Hello group,
Have a read at this short interview by PESN to Andrea Rossi
October 7, 2012:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/News:Real-Time_Updates_on_the_October_6,_2011_E-Cat_Test
* * *
Earlier today, we sent an email to Andrea Rossi, that contained a number
of questions, about the test that was performed yesterday on October 6,
2011. He has promptly responded with answers, although he states some
issues are confidential. I would like to thank him for taking the time
to answer our questions.
- -
DEAR ALL,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUOUS ATTENTION. PLEASE FIND THE ANSWERS IN
BLOCK LETTERS ALONG YOUR TEXT:
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In regards to the latest test of the Energy Catalyzer, I have a number
of questions I hope you can answer.
1) My understanding is that if a reactor core is not adjusted to be
under-powered (below its maximum potential) in self-sustain mode, it can
have a tendency to become unstable and climb in output. If the reactor
is left in an unstable self-sustaining mode for too long, the output can
climb to potentially dangerous levels. Can you provide some information
about how the reactor core in the test was adjusted to self-sustain in a
safe manner?
NO, VERY SORRY
a) For example, there was only one active reactor core in the module
tested. How was the single reactor core adjusted to be under-powered?
CONFIDENTIAL INFO
b) Is adjusting the reactor core as simple as lowering the hydrogen
pressure?
2) What is the power consumption of the device that "produces
frequencies" that was mentioned in the NyTeknik article? Although the
power consumption of this device is probably insignificant, providing a
figure could help put to rest the idea (that some are suggesting) that a
large amount of power was being consumed by the frequency-generating
device, and transmitted into the reactor.
THE ENERGY CONSUMED FROM THE FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS 50 WH/H AND IT HAS
BEEN CALCULATED, BECAUSE THIS APPARATUS WAS PLUGGED IN THE SAME LINE
WHERE THE ENERGY-CONSUME MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN DONE
a) Can you tell us anything more about this frequency generating device
and its function?
NO, SORRY, THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE
b) Is the frequency-generating device turned on at all times when a
module is in operation, or only when a module is in self-sustain mode?
CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE
c) Some are suggesting that this device is "the" catalyst that drives
the reactions in the reactor core. However, you have stated in the past
that the catalyst is actually one or more physical elements (in addition
to nickel and hydrogen) that are placed in the reactor core. Can you
confirm that physical catalysts are used in the reactor?
YES, I CONFIRM THIS
3) Does the reaction have to be quenched with additional water flow
though the reactor, or is reducing the hydrogen pressure enough to end
the reactions on its own?
NEEDS ADDITIONAL QUENCHING
a) If reducing the hydrogen pressure (or venting it completely) is not
enough to turn off the module, could it be due to the fact some hydrogen
atoms are still bonded to nickel atoms, and undergoing nuclear reactions?
YES
b) If there is some other reason why reducing hydrogen pressure is not
enough to quickly turn off the module, could you please specify?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions, and for
allowing a test to be performed that clearly shows anomalous and excess
energy being produced. Hopefully, the world will notice the significance
of this test.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER (I
MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE THE SELF
SUSTAINING MODE THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY PRODUCING ENERGY MORE THAN IT
CONSUMED, SO THAT THE ENERGY CONSUMED IS NOT LOST, BUT TURNED INTO
ENERGY ITSELF, THEREFORE IS NOT PASSIVE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SPOTS OF
DRIVE WITH THE RESISTANCE HAVE A DURATION OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES, WHILE THE
DURATION OF THE SELF SUSTAINING MODES IS PROGRESSIVELY LONGER, UNTIL IT
ARRIVES TO BE UP TO HOURS. BESIDES, WE PRODUCED AT LEAST 4.3 kWh/h FOR
ABOUT 6 HOURS AND CONSUMED AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS, SO
THAT WE MADE IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 25.8 kWh AND CONSUMED IN TOTAL
DURING THE TEST 3.9 kWh. iN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHICH MEANS NOT
CONSIDERING THAT THE CONSUME IS MAINLY MADE DURING THE HEATING OF THE
REACTOR DURING THE FIRST 2 HOURS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE WORST
POSSIBLE RATIO IS 25.8 : 3.9 AND THIS IS THE COP 6 WHICH WE ALWAYS SAID.
OF COURSE, THE COP IS BETTER, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE REACTOR, ONCE IN
TEMPERATURE, NEEDS NOT TO BE HEATED AGAIN FROM ROOM TEMPERATURE TO
OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE.
WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL, ANDREA ROSSI
* * *
Cheers,
S.A.
