Q&A With Hanno Essen Regarding Recent E-Cat Test


Hanno Essen is shown on the right during his March 28, 2011 visit.

Preface by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

According to Wikipedia, Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

He was was one of the people involved in the third party testing of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat that we reported on a few days ago.

He gave the following responses to a questionnaire, posted here with permission of the person who posted it originally at the ChemFan forum on May 24.

He said:

I asked all of the authors of this paper (except Evelyn Foschi, whose
e-mail I could not find anywhere) several questions.

Only Hanno Essen answered so far.

Here is the dialogue:

Zadalem kilka pytan autorom tej publikacji w ArXiv:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf .
Oto odpowiedzi prof. Hanno Essena (ktore przekazuje na ChemFana za jego
wiedza i zgoda):

> 1. Why is the quantity of Ni in the charge of the internal reactor so
> small, i.e. only 0.3g?
> If it is so small why is the internal reactor so relatively large
> to the small quantity of the powder charge?
> Why is there no picture of the internal reactor, just a description?

I do not know the answers to the first questions. We had a picture of
the internal reactor in the original manuscript but it was deemed to
uninteresting. It is just a steel pipe.

> 2. If the reaction in the internal reactor is exothermal then why on the
> picture from the thermal camera we cannot see the internal reactor glowing
> hotter than the rest of the external tube?

I suppose that this is because the material is not sufficiently
transparent to the microwaves. They originate from the surface; there
is no see through.

> 3. Why was the "dummy" test carried out with different conditions
> regarding the supply of power, than the non "dummy" test?

It was not. It was carried out with everything as equal as possible.
The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.

> 4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
> also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
> could not detect?

No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket
and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can
check this in future tests.

> 5. Did the Ni powder also melt when in the test of November the
> performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed,
> melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers?
> If the Ni powder melted was the reaction still running despite the Ni
> melted or did it stop running when Ni melted?

I do not know this since only the Bologna group was there when that
happened. I take for granted that also the Ni melted and that the
reaction stopped, but the interior physics is still an industrial
secret that we do not have access to. Sorry.

> 6. Are you going to perform the 6 months test in the Leonardo Corp.
> facilities or in the facilities of the universities in Sweden or Italy?
> Would Andrea Rossi agree to lend you the device and its power supply for 6
> months?
> I believe the he could ensure his industrial trade secrets are secured
> when he would seal the power supply and weld the internal reactor or make
> you sign NDA, and then he could release that device for you for testing. I
> hope that you manage to convince him about that. This would ensure
> independency of the long term test.

Andrea will not part from his device. Tests in Sweden is a possibility
but then he or his coworkers would be present. There are many who wish
to steal his e-cats. So the 6 month test will be in Ferrara. It will
however be continuously monitored by cameras so as not to be

> 7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
> the next test?

This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.
It is desirable, I agree; everything can always be done better, but we
have very limited time and resources unfortunately.

> Woudn't you think that it would be a good idea to install in the room
> where experiment would be carried out a webcam with a live feed to
> internet available 24/7, so that everyone on internet could observe the 6
> months experiment live through internet?

I do think that the plan is precisely that.

Hanno Essén
KTH Mekanik

Also, posted over at ECatNews.com is a report that another of the Hot-Cat Paper authors, Torbjörn Hartman, has provided more detail about the checks he personally made to reduce the chance of deception on the power input circuit. The following is a Google translation they provided with some spelling corrections and with thanks to Jed Rothwell on Vortex who received the link from a Swedish journalist. ECatNews comments: “It is good to see that Hartman approached the task with an appropriate level of caution and interesting to see that a reasonable amount remains.”

    Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there. The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal screws was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out.

I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is much lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.

All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of” and not “proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.

Best regards,

# # #

See also:

Resources at PESWiki.com