⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
New Energy Times home page
Storms Suggests That Rossi Faked It - But Only Once
Appendix 32 to New Energy Times Report #3
By Steven B. Krivit
As low-energy nuclear reactions researchers began to watch the video I filmed of inventor Andrea Rossi's June 14, 2011, experiment in Bologna, and they began to realize the observable inconsistencies with Rossi's claims, Edmund Storms, a longtime LENR research, suggested, on the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science e-mail list, that Rossi had intentionally deceived me and, therefore, the public.
Storms is the author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, published by World Scientific, and an editor who handles LENR papers for the German journal Naturwissenschaften.
Storms explained on the CMNS e-mail list why the observations visible in my video were inconsistent with Rossi's claims by suggesting that Rossi gave me incorrect information about the amount of energy Rossi was claiming from that experiment.
"I suspect part of the confusion is that the E-Cat was not making any excess energy when it was demonstrated to Krivit," Storms wrote, "but was operating properly for Levi."
Mitch Randall, an inventor, physicist and electrical engineer with 25 years of experience in high technology and 12 issued patents under his belt, pointed out to Storms that I also filmed Rossi making the calculations and that Rossi explicitly made the claim of excess heat based on steam vaporization to me, on camera. Storms replied that Rossi intentionally made claims of excess heat to me despite the fact that, according to Storms, Rossi knew the facts were otherwise.
"I know what Rossi said," Storms wrote. "This was probably his intention and expectation. This does not mean that this was the case at that time."
Randall had trouble understanding Storms.
"I don't understand how you came to speculate that the reactor in the Krivit video perhaps wasn't generating excess heat but, for the Levi demonstration, the reactor was producing excess heat. Can you describe what evidence was there/not there for the Levi demonstration that was there/not there during the Krivit video?" Randall wrote.
"The amount of steam is the evidence," Storms wrote. "As various people have noted, too little steam was present during the Krivit video to be consistent with 2.5 kW. Levi observed steam being produced at the E-Cat and was able to show that only a little or no water was present. This observation is consistent with the claimed energy.
"I look at what actually occurred, not what Rossi claimed. Rossi probably set up the demonstration for Krivit in haste and did not check to see if the expected energy was actually made. He would not know if the system was working correctly unless he removed the hose from the e-Cat to see if only steam was produced. Krivit was not important enough to warrant this trouble."
"The demonstrations, from what I know," Randall wrote, "all seem to follow the same protocol and with the same instrumentation. So if there is reason to believe one demonstration produced excess heat, and if you claim that it is conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would similar data from another demonstration allow you room for doubt?"
"Why accept what Rossi said to Krivit when he obviously did not check to see if the system was working as expected?" Storms wrote. "Put yourself in Rossi's shoes. You are working day and night trying to satisfy the investors, then this guy shows up who seems to know nothing. You promised a demonstration, so you rent a room in the tire factory for a few hours and assemble several E-Cats. One of the problems you have always had is the occasional difficulty in getting the system to turn on. This is expected and was the reason the first demonstration in [January] was delayed while the visitors waited in the next room. This time [June], going to such trouble is not necessary. So you faked it. Anyway, this is my interpretation."
Dennis Cravens, another longtime CMNS research and professor of chemistry and physics at Eastern New Mexico University at Ruidoso, was not willing to go along with Storm's rationale.
"I agree with Mitch,” Cravens wrote. “Why say one demo is different or more believable than the other? If you suggest that Rossi faked one, then it would lead to lack of trust in his other events. I think the bottom line is there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion, and I would not want to judge if Rossi is faking them.
"I would never want someone to believe my results if I could not reproduce at will. There does not seem to be a single Rossi demo where the [initiation energy], input flow, output flow, input power, and output power were ALL measured at the same time, much less from first principles and with controls.
"Reproducibility is and continues to be the goal of the field. If you state Rossi does not have that and resorts to faking some demos, then what remains? Most of us can get sporadic heat (and even very large boil-off levels) occasionally. However, I know of no one here that would fake a second demo just because they believe their results from their own first demo.
"I say that, but I anxiously await the Big October Demo. I hope they demonstrate with all inputs and outputs, instrumented at the same time, on all those many units. I am especially interested in how they will measure the output at the 1 MW range while measuring the approximately 150kW input. It is a formidable task."
William Collis, the executive secretary of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, responded to Storms.
"I think any demonstrator of a new technology needs to be scrupulously honest," Collis wrote. "If there are start-up or reproducibility problems, he should say so. This community, like every scientific community, should not tolerate deliberate exaggeration or lying. There is absolutely no place for false claims or for deliberately misdirecting the public. Once we start turning a blind eye to inappropriate behavior, we open the door to every get-rich-quick criminal on the planet. Haven't we seen enough of these scams? Let's keep our scientific and ethical standards high but without moralizing about it."
Storms responded to Collis.
"The scientific community is irrelevant," Storms wrote. "This has moved beyond science. We have absolutely no influence over what Rossi does. He will succeed or fail on his own. If he succeeds, he will say what is science and what is not in the cold fusion field. He will set up conferences and run the show. We will have to work with him in the future so I suggest we all give him the benefit of doubt until we know more."
Brief Biography of Steven B. Krivit
Steven B. Krivit has performed investigative science journalism in the low-energy nuclear reactions research field for 10 years. He is the senior editor and publisher of New Energy Times. He also has published with John Wiley & Sons and Elsevier, among others.
⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒