⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
New Energy Times home page
Reinberger Electrical Analysis of Rossi Experiment
Appendix 15 to New Energy Times Report #3
By Anthony Reinberger
June 22, 2011
I am an electrical engineer in Ottawa, Canada, and I've been following the Andrea Rossi story for some time. I am hopeful of its success. We need it or something like it to clean up the mess that's been made of the environment, not to mention any possibility for prosperity.
I posted my support, congratulations and thanks to inventor Rossi on his site, but my encouragement and optimism do not make me a devout believer. Established science is also no proof that Rossi's device cannot work, because discoveries are made all the time. For this reason, I can't criticize Rossi if I don't have proof of research misconduct. I continue to read and ask questions and hope to get more answers, because this is potentially a big deal. I can't believe that only a handful of people seem to be interested in it.
My confidence was higher in March and April and then dropped to about 50% after Mats Lewan made his observations. Time simply gives me more opportunities to find faults in any reports, but I also can't believe that Rossi would intentionally mislead his investors and the public. He would certainly not receive a dime (or Euro) and would likely go to jail if his device turned out to be a scam. So without knowing anyone involved in this affair personally (including New Energy Times Editor Steven B. Krivit), I must sit on the fence and wait for more news.
Knowing that Krivit is working on his next report, I would like him to consider some things in his investigations and reports. I hope we don't have to wait until October (Rossi's promised delivery date) to make sense of and learn the answers to the following questions and comments.
Proving to the layperson that Rossi's device works would have been very easy. As someone posted somewhere, "Let's see him heat up a hot tub with it." I must add that a controlled experiment is easy to do because you just have to put the same electrical power into an identical volume of water without one of Rossi's devices and see whether they heat up at different rates. A 2x, 3x, 4x or 6x rate increase with a small device would have convinced just about anyone. His failure to do such a simple controlled test contributes to one of my biggest doubts about his claims.
I am also disappointed that no complete data logging of the input power was ever performed (at least it was not published, as far as I know). A watt meter with a serial or General Purpose Interface Bus interface is easy to connect to a computer, just like the thermocouples. I mention this because several people have highlighted that the input power was not continuously monitored during all the demonstrations. All we know is that the voltage was monitored during the Dec. 16, 2010, and the Jan. 14, 2011, experiments.
Connecting meters to separately measure the AC voltage and AC current does not take into account the power factor or possible current distortion. Rossi would get better results if the power factor was <1 and he corrected for that. The possibility of behind-the-wall trickery worries me because of the possible use of high-frequency AC, using a ground current or even high-voltage DC. This is why I would like to have seen a true watt meter used, with the ability to measure from DC to high-frequency AC. Were any demonstrations done in locations where tampering with the AC feed (wall power) was not possible? Rossi’s own premises certainly do not qualify. A Ground Fault Interrupter would also verify that no ground current tricks were used.
I never found out whether his big blue control box was standard equipment and, if so, which company manufactured it and whether it was a custom controller. If custom, who designed and built it if Rossi is not the "electrical" guy.
Two other mysteries persist for me, as well: the failure to see any mainstream news reports in North America and the apparent non-action by major governments (they've got money) after such a monumental discovery if it is true. This just adds to the confusion of what the hell is going on and how this story is developing. Will it ever make sense?
June 23, 2011
As a follow-up, I posted my questions on Rossi's blog. Below are my questions and his answers.
Reinberger: Is there any reason that the demonstrations were not with a closed-water system, such as a relatively large volume of water — say a hut tub — heated from room temperature with the device? A controlled experiment could have used an identical volume of water heated with the same electrical input power but without your device. The difference in the rate of change in temperature between the two setups would easily convince anyone of the 6x or more energy output of your device.
Rossi: The protocol used since now has found confirmation in the actual utilization of the reactors we are already making. Anyway, we will make a test similar to the one you proposed.
Reinberger: When the input AC voltage and AC current were measured with simple meters, how do you know that the power factor equaled one? If the power factor was less than one or there was distortion in the current, then you may get better results if you compensated for this.
Rossi: We used Watt meters in series and got the same value. As for the energy production, please see the reports.
Reinberger: Have you ever consider using a Watt meter with a serial/USB interface so that you could log the true input power along with the thermocouple measurements? Using a Ground Fault Interrupter with a DC/AC watt meter would prove that there was no current in the ground wire and that there was no DC current in the lines and no high frequency AC power delivered to your setup from the wall plug. Perhaps no future demos are planned, but a watt meter would satisfy many critics of your input power measurement. Perhaps you have such data that you gave to your investors that you could now share with us?
Rossi: We will consider.
Reinberger: Is the blue control box that you use standard lab equipment, or is it something that was custom-designed for you?
Rossi: Standard lab equipment.
Although Rossi didn't provide any details (as usual), his responses are what I could expect as honest answers. If there are future demonstrations, then I'll be curious to see whether any of the suggestions are used.
June 28, 2011
I just read Krivit's latest report on Rossi's device (Report #2). I have been hopeful and continue to be hopeful that Rossi got lucky in his discovery. I am hoping that the parts to this saga that don't make sense are a result of a different language or paranoia over such a discovery. Many aspects of the scientific method that many high school students learn have not been applied in this case. The very first demonstration in January could have been presented in such a way that there would be absolutely no doubts about the claims while still not revealing any of the "secrets."
The fact that doubts (by the public) remain five to six months later is discouraging, but I have hope. All answers will hopefully be known in October, but in Krivit's upcoming reports, I hope he can unravel the mystery. Hopefully, there won't be a fire in Rossi's building come late September like there was years ago just before Rossi was supposed to deliver his breakthrough thermoelectric devices to the U.S. Army.
I give little consideration to Rossi's history with the waste-into-oil saga. His history with the thermoelectric device, however, has got to be the most significant and relevant information that I have come across. I fear a repeat situation. Once I heard about Rossi's history with the thermoelectric device several months ago, I almost lost all hope, but then I started to convince myself that maybe he got lucky with his nickel-hydrogen device.
There is no possibility in my mind that he could be fooling himself that the device works when it doesn't or that he is thinking to himself that it will work once he scales it bigger to 1MW. He must know the truth because so many people have contributed a variety of methods to verify his results. He would have no defense or excuse to hide behind if his device is shown not to work.
Here are some of my concerns and comments. I have many more, but, based on Krivit's latest report, they may seem obvious.
- Rossi cannot expect to get away with anything if his claim is invalid or a total failure.
- The scientists and the universities that let their names be associated and published have the most to lose. Why are they so quiet? Could they have insider knowledge and are lying low to take better advantage of the success when it comes?
- I was encouraged by the reporting of the Rossi discovery, and I considered how my career may change in an effort to engineer the future for the better
- My biggest complaint if this fails is the impact it could have on science and the people working in this field. Perhaps the lack of news is one way of minimizing the damage if (when) it comes. If Rossi creates such damage, for this I think he should be punished the most, not because a few investors lost some money.
Brief Biography of Anthony Reinberger (Ottawa)
Anthony Reinberger obtained his diploma in engineering and a bachelor’s degree from St. Mary's University in Nova Scotia and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Technical University of Nova Scotia. He works as an electrical engineer.
⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒