Steven B Krivit,of New Energy Times recently visited Bologna to interview the team working to commercialize the energy catalyzer - Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi and Giuseppe Levi. The sun may have been shining and the Italian coffee flowing, but in the end the Colosseum may have been
a more apt venue.
All Steamed Up
Krivit conducted interviews with Andrea Rossi's team and has obtained video footage of the e-cat in operation which he plans to publish in the coming days / weeks. His initial
blog post describing the premises and facility where he met with Andrea Rossi and of his interactions with the team seemed to have quite a negative tone throughout.
Krivit's initial assessment describes how he took issue with the way in which the water content of the steam was measured; According to Krivit, this would potentially have a bearing on the final power output figures. Krivit has suggested that Prof Giuseppe Levi (Prof Emiratus At Bologna University) and by implication Dr Galantini, an expert in his field of chemistry did not measure the steam properly. Roughly equivalent to telling Usain Bolt that his sprinting is crap.
Since that first critical summary blog post it has all went downhill between the two camps.
I asked Rossi to comment on Krivit's point and got the following response.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Can you respond to the recent assertions by Steven B Krivit that the method in which the steam may have been measured previously is potentially giving incorrect measurements of the power capability of the e-cat.
Krivit says in his blog post,
“I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.”
I am hoping you can assure us that his concerns are invalid.
Best regards,
Craig
*************
Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2011 at 4:38 AM
Dear Craig:
Mr Krivit has understood nothing of what he saw, from what I have read in his ridiculous report… This guy has seen for half an hour an E-Cat in the factory where we make many tests, made some questions to Prof. Levi, Prof. Focardi and me.
Evidently has understood nothing, perhaps for the short time we gave him, also because we have to work: maybe he is angry because we had to send him away from the closed boxes and because we had to say him good bye shortly because we have to make our work. Prof. Levi has explained very well to him how the measures have been made and the importance of the issue. He has explained very well that the percentage of uncondensed water in the steam has been measured in weight (in volume is impossible, for various reasons), and he also got confirmation of this from a specialist from whom he has taken indipendent counsel. Nevertheless, he has understood nothing, or wanted not to understand, for reasons he better knows.
Our tests have been performed by Physics Professors, who know how to make measures , and I am measuring the performance every day on 300 reactors.
In any case we will start our 1 MW plant in october and we will see how it works. Of course I assure his considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: our products on the market will confirm this. Probably this journalist has been sent by someone that wants to dwarf our work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Levi also responded to Krivit's post:
Dear, Mr. Krivit
As the signature in my email says I got a PhD in Physics years ago. This means that I have totally understood the difference between residual water in steam as fraction of mass or volume. As I have unsuccessfully tried to explain you :
1) The plots you were showing are well known and you can find them in any manual of physical chemistry. They apply when you measure the quantity of steam present as % of VOLUME.
2) As I have told you many times, Dr. Galantini, the expert chemist that was in charge, has done a measure as percent of MASS. As Professor Zanchini has told you the same day we met, one of the crucial informations you have omitted from your preliminary report, a fraction of water in the steam, measured by MASS as we have done, would reduce the amount of measured energy in a linear way. So our calculation and our analysis is correct.
Because you:
Omitted part of information you had, insulted me (and my University) trying to say that I'm not prepared in my field, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send you any other information.
Regards,
Dr. G.Levi
Competing Theories
For the rest of us, the main problem seems to be trying to understand the nature of the disagreement. One cannot help wonder despite a generally good level of understanding, whether something was "lost in translation" due to a very small, but nevertheless important language barrier between the two parties.
It is also well-known that Rossi does not subscribe to the Widom-Larsen theory of LENR. He has let it be known that his own theory of what is happening within his energy catalyzer is something else entirely and he is holding off from explaining his pet theory until November - presumably because it gives an unambiguous clue to what the secret catalyst might be.
Meanwhile, Krivit on the other hand is known to advocate the Widom-Larsen theory and has co-authored a book supporting this explanation entitled "Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENR.
Could there be an underlying friction because they both hold competing theories?
So, was something lost in traslation, was it two competing theories causing friction, or did Rossi want to get on with his work and had little time for a journalist in his already crazy schedule?
Whatever it was it's unfortunate that these things cannot be resolved amicably and not played out for an audience like a soap opera. I have a feeling the "steam issue" will rumble on for a bit yet, but hopefully not boil over.
