Changes

The actual inventor of the principle was Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli in 1989 who filed patent applications on it in 1995 and 2010.<ref>Piantelli, F., ''Energy Generation and Generator by Means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion''. Patent EP 0767962 B1, 1995. [https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?PN=EP0767962%20EP%200767962&iDocId=4823352&iepatch=.pdf]</ref><ref>WO 2010058288 A1: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR. 2010-05-27. Erfinder: PIANTELLI SILVIA; PIANTELLI FRANCESCO</ref> Rossi, who also attempts to have his invention patented, does not acknowledge that: ''"My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli. The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not."'' Some aspects of the claimed functional principle are also similar to descriptions in a patent of the Japanese Yoshiaki Arata from July 2005 (see below).

The actual inventor of the principle was Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli in 1989 who filed patent applications on it in 1995 and 2010.<ref>Piantelli, F., ''Energy Generation and Generator by Means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion''. Patent EP 0767962 B1, 1995. [https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?PN=EP0767962%20EP%200767962&iDocId=4823352&iepatch=.pdf]</ref><ref>WO 2010058288 A1: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR. 2010-05-27. Erfinder: PIANTELLI SILVIA; PIANTELLI FRANCESCO</ref> Rossi, who also attempts to have his invention patented, does not acknowledge that: ''"My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli. The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not."'' Some aspects of the claimed functional principle are also similar to descriptions in a patent of the Japanese Yoshiaki Arata from July 2005 (see below).

Specialist literature about the "Energy-Catalyzer" is not available(as of April 2011), examinations which could produce proof for fusion gave negative results. Neither gamma nor neutron radiation could be measured und there is no proof for the formation of non natural isotope ratios in the reaction products.

Specialist literature about the "Energy-Catalyzer" is not available(as of April 2011), examinations which could produce proof for fusion gave negative results. Neither gamma nor neutron radiation could be measured and there is no proof for the formation of non natural isotope ratios in the reaction products.

==Purported functional principle==

==Purported functional principle==

:''Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.''

:''Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.''

The observers were allowed to examine two material samples: the nickel powder and "used" nickel power from an experiment which had previously been run for 2 and a half months. The used sample contained 10% copper and 11% iron according to an analysis done at the Ångström Laboratory (Ångströmlaboratoriet) of Uppsala university. Surprisingly, the isotope ratio of nickel and copper (63 and 65) was equal to the natural isotopic composition. A fusion process would have created a "random" composition, the same isotopic ratio as observed in nature would have been extremely unlikely:

The observers were allowed to examine two material samples: the nickel powder and "used" nickel power from an experiment which had previously been run for 2 and a half months. The used sample contained 10% copper and 11% iron according to an analysis done at the Ångström Laboratory (Ångströmlaboratoriet) of Uppsala university. Surprisingly, the isotope ratio of nickel and copper (isotope 63 and isotope 65) was equal to the natural isotopic composition. A fusion process would have created a "random" composition, the same isotopic ratio as observed in nature would have been extremely unlikely:

:''Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.''

:''Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.''