I run Macrotrends, a financial newsletter that's doing quite well here in Belgium and the Netherlands, and I am always curious about the next big thing.
I discovered the story about Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalzyer about a year ago, and I thought this might just be the thing for the energy sector. I wrote a small article about it in August 2011, and I promised to give an update after the E-Cat tests that were to be announced in late October 2011. The tests weren't convincing so I waited, all the while following the information published on ecatnews.com and some other sources.
Then, finally, last month I decided to do a follow-up because there seemed to have been some important developments: claims of the involvement of NASA, SIEMENS, National Instruments, production of the units, the Defkalion story, etc. It all made me very excited about the E-Cat.
After making preparations for an article about Rossi's apparatus for a day and a half, I decided to look for some skeptical voices to try and cross-check my story and make it more balanced. That is how I found the New Energy Times Web site. Your writing style struck me as very reasonable yet critical, and the thoroughness of your arguments and the level of documentation entirely swayed my position.
It hurt, because I had to let go of a dream I'd fallen in love with. I had to admit that I had not found the extraordinary evidence that is required to back up the extraordinary claims put forward by Rossi and his team. Quite the contrary: There are many things I’ve discovered that seem to suggest the E-Cat is, in reality, a fraudulent scheme.
Here are the things that convinced me personally that the E-Cat is a dud:
1. The unsatisfying and suspicious tests of the apparatus:
- During the test performed in your presence, the amount of steam generated seems to be very weak, entirely not in line with the 5,000 Watts claimed by Rossi.
- Rossi's refusal to do non-boiling tests, which can be measured more accurately.
- The fact that, during one of the tests, the observers were allowed to see the machine working for only minutes at a time.
- During the April 28, 2011, demonstration for journalist Mats Lewan, Rossi seems to be fiddling with the power input controls, as seen when Lewan comes back from checking the steam output.
2. The non-existent E-Cat factory.
3. The fact that Rossi, through middlemen, is asking for substantial amounts of money.
4. The large number of obviously shallow Web sites to promote the E-Cat. What genuine inventor would need to do this if it were a real technology? These Web sites are populated by many anonymous commenters, who, in my experience, occupy themselves with baselessly slandering any critical voice.
5. Rossi's reaction to all published critique, his efforts to rebut and deny unfavorable facts right away, instead of letting the tests speak for themselves. Rossi's very aggressive reaction to the $1 million challenge. Rossi’s calling you “the snake” and using ad hominems. In my experience, the honest person welcomes challenges and tests, whereas the crook exposes himself when he becomes angry if confronted with questions that potentially reveal his scam. Rossi is possibly doing the latter.
6. The outrageously low prices for the machine and the fact that Rossi wants to produce them immediately in the millions for worldwide delivery seem void of business reality.
8. All the mystery involved: mystery clients, mystery witnesses, etc.
After discovering all this, I am still open for proof to the contrary but have become highly skeptical about Rossi’s E-Cat project and will no longer put any research effort into it until I read credible reviews of satisfied customers who have bought a working E-Cat.
I’d like to thank you for your hard work on the topic, as it prevented me and my subscribers from possibly investing in a scam, money that is now safe for future investment in a real technology that can help create new energy solutions. Despite the probable scam that is now going on with the E-Cat, I still think low-energy nuclear reactions are an important and promising field of research, and I will remain most interested in the innovations it has to offer.
Tuur Demeester (Personal Web site)
Note : The original intent of this letter was a private thank you note for Mr. Krivit’s work on the topic, but he convinced me that its publication could help prevent investors from losing a lot of money - hence my approval for publication.