[…] 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 […]
Dear Dan:
I appreciate, thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
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.
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
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.
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.
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, and I 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.
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.
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.
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.
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