July 30, 2011
Issue #37


Previous ArticleTable of ContentsNext Article
New Energy Times home page


Rossi Response to First Version of Ekström Energy Analysis

Appendix 24 to New Energy Times Report #3

(See related Appendix 2)

[Ed: The following messages were posted on inventor Andrea Rossi's blog in response to Lund University physicist Peter Ekström's energy analysis of Rossi device. Ekström's original publication is here: http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/coldfusionkrivit.pdf ]


Source: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=12#comments

michael cox
June 28th, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Mr. Rossi,

how do you respond to this analysis made by Peter Ekström (Lund University) ?

Best Regards


Andrea Rossi
June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM
Dear Michael Cox:

The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics [physicists] that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic [physicist] I answer that I am very much impressed.

The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it, therefore:

1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way.

2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. I did say “look, no water…”, but I referred to that moment, just to take a look to the steam, I surely did not want to say that there was not condensation in the pipe: this would have been a nonsense!

3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid.

I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors”

Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie!

By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants.

…and I have a surprise…but it will come in October.

Warm regards,


Previous ArticleTable of ContentsNext Article