Jun 092014


Andrea Rossi – E-Cat – Academic ‘Victim’ or Part of the Con? With Interview by Stephan Pomp

All of those who believe in Andrea Rossi, all of those who think Rossi is some kind of savior who will “save the world,” all of those who are disciples of Rossi, say the same thing — everyone should be looking forward — looking to the next bit of news or the results of the next test or demo. We say that is pure PROPAGANDA. THAT is exactly what keeps these types of scams alive. THAT is exactly what the scammers, like Rossi, want you to think and believe, instead of thinking for yourself. All those who only look forward in these types of scams will only see more false hope, more lies and falsehoods, more money going into the scammers’ pockets. What everyone should be doing is looking backward — to find out how the world of free energy and cold fusion/LENR arrived at the sad state of affairs it is currently in at this time.

Very shortly, Hanno Essén, et.al., and Rossi claim, the report about a six-month long hot-cat test is soon to be published. We will just have to wait and see how far they want to stick their necks out. Moreover, since Andrea Rossi is a well-known and confirmed liar, teller of tall tales, convicted criminal, and con artist, buyer beware.

A brief message to the authors of any future report on any test of any e-cat by the crook Andrea Rossi:

  • If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos, and in the paper there are claims lacking in provability by others, i.e. (requires the reader to “trust” the authors), your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.
  • If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos, and in the paper there are outrageous claims of free energy, and the testing procedure did not eliminate all of the possible ways the demo or test might have been falsified, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.
  • If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos and claim the e-cat is, or even the possibility of the e-cat being, a cold fusion/LENR device, and you do not prove in your paper that some type of cold fusion/LENR did in fact take place, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.
  • If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos and a truly independent third party cannot perform their own test to verify the claims in your report, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.

The Target

Anyone can become a victim of a professional con man, like Rossi. You can, we can, anyone can, especially if a particular person is targeted. In that case months or years of research is done by the con man well in advance of the con. He knows everything there is to know about the “mark.” He knows just what to say in every instance that might come up. He is well prepared. EVERYONE has their beliefs, likes and dislikes, and their weaknesses, all of which can be used by a con man and you will never even see it coming. Con men become masters of their craft if they want to make lots of money.

Some people are naturally gifted, for instance some can, without effort it seems or training, sing along with the best professionals. The same with science and math, in school some can breeze right through these courses and never take a book home, others struggle to get a middle grade.

Some con men have a natural ability to get people to do what they want, they are very well liked. With other con men it takes years of training. Psychology, philosophy, magic, and advertizing are some of the fields studied in great depth by the con men. The power of suggestion and misdirection are two of the most powerful tools they use. Everyone is susceptible because the human body and mind have certain traits and automatic responses to stimuli. Study body language and how to tell if someone is lying, and you will start to see what we mean. Many studies in this field are classified, and used by black-op programs. Study behavioral ecology, and the follow-on programs AFTER Dr José Rodriguez Delgado, and his studies of the clinical use of “Intracerebral Radio Stimulation” on human beings, etc.

We should never look down on anyone who is a victim of a con man, as the saying goes, “but for the grace of God,” it could be you. But is it true that every person who is conned is always and forever a victim? Can a victim become a co-conspirator? One of the best videos, we have seen touching on this subject, just published, we will embed here, it is called – “The Honest Liar – Bernie Madoff Worked Hard for the Money.” Now that was a $65 Billion con, makes Rossi look like an amateur.


In Jail

Mats Lewan likes to tell the story in his new book about how Rossi spent the last years of the time he spent in jail studying physics and chemistry ultimately coming up with his e-cat. Lewan says:

CHAPTER 6 – In Jail
“The focus on the problem [with cold fusion] I had
during that time, I wouldn’t ever have had in my
life. I studied like crazy. From that standpoint it
was providential, a golden age, for I made
tremendous progress there. Because I had nothing
to do. …
“I do not know if someone will eventually manage
to achieve something with electrolysis, but in any
case Fleischmann and Pons definitely did
something significant. They gave us a dream. …
“I am convinced of Fleischmann and Pons’ good
faith. The problem? They failed to provide a way
to repeat the experiment reliably. …”

We find it especially heinous that Lewan romanticizes Rossi’s jail time. Rossi was in jail after having received a sentence of eight years in prison handed down for “aggravated fraudulent bankruptcy.” The bankruptcy resulted from the shutting down of Rossi’s fraud and scam the Petrol Dragon / Omar project, where Rossi left over seven large deposits of toxic and hazardous waste, costing the Italian citizens so far over $60 million Euros in cleanup costs, with more cleanup still ongoing. But the eight year prison sentence handed down in 2000, was not for environmental crimes. To this day Rossi has never won any absolution from that sentence.

All of the above statements from Lewan’s book are quotes from Rossi. It is ironic that Rossi says the only thing F & P did was “gave us a dream,” and that is what every disciple and follower of Rossi says Rossi has done. Rossi’s followers say cold fusion was dead but Rossi breathed new life into it, and gave them a dream that commercial cold fusion was real. But we find just like F & P, Rossi has failed to provide a commercial device. Another ironic statement is the comment by Rossi that “They failed to provide a way to repeat the experiment reliably,” and Rossi it seems has followed in their footsteps again, Rossi is always changing his experiments so he will keep from getting caught.

We believe that Rossi was so angry at the world, that as he sat in jail he concocted the details for his current scheme, the fraud and scam, the e-cat. Rossi was not figuring out HOW to do cold fusion, he was figuring out a way to make money from a jury-rigged demo. Rossi had a long time to work out the details about how he was going to pull it off.

The First Victims and Co-Conspirators

There is even controversy concerning Rossi’s first try at a victim in the e-cat scam.

In Lewan’s book he says:
“Since I was in Bondeno, not far from
Bologna, it was natural to turn to Bologna. It was
the nearest faculty, so I called Bertin.
“I explained that I needed to consult him, …”

Lewan and Rossi are speaking here of Professor Antonio Bertin at the University of Bologna. Lewan and Rossi go on to say that it was Professor Antonio Bertin who introduced Rossi to Focardi.

But this contradicts Peter Gluck, and what Krivit writes, they say it was not Professor Antonio Bertin who was the path to Sergio Focardi it was Francesco Piantelli. No matter the path all agree that Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi started to work together sometime in 2007/2008.

We believe that in the beginning Focardi was duped and was a victim of the con man Rossi. But did it stay that way? Did Focardi at sometime realize all this must have been unrealistic and something was wrong? We will never know the details to that question, and now is not the time to talk ill of the dead.

All we will say is that later after working with Rossi for awhile, Focardi did make some very strange statements. Focardi said over and over that he did not know what was in the e-cat other than Nickel and Hydrogen. So why than did Focardi say –
“Ho realizzato la fusione fredda” Annuncio choc del fisico Focardi

Google translate:
“I have achieved cold fusion”
Ad shock of physical Focardi

For scholars is a chimera. On Friday, the evidence before the experts. The experiment bolognese does not convince the most authoritative magazines in the sector

Bologna, January 13, 2011 – IS A CHIMERA of science for decades. A dream called cold nuclear fusion. The team of physicists at the University of Bologna, led by Professor Sergio Focardi, announced to have discovered the secret and made an appointment tomorrow to a small group of researchers and journalists to watch the live demonstration. In contrast to fission, which ‘breaks’ an atom with consequent release of energy, nuclear fusion is the joining of two atomic nuclei that produces a third, new element with the same issue of enormous amounts of energy. It is the reaction that takes lit the stars, the same one that makes the sun shine, where the temperature conditions are so extreme as to allow a merger between atoms. How then is it possible to reproduce on Earth?

… An interesting bet for Focardi that, with your partner and inventor of the reactor, the engineer Andrea Rossi, has put pen to paper the method patent pending worldwide. A bet, because, for now, the team has not yet filed with the papers in front of the community of colleagues: the article written, after being rejected by accredited scientific journals, was self-published in Journal of nuclear physics , an online magazine founded by the same authors and the scientific committee which looks like the same first name Focardi. But an interesting bet, because if the experiment could be reproduced and shows that the control system of peer review, ‘peer review’, which applies in the world according to standard criteria opinions and the suitability of what is produced by the scientific community, garantista is yes but too rigid: as a spam filter but also rejects the important e-mails.

“From the experiment we obtained copper – Focardi said – and we believe that its appearance is due to the fusion of atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen, just the ‘ingredients’ that feed our reactor.” Since hydrogen and nickel ‘weigh’ with less of copper must have released a lot of energy, since “nothing is created and destroyed.” In fact, “The missing mass – Focardi explains – has turned into energy and we have measured is in the order of a few kilowatts, two hundred times greater than the energy that was there at the beginning of the reaction.”

The mechanism is still a mystery of alchemy: “We cannot explain how we can trigger cold fusion but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses we have experimental evidence but not the theoretical ones.” If the equipment Focardi-Rossi is a magician’s hat or a cold nuclear fusion reactor cannot be established without the theory. This is why magazines have the item returned to the sender.

Tomorrow the factory GM System, in Electrician (Roveri industrial zone), it will replicate the experiment in front of witnesses accredited. The expected energy from the reactor is equal to that which would satisfy the needs of a pair of flats. They will also be measured radiation emitted by the apparatus as confirmation of the origin nuclear energy produced.


Focardi continued making these and similar claims all through 2011, watch Focardi’s TED talk in October 2011, and read the paper Focardi signed and was the co-author for in 2010. Focardi was claiming he was an active participate in the design and testing of these reactors. Focardi was also well aware of all of the critics and the problems in the demos and the testing. That does not sound like an innocent victim to us.

Focardi brought in Giuseppe Levi, who falsified material in his reports to justify his support of Rossi and the e-cat. So Levi cannot be an innocent bystander either.

After Mats Lewan starting writing heavily about Rossi and the e-cat in 2011 and brought in the Swedes, the whole landscape changed. The most important part the Swedes have played so far is their report on a test of the so-called ‘hot-cat” published in 2013. A rebuttal was published by Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp.

All of this has resulted in much discussion about the role scientists should play in testing people’s commercial devices. Also it has resulted in many discussions about whether governments should be funding devices from Rossi based on his past history.

Recently a three part Swedish radio program was broadcast criticizing the Swedes for their involvement in the Rossi affair. As all know who are following this story the Swedes are claiming to have a new report coming out soon on another test of an e-cat device. Stephan Pomp then made some interesting comments on his blog which prompted the following short interview.

The questions are based on comments Stephan Pomp made on his blog here:

Google Translate for the same post.

A Short Interview with Stephan Pomp

The questions and comments are by Gary Wright.
The answers in red are by Stephan Pomp,
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden


Q: When a person is working for, teaches at, or is affiliated with, a school or university, and they are asked to evaluate something, NOT as an official part of their duties, and NOT officially sanctioned by their employer, how should they put their name and association in their report?
I refer to these examples:
The original 2010 Focardi and Rossi report, Focardi: At the time Focardi was retired.
A new energy source from nuclear fusion
S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi
(1)Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section

Notice the use of the official logo in this first paper by Levi.


then there was this report:


A: The question is if it is considered part of the work or not. Usually, at a university there is a lot of freedom to do work that may be considered as part of the usual work.


Q: Would the same rules apply to an answer? For instance in your response:
Comments on the report ”Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.” by G.Levi, E.Foschi, T.Hartman, B.Höistad, R.Pettersson, L.Tegnér, H.Essén.
Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp
Division of applied nuclear physics, Uppsala University, Sweden

A: Same as above. Concerning Görans and my “Comment”: it is part of our duties to follow the research field in general. As such it is also part of university teachers and professors to “defend science” and even outreach activities, e.g. giving talks at schools etc. Hence it is quite alright to sign with affiliation.


Q: Sometimes I think in all of the situations above, (i.e. when NOT submitting to a journal), a statement should be included clarifying if the associations given and the paper are official or given to show the qualifications only, what do you think?

There are many people who think that just because a person shows where they work, in a report, that the report is coming from that institution. I am speaking here of reports for commercial and marketing purposes, such as all of the tests and demos for Rossi and Defkalion.

A: I’d say it is a misunderstanding on the perception. If someone works at e.g. Uppsala University and publishes a paper or takes part in public discussion, writes an op-ed for a newspaper etc, it is not an “official” statement made by the university. I guess this is quite different if one works for a company. So it is in every researcher’s own responsibility to engage or not engage in certain research. What the university should ensure though is that good “scientific practice” is followed. What that means exactly is sometimes hard to define and part of the current discussion.


Q: You said: “The problem is that Rossi remains in full control. He controls how much the people involved are told, modify the conditions of scheduled tests, etc..”
Exactly what test or demo were you referring to and how do you know this?

A: That would be a long list. But telling is e.g. the SP tests which were not ok with Rossi and he does not allow real independent tests. Remember also that designs change on a regular basis, and what info about them is available. Simply: how can you make science if you don’t even know anything about the ingredients? The task is to test if the device does what is claimed (huge excess heat) which is not a science question but a question of measurements.


Q: You said: “It is a difficult art to admit that they have made a mistake and that you’ve invested a lot of time to help a fraudster. … To err is human but to admit that you were wrong may be how difficult any time. We’ve probably all an experience.”
Once a scientist has reached this stage, what do you think is the best thing for them to do to try and correct the situation?

A: Simply admit it. As any mistake in real life. Owe up to it. Get the respect by openly saying what went wrong! This would lead to huge respect and help to identify what the problems/issues were to avoid them in future or at least minimize the risk that similar mistakes would be repeated. In normal science, if you write a paper that turns out to be wrong you either retract the paper or write an “errata” to straighten out the mistakes. This is not unusual. Of course, most of the times it is embarrassing but still easy to write an “errata” since not much prestige is at stake. If your claims are all over the world and you have to retract them it is much, much harder.


Q: Do you think it is important that a scientist should clarify the funding of their work in the paper or report? I notice this is standard procedure when funding is provided by government grants, but what of private funding sources?

A: In physics mentioning the funding is to acknowledge the source. Many funding authorities require this and it is part of the “deliverable” when you show how the funding has been used. In cases where funding source might lead to a conflict of interest it is important for ethics reasons to disclose who paid for the work. In medicine there are very strict standards concerning this.


Q: Why do so many people think Rossi has a cold fusion/LENR device when there is not even one bit of evidence to point in that direction, other than Rossi said so and Focardi believed him?

A: In my opinion it is because Rossi plays this card. It helps him to get scientists involved and interested. For me it look in this case as a “god of the gaps.” We seem to have a phenomenon we don’t understand hence there must be some new fantastic physics behind it.


Q: Why do you think Rossi will not allow a true independent third party public test, but keeps wanting private tests?

A: To stay in control. Two possible reasons: either he cheats or he is really trying to make the best business case. Following how the story evolved, one of these reasons seem much more likely than the other. Make your choice.


Q: You said: “The current group is now deeply Involved and has much to lose if they were to admit they made a mistake.”
What do you think they would lose?
What do you think may happen if they don’t admit their prior mistakes?

a) Science is much about trust. If you lose your reputation and get considered as a fringe scientist it might be a whole career that is at stake.

b) In the present probably not much. The involved Swedish scientists are practically all retired for a long time. In other cases it will be harder to attract funding and find collaboration partners for your work. You do not lose your position though. And I mean that’s how it should be. Doing mistakes is in some sense part of the job as researcher.


Q: I believe it is very important that people know exactly what conditions Rossi is putting on those testing his devices, because everyone is claiming that the 2013 report, and the coming 2014 report are true independent third party reports, from truly free and independent testing; if that is not true the people have a right to know.
a: Do you agree?

A: Yes, absolutely. One should realize though that, besides possible involvement of Rossi in various ways, a truly independent report would in my mind require people that have not previously worked with the device and especially not previously published claims about the functionality of the device.

b: How do you think the authors of a report of this kind, (i.e. claiming a working free energy, or a commercial LENR device), should address this issue?

A: This is linked to part a) above. I believe that for the time being, scientists should stay out of this and have, first of all, an independent and certified, quality assured measurement institute like PTB in Germany or SP in Sweden or a corresponding institute in Italy, verify if there really is an unexplained effect. Once this would be established finding customers for the device would be no problem for Rossi. And then scientists can kick in and look at the question how it may work.

c: Do you think the report itself should specifically state every restriction and condition placed on the testing and publication of the report by anyone involved?

A: If there were any restrictions or an involvement of, e.g. Rossi defining measurement protocols or what equipment to use, it should be clearly stated. Also who is present during which measurements and who is not would be an important piece of information. E.g. in the 2013 arXic report by Levi et al. it is not clear whether all the authors were present during all the reported measurements.


Q: You said: “If Rossi (and his supporters!) wants scientific legitimacy than it is not OK to steer the investigations and decide what to release and what not.”  What exactly was the restrictions on publication?

A: Nothing “official”. We did not follow this any deeper (in the sense of finding out if we would have to sign anything) and said “no” right away. It seemed for many good reasons much better to stay an outside monitor.


Q: In the future when academics are approached for testing and reports for secret commercial devices by someone who is a known criminal and con man, or one of his associates, what should they do?

A: Be careful and think twice: Why should I do this? Is it a scientific question? What are the risks? Do I get all the information that I need to do research? Do I want this and why? Etc.


Gary Wright
June 9, 2014