– June 6, 2013 –
Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
369-B Third Street, #556
San Rafael, CA USA 94901
To Drs. Giuseppe Levi (University of Bologna), Evelyn Foschi (INFN),
Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér (Uppsala
University), Hanno Essén (Royal Institute of Technology)
Dear Drs. Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Pettersson, Tegnér and Essén,
This is an open letter about your preprint submission to arXiv on May 16, “ Indication of Anomalous Heat Energy Production in a Reactor Device [arxiv.org].”
In your preprint, you claimed that you made an independent test of
Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat device and that, according to your test, his device
produced energy that was an order of magnitude greater than
conventional energy sources.
This letter is prompted by my concerns about your preprint, the
validity of the device’s thermal output that you claimed to confirm, and
the integrity of the inventor whom you have endorsed.
In June 2011, I traveled to Bologna, Italy, to meet Rossi in person
and to observe his device. He offered to demonstrate it to me while it
was running and allowed me to videotape. In the opinion of skilled
engineers who later viewed the videotape, the steam output appeared to
be equivalent to a 1,000 Watt electric tea kettle. Rossi, however,
claimed it was producing 5,000 Watts of heat. In fact, his results were
consistent with the 770 Watts of electrical power that he was putting
into the system. (Please see “ The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video [newenergytimes.com].”)
Despite the obvious problems with Rossi’s public claims of
extraordinary output of excess heat from his E-Cats, I am convinced that
LENRs are real nuclear phenomena.
Statements in the Preprint
1. “[We] carried out … an experimental investigation” (page 1, paragraph 1).
This gives the clear impression that you constructed, set up, operated
and performed a scientific experiment. However, you only performed
thermal measurements on someone else’s (Rossi) device, which you failed
to clearly disclose.
2. “[We made an] independent test of the E-Cat HT reactor
under controlled conditions” (page 1, paragraph 6) and “independently
test[ed] the apparatus” (page 29, paragraph 2).
This implies that you performed your own experiment, with at least some
degree of independence from the originator (Rossi), and you did so under
conditions that you controlled. However, you did not conduct your own
experiment, and you did not have complete control over the E-Cat device
or the environment in which you performed the critical thermal
measurements.
3. “The E-Cat HT … is the latest product manufactured by [Rossi's] Leonardo Corp.” (page 1, paragraph 4).
There is no evidence that Rossi has produced any commercial products or
even has manufacturing facilities. A year ago, Rossi claimed that he was
delivering two 1MW E-Cat thermal systems to “customers”; there is no
evidence to support this assertion.
4. “Both experiments were performed on the premises of EFA Srl” (page 2, paragraph 2).
However, in the preprint you did not identify clearly this location as Rossi’s premises.
Rossi’s E-Cat Device
1. Rossi and his associate Sergio Focardi have never
published a peer-reviewed journal paper that substantiates their
excess-heat claims.
2. Neither Rossi nor Focardi has attempted to give a conference paper on their mutual work.
3. No Rossi device has ever been replicated by anyone.
4. No Rossi device has ever produced substantial amounts of excess heat outside of Rossi’s control or premises.
Rossi’s History of Unsupported Claims and Faulty Devices
Between 1970 and 1990, Rossi tried to turn industrial waste into
fuel. The project was called Petrol Dragon. He produced only toxic waste
and caused environmental damage to the land and groundwater in the
Milan, Italy, area that required cleanup at great expense to taxpayers.
Please note our index of Rossi’s criminal history. (See New Energy Times Rossi’s Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History.) [newenergytimes.com]
On that Web page, we provide links to 105 news articles from Italian
local and national media sources. For each of these news reports, we
have translated the headlines, which are illuminating in themselves. For
four of the most important news articles, we have performed a full
English translation.
After Rossi persuaded technicians, scientists and important
institutions to go along with his failed plan to turn toxic waste into
oil, he abandoned his environmental disaster and became a fugitive [newenergytimes.com] in the U.S. Once there, he began another technology project, this time with thermoelectric devices. (See New Energy Times Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science. [newenergytimes.com])
In his thermoelectric venture, Rossi obtained a contract from the
U.S. Army to produce devices that Rossi claimed would provide
breakthrough levels of efficiency. The grant and award of funds from the
U.S. Army were based on Rossi’s “tests” allegedly performed at the
University of New Hampshire. Strangely, the breakthrough results,
allegedly observed at the university, could never be repeated. Rossi got
the money from the Army, but according to the Army report [newenergytimes.com], not one of the devices Rossi had agreed to deliver under contract worked. [newenergytimes.com]
As you see from this historical record, a consistent pattern of behavior emerges.
Issues
In your preprint, you have effectively endorsed a claim by Rossi that
has not been peer-reviewed, presented to the scientific community,
replicated, or tested successfully outside of Rossi’s premises.
In doing so, you have lent your and your institutions’ scientific
reputations and credibility to a man convicted of fraud in one failed
energy venture in Italy and involved in another possible fraudulent
venture in the U.S.
Consequently, your preprint does not reflect well on you or your institutions.
Steven B. Krivit | 
