Rossi Responds to Scrutiny of his Claims

A recent episode in the E-Cat story has illustrated a divide between those seeking for proof of Andrea Rossi’s claims of  a new source of energy and Rossi’s own approach to validation.

In brief, journalist Steven Krivit recently visited Rossi at his workplace in Bologna with a desire to find the truth regarding the E-Cat. He published a preliminary report of his observations and interactions at New Energy Times. In the report he questions whether there has been conclusive proof that the steam produced by the E-Cat is completely free of suspended water droplets saying,  “even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims.”

Krivit is not convinced that there has been a thorough enough accounting  of the steam output from the E-Cat, and requested more data about the steam analysis from Guiseppe Levi. Specifically, Krivit wanted to be absolutely sure that the Levi has measured the percentage of water in the steam output by mass and not volume. (Levi said they did measure by mass) Without that assurance, Krivit is apparently not going to be convinced that the E-Cat is as revolutionary a technology as Rossi claims.

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 (saying they are producing “dry steam”) 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”.

  • Per

    One percent change in produces steam will impact the overall efficiency by less than 1 percent. So its a minor effect, not a major as you quote Krivit. Some part of the energy is used to heat the water to 100 degrees. Then, the major energy goes into converting hot water into steam, but this effect only scales linearly with the degree of gas produced. Overall, its a weird statement by Krivit.

    Also, I don’t understant what he means with mass versus volume. You usually measure the percentage of water. Then in the calculation it’s enough to know the mass of the converted steam.

  • Dave Stone

    It’s a shame that we still have to argue about experimental minutiae at this late date. Clearly, an experiment could be designed to remove any doubt as to the viability of the E-Cat device.

    On December 10, 2010, Dr. Levi noted in his “Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor” that the E-Cat continued to run in a self-sustaining mode for 15 minutes after shutting off the power to the heating resisters and closing the hydrogen supply. The reaction was stopped by increasing the water flow to the cool the reaction chamber.

    I don’t see why an experiment couldn’t be designed to build on this self-sustaining mode of operation. Start the process, remove the power to the heating resisters, disconnect the hydrogen supply, strip away the insulation to show that there is no hidden heat source and let the experiment continue indefinitely. Allow skeptics to attend on the condition that they must provide a viable alternative explanation as to what is providing the heat source.

    Hopefully, this experiment would move the discussion past the doubting stage and excite the scientific community with the potential quantum leap forward that the E-Cat represents.

    • WaltC

      In practice, it could never be just one skeptic-satisfying experiment because it’s not just one skeptic; the skeptics are probably limitless (as they should be– that’s a large part of how science is supposed to work). Rossi ‘s current top priority, meeting his customer’s deliverable by producing a 1MW plant, may be the best way he can spend his time in the near term and in the long run it will convince a lot more skeptics. It will be hard to argue with a “black box” that produces Billions of Watt-Hours of excess heat over the course of 6 months.

      Assuming all that happens– October, or 6 months after October, isn’t too long to wait for something truly groundbreaking– all sorts of fun things will start to break loose: new theories, new experiments, spinoff technologies, new industries, Nth generation E-Cats…

      And if it doesn’t happen by October? I’m guessing there’ll be somebody somewhere who figures out how to run exactly the experiment you propose. There seems to be a lot of people at the moment poking around this particular haystack.

    • John D

      I don’t think Rossi has the slightest interest in convincing skeptics. His actions are those of an industrialist with a viable product who welcomes suitable media coverage to increase awareness but at the same time maintain doubts. After all, once his technology, if true, is widely accepted, I suspect that the efforts to replicate and understand this effect will be monumental and world wide. This, of course, will only be an eventual threat to his commercialization plans and so the longer it is delayed, the better. His best protection is his head start.

  • Stefano Amadori

    What Mr. Rossi is trying to say, is what is known in Bologna’s colourful expression as:
    “Fatti, non pugnette” meaning that hard evidence, has more relevace than infinite arguments.

  • Haldor

    People, Andrea Rossi has put an explanation on his website:

    To our Readers:
    Please read the comment of Andrea Rossi 2011/06/19 at 9:17 AM
    Thank you,
    Andrea Rossi
    June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM
    Dear Staffan:
    Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did.
    About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that:
    1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding
    2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason
    3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding
    All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with.
    Warm Regards,

  • Linden Duncan

    A.R. you are a smart industrialist.
    Everyone else can eat crow.

  • Wes

    Humiliating the press (Mr. Krivit) is never good for business, even if Mr. Krivit’s style is difficult to endure. Bill Gates presented a disciplined ego in public, not an easy feat for him. I see e-cat to Exxon as Apple was to IBM. The next Steve Jobs will run circles around a frothing A.R. Dip your 2X4 in concrete if you wish, but the Brand will decide.

  • Wes

    Another article mentioned that Greece has 83% of Europes Nickel. Could it be just a coincidence that A.R. chose to setup shop in Greece? He has a background as a metals trader. Wouldn’t it be a kick if this was all about the Nickel? Invest in Nickel, get people all excited about the future of cheap Nickel-Hydrogen energy, ride the resulting boom in the Greek Nickel market up, then sell out for huge profit (or, better, short). Might make a few college professors rich along the way. No. No! Tell me it isn’t so…

    • John D

      World nickel production is about 1.5 million metric tonnes and an E-Cat uses only 50 grams! Even if they produce 1000 times more E-Cats than they say they will it wouldn’t even show in the statistics. The real nickel price manipulators are the commodity exchanges when they set margin requirements on the futures contracts.

      • Bob H

        I have been following this concept of the E-CAT for several months and am not totally convinced (yet) of the claims made by Andrea Rossi about the unit. I would be curious to see the thermodynamic results as characterized and defined by a set of thermodynamic parameters associated with the system. Thermodynamics involved in steam generation are very complex but a well know and defined part of physics.
        Let’s see the charted RESULTS. If the results follow the set of thermodynamic parameters for steam generation then I believe that Andrea Rossi has the answer to the worlds energy problems and I would sign on.
        Also, Generating super-heated steam in a consumer sized unit or large building sized units will have many safety concerns. How are these concerns to be addressed?

  • John D

    Steve Krivit uploaded a couple of videos to youtube recently that may be of interest:

  • Wes

    The demo videos during Krivit’s visit to Rossi looks good… unless the e-cat employs an internal diverter which allows for the vaporization of only a fraction of the total mass of water which passes through the e-cat. Some viewers commented that the flow of steam looks weak, based on the mass of water which is claimed to be vaporized into steam. A carefully-constructed simulation of the expected steam output, compared to the video might provide a tool to gauge the probable validity of the e-cat demo.

    That’s to Mr. Krivit for the videos and to John D for posting them here.