Guest post by Ric Werme
Today is the customer test of Andrea Rossi’s 1 MW fusion reactor in his facility in Bologna, Italy. While Rossi initially expected to provide streaming video of the test, the customer nixed that because they didn’t want their people on a public video. (The customer has still not been identified.) Rossi also promised hourly updates during the test, but that didn’t happen, nor did I expect it too. In any major customer attending test, you just don’t take time off for that – the customer is far more important today than is the rest of the world!
I did promise in Tips & Notes to create this post this evening to provide a discussion forum, and a few details have made it out to warrant this post.
Bottom line – the customer will buy the reactor. The only thing that looks like a data point is that it was producing 470kW with zero heating power in (self-sustain mode). Given that one metric for a successful test was to produce at least 6X the input power, it certainly passes that test!
Rossi did get one blog post up (edited to convert all-caps to proper-caps and fix an obvious typo):
Andrea Rossi
October <28th, 2011 at 10:37 AM
First information regarding the 1 MW plant test:
We started regularly the test this morning . Everything is going well so far. The 1 MW E-Cat is working in self sustaining.
Tonight I will publish the non secret report that the customer will release.
Warm regards, I have to return to the plant. Sorry, I cannot answer to the many comments I am receiving. I will publish them probably I will never find the time to answer.
Warmest regards to all,
Andrea Rossi
That’s pretty much all there is from Italy so far. I don’t know if people measured 1 MW in powered mode, I assume somewhat more information will be released later this evening.
The naysayers are going strong, with comments like suggesting the customers consultants are in on the scam, and many calls to denounce the secrecy behind this test. Hey guys, this is a sales test, not a public event.
Even Jed Rothwell is upset:
[Vo]:Dismaying rumors about October 28 test
Jed Rothwell Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:34:00 -0700
I have heard that observers of today’s tests are only being allowed to look at the equipment for a few minutes at a time, and they are not being introduced to the engineers who are taking the data. They are not being given a chance to establish the bona fides of these engineers, or to confirm that they are fully independent from Rossi.
If this is true then it goes without saying these results will have zero credibility.
If this is true then Rossi has once again taken a golden opportunity to convince the world his claims are true, and used it to make himself look like a crook.
I hope this is not true.
Whatever happens, I am sure we will get the full story. The reporters there can be relied upon to tell us the truth. If they are not allowed to interview the engineers and they cannot independently confirm the data, they will say so. I am sure Rossi knows they will tell the truth, so it seems unlikely he would impose such outrageous conditions. Unfortunately, he has often done outrageous things, such as telling people they are not allowed to measure the temperature with their own instruments.
– Jed
I’ll update this later tonight. In the meantime, discuss away, but please keep in mind this was not a science demonstration, not a public demonstration, but a step along the path to the first sale.
Also, keep in mind what this isn’t – it’s not an efficient electrical power system. The output is hot water or low pressure steam. While that can be turned into electricity, thermodynamics says it can’t be very efficient. There are plenty of applications for this sort of process heat, and that makes a fine initial target market.
Other sources of information include:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:October_28%2C_2011_Test_of_the_One_Megawatt_E-Cat
Sterling Allan from PES is on site.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/10/e-day-thread-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-plant-tested-by-first-customer/
One of the first independent blogs on the E-Cat.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516#comments
This is Rossi’s blog, where he expected to post hourly updates. He approves posts there, and he’s been too busy to do that.
Updates
Here are links to reports from two people who were observed the test:
Sterling D. Allan (who was present), with Hank Mills from Pure Energy Systems News reported:
It ran for 5.5 hours producing 470 kW, while in self-looped mode. That means no substantial external energy was required to make it run, because it kept itself running, even while producing an excess of nearly half a megawatt. Rossi explained the reasons for this in the presentation he gave, which I videotaped and will be posting later.
Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode.
Mats Lewan of NyTeknik reported:
According to the customer’s controller, Domenico Fioravanti, the plant released 2,635 kWh during five and a half hours of self sustained mode, which is equivalent to an average power of 479 kilowatts – just under half the promised power of one megawatt.
Rossi explained this with the customer’s priority to achieve self sustained mode, which supposedly makes the process more difficult to control than when electrical power is supplied to support the reaction.
“We had to decrease the power during self sustained mode as the temperature rose too much”, Rossi said after the test.
UPDATE: I’ve allowed Ric Werme to post articles on this, with trepidation (as he noted in his first and second article on it), on the outside chance that there’s something of value here. I wrote in the first article:
Foreword: I gave Ric Werme permission to do this essay. I don’t have any doubt that the original Cold Fusion research was seriously flawed. That said, this recent new development using a different process is getting some interest, so let’s approach it skeptically to see what merit it has, if any. – Anthony
After learning of some background on the inventor (which I wasn’t aware of before today h/t to Lubos)I have very large doubts now. While Wikipedia isn’t the best reference, if there wasn’t some truth here in this reference, I expect it would be removed as libelous:
Petroldragon was an environmental technology company, which through the 90’s aimed to develop oil, coal, and gas from organic waste. It was founded by, and used patents of Andrea Rossi, and Sergio Focardi. In the late 90’s the company was found guilty of dumping environmental toxins, as well as tax fraud. Its assets were seized. [1]
News of the Rossi procedure, patented in Italy, was reported by major newspapers. Jimmy Carter showed his interest in the technology, and offered Rossi a permanent entry visa to the United States.[1] After ten months’ work and a financial investment of half a billion Lire, Petroldragon had a facility that produced twenty tons of fuel oil a day, transforming one hundred tons of organic waste.
In 1993, the company created the Petroldragon Formula 3 racing team – racecars powered by waste-derived fuel that were able to compete with cars powered by the most common petroleum products.
In the late 90’s the company was found guilty of dumping environmental toxins, as well as tax fraud. Its assets were seized, as well as Rossi’s personal assets, and Rossi was arrested and imprisoned.
The track record of the man (combined with the current cloak of secrecy) suggests that this may very well be a scam. Unless there’s some open access and independent documentation of success, I’m going to prohibit any further articles. As I’ve said in comments, we try out ideas here. Based on what I know now, I think this one needs to be put aside as unworkable, and very possibly a scam until such time it is proven. When/if it is proven as scam or factual, we’ll have another report. -Anthony
Update by Ric:
I told Anthony I’d pull some stuff together looking at the allegations in better detail. It appears the only decent source of information is from a web site Rossi created a couple years ago to address the Petroldragon saga. The events in question mostly occurred before the Internet, so there isn’t as much out there as I thought. If you believe Rossi stuck Italy with huge amount of abandoned waste, you won’t believe Rossi’s explanation. If any Italian readers can comment on the events from their memory, please do.
Rossi’s web site is http://ingandrearossi.com/ . While there is an English translation there, a better one is at Steve Krivit’s http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml
A timeline seems to be the best way to summarize things:
1971 to 1996: Created Dragon, a division of his family’s business and
manufactured waste incineration and smoke purification plants.
1978: Awarded patent for a process to convert organic waste material to oil.
Started Petroldragon to commercialize it.
198?: US President Jimmy Carter offered Rossi a permanent entry visa to the
United States to develop the process in the US.
1990 (this year doesn’t make sense): Bought Omar Refinery to process oil from Petroldragon into products for
sale.
1987: Raw materials for Petroldragon had been considered “secondary refuse matter” They were reclassified “toxic waste” as were all products derived from them. “In a very short time, all equipment was sequestered. The government then determined that tanks used for storing incoming raw materials were illegal dumps of toxic waste.”
“What followed was Rossi’s arrest and imprisonment, without any possibility to save the companies. The massive media smear campaign was successful in suddenly wiping out companies whose brand value was estimated at 50 billion lire (around 30-35 million USD in 1987) and which employed 150 people.”
The saga continues on with references to infringing on petroleum based producers and crime organizations entering the waste management business.
He continues “In the past 17 years, Rossi has been in 56 trials, forcing him into deep debt because of the financial disaster, and it is still not completely paid off.
Of all 56 prosecutions, the ones which led to imprisonment ended with acquittals; only 5 of the prosecutions for tax crime ended with convictions (with some custody imprisonments). All of the other prosecutions ended with acquittal or for statute of limitation. The same Petroldragon and Omar customers, even those who suffered factory seizures or prosecutions because of involvement with Rossi’s companies, testified as witnesses in favor of the defendant.” (The customers had products derived from “toxic waste” and those without waste handling permits were now in violation of the 1987 law.)
2000: During a journey back to Italy from the U.S., when he landing at Rome airport, he was served an arrest warrant for bankruptcy of Omar company and immediately imprisoned.
2009: Went back to the U.S. permanently and he directed the development of a new energy source. (I don’t think this refers to the E-Cat.)
As for the gold trafficking, all I can find points to an ingandrearossi.com page that is only in Italian. The Google translation is as difficult to read as any, but Rossi says the gold was recovered in the Petroldragon effort and claims “And documents deemed illegal sales of gold? All regular! Documents for import and export of precious? All regular! Cash payments? The money laundering? No trace of irregularity, because all economic transactions were made with credit and non-transferable checks, never cash!
The prosecution of Ariano Irpino, even myself, and acquitted all defendants in the investigation, not even get to trial on the grounds that: ‘… lack the evidence necessary to sustain the allegations in a process …’.”
So, was Rossi imprisoned? Yes. Did he break the law? Yes, but mainly because the law changed out from under him. Was he convicted? Yes, on less than 10% of the charges, and they were tax law violations, not a confidence scheme. Is he an evil person out to pull off the scam of the century? Probably not, as he seems to have not run afoul of the law before 1987. Does all this mean we should throw up our hands and write off Rossi’s LENR invention. I don’t think so, though it certainly adds a red flag. How about all the other evidence supporting LENR? I don’t think so. Does Lubos Motl know more about LENR than any of us? Probably, but I’m not convinced he’s right. Is Rossi or LENR too controversial for WUWT? Possibly, but I think it should remain because there are too many experiments with interesting results to be able to dismiss it.
-Ric
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Beesaman says:
October 29, 2011 at 3:55 am
Or how many reporters attended the first flight by the Wright brothers? (Note: zero)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_Brothers
A complete waste of time until it is open-sourced or third party verified….move along please
Having closely followed the low-energy nuclear reaction/chemically assisted nuclear reactions area for >20 years, I’m concerned that this is an unfortunate bit of promotion using a marginally effective reactor.
Arata in Japan demonstrated a reactor in 2009, publicly, and allowed photographs to be taken. His reactor has been replicated, however, the problem for productization will remain a full understanding of why it works. 95% success rate doesn’t cut it when you’re trying to produce consistent power.
The Rossi demo has too much showmanship for my taste, and continually cuts off prior to a drop dead, “Its got to be nuclear to run this long,” time. I’ve seen the number of 16 hours in the literature as I recall. Like they say, time will tell.
Blade October 29, 2011 at 3:01 am – re: Keely, fantastic link 🙂 Thanks for a fun read!
*******
Re: who is paying and investors –
Anybody have any idea how Rossi is set up as a trading entity?
Anybody know if Italy has similar schemes to this?:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/forms-rates/claims/randd.htm
“Rate of tax relief or credit
The tax relief on allowable R&D costs incurred after 1 August 2008 is 175 per cent – that is, for each £100 of qualifying costs, your company or organisation could have its Corporation Tax bill reduced by an additional £75 on top of the £100 spent.”….
From Update, 2nd source:
From the “This is how the test was done” section on that page:
So let’s say the total net output was 2500 kWh.
2500 kWh = 8,532,500 BTU (1 kWh = 3413 BTU)
1 gallon fossil diesel -> 130,500 BTU
(source)
Energy produced equivalent to 65.4 gallons of diesel.
A 500 kW diesel generator (the reported guessed-at size) at full load will consume approximately 35.7 gal/hr (source).
35.7 gal/hr diesel -> 1365 kW.
500kW/1365kW = 0.366.
Thus said diesel generator is about 36.6% efficient at full load.
Calculating fuel consumption for diesel generator to make as much energy as electricity as the E-cat rig generated as heat:
65.4 gal equivalent / 0.366 efficiency = 179 gal diesel.
Run time of said generator to generate that energy:
179 gal / 35.7gal/hr = 5.01 hrs
By current US standards (source), the minimum efficiency of a fossil-fueled boiler for heating is 80%. For a high-efficiency condensing unit the minimum is 90%.
Calculating consumption for diesel burned in a plain boiler equal to E-cat rig production:
65.4 gal / 0.8 = 81.8 gal
For condensing boiler:
65.4 gal / 0.9 = 72.7 gal
Conclusions:
1. All of the energy apparently generated by the E-cat rig could have been generated as electricity by said 500MW diesel generator.
2. It is more than twice as efficient to burn diesel directly for heat than to heat water with electricity from a diesel generator.
If they could get these E-cats running indefinitely, then they may well be economically worthwhile. From what has been shown, I can’t see any real advantage over a conventional boiler, especially over, say, a natural gas-fueled condensing boiler.
Wasn’t Andrea Rossi the guy who sat in prison for fraud for a couple of years when his waste oil invention imploded in the 80s? Apparently he used the time well and picked up some serious, nobel price worthy knowledge while reading some Planck and Heisenberg in his cell.
KD- “From what has been shown, I can’t see any real advantage over a conventional boiler, especially over, say, a natural gas-fueled condensing boiler.”
Entertainment? 🙂
More fun here:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/
Believe, doubt or know…
we can not know at this point.
I hope this works and can be used to provide useful electricity. I think a technological breakthrough like this would be great for all humanity.
Link to US Patent Application:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110005506%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110005506&RS=DN/20110005506
I’m reading it. I’m the named inventor on four granted patents and was a member of the patent committee at a major corporation where I evaluated approximately 1000 abstracts and made a recommendation on whether they were suitable for filing. I approved about 300 for further development and filing and as far as I know every one of those 300 was eventually granted. Evaluation included value to the company, novelty, obviousness, and prior art. About 10 engineers from various disciplines, an IP attorney, and an IP paralegal constituted the committee.
I’m not a chemist or physicist so I can’t really say much about the feasibility or whether there’s enough information in the patent for someone skilled in the art to produce a working embodiment of it. Perhaps others here can.
Interesting I found it by searching for applications with the words nickel and hydrogen in the titles. I got 40 hits and they were all, except for this one, related to nickel metal hydride (NiMh) batteries which are the poor man’s choice when he can’t afford Lithium-Ion (LIon). Coincidently I was a key engineer in the development of the first commercially sold laptop computer in the early 1990’s to employ Lithium-Ion batteries and was involved with quite a few patents surrounding them all to do with microcontroller charge/discharge algorithms but not the actual chemistry or construction of the battery itself.
At any rate given nickel-hydrogen chemistry is a very common in rechargeable batteries probably second only to lead-acid in everyday use one might wonder if all the secrecy and short duration of demonstrations is because the heat being generated is coming from NiMh electrical generation rather than any exotic heretofore unknown low energy nuclear reaction.
phil says:
October 29, 2011 at 5:41 am
“Seriously, I think this kind of article does not belong on WUWT, it just makes this blog look foolish and affects its credibility.”
It starts to get tiring to constantly find people telling Anthony what belongs on his blog and what doesn’t; don’t you people find a more original way of nitpicking. (I know, it’s hard, you don’t.)
Dagobert – “Wasn’t Andrea Rossi the guy who sat in prison for fraud for a couple of years when his waste oil invention imploded in the 80s?”
Could be – can’t know for sure at this point though:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml
http://theeestory.com/topics/7700?page=1
Apparently the whole ‘customer’ story was a marketing thing, there is not customer at all. The customer ‘controller’ was Italian, yeah sure 🙂
I think that we have some sort of choice in that the inventor is either a Bernie Madoff or a Nikola Tesla. I am not sure if the thing works or not, but I am sure that Andrea Rossi thinks it works. I don’t think he would invest this time and effort in a system that when sold, will be shown to be a hoax. As far as Andrea Rossi is concerned, he has made the biggest breakthrough since Prometheus. It is uncommon, but not unknown, for a crackpot to become a genius overnight. However, just because sometimes a genius appears to be a crackpot, it doesn’t mean that a crackpot isn’t a crackpot.
I withhold judgment, as it is clear that Rossi wants the money and the fame (and probably the babes), and does not trust the patenting system, governments, institutions or companies not to rip him off.
@kadaka
The efficiency of the eCat is irrelevant at the moment. The most important thing is to prove whether there are new physics we can take advantage from. The diesel engine is also irrelevant, if this technology is proven to be true you can use electricity from an eCat to start up more e-cats self-sustaining each other.
Was the airplane commercially viable when the Wright brothers made their first public tests? What was the point of flying besides a brief few minutes of entertainment?
People should understand that this wasn’t just Rossi’s effort. He built on the results obtained by Forcardi and others I believe. Whenever someone shouts “scam”, they have to accept that they are accusing the distinguished profs of being bamboozled or deluded or in on the scam – and not just once but over a time of years now, having seen the machine set up at close range many times.
I am not a “true believer” but my scepticism is met and disarmed to some extent by those thoughts. But on the other hand, all the attendant secrecy about customers and so on tends to reactivate scepticism.
It’s not an easy call.
The Wright brothers didn’t do anything that they (or anybody else with a halfway decent knowledge of physics) couldn’t explain. People have flown before – only not with an engine – and nature has shown long before mankind that flight is not only possible but trivial. And, of course, they didn’t hide their first 20 or so flights behind a large wooden wall on the beach and let only a few, hand picked spectators behind it to measure the skidmarks in the sand afterwards.
>> Could be – can’t know for sure at this point though
Actually that was a rethorical question. Andrea Rossi WAS the guy who sat in prison for a number of reasons (innocent as the driven snow, according to himself, obviously).
A bit of weekend humor, nothing more. What the heck, everyone needs a good laugh now and then.
It is absurd to be discussing this scam. There is no question that Rossi is a fraud. He doesn’t even know how to talk: “..it generated 470 kilowatt hours per hour”. The video of the setup is hilarious. Large cables connected to generators which were on when the test was running. But of course none of that energy went into the buckets of water.
The test was so exhausting that he couldn’t talk about it, but had to go play tennis instead. What a joke.
You are certainly free to include whatever you want in this blog. But it ain’t science, that’s for sure.
OK it’s a scam.
Now what?
Don Monfort says:
October 28, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Perhaps. At least I’m ahead of the people who stated with supreme confidence in my August post that the test would never happen. 🙂 And if all this does collapse, I’ll write a post about it.
Marc Blank says:
October 28, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Rossi is not a scientist, he’s an engineer. He has gotten support and assistance from scientists like Sergio Focardi, Christos Stremmenos, and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson. (Aside – feel free to cast aspersions at Josephson, he’s in his second childhood and looking at thing he didn’t have time to before.)
Brant Ra says:
October 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm
The Palladium/Deuterium cells work by getting D’s close together and fuse, the Pd is not consumed. In this case, nickel is not a catalyst, it is part of the fuel and transmuted. It may well be that nickel’s ability to absorb hydrogen is important, so is the undescribed catalyst – one suggestion is that it splits H2 into H + H, a plausible idea.
While this is very different than the P&F Pd/D cells, both need some explanation about how to overcome the coulomb barrier. OTOH, we didn’t know how aspirin worked until the 1970s, but it was used for decades or centuries before then.
phil says:
October 29, 2011 at 2:07 am
Umm, can you expand on that? The claim is nuclear reactions occur and result in converting Ni to Cu and releasing heat. There are no claims about energy being created from nothing, entropy decreasing, or conversion to mechanical energy.
In particular, please explain the link to carbon permits trading. Rossi is working on his own, he doesn’t have enabling legislation or a commodity stream to tax, nor does he have a an investment vehicle backed by preserving (or replacing) rain forests or similar commodities.
phil says:
October 29, 2011 at 5:41 am
Note the masthead – Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, climate change, technology, and recent news…. There is much more to this blog (even among) the climate change posts than AGW. To answer your question, nothing.
slow to follow says:
October 29, 2011 at 6:31 am
This is self funded, Rossi says he had to sell his house to get funds to complete the 1 MW system.
Cirby: ” …there was one of those multi-level marketing companies, selling vitamins and such. They had one particular minor product in their line that was unique – they were literally the only company in the world that knew how to extract and package that one particular extract. It turned out that it really WAS a very good supplement…”
This could’ve be an interesting story if it included the name of the company and the product. As is, it’s a myth. Like the claimed efficiency of the E-Cat.
Dave Springer says:
October 29, 2011 at 7:16 am (Edit)
Very good, I haven’t kept up with Rossi’s blog enough to put together some of the pieces. Note my next comment below. A couple excerpts on the possible nuclear chemistry, as Rossi sees it:
[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a consequent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.
[0026] The present inventor believes that in this reaction is possibly involved a capture of a proton by a nickel nucleus which is transformed into a copper nucleus with a consequent beta decay of the formed unstable copper (Cu 59-64) since the produced thermal energy is larger, as it will be thereinafter demonstrated, than the energy introduced by the electric resistance.
[0027] It is believed that the nickel nuclei are transformed to copper since the mass (energy) of the final status (copper isotope) is less than the overall mass (energy) of the starting status (nickel isotope+proton).
[0028] The exothermal reaction thereon Applicant’s invention is based differs from those adopted by prior searchers since the inventor has not tried to demonstrate an emission of elementary particles supporting a validity of a theory, but he has exclusively tried to provide an amount of energy larger than the consumed energy amount, to just achieve a practical method and apparatus for generating an energy amount larger than the consumed energy, and this by exploiting nuclear energy generating processes starting from electrochemical energy.
[0029] Thus, the inventive apparatus has been specifically designed for producing the above mentioned energy in a reliable, easily controllable, safe, repeatable manner, for any desired applications.
[0030] In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials.
…
[0033] The following discussion may be considered as valid for some (radioactive) Cu isotopes, but not for the two stable copper isotopes ( 63Cu and 65Cu) which do not decay.
[0034] As the copper atom decays, an energy emitting positive beta decay occurs, according to the following equations:
P=N+.sup.e++v, [Ric here: looks like typo, should be E.sup.+.]
where
P=proton
N=neutron
E.sup.+=positron
v=neutrino
[0035] The positron forms the electron antiparticle, and hence, as positrons impact against the nickel electrons, the electron-positron pairs are annihilated, thereby generating a huge amount of energy.
[0036] In fact, few grams of Ni and H would produce an energy amount equivalent to that of thousands oil tons, as it will become more apparent hereinafter, without pollutions, greenhouse effects, or carbon dioxide increases, nuclear and other waste materials, since the radioactive copper isotopes produced in the process will decay to stable nickel isotopes by beta+processes, in a very short time.
Anthony: “That’s what this blog does – we try out ideas.”
Oh, really, Anthony? But why are you “trying” this pure pseudoscience, without presenting any new scientific or factual content at all, for the fifth time or so? When will the readers be allowed to conclude that your blog has joined those that actively promote “green energy” pseudoscience?
One may say the same thing about the climate alarmists in general. They’re just “trying ideas”, aren’t they? Like the idea that the CO2 is killing the planet. Except that they have also been making living out of these lies for decades so they’re not just “trying”; they are actively cheating the world.
This article shouldn’t have been written because it contains no new evidence and it just repeatedly struggles to advocate the indefensible. It’s just another promotion of another theater of the very same type that’s been described many times: an uncontrollable “demonstration” that is claimed to have created energy but there’s no evidence one could actually verify. Obviously, the “anonymous consumers” have either been duped or they are a part of the game.
To support the idea that something like that could work, in contradiction with known laws of physics, one needs some genuine scientific evidence, under controllable conditions, instead of pseudo-evidence and “demonstrations” meant to bring profit to someone with religious “testimonies” and completely uncontrollable flows of energy.
You don’t have any evidence worth the name so given the knowledge science has, Rossi is a scammer unless proved otherwise. You can’t replace evidence by repeated pseudo-evidence and by implicit threats that those who don’t praise this complete nonsense are politically incorrect.