110+ quotes by Andrea Rossi about the e-Cat and that he is making gamma rays and transmutations inside them – and Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, does not think it is news that Andrea Rossi has lied hundreds of times.

110+ quotes by Andrea Rossi  about the e-Cat and that he is making gamma rays and transmutations inside them – and Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, does not think it is news that Andrea Rossi has lied hundreds of times.

Please remember that Mr. Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that;

He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device.”

 This posting is about the contents of the e-Cat and whether or not Mr. Rossi claims there are any gamma rays, transmutation, or x-rays during the operation of the e-Cat.

What this means is that the e-Cat, according to Rossi, as told to the Florida BRC, produces just x-rays, not gamma rays inside the e-Cat.  Any high school student knows by just looking at any chart of the electromagnetic spectrum what the energies are in x-rays and gamma rays, therefore when Rossi claims to be producing gamma rays inside his reactor he knows exactly what he is saying, it cannot be a “translation” problem as so many like to claim. That would be the same as confusing infrared radiation and visible light, which are also next to each other on the spectrum scale.

Mr. Rossi also claims that transmutation occurs within his device.  This can only happen by a nuclear reaction, but he told the Florida BRC “no nuclear reactions occur.”

Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, has written over and over that Mr. Rossi is producing  gamma rays and transmutations inside the e-Cat, when Mr. Wright asked him why he didn’t print a story on the report of the Florida BRC, Mats said that is not news.

The following 110 statements by Andrea Rossi about what is happening concerning his e-Cat does not include what Mr. Rossi says in his patent applications or in the hundreds of articles, interviews, and videos where he also says the same things.  These 110 statements are just the ones on Mr. Rossi’s own blog and written by him there:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?cat=3

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 4th, 2012 at 2:43 AM

Dear Paulina:
The copper has been detected by means of a SEM and a SIMS and it has been found in form of amorphous grains. But this is an issue still under probe, the effect is much more complex than imagined originally. When you say “layering or banding” what exactly are you referring to?
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 1st, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Dear Steven N. Karels:
We use regular Ni, then we make series of treatment. The cost of treatment is irrelevant compared to the energy produced.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 1st, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Dear Felize:
1- yes
2- MPC
3- seconds
4- The E-Cats can’t explode because they are intrinsically safe.
I have erased the video you propose, because there is an AD of one of the Italian puppeteers of the Italian puppets , as we knew from our intelligence. Kind of a Troy Horse.
Warm Regards,
A.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 29th, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are right, this is why we are making all the necessary certifications.
Anyway, the problem of stabilization is not for E-Cats that have to make thermal energy, because up to 260 celsius the E-Cats are perfectly stable. The problem arises when we have to reach higher temperatures to get higher efficiencies in the production of electric power.
Anyway, from the pre-orders we got I experienced that millions of People has perfectly understood that the E-Cats do not pose any problem under the safety aspects. Then the diffusion and safe operation of the E-Cats will spread. Remember that when trains have been invented there were many persons, even physicians, who said that trains were very dangerous for health, because a speed of 40 miles per hour could damage seriously the heart of persons…
Certifications are in course, anyway, also because the law demands them.
About what happens if temperature goes out of control: nickel melts, then it is no more powder, then the E-Cat shuts down. It is intrinsically safe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Rob

March 28th, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Will the commercial e-cat also contain Boron, as described in you patent?
Would it be possible exclude the use of Boron in the e-cat concept?

Kind regards,
Rob

Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Dear Rob:
Boron is part of the shielding system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Joe

March 5th, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Dr Rossi,

1. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the MW plant, just short of meltdown?

2. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?

3. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the domestic E-Cat, just short of meltdown?

4. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?

All the best,
Joe

Andrea Rossi

March 5th, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Dear Joe:
1- a 1 MW plant is just an assembly of 100 10 kW modules
2- the max power we have per module is 10 kW
3- just under the melting point of nickel: if nickel melts, it is no more powder and immediately the E-Cat stops the operation. This is why it is intrinsically safe.
4- at the melting point of Ni the output is zero, as explained in point 3. Below it, the energy produced is anyway 10 kWh/h.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 1st, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Dear Readers:
Somebody has put in the net the new that since our E-Cat has nuclear reactions it cannot be authorized, therefore it will never hit the market.
It is opportune to make clear that:
1- we are making the certification necessary to go in the market respecting the law
2- we already got important authorizations
3- the basic fact is that no radiation has ever been detected outside the E-Cat
4- when I will be able to release the theory of our process, it will be pretty clear that it is impossible for radiations exit the E-Cat.
5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new materials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. R. Meiner

February 16th, 2012 at 8:17 AM

What would happen if I had a power failure in my home such that the ecat controls AND the (cooling-) water pump stops. Would the ecat overheat? Would it be reusable?

Andrea Rossi

February 16th, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Dear R. Meiner:
1- if the E-Cat overheats the nickel becomes liquid, so it is no more powder, therefore the E-Cat stops. It is intrinsically safe.
2- The charge, in this cases, has to be changed ( 10 US$).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 8th, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Dear Stefano Libardi:
1- The E-Cat is absolutely safe, does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room: we made thousands of hours of tests. You can install with absolute safety an E-Cat inside your room.
2- There will never be any kind of gamma emission, but our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat. But, again we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat ( Background radiation is the radiation you have in your room right now, coming from the Universe).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 16th, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Dear Harold:
It will be a real miracle if we will succeed to be ready with our extremely complex industrialization by the next winter.
Probably you have no idea what does mean to make a device like this at 50 Euro/kW.
By the way: with all respect, this technology has absolutely nothing to do with the F.P. electrolysis: we do not make electrolysis, do not use deuterium, nor palladium, nor platinum.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. John Tobey

January 16th, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Imagining a future with billions of devices based on e-cat technology, I wonder at what rate tritium will enter the environment as the reactors break down or even from normal use. Is the amount produced negligible at the scales imagined? I fear that this dream-come-true could become a nightmare for public health and the ecology. Please help calm my fear.

Best regards,
John

Andrea Rossi

January 16th, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Dear John Tobey:
We do not produce tritium. Besides, all the tests we made have given evidence of the fact that there are not radiations from the E-Cat versus the outside that change significantly the background. The gamma rays produced during the operation are turned into heat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 7th, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Dear Cornè:
1- The physics concerning the reactions within the E-Cats are well known ( we just do not publish them for confidentiality issues) and there are patents pending for those, while the certifications are in course. We made thousands-hours tests without any radiations emitted from the reactors to the environment outside the reactors. This is very easy to be measured anyway.
2- Our specialists will decide the ads.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

December 7th, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Dear Simon Derricut:
Shielding is a very delicate issue. We studied very thoroughly this aspect of our tech, with the help of Prof. Sergio Focardi.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Giancarlo

December 6th, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

reading on the free encyclopedia about the item “energy catalyzer” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer) the following arguments are reported (paragraph “Evaluation of the device”):

“…the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes.”

The facts reported don’t match at all with the declarations of Prof. Focardi who talks about the exact contrary.
Well, if bad informations are written on Wikipedia I think they must to be correct soon.

…it’s a hard battle!
Thank you sincerely for your work.

Giancarlo

Andrea Rossi

December 6th, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Dear Giancarlo,
As I have explained many times, we use Ni enriched of 62 and 64 Ni, which are the sole to react, and 63 and 65 Cu are stable. Our process has been developed upon a theory that became stronger in time, based on the results of the thousands of our tests we made with our apparatuses. At this point we have a solid theory which is leading our R&D, making progress by the day. The problem is that the theory leads directly to the industrial confidential IP and since we have not a granted patent we deem opportune not to disclose the theory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay.

1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here?
2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion?
3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers?

A concerned fan,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Italo A. Albanese

November 24th, 2011 at 5:25 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi:
I’m sorry I have to insist on this point but safety is very important.
You said that when nickel melts, reaction stops so the system is intrinsically safe. But in a explosion, the temperature can rise, for a short moment, much more than the melting point of nickel. What could happen in that moment, just before nickel starts melting (or vaporize, if the explosion is strong enough)?
You said also you can control the reaction by varying the hydrogen pressure. Have you found an upper limit for it? Maybe there is a theoretical upper temperature/pressure limit for the reaction? Or an absolute energy/time maximum?
You don’t have to answer to question that can discover industrial secrets, but please say you have considered these points.

Best regards,
Italo A.

Andrea Rossi

November 24th, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
1- during our safety tests we produced on purpose explosions to test and measure the consequences: no relevant differences have been measured from the background.
You are right: all the issues connected with safety have to be addressed with extreme attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 16th, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on a growing contingent of customers! The future is bright indeed.

I just re-read your paper, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. The paper indicates reactions of all isotopes of NI. On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Regarding this paper:

1) Do all isotopes react?
2) This paper does not acknowledge depletion of NI58. Did the idea to deplete the NI58 come later?
3) Table 3 shows NI58 to be much more energetic. This seems inconsistent with the depletion of NI58. Do you agree?
4) Is the lower COP in the production device relative to the experimental results in the paper a result of depleting NI58?
5) If so, can it be assumed that NI58 is depleted as a matter of adding control?
6) Or, is NI58 depleted to reduce long half lived NI59 production?

I am thinking that your ideas regarding the process have changed dramatically from the original writing of this paper. You mentioned that you will be publishing the theory after the 1 MW reactor demonstration.

Will you publish your theory soon?

Translate

Andrea Rossi

November 16th, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- no
2- no
3- yes
4- no
5- no
6- no
Sorry, I can’t be fluent in confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 3rd, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dear Tony Naebauer:
1- yes, just see all the rests reports about this issue. We run thousands of hours controlling radiations. We have always a radiation control instrument applied to every E-Cat under testing.
2- We did not publish the analysis of spent fuel because they contain confidential data.
3- It is proven that we do not use radioactive materials, we do not produce radioactive wastes, we do not have radioactive emissions outside the reactors during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on the demonstration and sale of the 1MW plant. I am sure many great things are to come for you and the world. I am also super excited to hear more about the theory that you have developed regarding this process. I think you mentioned that you would be revealing this after the 1MW demonstration.

I has a few isotopic questions.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- just reduced
2- not eliminated
3- no
4- no
5- yes
6- yes
7- I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 31st, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Dear Prof. Lino Daddi:
Dr Bianchini, of the Bologna University, has only measured the radiations outside the reactors, for safety issues, and compared them to the background: there have not been significant differences between the background and the measured radiations outside the reactors during the operation.
I do not give any information about the radiations inside the reactors, because such radiations are confidential.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Dear Robert Mockan:
We do not use radioactive materials and do not leave radioactive waste, while operating do not leave radiations outside the plant, as clearly has been evidenced on the 28th test. All this will help.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 25th, 2011 at 3:58 AM

Dear R. Breathnach:
We do not use radioactive materials, do not leave radioactive material and the highest temperature we can reach is the melting point of nickel : once the nickel melts, the E-Cat stops and this fact makes it intrinsically safe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 21st, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Dear Goran Crafte:
We enrich Ni 62 and 64 isotopes, but this is not an effect of the operation of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 16th, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Dear Giovanni:
We will run also in self sustained mode, the periods will depend on many factors. In any case, the power output will be 6 times the power input. About the snakes: the time of the snakes is over. The start up of the 1 MW plant is the end of the mental masturbations of enviuos, wannabe theorists, lecturers of calorimetry and engineering. Now LENR goes to the market. The test will not be made by me, but by the Customers’ consultants. Time of chatters is over. Maybe the test will not be good, maybe: it will be the first time I will start up a plant of that dimension, but in this case the problem will be the Customer, not the bunch of imbeciles that instead of understanding that we actually made LENR a reality lose their time digging holes on the surface the water in the middle of the ocean to find the wine. And in the case this test will go not well, we will learn and remake another, and another, and another, but, be sure, we will arrive to the target. At any cost.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan

September 27th, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Mr. Rossi

Now that you understand what’s happening in your e-cat, is Cold Fusion or LENR the most appropriate definition?

Ivan

Translate

Andrea Rossi

September 27th, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Dear Ivan:
LENR
Warm Regards,
A.

  1. Enrico De Toni

September 26th, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Dear Ing. Rossi,

Few days ago I told a colleague here in Germany of the e-cat. His burst of laughter is still echoing: “impossible!”

Now, with regard to the firm conviction on the fact that a woking e-cat contradicts the laws of physics, I wish you that this quote will apply to your discovery:

“They didn’t know it was impossible, so they did it.” – Mark Twain

Best,

Enrico De Toni

Andrea Rossi

September 26th, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Dear Enrico De Toni:
We do not contradict the laws of physics.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 25th, 2011 at 7:24 AM

Dear MT:
Thank you for your important question, I already answered to these questions, but when it turns into safety repetitions are useful.
1- The E-Cats we will put in the market will be regulated to work at 1/3 of their power and they will work in conditions of stability. This is why they will not work only in self sustained mood, but will maintain a drive. If the stability is lost, automatically the pressure inside the reactor will be zeroed and the E-Cat will be turned off, as we have experienced in thousands of tests But there is an intrinsic safety system: if the temperature goes above the stability limit, an essential component of the charge will melt, and at this point, not being in the status of powder, the reactor cannot work.
2- As you know, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes, therefore no radiations are left when the E-Cat is turned off. By the way: we have a double shield of lead, and it is impossible that the 2 walls break at the same time. It is absolutely impossible that the E-Cat is opened during the operation, because it is tightly sealed with multiple casing, and each case is very difficult to be opened not intentionally; as for the reactor, it is impossible to be opened, if not by our specialized personnel: the opening of the reactor has been made impossible both for safety and security reasons; in fact, to change the charge, we change the whole reactor, and the recharge will be made in our factories.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 21st, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Dear John Salinger:
1- Yes for the modules, impossible for the 1 MW
2- Yes, recovering the liquid water at the output and subtracting it from the amount of treated water, which gives us a penalty, because the liquid water is also made by condensed water after the vaporization, but we can accept this conservative issue
3- the apparatus is smaller than before: the volume is occupied from the heat exchanger. We will allow the Scientists to open the envelope which contains the heat exchangers to see that the reactors are very small. The volume of the reactors is about 30 centiliters/kW.
After 1 hour any possibility of electrochemical energy source is over, no batteries exist anywhere able to produce 1 kWh of energy in 1 hour in a volume of 30 cl (centiliters).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Peter Heckert

September 20th, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Mr. Rossi,

400°C is abobe the melting point of lead, so far I know.
Wouldnt this limit the temperature?
Best,
Peter

Andrea Rossi

September 20th, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Dear Peter Heckert:
Lead is protected by water through a particular design, but, yes, lead melting point is a limitation, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Translate

Andrea Rossi

September 15th, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Dear Don Witcher:
The lead shielding is inside, not over the insulation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 13th, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, everything is going on as scheduled, so far. You are right, there are many difficulties, we did not have any financing and are working exclusively with our money, the technology and the process we are using is new, all the different LENR made before are totally different and we have no experience from competitors that can be helpful, honestly: even the ones who got some watt have technologies totally different from ours, as everybody will see when we will disclose the theory, and no experience at all has been made from anybody on reactors producing real amounts of energy, I mean in the range of kWh/h. Now there is a race of guys who try to say that our work derives from theirs, but unfortunately there is no way that there is around something useful, so we have to open our path through an unexplored jungle of difficulties, and the expenses become everyday higher, for unforeseen problems. But , so far, we will be able to respect the scheduled term of delivery for the 1 MW plant, and to anticipate our ability to put in the market an E-Cat for everybody. I repeat that we will be able to produce heat immediately, while for the electric power we should be ready in one year. By the way: the E-Cats for the public will produce hot water for heating, not steam.
This is a very, very hard period, so you all will excuse me if the answers will become more synthetic and late.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 7th, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Dear Silvano Mattioli:
1- without Ni the process doesn’t work.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 1st, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Dear David Roberson:
Gamma rays are the ones that heat the coolant fluid in our reactors, therefore all our energy comes from the photons. The issue is that so far the efficiency of direct conversion is too low.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 27th, 2011 at 3:45 AM

Dear Mr Paolo:
I confirm, as always said, that the photons produced inside the E-Cat are thermalized inside. We make continuously measurements of radiations outside the reactor, and never found values above 0.2 microSievert/h.
The nature of the process, after years of tests I made, are now well known to me, and there are no reasons to emit neutrons, high energy photons. The shielding has been perfectly calculated, also with the help of Sergio Focardi. The measurements of radiations have always been made by experts, who usually check the radiations in all the sites where they can be produced (cyclotrones, Hospitals, and so forth).
Of course the fact that we have chosen to make small modules instead of big reactors is aimed to safety issues: in particular, I am a galileian-approach-guy, so that I am sure only of what I experienced repeatedly; therefore, I am sure of the E-Cat as they are, because I have thousands of hours on those, while I have no experience with big reactors, so far. Besides, there is no reason to get bigger reactors, because to make a big building you can use small bricks. Of course I got my risks at the beginning of the work, when there were no certainties at all…this is why I never wanted anybody working with me. Now all the safety data are well known.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 25th, 2011 at 6:39 AM

Best Mr Rossi!
Im sorry but i really have to draw your attention to this!
Because im worried your health may be in danger!!
I have calculated that when the Ni-He fusion occurs in the e-cat
you must have much moore than 2cm lead-shilding, i think its around
50cm (no gurantee). so please dont run the e-cat whitout this you can get very sick
and even worse. so pleae be careful.

Best regards! Erik

Andrea Rossi

August 25th, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
I am in very good health, even if I work 16 hours per day with my E-Cats. As I said, we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we know now perfectly why. I will give the theory in November.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 23rd, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Best Mr Rossi.
Thanks for the answer of my questions!
I have only one more, i wonder where is
the lead-shield actually located?
I have seen pictures of the e-cat but
i can not see the lead. Why i ask is if
its 2cm lead suronding the entire e-cat is
it not very heavy? or is the lead only around the
reactor inside the coppertube or what?

Best regards Erik!

Andrea Rossi

August 24th, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
I can’t give this info.
I can say that the lead is ALSO around the external body of the Cat.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 23rd, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Best mr Rossi!
Sorry if you have answered this before.
But i wonder about the gamma-radiation in the
e-cat. is it or is it not any gamma-radiation
from the reactor? and if no, why you need lead and boron?

Best regards! Erik

Andrea Rossi

August 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
We produce gamma rays, and our energy comes from their thermalization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. S Woosnam

August 11th, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Dear Mr Rossi,
I wonder if you’ll be able to clarify something for me:
Have you ever done an experiment where you have removed the Pb shielding from the e-cat and directly observed gamma rays? Obviously, I can understand that you don’t want to publicize precise details about the energy flux of the spectrum, since to do so could gives clues about the nature of what happens inside the core (proprietary), but if you can just confirm that gamma rays are definitely produced by fusing Ni and H and you have seen them, this would be strongly indicative of a nuclear process.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Andrea Rossi

August 12th, 2011 at 3:00 AM

Dear S. Woosnam:
Yes, we measured gamma rays inside the E-Cats: are such gamma rays to heat the water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 20th, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
No, muons are not involved, we are far from the energy levels necessary to get them.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. S Woosnam

July 19th, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
First may I say how refreshing it is for a scientist such as yourself to engage with the public in the way you have done here. I think it is commendable.
Second could I ask you about a technical aspect of your invention? I know you do not subscribe to the Widom-Larsen theoretical explanation of your empirical results; I found their theory rather plausible save for the neutron capture gammas which one would expect but aren’t observed. If neutrons aren’t generated (whether or not in the way they propose), what is the purpose of the boron shield?

Andrea Rossi

July 19th, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Dear S. Woosnam:
Good question. We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just in case…
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Dear Nikita Alexand:
1- The costs of catalizers will remain the same, quantities we use are small
2- We do not use electrolysis
3- The processing of the catalist is proprietary and confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Emma Russel

July 14th, 2011 at 4:48 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

About my faulty calculations of July 13th, 2011 at 8:41 AM I think that I found the error. I was not aware that you enrich the Ni62 and Ni64. And I am thrilled to learn that you have invented a new cheap way of enriching nickel isotopes. That is truly wonderful and worth a Nobel prize on its own merits. Did you already apply for a patent on this invention?

Kind regards, Emma Russel

Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Dear Emma Russel:
You are correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Dear Carlo:
As I always said, we do not produce and we do not use radioactive material. We do not produce Tritium.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Emma Russel

July 13th, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Some time ago you sent two nickel powder samples to Professor Sven Kullander in Sweden for analysis. One of the nickel powder samples had been used for 2.5 months in an E-Cat, the other was unused nickel powder.

Chemical analysis showed that the used powder contained 10% copper and 11% iron. Isotopic analysis using ICP-MS showed that within measuring errors the isotopic ratios in the nickel as well as in the copper were natural.

The theory for the E-Cat nuclear process that you hopefully will make public in October, is it consistent with these results?

Best regards Emma Russel

Andrea Rossi

July 13th, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Dear Emma Russel:
Yes, my theory is consistent with these results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 11th, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Dear Dr. Mario Voltaggio:
The answers to your questions have been given in this blog already, anyway, repeating rapidly:
1- The isotopic composition of Ni after 6 mo is slightly different, but the difference is also compensated from the enrichment we make in the Ni
2- The Cu produced is 63 and 65, because only Ni 62 and 64 react in this sense
3- the heating is due to the gamma radiation, which is contained from the lead shielding. The gamma produced in the reactor have mainly low energy. The reason of this will be clear when I will disclose the theory at the base of the process.
4- the medium by means of which the heat is exchanged with the water is the wall of the reactor, properly designed.
5- The patent of the invention discloses enough information to allow an expert of the matter to replicate the effect. In fact , many persons have replicated the effect using the text of my patent application. A totally different thing is the industrial secret regarding information useful to make a product with best performances.
6- Public demos were opportune for R&D purposes, and also for commercial purposes. Patent processes can take up to 6-7 years, and a private industry, not financed by the taxpayer, cannot wait. Therefore, maintains the industrial secrets, while the production takes place and the patent application is cropped.
7- The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is not dedicated to my process: most of the articles are independent from it, sometimes alternative.
Thank you for your sincere critics,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Herald Patterson

July 4th, 2011 at 7:57 AM

Hello Mr. Rossi,

Have you done any tests to determine if the fusion reactions in your reactor produce electromagnetic pulses? If so, do you think you could wrap a pick up coil around the reactor vessel (the reactor vessel would need to be non-magnetic so it would not block the EMP pulses), and collect the EMPs as electricity?

Thanks.

Herald

Andrea Rossi

July 4th, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Dear Herald Patterson:
No, we never got evidence of this emission. We checked, for other reasons, e.m.p., but found nothing relevant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Franco Ragazzi

July 2nd, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi.
the absence of gamma ray is due to internal shield or to intrinsic operating principle of the catalyzer?
Best Regards

Andrea Rossi

July 3rd, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Dear Franco Ragazzi:
There are gamma rays inside the reactor during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 1st, 2011 at 7:17 AM

Dear Wade:
Every module has its own shielding.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 1st, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Dear Luiz Carlos:
1- I am not Professor. I am Philosophy Doctor, with a Thesis on the Relativity, and this is important to underline, after some clowns have written in New-Bullshit News that I have not a Philosophy Doctor degree.
2- We enrich the charge of the isotopes 62 and 64 Ni, with a proprietary system, very cheap to deal with.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Marco De Leonardis

June 24th, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
Why the gamma rays (behind the shield) are not measured in the public experiments?
A simply energy measure (not the spectrum) will not release any confidential information, allowing the most skeptical to change idea.
This is the easiest way to monitor what is happening inside the e-cat.
Thanks
Marco De Leonardis

Andrea Rossi

June 24th, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Dear Marco De Leonardis:
Surely you are not a Physic: gamma rays are the fingerprints of their source.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Dear Brad:
1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsically safe
2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Anyway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk.
Good questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 20th, 2011 at 5:20 AM

Dear Staffan:
When Galileo and Copernicus published their works, their papers were considered pseudoscience.
Just let our plants go regularly in operation. It is not matter of creating new Physics, it is just matter to understand better the existing ones.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.

  1. Italo A. Albanese

June 19th, 2011 at 3:11 AM

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.

Andrea Rossi

June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM

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 energy 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 Geiger 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.

  1. Herald Patterson

June 18th, 2011 at 10:04 AM

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

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 18th, 2011 at 11:23 AM

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.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 15th, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Dear Fahad:
1- E-Cat: is a trade mark, means “E-nergy Cat-alyzer”
2- Cold Fusion: means a nuclear fusion obtained at low temperatures compared to the temperatures of hundred millions °C necessary in natural occurring processes of nuclear fusion.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan Antipov

June 12th, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Hello Andrea Rossi,

Does the E-Cat work in the same way as Blacklight Power’s using CQM and Hydrinos.

Regards
Ivan

Andrea Rossi

June 13th, 2011 at 6:06 AM

Dear Ivan Antipov:
Absolutely not. My effect has nothing to do with all the ones already published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 13th, 2011 at 6:04 AM

Dear Malcom Lear:
No, this reaction cannot happen in Nature, where are no catalyzers, right P & T etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Bob Dingman

June 12th, 2011 at 10:05 AM

A new branch of science, a monumental paradigm shift is taking place. Today, nickel and hydrogen produce copper and excess heat. This is just an ice cube on the tip of the iceberg. As Andrea Rossi has said, it is a new type of “Fire”. Today, Only a few people really understand the process involved. The enigmatic catalyst is at the heart of the mystery.

Once a rudimentary understanding is available, the list of possible elemental combinations will be infinite. what about Chromium to Manganese, Iron to Cobalt, or even Phosphorus to Calcium?

My guess is that the Nickel+Hydrogen >> Copper reaction is not the easiest nor the best reaction to utilize to achieve the goal of low cost energy. Once the prima donna scientific community gets on board, the scientific advances will turn exponential. Patience is either a virtue or a curse depending on your point of view.

I find it odd and somewhat frustrating at our Guru’s reluctance to offer insight into the work of Pons-Fleischman. Surely their disputed modest success and failure to replicate the results with consistency eliminate them from the category of “competitor”.

With profound admiration and respect,
Bob Dingman

Andrea Rossi

June 12th, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Dear Bob Dingman:
My effect has nothing to do with the electrolysis of Fleischman-Pons.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. H-G Branzell

June 12th, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

According to your working hypothesis as we understand it, nickel is transformed into copper.

In the March 22 report it is stated that the ratio Cu63/Cu65 in the resulting copper is 1,6.

Do you consider this statement to be consistent with the theory that you will reveal in November?

Best regards, H-G Branzell

Andrea Rossi

June 12th, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Dear H-G Branzell:
Theories are named so because they are not rules. Theories are dynamic entities, whose integrals change through the time. I started with the supposition of a theory, but I said from the beginning that I was not convinced of the theory: evidence of this is in the phylogenesis of this very blog. The theoretical system at the base of my process is different from it was two years ago. When you work 16 hours per day on your reactors, two years are an eternity which unavoidably contains evolution. And I am working on my reactors very hard every day.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. John M

June 11th, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Unless the eCat is somehow producing positrons, it’s hard to understand how such a large amount of energy is being released without leaving behind any residual radioactive material.

I’m very much looking forward to understanding the physics behind this invention Mr Rossi

Andrea Rossi

June 11th, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Dear John M.:
In November, after the start up of the 1 MW plant, I will explain my theory, which is substantially different from the very respectful hypothesis made so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Bill Conley

June 10th, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Mr. Rossi,

Please forgive me if you have answered this question before.

You reportedly furnished the Swedish Profs. two E-Cat fuel samples, one spent and one which they said represented the raw (unspent) fuel used in the E-Cat.

Their mass spect. analysis showed the “raw” fuel to be very nearly pure Ni. I assume then that the raw fuel sample you furnished them was not a sample of the fuel ready for actual use in the reactor, but only the base Ni powder prior to your preprocessing of it including any catalytic additives you introduce.

I wish you all best in this exciting journey.

Bill Conley

Andrea Rossi

June 10th, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Dear Bill Conley:
Exactly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

May 30th, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I am so excited about your invention that I often go back and watch older information. I was watching the Jan 15th video, with English subtitles and was confused by some comments in it compared to more recent information you provided:

1) You said that gamma radiation may be hidden by the extremely complex internal geometry of the device. Did you mean physical geometry or the geometry of the reaction, ie, Nickel lattice?
2) You said that a rare isotope of copper is produced. Can you elaborate on this more? I thought only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65.
3) You said that you ran a reactor for 6 months with NI59. You didn’t mean pure NI59 did you? Plus, since you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react, then how did this reactor with 59 work?

Obviously some things are confusing me. Potentially, it was just bad translation in the subtitles or my own misunderstanding of comments you have posted here.

Best Regards,
charlie zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- I cannot give this information
2- No, I did not say that. There has been a misunderstanding. Is correct what you thought.
3- Ni 59 doesn’t exist. It is a typo. We buy regular Ni powder, then we make a treatment of it which changes the isotopical composition. In that paper I referred to the powder as we buy it, not to the composition of the powder after the treatment we make. In any case, the composition of Ni, as we buy it, is well known: 58 (67,88%), 60 (26,23%), 61 (1,19%), 62 (3,66%), 64 (1,08%).
After that, we change it.
I do not think you misunderstood, I think some typo is in the translation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Herald Patterson

May 30th, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Thank you for refuting those two metropolitan legends. Unfortunately, there are other legends and unfounded rumors circulating around the internet as well. I will list a few of them here in case you would like to comment on them, and put an end to some ridiculous speculation that is taking place on the internet.

1) Other than the catalysts, hydrogen pressure, the special processing of the nickel powder, and the heat added to the system by the resistors there is some “other” factor that is critical to making the system work. For example, a source of radio frequency radiation to stimulate the processes inside the reactor vessel.

2) No gamma radiation is actually produced inside of the reactor vessel. They claim you will not let independent scientists measure the gamma radiation inside the reactor *not* because the signatures detected could reveal the patent pending catalysts, but because no gamma radiation would be found.

3) No nickel is actually transmuted into copper. They try to connect this to the lack of gamma radiation, to support their idea that some extraordinary but totally *non-fusion* process is taking place.

4) That you no longer think any form of fusion is taking place. They claim because you use the term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, you non longer think a fusion reaction is taking place between the nickel and hydrogen.

5) Others claim there is no radiation being produced, except from beta-decay. Some push this idea to support a pet theory they religiously proclaim all over the net called, “Widom Larsen” theory.

I wish people would just take you at your word, instead of trying to twist the truth to support their own pet theories and ideas.

If you wish to comment on any of the above, I will do my best to spread your answers on the net to counter act the rumor-mongering taking place.

Thank you for all your work and willingness to interact with us.

I’m looking forward to October!

Herald

Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Dear Mr Herald Patterson:
Thank you for your questions, here are the answers:
1- Yes: like Flash Gordon! Seriously: what happens inside the reactor is influenced only by what is inside; outside there is only cooling and thermalization
2- Gamma have been regularly measured by us
3- Analysis of powders are the evidence of the transmutation
4- Wrong
5-Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
6- I am looking for October too, my friend.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 9:15 AM

ART:
Talking of ART, there are two metropolitan legends which are walking around:
1- We do not know the theory behind the operation of our apparatus: false, I know the theory , and will release it after the international patent will be granted. We could not arrive to produce our E-Cats, with their constant operation, without knowing the theory. One year ago I was not sure, now I’m pretty confident.

2- There will be a new public test somewhere (Greece, or Italy, or USA, or Sweden, etc): again, no more public tests will be made, the sole tests we make are the tests of the modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October in Greece, and obviously such tests are made with closed doors.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 28th, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Dear Mr Daniel De Francia MTd2:
Absolutely not: catalyzers are inside the reactor, water is outside.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 27th, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Dear Mr Gilbert Schmidt:
I want not to comment the article to which you refer, which has not been written by me, and the Author will answer you. Just, to avoid ambiguities, I want to point out that when my reactors are not in operation there is not gamma emission. Besides, when it is in operation gamma rays are turned into heat and the gamma radiation measured ouside the reactor respects the limits imposed by the law (0.2 microSievert/h). We do not use radioactive material and we do not produce radioactive materials, as evidenced in years now of repeated tests with our reactors.
Just to avoid misunderstandings.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 23rd, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Dear Mr Pietro F.
We do not need somebody else make a research of what happens in the reactors, because we know now exactly what happens.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 21st, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Mr “Anonimous” ( why anonimous? )
I never supposed fission inside the E-Cats. I never found evidence of fission.
I cannot give information of what happens inside the reactor, also if at this point I have understood what happens. With 300 reactors in operation I am learning.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Dear Mr Markku Poysti:
If Ni melts the E-Cat stops. It works only with powders. This makes it intrinsically safe. And do not forget that we do not leave radioactive material, we do not use radioactive material .
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 17th, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Russell Robles-Thome:
Deuterium doesn’t work.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 6th, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Dear Mr Pietro Giacomini:
The stainless steel reactor never gave, so far, evidence of alterations.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 3rd, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Dear Mr Enrico Maria Podestà:
The external pipe, within which runs the water, is made by copper. The reactor is made by stainless steel.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 1st, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:
1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours
2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.
3- No, I didn’t.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 29th, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Dear John Davison:
The only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the reactor is me. We do not use electrolysis.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

April 28th, 2011 at 1:09 PM

AR,
Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:

1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or individuals you trust?
4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your research?
5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the reactor is is that industry standard technology?

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

April 28th, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- 97
2- 4
3- yes
4- less than if I was taxist
5- I do not use electrolysis
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Charles Richer

April 24th, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Thank You for the answer.

Inside the lead shielding is different.
4kW on 25 grams of nickel may melt it destroying the substrate. So energy transfer is thermal and high energy radiation captured by the lead shield. If I may reiterate the question under such constraint would we have a discussion.

Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Dear Mr Charles Richer:
Ni melts normally, in part, inside the E-Cat. It is designed for this effect.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Charles Richer

April 24th, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Salutations to Andrea Rossi,

Without stating the average gamma wavelength (or the standard deviation of the wavelength) can you comment on any observed shift in the gamma wavelength that seem to be influenced by external conditions.

Thank you in advance for the consideration.

Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Dear Mr Charles Richer:
Outside the E-Cat we have no variations in the external conditions, max 0.2 microSv x h^-1.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 2:43 AM

CATWORLD:
Of course we talk of explosions under control, to stress the modules: the so called “destructive proofs”.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

April 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 PM

AR,
You’ve been working on these reactors for some time. Instead of asking about technical details which you cannot provide, perhaps you could tell us some of the *fun* parts of being an inventor.

1. What were a few of the most exciting moments as you invented these reactors over the last few years? (moments of discovery!)

2. Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up?
(You have experimented to determine the safest size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

April 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- when for the first time I got substantial gain of energy, that kind of gain which is beyond any reasonable doubt
2- 37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)
Warm Regards
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 21st, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Caro Sig. Random:
No, il piombo è necessario, per motivi di sicurezza.
Lead shielding is necessary, for safety issues.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.

  1. Dr. Johannes Hagel

April 20th, 2011 at 3:35 PM

What happens if by some defect the E-Cat during operation is not longer cooled by the water surrounding it? How much would the temperature of the metal rise? Will the nuclear reaction stop due to high temperatures or will it be enhanced? In this case the E-Cat could melt. Is there a potential danger?

Andrea Rossi

April 20th, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Dear Dr Johannes Hagel:
1- we have a secondary emergency cooling system
2- Confidential
3- With temperature above the set the reactor is automatically stopped
4- We melt many times , for testing reasons, the E-Cats. No danger at all, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not leave radioactive waste. During the melting hydrogen intrinsically burns, without hydrogen no reaction occurs.
Warmest regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 17th, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Dear Mr Davide:
In the case of electrolysis the energy gain is of some watt, therefore it is possible that it depends from electrodes thermal generation independent from nuclear effects. In my case, first of all we do not make electrolysis, so we have not electrodes, but , which is more important, we are producing 4 kWh/h of energy, for 24 hours per day per module, consuming from the plug a small fraction of this energy: you cannot produce this energy with the effect Prof. Capiteri has talked of. Is a totally different situation. Besides, we have no electrodes, and if the electric components of our system heat up, this is at expense of the energy that we get from the plug, so that the heating of the electric and electronic components should have to be considered as a parasitic consume of energy by the system, which is the contrary of an energy source. We did not consider it at all, because is irrelevant ( some tenth of watts), but this amount of energy should have to be subtracted from the consume of energy of my reactor from the plug, not added to it, because it is dispersed in the room, not accumulated inside the water heating volume.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Ing. Albert Ellul

April 16th, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Dear Ing. Rossi, I have been following this blog from it’s day one. The more I follow the questions raised by the commentors here and your esteemed technical/scientific/intelligent answers, the more I am convinced of your invention. (In fact I had been waiting for such an achievement for some years, although from somewhere else.)
I have learned a lot from your answers, but I still got one curiosity inside my brain, waiting to be satisfied: What holds the nano-sized nickel powder from escaping with the flow of the hot water or steam? Such tiny, nano-sized particles would easily get into a suspension state with the heated water and would flow with the hot water? Is the e-Cat constructed with two sections, one where the reaction takes place and the secondary chamber that picks up energy by heat transfer through the material walls separating the two?

Of course, if this is part of the patent design I would not expect an answer.

Andrea Rossi

April 16th, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Dear Ing. Albert Ellul:
1- water does not go in contact with the nanoparticles
2-yes
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 15th, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Dear Mr Andy Hoffman:
1- 50 grams of Ni are consumed in 180 days, 0.11 g of H are consumed in 24 hours.
2- Fe is an impurity, not a product of transmutation
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 14th, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Derar Mr “HRG”:
Yes, we got melting of Ni in experiments where we made exactly what you say. To stop the mechanism is enough auxiliary cooling and cut of hydrogen feed. In few minutes the Cat falls asleep.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Jed Rothwell

April 11th, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Mattias Carlsson asked “Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?” and you replied:

“Yes, we do.”

Elsewhere you said that processing the Ni adds only about 10% to the cost. Yet monoisotopic elements are very expensive. To enrich the sample even 1% would make it cost far more than normal Ni.

How do you explain this? Perhaps there is some confusion.

(Incidentally, Piantelli says in his patent that his Ni is enriched. See patent WO 2010/058288)

Andrea Rossi

April 11th, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Dear Jed Rothwell:
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 10th, 2011 at 7:26 AM

Dear Mr Goran Crafte:
All the independent Researchers that have tested our reactors had the possibility to check that inside the reactor there is no other gas but hydrogen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 9th, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dear Mr William:
1- I wanted to say that to treat the powders is confidential because difficult
2- the Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni
3- Cu cannot enter the reactor: Cu is what the water tube is made of, inside the water tube there is the reactor, which is tightly sealed.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 9th, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
The stainless steel I use is AISI 316 L, which is an alloy of Ni,Cr,Fe: no Cu, so I do not think the wall of the reactor has been “sputtered”. The reason of the slight delta of the isotopes of Ni depends on the treatment we make to the Ni before the reactions, so that at the end of the work substantially 62 and 64 Ni have reacted and the final composition returns close to the normal, not exactly of course.
The treatment of the powders is part of the invention and is confidential so far: the difficult part of it stays in the low operational cost.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan Moho

April 6th, 2011 at 2:59 AM

New article from Ny Teknik:

Swedish physicists on the E-cat:
“It’s a nuclear reaction”

In a detailed report, two Swedish physicists exclude chemical reactions as the energy source in the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’. The two physicists recently supervised a new test of the device in Bologna, Italy.

The used powder contains
ten percent copper

Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction.

Ny Teknik detailed technical report: here

  1. Ed Pell

April 3rd, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Do we have a reason to believe that the nickel is being converted to Cu? Could the reaction be the hydrogen alone (though facilitated by the nickel lattice)?

Andrea Rossi

April 4th, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Dear Mr Ed Pell:
I have experimented that we have 62 and 65 Ni reaction. H alone doesn’t react.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 3rd, 2011 at 4:16 AM

Dear Mr Rèmi Andrè:
We call it LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). I think it is fit.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Dear Mr Daniel G. Zavela:
No waste is left, nickel and copper are recycled.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 25th, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Dear Prof. Kowalski:
After the experience we made at the beginning, we worked on the powders, so that only Ni 62 and 64 react. As a matter of fact, after a couple of hours we do not find radioactivity inside the powders; of course, for safety reasons, in the manuals we demand that the powders are discharged the day after, but during our experiments that’s what we found. Nevertheless, Ni + p is not the sole source of energy, in this you are perfectly right. When we will present our 1MW plant in October we will also disclose the theory that at this point we have understood.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Ludwik Kowalski

March 24th, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Dear Andrea,

Your spent fuel, after producing heat at the rate of 12 KW (in a prolonged steady state operation) was removed from the container, one hour after the reactor was shot down. You reported that the fuel was not at all radioactive.

That puzzles me. This experimental fact is not consistent with what I would expect from the p+Ni fusion. Here is my reasoning:

The dominant isotopes in your fuel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (23%). By absorbing protons they produce radioactive Cu-59 and Cu-61, as you explained clearly in one of the articles. I can understand why radioactivity from Cu-59 is negligible after one hour of waiting–its half life is only 1.3 min. But the half life of Cu-61 is 3.3 hours; it should still be very radioactive, after only one hour of waiting. Doesn’t this indicate that the p+Ni fusion is not a mechanism by which thermal energy is produced in your reactor?

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 24th, 2011 at 3:56 AM

Dear Mr. Alan Silverman:
The radiations are not detected OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we have the radiations which are thermalized.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ludwik Kowalski

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

1) Thank you for information about the mass of the powder. Your power density 120 W/gram is probably higher (?) than in a fission reactor element.

2) Ludwik wrote: ” HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.”

Andrea responded Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)”

a) Are you saying, in the first half of the answer, that you had 69% of Cu-63 and 31% of Cu-65, as in natural copper?

b) What were the isotopic percentages of nickel in spent fuel?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

Andrea Rossi

March 24th, 2011 at 4:36 AM

Dear Prof. Kowalski:
1: I do not know the power density of a fission reactor, I am not able to answer
2- a: a slight higher percentage of 63-Cu, but numbers are not constant
2-b: Sorry, this datum is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi

March 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
3- The average charge is around 100 g
Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 19th, 2011 at 3:47 AM

Dear Mr. Gillis:
As a matter of fact we never found radioactive waste left after the operation, when we take out the used powders. This is due to the fact that the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni. In thousands of tests we never found radioactive residuals. We take off the powders the day after the turn off.
Good question.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 27th, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Dear “HRG”:
In the chemical processes you are talking of there are absolutely not the conditions we put in the reactor: I mean conditions of Nickel powder treatment, pressure, temperature, presence of catalyzers, and many other issues. Luckily, it is impossible to have any kind of nuclear events in all the processes of hydrogenation in presence of Ni, either with function of catalyzer or not.
Thank you anyway for your useful question,
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 23rd, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Dear Dr Fine:
Thank you for the information. Our process is totally different, and I think I have understood why we produce mainly low energy gamma rays. I will publish it probably at the time of the start up of our 1 MW plant.
Warm Regards,
Andrea

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 3rd, 2011 at 4:20 PM

DEAR MR. SVEIN UTNE (swein_utne@hotmail.com):
UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR COMMENT, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, FOR SOME REASON WHEN HAS BEEN APPROVED TO BE PUBLISHED IS DISAPPEARED, INSTEAD OF BEING PUBLISHED HERE. SORRY, BUT I WANT ANYWAY TO ANSWER, BECAUSE THE ISSUE YOU RAISED IS QUITE IMPORTANT.
I RESUME BRIEFLY WHAT YOU WROTE: YOU WROTE THAT IT IS HAPPENED TO OTHER RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH LENR THAT RADIATIONS EMITTED FROM THE REACTORS HAVE CAUSED PROBLEMS, AND YOU ARE AFRAID THAT SCALING UP THE REACTOR WE ARE WORKING WITH WE COULD HAVE RADIATIONS PROBLEMS, OR WORSE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE THAT:
1- WE ARE NOT GOING TO SCALE UP THE REACTORS. TO GET HIGHER POWER WE JUST CONNECT MORE REACTORS OF 10 KW (WHICH IS THE MODULE WE TESTED THOUSANDS OF TIMES, WITHOUT EMITTING SIGNIFICANT RADIATIONS OUTSIDE THE REACTOR).
2- WE PERFORMED AND LESS SERIES OF MEASUREMENTS ON THE RADIATION EMITTED OUTSIDE THE REACTOR WITH EXPERTS SPECIALISTS OF THE FIELD, AND NEVER WE GOT PROBLEMS WITH THE 10 KW MODULES.
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Dear Mr. Luca:
The volume of the black box is not enough to contain a source of chemical derived energy equal to the energy produced, by orders of magnitude.
Anyway, you will be more convinced when we will put in operation 24 hours per day a 1 MW plant, in the factory of our Customer.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
p.s.
Please also consider that the test has been made by three very high level professors of Physics of the University of Bologna, not connected with us, used to work for CERN, INFN. Do you think they have not checked the absence of batteries? By the way: do you know the volume and weight of a battery able to deliver 10 kWh in 45 minutes?
Anyway: our tests are over. My next release will be from a 1 MW operative plant in the factory of a Customer. Within October. I promise. On my dead body.
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 25th, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Dear Mr. Herbert:
1- I am not professor
2- I totally share with you that to make a solid theory we have to work, work, work on good and safe reactors who produce working every day, safe and sound. I already have a theory, but I will expose it only after the presentation of the 1 MW plant. I assume that by that time we will have a granted patent, so we will be able to clarify what now is an industrial confidentiality
3-we already have those data, since we have reactors which worked for 6 months 24 hours per day. We are writing a paper on this issue.
In this article we will give the data regarding the isotopical mutations

4- you are right, but I think that more than that the result of a working plant cuts all the chatterings.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 25th, 2011 at 2:40 PM

TODAY I RECEIVED A POST I LOST CLICKING ERRONEOUSLY, BUT I REMEMBER IT BECAUSE IMPORTANT AND I ANSWER ANYWAY. I APOLOGIZE WITH THE AUTHOR, WHOSE NAME I LOST.
HE SAID, SUBSTANTIALLY, THAT MAYBE THE COPPER WE FIND IN THE POWDERS WE ANALYZE AFTER THE OPERATION OF THE REACTOR CAN BE THE COPPER IMPURITIES CONTAINED IN THE NICKEL POWDERS WE UTILIZE.
THE ANSWER IS: THE AMOUNT OF COPPER WE FIND AFTER 6 MONTHS OF OPERATION IS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAT THE IMPURITIES IN THE 99.9999 Ni WE USE.
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 15th, 2011 at 6:32 AM

Dear Mr. William Collis:
About the copper issue: I agree, in fact we never found, as I said, instable copper in the residual powders.
About the copper contaminations: could be, but there is no coherence with the mass balance: the amounts of copper we found in the residual powders are too big.

I will follow your suggestion about a comparisons of the 2 methods, is a good idea: so far we didn’t make neutron activation analysis.
If you will organize a conference and will invite me, I will be there.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 15th, 2011 at 3:36 AM

Dear Mr. William Collis:
Thank you very much for your participating to this conference: I particularly appreciate your presence here.
1- the evidence of copper production in past has been found using an atomic microscope in the University of Bologna. The same we will make now: we will bring the sample of the Ni we used to the lab of UNIBO and detect Cu
2- in past we found them by means of the secondary ions mass spectrometer of the University of Padua. We will do the same now
3- just as you turn on and off your television set
4- yes, by an analysis. To measure the difference of mass you have to use the charge for months, because what you consume in a day is in the order of picograms
Thank you very much,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 8th, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Dear Dr Fine,
I reply to your email of November 8th: actually, I didn’t write that in our process there are no radiations, since radiations are the source of the energy we produce, I said we do not have residual radiations outside the reactor, in the surrounding environment.
Warm regards,
A.R.
p.s. Yes, today is the X Rays day…Thanks to Roentgen.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 11th, 2010 at 1:30 PM

And again, Dr Jacques Dufour, a question for you pops up from the strong interest raised by your paper.
By the way, looking at my working modules in these days, that we are testing for our Customers, I am cropping a theory about the reason why they are working the way they are working. The study of these papers and of the Cook’s book are convincing me of a theory of nuclear reactions models. I think I will expose the theory at the presentation of the first plant, before the end of the year.
Anyway, I feel what’s going on in this blog is extremely important. The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is much more important than my friend Sergio Focardi and me thought it was going to be when we started it. Thanks to you all.
Andrea Rossi

Posted in Uncategorized

62+ quotes by Andrea Rossi that he is making e-Cats in a factory in Florida, USA – 1 quote to the Florida BRC that he is not. And according to Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, that is not news.

Here are 62 direct quotes from Andrea Rossi, published by him on his own website saying that he was not going to make and sell e-Cats in Italy for over 10 years, but is making them instead in the USA, in Florida.  This is probably because of Mr. Rossi’s run-ins with the law over Petroldragon and gold trafficking.

There are hundreds of quotes by Mr. Rossi about making his e-Cats in the USA but you have to infer that from the context in many of them.  These quotes below leave no doubt about the context, they are very direct, and since there are so many of them it is clear there is no translation problem.  

These quotes are both before and after his interview by the Florida BRC. See article below.  If you were to count all of the quotes by Mr. Rossi in interviews, on film, and on his own website, there would easily be over 200 quotes by Mr. Rossi that he has a factory in Florida where he is making his e-Cats.

So after reading all of the information concerning Mr. Rossi and his e-Cats you can only come to one conclusion – Mr. Rossi has never built and sold a single 1MW low energy nuclear device.  That big blue box still sitting in Bologna, is a fake, built to try and fool the world he could build the world’s largest LENR device.

You must remember when reading about making e-Cats there are three different kinds. 1) small single devices for testing purposes; 2) 10KW devices that are not being sold yet but will go on sell (supposedly) after the robot factory is finished; 3) the 1MW “plants”.  A word about these 1MW “plants.”  Mr. Rossi says he sold the first one on October 28, 2011 and they have been for sell ever since, with a delivery time of 3-4 months.  Every one of these supposedly was made and will be made in Florida, USA.  Mr. Rossi has never said anything different. 

These quotes start in January 21st, 2011, and end March 28th, 2012.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Dear Steven N.Karels:
We are resolving the stabilization problems, to a level that will allow the production of steam able to get good efficiencies from turbines to produce electric power. As I said, we are resolving the problems with the new Siemens turbines. What you say, by the way, is right. About the other comment of yours: we are working very well in our factory in the USA, ignore the stupidities of the pippet snakes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Greg Leonard

March 28th, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Dear AR
I am full of admiration for the speed of progress you are making.
It is good to hear that your robotized production line is already in operation.

Is it also able to make parts for your bigger 1 MW reactors?

Keep up the excellent work
Greg Leonard

Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Dear Greg Leonard:
My robotized line is already in construction, but not in operation.
The 1 MW plants are made under a different concept, therefore the robotized line is not useful for them

Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 24th, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Dear “Barney” (or, better, Giovanni Cesaretti):
Thank you for this comment of yours, which gives me the chance to answer to all the stupidities that some imbeciles, like your friend B., have put around, after tips got from some puppeteers.
Here are the answers:
1- I confirm that we are manufacturing a production line to make 1 million pcs per year
2- in this process we had all the permissions so far necessary from the competent Authorities, and to say that we have been stopped is totally false
3- it is totally false, as the puppet said, I am losing my collaborators: actually, I didn’t lose one, while they increase by the day
4- where the factory is in construction is confidential, and the reason for which is confidential is that we want to work in peace, without hurdles are put by puppeteers and puppets like the Snake or B., just to give a paradigmatic example, full time paid, to try to stop us, from their puppeteers
5- you say that to maintain confidential such a factory is impossible: obviously, you understand nothing of making a factory. Ask to somebody able to make a factory and get information to improve your knowledge of the matter.
6- conserve this comment of mine: if within 16 months we will not have in operation this factory, I will pay you pizza and bier.
Say hello to your friend B.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Dear Philippe George:
I want also to add that:
1- the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is already in production
2- the programs of the robots will be adjusted as soon as we will have the requirements from the certificators
3- we already got the green light from all the competent Authorities, so far the certifications are in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. ScottL

March 19th, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Hello Mr. Rossi,

I’m having a running disagreement with colleague. He contends that you don’t own a factory in Miami Florida, but perhaps have a subcontractor. I contend you have said you have a factory, implying ownership either by you or by your corporation. Could you clarify so I can be assured of my interpretation. Thank you kindly.

Andrea Rossi

March 19th, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Dear Scott L.:
We have a factory, but for safety and security reasons it is under another name and we will not disclose it until the situation is like the present. What counts for our Customers is that our products work well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 15th, 2012 at 3:00 AM

Dear Joseph Fine, Dear Francesco:
1- No, we are making the robotizes line in our factory and, also, we have to wait the prescriptions of the certificator before deciding the final version.
2- Of course, these issues are not for the public
3- As I said, we will start to send the offers in Autumn this year, if we will have got the certification in time, and the deliveries will start I hope within the next winter or within 17 months, I hope, of course all this will depend on when we will get the certifications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. CWatters

March 12th, 2012 at 3:46 AM

The BRC Incident Report says..

“Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas”.

Is theis correct? There no working ECAT in the USA?

Andrea Rossi

March 12th, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Dear CWatters:
We are manufacturing in the USA all what necessary to make the production, which also will be made in the USA, of the E-Cats, in our factory in Florida.
All the other information is confidential and there is no reason at all for us to give more public information, presently, regarding our production present and future, mainly for safety and security reasons. We give only due information to the due Authority and our right to confidentiality and privacy must be respected. I received many other comments similar to yours, so this answer is valid for them as well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 1st, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Dear Readers:
Somebody has put in the net the new that since our E-Cat has nuclear reactions it cannot be authorized, therefore it will never hit the market.
It is opportune to make clear that:
1- we are making the certification necessary to go in the market respecting the law
2- we already got important authorizations
3- the basic fact is that no radiation has ever been detected outside the E-Cat
4- when I will be able to release the theory of our process, it will be pretty clear that it is impossible for radiations exit the E-Cat.
5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 8th, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Dear Maximilian:
I cannot stay in Italy for long periods, we are preparing the factory in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 1st, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Dear Luca Salvarani,
I beg you to rewrite also in English your question, so that our Readers, mainly Anglophone, will understand what we say. I can give answers which translate the sense of the questions if the comments are short, otherwise in this period it is very hard for me because I have really not time. We are preparing the manufacturing of the million E-Cats, with the very high burden that it generates, we have to manufacture the 1 MW plants, all in the USA, while I have to fly across the World to prepare the network for the sales…please you translate, I answer, I promise.
Well, while writing this I understand that I am disappointing you, so now I answer translating for you, but in future, please, if the comments are more than 3 lines be kind, translate them in English.
Answers:
1- Yes, it will be possible to power the drives of the E-Cat in series, to increase the efficiency, of course when we will able to produce efficiently elecric energy. But I want to say you one thing: today we met a Partner in the USA who will allow a tremendous increase of efficiency of the system. The beautiful of this Country is that when you wake up in the morning you never know what will happen new during the day.
2- the improvement of COP will make sense only if it will not jeopardize the competitivity, you are right. Thank you very much for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

December 23rd, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
We are working very well in the USA. Anyway the industrial development of the production of our E-Cats will make necessary to develope a diffused manufacturing network, encompassing the outsourcing implementation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

December 15th, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Dear Gaifas:
Yes, we heat up the factory where we work with an E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Fyodor

December 9th, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Mr. Rossi

Has production begun yet in your US facilities? Or are they still starting up?

Thank you for taking time to answer my question

Andrea Rossi

December 9th, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Dear Fyodor:
Begun.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Dear Herb Gills:
Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public.
We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Rossi

November 23rd, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Dear Matthew:
The 1 MW plants are already for sale. The small E-Cats will be for sale within 2 years.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 18th, 2011 at 5:33 AM

Dear Matthew:
There is a typo: WE ARE MANUFACTURING 13 1MW THERMAL PLANTS LIKE THE ONE TESTED ON THE 28TH OF OCTOBER.
This is the correct version.
Warm Regards.
A.R.

  1. gio

November 16th, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Egr. ing Rossi

It’s been a month since October 28. You should have produced at least two reactors. Have already been delivered?

Cordialità

Translate

Andrea Rossi

November 16th, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Dear Gio:
No, the plants are still in construction.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Iggy Dalrymple

October 31st, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

When do you intend to start production in the USA?

Sincerely,
Iggy Dalrymple

Andrea Rossi

November 1st, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
Already did. The charges are already made in the USA. Of course the work is in progress.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. T.R.

October 31st, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Dear mr. Rossi
when the second customer will recive his plant?

Andrea Rossi

October 31st, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Dear T.R.
3 months,
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luca Salvarani

October 31st, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi

1- Can you confirm the second sale of the 1 mw plant to another customer?
2- So far have you sold 2 plants, or even more?
3- Could you reveal the identity of this second customer or it’s confidential (if so I can undestand)?

Andrea Rossi

October 31st, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Dear Luca Salvarani:
1- yes
2- more
3- I want not our Customers assailed by the puppetts moved by their puppetteers. Let the plant go to work, then they will reveal themselves automatically. Probably you did not understand that there is a war against us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 31st, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Dear Manik Sahai:
We have started the manufacturing of 1 MW plants. Who wants to buy them whatever its Nation, can contact us at: info@leonardocorp1996.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Translate

Hampus

October 30th, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Hi

Great work.

1. How many 1 megawatt plants can you sell in one year do you think?

2. When is the next sell?

3. When will the home plants be available for pursued?

I know time is of the essence, that’s why my questions are so rash. Thanks for you answers the mean alot for me.

Hampus Ericsson

Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Dear Hampus:
1- From 30 to 100 for the first year is what we are already ready to make, but we will get exponentially faster in time
2- done
3- this is a more complicated issue, because we need complex certifications
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

October 30th, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Dear Andrea,

1. Is the 1MW container gone?
2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container?
3. Any improvements you want in version 2?
4. Will the buyer of the next 1MW container be the same customer or a different customer?
5. What city will you be working (hiring) in the US?

Best wishes,
Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Dear Luke Mortensen:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes. gaskets
4- different
5- Miami (Fl), Boston (Ma), Manchester (N.H.)
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 31st, 2011 at 3:01 AM

Dear Paolo:
We make in Italy R&D, the manufacturing is in the USA.
About the other question: Leibniz, the great phylosopher-mathematician of the eighteenth century, used to say that there is always the better possible world, considering the actual possibilities in the place under consideration…
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Anthony Guzzo

August 30th, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Hi dr. Rossi, a few questions. Why the plants are not made in Italy? I think a sub set of e-cat (less than 300) lower than 1 MW are ready, and which logistics solution that is better than near your home? To cut the gossips because it does not install one of these sub-sets for a simple lighting? good job and we look forward with excitement to the event in October. Regards Anthony Guzzo

Andrea Rossi

August 30th, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Dear Anthony Guzzo:
I reside and work in the USA. No intention at all to return in Italy, but for holydays or R&D with Bologna University. We do not produce electric power, so far, but heat. Gossips are not my business.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 10th, 2011 at 4:01 AM

Dear EriK:
There are enlightened big Companies which are backing us. In October we will start up the 1 MW plant in the USA, you bet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Translate

Andrea Rossi

August 9th, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Dear Alessandro Casali:
1- Ampenergo is a our commercial organization
2- Our factory in Miami is not available for visits, therefore I maintain covered the address.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 7th, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, it is a sad day, because I have been betrayed with lies. I am sad mainly for my friend Christos Stremmenos, the Greek Scientist who made the tests in Bologna for the reeks: he always believed in this, made a titanic effort to bring this in Greece, and now all his work too has been betrayed, but I am sure that we will work again together, maybe in Greece with other organizations: it would be a pity to throw away the baby with the dirt water. But the tech must go on, we signed a tremendous contract in the USA. The Customer has already made plans for 1,000 plants in the USA, and has the financial dimension for this.
By the way: it was already foreseen from me this USA plant, if you remember, I told months ago that we were preparing also a plant for the USA.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Sterling Allan

August 7th, 2011 at 9:05 AM

More questions:

– Where, now, will the first 1 MW power demonstration take place? US? Will the date be changed?

Andrea Rossi

August 7th, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Dear Sterling Allan:
The 1 MW plant will be installed in the USA,:please read the answer I geve to you few minutes ago.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Translate

Andrea Rossi

August 7th, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Dear Enzo Amato:
Our 1 MW plant will be respect the time scheduling and will be put in operation in the USA.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Sebastian

August 7th, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

thank you for making this split-up public. I have a few questions.
1) What are the implications of this on the contruction and delivery of the 1MW reactor?
Is the last week of October still a date to consider? Will you keep testing the 1MW plant in Florida or in Bologna? Will there still be a public demonstration?
2) When Defkalion stated that they produced their “Hyperion” products, were they lying?

Thank you.

Andrea Rossi

August 7th, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Dear Sebastian:
1- Of course! When I say a thing that depends on me, I maintain it: the 1 MW plant will be started upin October, in the USA. Please read the answer I gave to Sterling Allen
2- Defkalion never got any information about our technology, for what concerns the reactors.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 7th, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Dear Sterling:
I prefer that the reasons will be cleared by a judge by a verdict. Facts, not chatters, as usual with me. Our attorneys have filed a suit.
I confirm that our 1 MW plant will be put in operation in the USA, after an agreement we made last week with one of the most important entities of the USA; the tests will be made by the highest level scientists you can think of. I cannot give the names, until after the test. To the test will attend the highest level scientific journalists I know.
Thank you for your kind attention,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 17th, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Dear Maryyugo:
Why have I to? I do not understand why this issue has to be of your interest. Anyway: we have presently plants working in the USA and in other locations. What’s your problem about this?
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 16th, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Dear Daniel G. Zavela:
Yes, my scare coefficient is inversely proportional to the time distance from the event. But I remember that when I was a kid I made boxing to pay for my books, and I was very scared the moments before the match. Nevertheless, when I hopped inside the ring I always got very cold and totally calm. Let’s hope it will be the same. Anyway, the 330 cats that will make up the 1 MW module are working pretty well in the factories.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 28th, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Dear Bill Conley:
The poles of this tech will be:
USA, Greece and Sweden.
I reside in the USA and The 1 MW plant for Greece is manufactured in the USA. I confirm that a very important plant of 1 MW will be ready to be put in operation within the year in the USA: our men are working on the authorizations.
USA,. Sweden Greece are the sole Countries where I am making real work and where I will mke real work for the next 2 years, apart Bologna (Italy), where we made a Research and development contract with the University.
Thank you ,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 21st, 2011 at 1:34 AM

Dear Paul Segers:
The 1 MW plant will work 24 hours per day fro the Customer of Defkalion. It will not be a demo-plant, it will be a regular productive plant.
In the USA we are manufacturing other 2 plants of 1 MW of power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Paul Esteban

June 5th, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi, how many people are working directly for you on e-cat construction?

Warm Regards
Paul Esteban

Andrea Rossi

June 5th, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dear Paul Esteban:
18.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 1st, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Dear Mr Rick Meisinger:
Yes, we are working also on the plants to be put in operation in the USA.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 31st, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Dear Mr Riccardo T.:
1- yes
2- I am. Ia the theory which stays at the base of the charge I use in the E-Cats. Until some months ago it was a supposition, upon which I bet, eventually became a theory I am convinced of, after the huge amount of testing I made in these last months in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Shravan

May 29th, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Greetings Mr. Rossi, Sir, I have a question, is your technology bound by any export controls? meaning can your company export the E-Cat to customers in asia for example?

Shravan

Andrea Rossi

May 29th, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Dear Mr Shravan:
We have no limtations in export from the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

May 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Dear Mr Rossi,

Congratulations on your momentous achievement. Future generations will owe you the highest debt of gratitude.

I am most disheartened when talking with friends about your device to still find such a high degree of skepticism. Some of it is based around the confusion over some of your United States businesses. Specifically, some people seem to be confused about Leonardo Corporation and where the production of the power plant is happening. It would be great if you could shed some light on these issues to help in these conversations. Having a little back story information could help me in silencing these doubters.

Is your US Company Leonardo Corporation or Leonardo Technologies Inc?
Is the production at a Leonardo Corporation owned factory or is it outsourced to another production facility?
What is LTI-Global.com and what relationship do they have with Leonardo Corporation and yourself?
Is this a different Leonardo Technologies Inc. from the one in the September 2004 report on your TE device from the US Army Corps of Engineers?

Warmest regards and best of luck in the future.

Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

May 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- I am absolutely not interested to the skepticism, since we are manufacturing the reactors which in october will start their operation in the market
2- there is no reason why I have to disclose where we manufacture our reactors. Our Customers will receive the reactors in their factories, they are not interested about the manufacturing sites. Our NON-Customers have no reason to know anything at all about this issue.
3- The reactors are manufactured by Leonardo Corporation, while LTI (Leonardo Technology Inc.) is the company with the exclusive commercial license of Leonardo Corp. in the Americas and Caribeans.
For any info about LTI, please coontact them directly:
ccassarino@lti-global.com
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 18th, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Dear Mr Vladimiro Carlucci,
We will not install our E-Cats in Italy for some year.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 18th, 2011 at 3:22 AM

Dear Mr Vergassola:
Our E-Cats are manufactured in two factories in the USA.
What you have seen in the videos is our Italian laboratory.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 16th, 2011 at 6:43 AM

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- We have completed all the 330 modules of the 1 MW plant. Now goes on the testing of each of them and the construction of the container.
2- Remotely- Singularly
3- No, we have to change the modules, eventually refueling them at home (so far). Ships do not stay away from ports more than 6 mo.
Warmest regards,
A.R.

Joseph Fine

May 16th, 2011 at 5:45 AM

Dr. Rossi,

1) How many E-Cats are operating now?

2) If you have a number of E-Cats operating together in a power plant and want to turn some of them on or off, can you do that remotely ( almost certainly ) or do you have to do it manually (turning valves and throwing switches)? Can you control the E-Cats individually or only in groups or sections?

3) Can you refuel a module after several months without completely removing it for service, that is, by pouring Nickel (kitty food) into the device. That is, you don’t have to ship it back to the factory by Federal Express. (That would make it easier to use in Ships, for example.)

J.F.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 11th, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Dear Mr Paul Calvo:
Thank you: everybody who knows me knows how much I owe to the USA, the place of my rebirth and the place where I have chosen to reside and make the manufacturing of our products. I am fighting, as all of you, to give my energies to this Great Country to overcome the crisis. We are just doing it.
Warm Regards, “Paisà”:
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 4th, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Dear Claudio:
we will make further research with Uppsala University and Bologna University, for R&D. The mud doesn’t worry me, we will start the delivery of our plants this year and the market will be the sole judge. About the Italian bullshit, no problem: we will not work in Italy for the next years.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 4th, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Dear Gherardo:
1- I will not work in Italy, at least for the first 10 years
2- a recharge every 6 months is necessary, is less frequent than usual technologies and very cheap.
3- possibly
4- yes
5- is the same price of standard technologies, but with a fuel price reduced by orders of magnitude
6- within the year
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 4th, 2011 at 5:06 AM

Dear Luke Mortensen:
1- up to now we have in operation 170 modules of the 300 that will compound the 1 MW plant.
2- Thank you: You cannot imagine how much in this moment I need moral sustain.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 1st, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Dear Mr Rémi Andrè:
1- the 97 E-Cats ( today are 105) are just the modules of the 1 MW plant we will start up in October, and that we are testing separately.
2– It is our first plant, and the lines to make a serial production are not yet ready. I make them one by one and I have to be very careful: have you an idea of what will happen to me if the 1 MW plant will not work?
3- No, the patent has nothing to do with the production. Patent or not patent, we will produce our E-Cats. Of course, if the patent will not be granted we will maintain the industrial secret.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

April 28th, 2011 at 1:09 PM

AR,
Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:

1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or individuals you trust?
4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your research?
5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the reactor is is that industry standard technology?

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

April 28th, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- 97
2- 4
3- yes
4- less than if I was taxist
5- I do not use electrolysis
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 16th, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Dear “HRG”:
You are perfectly right, I agree totally with your comment, as for concerns the incompatibility and the unacceptability of entities which work and get financing from Oil Companies, Nuclear Companies, Hot Fusion Research centers as “indipendent third parties”,as well as of competitors, who since years try to make useful LENR apparatuses and are not able to: they cannot present themselves or their consultants as “indipendent third parties”. This is why, after the tests we made with the University of Bologna and with Prof. Kullander and Prof Hanno from Sweden ( they are considered worldwide as scientists of the maximum level in the field) we will not make further tests. We will, of course, continue our R&D with the University of Bologna. We will give to the University of Uppsala and to the University of Stockolm our devices to allow them to use the same devices 24 hours per day, to get data regarding the energy production. We trust them, and we know they are really neutral, without binds with competitors of any kind. I personally knew them and I have in them total trust. The same is not for “indipendent parties” that have been proposed to me, regarding which I discovered they have got a bunch of millions to make research for the hot fusion (producing nothing so far), or “indipendent parties” made by consultants which are paid money by the shovels to sustain nuclear power plants, fossil fuels and the forth, or consultants of our competitors in the LENR field.
This is why we continue to repeat that the market, only the market will be the final judge: if our E-CATS WILL RESPECT THE GUARANTEES OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY, WE WILL BE PAID. This is the sole validation that counts really, at the end.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
By the way: in our factories there are reactors in operation 24 hours per day, just to test their safety reliability.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 9th, 2011 at 7:56 AM

Dear Craig:
The Customer of us is a kind of Customer you need to have a written authorization of to talk about him. In due time we will make a joint communication. We will manufacture together a network of plants to sell the energy. I am very happy for this, because I am extremely indebted with the USA, where I got my rebirth, and we will make here new jobs and a useful work, so I will give back part of the help I got, as it is my duty. I always give back what I get, turned into energy. It’s my job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 7th, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Dear Dr Gillis HRG:
The walls of the reactor are made of stainless steel, copper free. Yes, I have understood why scaling up we have more difficulties to have a flat curve of Delta T. Also the theory is consolidating. I am learning a lot in this period, I learnt a lot from the Professors of The Universities of Bologna, Stockolm and Uppsala ( in alphabetic order, of course) and from the People of DOE and DOD in the USA. From them there is really to learn. They say 10-20 words and from those words I get a universe of informations. In these last 2 months we made substantial evolution, after every test I redesigned and remade the reactors. Today I am in the USA factory of Leonardo Corporation where I signed a contract of tremendous importance. As soon as I will be allowed to announce it, believe me, it will be extremely important.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 6th, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Dear Mr Randy:
Please contact me in November after the start up of our 1 MW plant, when we will organize our commercial network.
In any case, we will not give manufacturing licenses in the USA,since we will manufacture directly in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 23rd, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Dear Mr Claudio Eterno:
The first plant of 1 MW will be installed in Athens, in October. We are manufacturing it in the USA. Also in the USA we are making tests with an extremely important Customer preparing a similar plant in the USA which will be, very likely, our second job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 22nd, 2011 at 2:50 AM

Dear Dr Moho:
You are perfectly right.
When you have to dress up with lead shielding and thermal insulation a single module you need a volume much higher than if you connect more modules in series and parallels. Actually the power density for the thermal power production should be between 1 and 2 cubic meters/MW, but I will have the exact number after the preliminary tests we will make in September on our 1 MW plant in the USA.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 19th, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Dear Mr Marco Cazzola:
We can reach 550°C, maintaining substantially the same efficiency. We are making these tests with the Lab in the USA we are working with in these days. The maintainance is necessary every 6 months, therefore we supply more modules than necessary, to have always the requested power production during the maintainance of the single modules, which are maintained in turn.
Thank you very much for your very kind attention, I appreciate.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 3rd, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Dear Alan De Angelis:
Again, thank you for the important information regarding the very interesting interview of Prof. Chu, Nobel Prize and Secretary of the DOE.
I agree with his point of view. I think that Barack Obama is one of the best Presidents of the History of the USA, and the fact that he has chosen Prof. Chu as the Secretary of the DOE is a demo of what I said.
I am honoured to have manufactured my reactors in the USA.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Rossi

February 11th, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Dear Mr Stephen Miller,
I share with you the love for the USA: is the Country I have chosen to make my factory in. I am glad to get also encouragement from there.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 28th, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Dear Mr Stefano:
The World Press will be informed only at the inauguration of the 1 MW plant we are manufacturing in the USA. Only a 1 MW plant operated by a Customer, a satisfied Customer, will be worth of a World Press communication. It will be very soon, monthes from now, not years.
I do not think that you will have one in your home, not in a short term of time anyway, because one thing is to get the authorizations to install an industrial plant, operated by specialoists, a completely different thing is to get the authorizations to install a device like this in a household, without professional operators.
While an industrial module of 1 MW is very close, matter of months, a domestic appliance I think will be possible in years from now.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 22nd, 2011 at 7:41 AM

Dear Mr Brian Robertson,
When we run the reactor with water, not steam, the measured power is the same as when we produce steam and I deem this is the proof of the correct measurement made with steam. We made many tests with water and the operation with steam has just confirmed the same efficiency.
Anyway:
1- We will continue our R&D program with the University of Bologna and we will continue to put online the not confidential data, comparing efficiency with steam vs with steam production
2- We are manufacturing in the USA a 1 MW plant and we will make a public presentation of it. As I always say, in this field we need production of facts and facts are working plants. We need WORKING PLANTS, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, THEORY IMPROVEMENT.
This is a lot of work, but we have just to do it.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 21st, 2011 at 4:45 AM

Dear Mr Moho:
1- I do not know
2- We are giving solid scientific information, apart the detaols inside the reactor which will remain industrial secret at least untilthe patent is granted
3- We made an important test with the University of Bologna, with whom we are going to make a 1 year research program also.
4- Our next step: presentation of the 1 MW power plant we are manufacturing in the USA for our European Customer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Posted in Uncategorized

Greed that silent killer of men’s souls may have been at work again in the “cold fusion” – “LENR” world. Did Mats Lewan, of Ny Teknik, fall for the bait?

Greed that silent killer of men’s souls may have been at work again in the “cold fusion” — “LENR” world.  Did Mats Lewan, of Ny Teknik, fall for the bait?

Is greed behind all the lies of Andrea Rossi about his e-Cat?  Is greed behind the reporting by Mats Lewan, Mr. Rossi’s friend and partner?  Mr. Rossi promised both Steven Krivit and Sterling Allan untold riches if they would just help him out until his e-Cat business was up and running.  Did Mats Lewan fall for the bait?

Mr. Gary Wright asked me to print this email he sent to leaders of Telentum Publishing.  Since I had always wondered why Mats Lewan, writing for Sweden’s leading Hi-tech magazine, Ny Teknik, did not cover the story of the Florida BRC, and because I had slowly read the complete article by Steven Krivit and “Robert Clancy” until I truly understood what Mr. Rossi is doing, I agreed.

The article Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science can be read here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml

Here is the email Mr. Wright asked me to publish:

Aarne Aktan
Chief Executive Officer
Talentum Oyj
Annankatu 34–36 B, Helsinki
P.O. Box 920, 00101 Helsinki, Finland
Telephone: +358 204 4240
Fax: +358 204 424 130
Email: Aarne.Aktan@talentum.fi
http://www.talentum.fi

Joachim Berner
Chairman of the Board
Talentum Sweden AB
Mäster Samuelsgatan 56
106 12 Stockholm
Sweden
Telephone: +46 8 796 6650
Email: Joachim.Berner@talentum.se
Internet: http://www.talentum.se

Roger Thoren
Managing Director
Talentum Sweden AB
Mäster Samuelsgatan 56
106 12 Stockholm
Sweden
Telephone: +46 8 796 6650
Email: roger.thoren@talentum.se
Internet: http://www.talentum.se

PLEASE FORWARD TO THE CORRECT PERSONS WHO NEED TO SEE THIS.
—————————————————————————–

Dear Mr. Aarne Aktan & Joachim Berner,

Your company publishes some of the finest magazines in your part of the world. And people all over the world read your papers to keep abreast of the current news for company strategies and investment purposes.

But I was shocked by the reply of Norbert Andersson, Acting Editor-in-Chief of Ny Teknik, when I tried to bring to his attention the conflict of interest and unprofessional reporting of one of his reporters.

Basically Mr. Andersson told me to mind my own business.

The complete emails are included below this message.

In a nut shell, Mr. Andrea Rossi is involved in a fraud and scam, he has been jailed many times in Italy, defrauded the US government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, cost the good people of Italy many millions of dollars to clean up his environmental dumps, and now is taking many people’s hard earned money in his latest e-Cat fraud and scam.

One of your reporters, Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, is a friend and business partner of Mr. Rossi’s.  Mr. Lewan has been an active partner of Mr. Rossi, helping him put on his demonstrations, publishing false and incomplete articles in Ny Teknik about Mr. Rossi and the e-Cat.  When Mr. Lewan is provided the correct information and when his inaccuracies are pointed out he refuses to correct any articles or write new ones – if the information would reflect negatively on his friend and partner Mr. Rossi.

Mr. Rossi has been claiming for over a year, hundreds of times, that he has a factory and is making small nuclear reactors in Florida, USA.  When I contacted the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control, Mr. Rossi told the investigators that he has no e-Cat based on LENR and has no factory in Florida. This is just the opposite of what he has been telling everyone as the basis to get people to invest in his company.

When I contacted Mr. Lewan asking why he was not reporting this news, he told me that it was not news.

Since Mr. Lewan has been reporting everything Mr. Rossi says, helping to get people to invest in Mr. Rossi’s company, how could this not be news?

Mr. Rossi is currently under investigation by other authorities, and I am afraid Mats Lewan might be leading your paper Ny Teknik, into an undesirable situation.

All I told Mr. Norbert Andersson when he told me to mind my own business, was maybe he should get another science reporter to write a new article on Mr. Rossi, and this time tell all the truth, even about the investigation by the Florida BRC.

If I can be of service or if you need more information, please feel free to contact me at this return email address.

Warm Regards,
Gary Wright

PS: See the latest articles about Mats here:
Rossi’s Steam Trick: Lewan Knew
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/

——————————————————————————

On 3/27/2012 09:59 AM, Gary wrote:

> Norbert,

> I thought you would be interested in some facts concerning some conflicts of interests by one of your reporters, in a story your paper has been covering for over two years. And because of this conflict of interest your readers are not getting the full story.  I guess I was wrong, sorry to bother you.  You won’t be hearing from me again.

> Gary Wright

>

> On 3/27/2012 05:37 AM, Andersson Norbert wrote:

>> Gary,

>> Please take care of your own business, and we will take care of ours.

>> Norbert Andersson
>> Förlagsredaktör
>> Ta
>> norbert.andersson@talentum.se
>> telefon  08-796 66 18
>> mobil    0708-13 78 05
>> Postadress: 106 12 Stockholm
>> Besöksadress: Mäster Samuelsgatan 56

>> Från: Gary [mailto:gary@garywright.com]
>> Skickat: den 27 mars 2012 12:41
>> Till: Andersson Norbert; Växeln
>> Kopia: Steven Krivit
>> Ämne: Re: Mats Lewan Unprofessional Reporting – Update

>> Dear Norbert Andersson,

>> On 3-20-2012 I sent the email below asking that your magazine use a different reporter to write a much needed update about Mats Lewan’s friend and business partner Andrea Rossi. Your readers need to know the truth about Mr. Rossi, and Mats refuses to write anything negative about him, even if justified.

>> Now today an article was published clearly showing how Mr. Rossi has been deceiving Mats, but Mats refuses to look at what is happening with an open mind.

>> I ask again sir, please have another writer publish a new updated story of Mr. Rossi and his lies for the last 4 years, culminating in the report from the Florida BRC.  Thank you.

>> Warm Regards,
>> Gary Wright

>> Here is the new story about Rossi and Mats:
>> “Proof of Rossi’s Deception”
>> March 27, 2012
>> By Mitch Randall
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Proof-of-Rossis-Deception.shtml

>> On 3/20/2012 04:50 PM, Gary wrote:

>> Acting Editor-in-Chief
>> Norbert Andersson
>> Telephone: +46 8 796 66 18
>> Ny Teknik
>> S-106 12 Stockholm
>> Sweden
>> Telephone: +46 8 796 66 00
>> Telefax: +46 8 613 30 28
>> E-mail: norbert.andersson@nyteknik.se

>> This email is also being sent to the Ny Teknik parent company.
>> Talentum Sweden AB
>> Mäster Samuelsgatan 56
>> 106 12 STOCKHOLM
>> Tel: +46 8 796 66 50
>> E-m: info@talentum.se

>> Dear Mr. Norbert Andersson,

>> This email is to make a formal complaint about the integrity of the reporting by Mats Lewan concerning Andrea Rossi and his e-Cat.

>> There has been three people reporting on the Mr. Rossi / Leonardo Corporation saga in great depth.

>> 1) Steven Krivit at New Energy Times.
>> 2) Mats Lewan at Ny Teknik.
>> 3) Sterling Allan at Pure Energy Systems News.

>> Mr. Krivit has spent a lot of time and has been actively trying to get people to see the truth about the fraud and scam by Mr. Rossi / Leonardo Corporation since July 2011. He wrote about the latest scandal here:

>> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/10/florida-bureau-rossi-has-no-factory-no-nuclear-reactions/

>> Sterling Allan finally started to come out of his hypnotic state on March 11, 2012 with his article, “Rossi Tells Florida Bureau He Has No U.S. Factory, No Nuclear Reactions.”  In that article Mr. Allan says, “I’m taking the E-Cat out of our Top 5 and am dropping it low among the runners up. I’ve also added this to the Buyer’s Beware page.” You can read Mr. Allan’s story here:

>> http://pesn.com/2012/03/11/9602054_Rossi_Tells_Florida_Bureau_He_Has_No_Factory_No_Nuclear_Reactions/

>> What both Mr. Krivit and Mr. Allan realized is that what Mr. Rossi / Leonardo Corporation told the investigator from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control, that can be read here:

>> https://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/

>> directly contradicted most of what Rossi has been telling everyone since 2007.

>> By Rossi telling the Florida investigator there is no, (and never has been a), US factory, and that the e-Cat does not entail any kind of nuclear reaction, means that the Rossi e-Cat is not, nor ever has been any type of “cold fusion” or LENR device as claimed by Rossi, Focardi, and every patent application submitted by Rossi, where Rossi clearly states that there is transmutation to copper, a “nuclear reaction.” Rossi also submitted two scientific papers for each patent application that clearly state there is “nuclear reactions” in the e-Cat.

>> All of the following scientific papers also claiming the e-Cat involved nuclear fusion, are now clearly bogus because they were based on information supplied by Rossi in the past.

>> “Nuclear signatures to be expected from Rossi energy amplifier”
>> by Jacques Dufour

>> “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”
>> Sergio Focardi – Physic Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section (ITALY)
>> Andrea Rossi – Leonardo Corp. (USA) – Inventor of the Patent

>> “Evaluations, ideas and proposal upon new energy sources”
>> by Prof. Christos Stremmenos

>> “Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor?”
>> by Jacques Dufour

>> “How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?”
>> by Dott. Giuliano Bettini

>> “A detailed Qualitative Approach to the Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions of H/Ni”
>> By prof. Christos Stremmenos

>> When I sent an email to Mats Lewan asking if he was going to cover the new facts being uncovered in the Andrea Rossi case, Mats told me this was not news.

>> It is clear that Mats Lewan has more than just an independent interest in Rossi.  Mats has been instrumental in actually helping Rossi perform demonstrations, even going so far as to be the person to record the data and say when a demonstration must be stopped.

>> So Mats was making news and at the same time writing about the news he was making in Ny Teknik!!

>> It is clear that Mats does not want to write any negative or bad information about his friend and business partner Andrea Rossi.

>> The most telling connection between Mats and Rossi was in the dog and pony show put on by Mats and Rossi as described in an article by Mats called:

>>  “See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode” published on September 14, 2011.

>> “At the new test, the E-cat was first run for 90 minutes assisted with a thermal electric power input of 2.6 kilowatts. The electric power was then cut off and the E-cat continued to operate for 35 minutes without external energy input.

>> The test was subsequently terminated at our request, for practical reasons and time constraints. It would otherwise have continued, and according to Rossi the electrical resistance would then have been switched in at full power for ten minutes after each time interval of 30 minutes with self-sustained operation.”

>> “The new test was performed at Ny Teknik’s initiative. One of the motives was the discussion that has been going on during the summer regarding energy calculations for the E-cat, including the issues with steam quality….

>> “As in previous tests, water was pumped into the E-cat during operation, and evaporated into steam. No measurements of steam quality were made but we found that:”

>> So even though Mats said the reason for the test was “the issue of steam quality” he also said that, “no measurements of steam quality were made.”

>> The only thing a sane person can conclude is that “steam quality” had nothing to do with this dog and pony show put on by by Mats and Rossi.

>> Steven B. Krivit, with “Patent investigation and research by Robert Clancy” in their report:
>> “Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science”
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Report5-Rossis-Profitable-Career-in-Science.shtml

>> clearly show why and how Rossi needed unthinking, “scientific challenged,” reporters that would print anything Rossi said without question. It is clear in the reporting of both Sterling and Mats they had no clue about the science and methods involved in >>testing a claim of “cold fusion” or LENR.

>> It is also now clear that what may have been true at one time, “For over 40 years, Ny Teknik has been reviewing and reporting on the latest developments in the technology industry,” is not true today.

>> I would highly recommend that the editor of Ny Teknik obtain a science reporter that is not a business partner and friend of Andrea Rossi to write about the breaking news concerning the fraud and scam being hoisted on the public by Rossi and partners.

>> Sincerely,
>> Gary Wright

The End

Posted in Uncategorized

Investigation of Andrea Rossi and his e-Cat by the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control

You must click on the March tab under Archives to read all 34 pages of this report.
This is the final report of the investigation by the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control, concerning Andrea Rossi and his non-existent e-Cat factory.

Posted in Uncategorized

BRC Rossi Report Pg 01

BRC Rossi Report Pg 01

Image | Posted on by

BRC Rossi Report Pg 02

BRC Rossi Report Pg 02

Image | Posted on by

BRC Rossi Report Pg 03

BRC Rossi Report Pg 03

Image | Posted on by