Follow-up to the blog text below.


Gerrit on May 28, 2013 at 9:53 am

interesting follow up on Guglielmi’s blog

>>The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the following:

“In the intervju I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detec such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”<<

So the testers are quite confident that if they have been had by Rossi, it is most likely not due a secret DC current.

Published on a Polish blog


To:     Chemia popularnonaukowa <>
Subject:     Re: Rzekomo 1 MW elektrownia rzekomo zasilana ZIMNĄ FUZJĄ!
From:     ll <>
Date:     Fri, 24 May 2013 18:14:34 +0100

Zadalem kilka pytan autorom tej publikacji w ArXiv: .
Oto odpowiedzi prof. Hanno Essena (ktore przekazuje na ChemFana za jego
wiedza i zgoda):

> 1. Why is the quantity of Ni in the charge of the internal reactor so
> small, i.e. only 0.3g?
> If it is so small why is the internal reactor so relatively large
> to the small quantity of the powder charge?
> Why is there no picture of the internal reactor, just a description?

I do not know the answers to the first questions. We had a picture of
the internal reactor in the original manuscript but it was deemed to
uninteresting. It is just a steel pipe.

> 2. If the reaction in the internal reactor is exothermal then why on the
> picture from the thermal camera we cannot see the internal reactor glowing
> hotter than the rest of the external tube?

I suppose that this is because the material is not sufficiently
transparent to the microwaves. They originate from the surface; there
is no see through.

> 3. Why was the "dummy" test carried out with different conditions
> regarding the supply of power, than the non "dummy" test?

It was not. It was carried out with everything as equal as possible.
The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.

> 4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
> also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
> could not detect?

No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket
and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can
check this in future tests.

> 5. Did the Ni powder also melt when in the test of November the
> performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed,
> melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers?
> If the Ni powder melted was the reaction still running despite the Ni
> melted or did it stop running when Ni melted?

I do not know this since only the Bologna group was there when that
happened. I take for granted that also the Ni melted and that the
reaction stopped, but the interior physics is still an industrial
secret that we do not have access to. Sorry.

> 6. Are you going to perform the 6 months test in the Leonardo Corp.
> facilities or in the facilities of the universities in Sweden or Italy?
> Would Andrea Rossi agree to lend you the device and its power supply for 6
> months?
> I believe the he could ensure his industrial trade secrets are secured
> when he would seal the power supply and weld the internal reactor or make
> you sign NDA, and then he could release that device for you for testing. I
> hope that you manage to convince him about that. This would ensure
> independency of the long term test.

Andrea will not part from his device. Tests in Sweden is a possibility
but then he or his coworkers would be present. There are many who wish
to steal his e-cats. So the 6 month test will be in Ferrara. It will
however be continuously monitored by cameras so as not to be

> 7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
> the next test?

This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.
It is desirable, I agree; everything can always be done better, but we
have very limited time and resources unfortunately.

> Woudn't you think that it would be a good idea to install in the room
> where experiment would be carried out a webcam with a live feed to
> internet available 24/7, so that everyone on internet could observe the 6
> months experiment live through internet?

I do think that the plan is precisely that.

Hanno Essén
KTH Mekanik