Changes

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (Picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI P18" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 12.1 l/h)|thumb]]

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (Picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI P18" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 12.1 l/h)|thumb]]

[[image:Rossi_Focardi3.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (Picture: TV channel "Rainews24" - YouTube)|300px|thumb]]

[[image:Rossi_Focardi3.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (Picture: TV channel "Rainews24")|300px|thumb]]

[[image:John_Michell_Ecat.jpg|Planned book of a John Michell: Rossi's eCcat - Free Energy, Free Money, Free People. (Xecnet Verlag)|thumb]]

The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor planned to be brought to market in 2011. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref> and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi, [[Cold Fusion|cold fusion]] of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor<ref>Andrea Rossi in his patent application, Page&nbsp;12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref>, leading under emission of strong heat to the formation of copper. The demonstrations of Rossi in 2011 were criticized by various sources. Neither gamma nor neutron radiation could be measured<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> and there is no proof for the creation of non-natural isotope ratios in the alleged fusion products. The respective experiments, which should have shown energy production through "cold fusion", had several methodological weaknesses and were riddled with contradicting statements. Independent tests, which might have proven a fusion process according to the said principle, failed so far. Specialist literature about the "Energy-Catalyzer" is not available(as of April 2011).

The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor planned to be brought to market in 2011. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref> and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi, [[Cold Fusion|cold fusion]] of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor<ref>Andrea Rossi in his patent application, Page&nbsp;12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref>, leading under emission of strong heat to the formation of copper. The demonstrations of Rossi in 2011 were criticized by various sources. Neither gamma nor neutron radiation could be measured<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> and there is no proof for the creation of non-natural isotope ratios in the alleged fusion products. The respective experiments, which should have shown energy production through "cold fusion", had several methodological weaknesses and were riddled with contradicting statements. Independent tests, which might have proven a fusion process according to the said principle, failed so far. Specialist literature about the "Energy-Catalyzer" is not available(as of April 2011).

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at a calculated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). But according to a published report, actual mean average power was 1022 W. An re-alaysis of published values for heating power shows 1073&nbsp;W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Electrical heating power used was between 400 and 1550 W. The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the heated water: 292&nbsp;grammes of water per minute were heated from 20&nbsp;°C to 101&nbsp;°C (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied for secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at a calculated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). But according to a published report, actual mean average power was 1022 W. An re-alaysis of published values for heating power shows 1073&nbsp;W.<ref>http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7</ref> Electrical heating power used was between 400 and 1550 W. The inventors calculated their estimation of generated heat from the heated water: 292&nbsp;grammes of water per minute were heated from 20&nbsp;°C to 101&nbsp;°C (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied for secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ&nbsp;> 200&nbsp;keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ&nbsp;rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ&nbsp;> 200&nbsp;keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ&nbsp;rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 13,66&nbsp;kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme. Not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible.  

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 13,66&nbsp;kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme. Not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]

 

[[image:Rf_14012011_8.jpg|Alternative calculation explaining the reported values without cold fusion(Source: unknown author "Ascoli65" from Italian forum EnergeticAmbiente.it)|480px|thumb]]  

Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]

[[image:Rf_14012011_8.jpg|Alternative calculation explaining the reported values without cold fusion(Source: unknown autor "Ascoli65" from Italian forum EnergeticAmbiente.it)|480px|thumb]]  

'''Inconsistencies''': Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given shortly after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said pieces. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 17&nbsp;minutes (where temperature was above 100 degrees) shorter than claimed (40 minutes), but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventors and operators of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made assuming dry vapour without fractions of condensed water, which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used, but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC&nbsp;C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The claimed water throughput of 292&nbsp;ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted too, since the used pump has only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI&nbsp;P18" was used, which was confirmed in May 2011 by the Swedish reporter Mats Lewan. Several previous inquiries about the type of the pump were not answer by Andrea Rossi.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM<br>Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1.<br>In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report.<br>Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test.<br>Thank you and best regards'' (Name)<br><br>A. Rossi:<br>Andrea Rossi<br>January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM<br>Dear (Name):<br>I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is:<br>1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up.<br>2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us.<br>For this reason I thank you infinitely.<br>Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>.

'''Inconsistencies''': Several incomprehensible pieces of information were given shortly after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said pieces. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 17&nbsp;minutes (where temperature was above 100 degrees) shorter than claimed (40 minutes), but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventors and operators of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made assuming dry vapour without fractions of condensed water, which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used, but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC&nbsp;C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The claimed water throughput of 292&nbsp;ml/min. (= 17.5 liter/h) was doubted too, since the used pump has only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI&nbsp;P18" was used, which was confirmed in May 2011 by the Swedish reporter Mats Lewan. Several previous inquiries about the type of the pump were not answer by Andrea Rossi.<ref>From JONP-Blog, Question to Rossi: ''January 28th, 2011 at 10:57 AM<br>Excuse, Dr. Levi, my insistence, but on the lack of an answer to my previous question, let me temporarily assume that the model of the pump used in the January 14th test belongs actually to the Milton Roy LMI Series P1.<br>In such a case, the capacity per stroke could be at maximum 2 ml (model P18 in the Series P1). Now, considering that the pump has been operated at about 57 strokes per minute (hear sound at the beginning of movie 2/3), it makes a maximum water flow rate of 114 ml per minute, that would be 39% only of the value indicated in your preliminary report.<br>Probably, I have got a bad impression and the pump was another one. So I think it would be of great importance, if you could gather and kindly specify, here and/or on the final version of your report, the real specific model and the relevant operating data of the water pump used in your verification test.<br>Thank you and best regards'' (Name)<br><br>A. Rossi:<br>Andrea Rossi<br>January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 PM<br>Dear (Name):<br>I do not know which kind of pump it was, because it has been chosen by the testers, but what I can say, regarding your comment, is:<br>1- the amount of the flow of water has been tested many times during the test, filling a reservoir with a well known volume and taking the time to fill it up.<br>2- I thank you very much for validating our test by redundance: in fact, if only the 39% of the measured flow should have been passed, the reactor would have produced 4.8 kWh, consuming 400 Wh. I am sure that you, being an engineer of a great energy provider, know the first and also the second thermodynamic principle, therefore I am sure you made your comment to congratulate us.<br>For this reason I thank you infinitely.<br>Warm Regards, Andrea Rossi</ref>.

The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1&nbsp;l/h for the  LMI&nbsp;P18.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. Water throughput of these programmable peristaltic pumps can be regulated. The number of strokes per minute and the pumped volume can be regulated separately. The maximal number of strokes is 100&nbsp;per minute. At 100&nbsp;strokes/min maximum throughput is reached. In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January&nbsp;14, 2011 pump strokes are clearly audible for 30&nbsp;seconds.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref> Counting them gives 29&nbsp;or 30&nbsp; strokes in those thirty seconds. The pump was regulated to 59&nbsp;to 60&nbsp;strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate. Thus the heat output calculated by the team is 240% higher than the actually possible output using the pump shown in the video and certainly wrong. Because of the wrong claim about the mean average powerg (1.073&nbsp;W instead of 600&nbsp;W)  an additional grave error of 78% has to be added. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would allow to explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 12.1&nbsp;l/h for the  LMI&nbsp;P18.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> Other models (A/B/C) of LMI pumps can be ruled out, as they they look different. Water throughput of these programmable peristaltic pumps can be regulated. The number of strokes per minute and the pumped volume can be regulated separately. The maximal number of strokes is 100&nbsp;per minute. At 100&nbsp;strokes/min maximum throughput is reached. In one of the YouTube-videos from the presentation on January&nbsp;14, 2011 pump strokes are clearly audible for 30&nbsp;seconds.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE</ref> Counting them gives 29&nbsp;or 30&nbsp; strokes in those thirty seconds. The pump was regulated to 59&nbsp;to 60&nbsp;strokes/minute, which corresponds to 60% of maximal flow rate. Thus the heat output calculated by the team is 240% higher than the actually possible output using the pump shown in the video and certainly wrong. Because of the wrong claim about the mean average powerg (1.073&nbsp;W instead of 600&nbsp;W)  an additional grave error of 78% has to be added. Assuming just a couple of percent condensed water in the vapour would allow to explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

18&nbsp;hours * 16&nbsp;kWh = 288&nbsp;kWh = 1,037&nbsp;MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26&nbsp;kg of gasoline (7.9&nbsp;gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.<br>

18&nbsp;hours * 16&nbsp;kWh = 288&nbsp;kWh = 1,037&nbsp;MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26&nbsp;kg of gasoline (7.9&nbsp;gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.<br>

<br>

<br>

Levi et&nbsp;al. are expected to write another paper about this test. We will upload it when it becomes available. NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130&nbsp;kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.<br>LENR-CANR Org. News of february 2011. [http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm]</ref>

Levi et&nbsp;al. are expected to write another paper about this test. We will upload it when it becomes available. NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130&nbsp;kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.<br>LENR-CANR Org. News from February 2011. [http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm]</ref>

Assuming an average output of 17&nbsp;kW (the input of electrical energy for pre-heating and control may be neglected) over 18&nbsp;hours actually renders about 300&nbsp;kWh arithmetically speaking. The fuel value of 1 litre of oil is at about 10 kWh<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil</ref> so that in terms of figures, an amount of 30&nbsp;litres may be calculated to produce the same heat quantity.

Assuming an average output of 17&nbsp;kW (the input of electrical energy for pre-heating and control may be neglected) over 18&nbsp;hours actually renders about 300&nbsp;kWh arithmetically speaking. The fuel value of 1 litre of oil is at about 10 kWh<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil</ref> so that in terms of figures, an amount of 30&nbsp;litres may be calculated to produce the same heat quantity.

==Experiment on March 29, 2011==

==Experiment on March 29, 2011==

[[image:29032011_1.jpg|350px|thumb]]

[[image:29032011_1.jpg|350px|thumb]]

[[image:29032011_5.jpg|(added claimed working conditions)|350px|thumb]]

[[image:29032011_5.jpg|(with claimed working conditions)|350px|thumb]]

[[image:29032011.jpg|380px|thumb]]

[[image:29032011.jpg|380px|thumb]]

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by the invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25&nbsp;kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4&nbsp;kW. The same pump as in January, the LMII&nbsp;P18 was used in this presentation, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and therefore possible. Water throughput of 6.27&nbsp;kg/h (104&nbsp;ml/min) was given. As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without measurement of the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a possible. It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was evaporated, since a drain for warm water was near the steam port. The unit was filled with 50&nbsp;grammes nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25&nbsp;bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat.The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref name="Report_Kullander">http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by the invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25&nbsp;kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4&nbsp;kW. The same pump as in January, the LMII&nbsp;P18 was used in this presentation, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and therefore possible. Water throughput of 6.27&nbsp;kg/h (104&nbsp;ml/min) was given. As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without measurement of the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a possible. It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was evaporated, since a drain for warm water was near the steam port. The unit was filled with 50&nbsp;grammes nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25&nbsp;bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat.The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref name="Report_Kullander">http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

==EON&nbsp;Srl and Leonardo Corporation==

==EON&nbsp;Srl and Leonardo Corporation==

The company EON&nbsp;Srl (apparently owned by Rossi), which is often mentioned in connection with the subject, is registered both in Bondeno<ref>Eon&nbsp;S.r.l., V.&nbsp;C.ragazzi&nbsp;18, I-44012&nbsp;Bondeno</ref> and in Rome<ref>EON&nbsp;Srl, Via Ottaviano&nbsp;66, Roma</ref> . The Bodeno location is said to have been heated by an "E-cat" device virtually for free for a long time. Rossi also claims he is also producing hot water in his home with an E-cat. For both claims no independent evidence exists.

The company EON&nbsp;Srl (apparently owned by Rossi), which is often mentioned in connection with the subject, is registered both in Bondeno<ref>Eon&nbsp;S.r.l., V.&nbsp;C.ragazzi&nbsp;18, I-44012&nbsp;Bondeno</ref> and in Rome<ref>EON&nbsp;Srl, Via Ottaviano&nbsp;66, Roma</ref> . The Bodeno location is said to have been heated by an "E-cat" device virtually for free for a long time. Rossi also claims he is also producing hot water in his home with an E-cat. For both claims no independent evidence exists.

In the course of 2011, inventors and undisclosed non-Italian investors(allegedly Greeks) plan to offer ready-made reactors for industrial application under the marketing name "Hyperion" (not to confuse with a concept for small fission reactors of the same name in the USA). There is an official permission dating from 2006 which enables Italian EON&nbsp;Srl to operate a small power plant, fuelled by bio diesel, producing electric power up to 1 megawatt in the town of Bondero. Inventors also claim to currently work on a small power plant which combines 120 interconnected energy-amplifier reactors of equal electric power of 1,000 kWs either in Greece or in USA, which is supposed to be finished by October 2011 and cost 2 million dollar. As manufacturer the Greek company „Defkalion Green Technologies S.A.“ is mentioned.

In the course of 2011, inventors and undisclosed non-Italian investors(allegedly Greeks) plan to offer ready-made reactors for industrial application under the marketing name "Hyperion" (not to confuse with a concept for small fission reactors of the same name in the USA). There is an official permission dating from 2006 which enables Italian EON&nbsp;Srl to operate a small power plant, fuelled by bio diesel, producing electric power up to 1 megawatt in the town of Bondero. Inventors also claim to currently work on a small power plant which combines 120 interconnected energy-amplifier reactors of equal electric power of 1,000 kWs either in Greece or in USA, which is supposed to be finished by October 2011 and cost 2 million dollar. As manufacturer the Greek company „Defkalion Green Technologies S.A.“ is mentioned.

There is a ''Leonardo Corporation''<ref>Leonardo Corporation, 116 South River Road, Bedford, N.H. 03110 - USA. Website: http://leonardocorp1996.com</ref> located in Bedford, New Hampshire, USA owned by Rossi which is listed as contact address of EON.  Their e-mail address is identical with EON&nbsp;Srl's in Italy. This company and Greek Defkalion are supposed to build the future "reactors". It offers currently electric generators fuelled by bio diesel (with turbo chargers and intercooling). The company claims a high degree of efficiency due to its patented "EON" technology which was able to recover incurred thermal losses.

There is a ''Leonardo Corporation''<ref>Leonardo Corporation, 116 South River Road, Bedford, N.H. 03110 - USA. Website: http://leonardocorp1996.com</ref> located in Bedford, New Hampshire, USA owned by Rossi which is listed as contact address of EON.  Their e-mail address is identical with EON&nbsp;Srl's in Italy. The phone number is a collective number which applies to several companies that are located at the same address. It's a so called "business park". This company and Greek Defkalion are supposed to build the future "reactors". It offers currently electric generators fuelled by bio diesel (with turbo chargers and intercooling). The company claims a high degree of efficiency due to its patented "EON" technology which was able to recover incurred thermal losses.

 

It seems hard to imagine that on one of these addresses of the Leonardo Corp. the Rossi Energy Catalyzer could be produced, let alone a 1 MW power plant could be build.

==Leonardo Technologies Inc.==

==Leonardo Technologies Inc.==

==AmpEnergo==

==AmpEnergo==

[[image:Coldstream_Park_Office_Park.jpg|Coldstream Park Office Park (Image: NAI Norwood Group, Bedford NH [http://www.nainorwoodgroup.com/propdocs/116%20South%20River%20Road%20Building%20A.pdf])|thumb]]

[[image:Coldstream_Park_Office_Park.jpg|Coldstream Park Office Park (Image: NAI Norwood Group, Bedford NH [http://www.nainorwoodgroup.com/propdocs/116%20South%20River%20Road%20Building%20A.pdf])|300px|thumb]]

The US-American startup company AmpEnergo Inc. founded on April 20,2009 in Bedford, New Hampshire<ref>AmpenErgo Inc, 116-G South River Road, Bedford NH 03110</ref><ref>President: Karl Norwood, founders and main shareholders: Karl Norwood (NAI Norwood Group, Inc.), Richard Noceti (LTI-global.com), Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. Minority shareholder: Ronald Engleman</ref> (Website: [http://ampenergo.com/]) signed a contract with inventor Andrea Rossi in March 2011. While "Leonardo Corp." should build the energy catalyzers, marketing is planned to be done throughAmpEnergo. According to the Swedish journal Rossi has received a fincancial grand by this company.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece</ref> According to information from press AmpEnergo is currently seeking inventors.  

The US-American startup company AmpEnergo Inc. founded on April 20,2009 in Bedford, New Hampshire<ref>AmpenErgo Inc, 116-G South River Road, Bedford NH 03110</ref><ref>President: Karl Norwood, founders and main shareholders: Karl Norwood (NAI Norwood Group, Inc.), Richard Noceti (LTI-global.com), Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. Minority shareholder: Ronald Engleman</ref> (Website: [http://ampenergo.com/]) signed a contract with inventor Andrea Rossi in March 2011. While "Leonardo Corp." should build the energy catalyzers, marketing is planned to be done throughAmpEnergo. According to the Swedish journal Rossi has received a fincancial grand by this company.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece</ref> According to information from press AmpEnergo is currently seeking inventors.  

The address of AmpEnergo is a "Coldstream Park Office Park" of the real estate firm NAI Norwood<ref>http://www.nainorwoodgroup.com/propdocs/116%20South%20River%20Road%20Building%20A.pdf</ref>. The building is heated according to the owners by an electrically operated heat pump. The address is identical to with that of real estate firm NAI Norwood Group and of Norwood Management Karl Norwood Inc. of real estate agent Karl Norwood.<ref>NORWOOD MANAGEMENT KARL NORWOOD INC, 116 S RIVER RD UNIT A, Bedford, New Hampshire 03110</ref><ref>NAI Norwood Group, Inc., 116 South River Road, Bedford NH 03110</ref>, and also of the companies Leonardo Corp. and Leonardo Technologies Inc.<ref>LEONARDO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 116 S River RD, BEDFORD, NH 031106734</ref> of Andrea Rossi. The phone numbers of all those companies are identical too ( (603) 668 7000).<br>

The address of AmpEnergo is a "Coldstream Park Office Park" of the real estate firm NAI Norwood<ref>http://www.nainorwoodgroup.com/propdocs/116%20South%20River%20Road%20Building%20A.pdf</ref>. The building is heated according to the owners by an electrically operated heat pump. The address is identical to with that of real estate firm NAI Norwood Group and of Norwood Management Karl Norwood Inc. of real estate agent Karl Norwood.<ref>NORWOOD MANAGEMENT KARL NORWOOD INC, 116 S RIVER RD UNIT A, Bedford, New Hampshire 03110</ref><ref>NAI Norwood Group, Inc., 116 South River Road, Bedford NH 03110</ref>, and also of the companies Leonardo Corp. and Leonardo Technologies Inc.<ref>LEONARDO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 116 S River RD, BEDFORD, NH 031106734</ref> of Andrea Rossi. The phone numbers of all those companies are identical too ( (603) 668 7000).<br>