eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

HotCat Independent Report

May 20, 2013

The long-promised report on the HotCat has arrived. Far too early to draw conclusions, I have to admit to being surprised. Never have I longed to be proven wrong so much in my life. We are not there yet, but at face value, this appears to be a giant step in the right direction. Healthy scepticism of the scientific kind is still advised since there are, as yet, many unanswered questions. However, extreme sceptics cannot assume that Rossi is hiding the rabbit by micro-managing the tests. They are right to ask questions but they can no longer say that we are talking about a small, easily miss-measured effect, that the testers are idiots or that they have remained silent due to extreme embarrassment. Among them, Hanno Essen and Giuseppe Levi have much to lose amid a controversy fit for the 21st century. They know the impact of their conclusions and it is difficult to see how they could be substantially wrong.

Successful runs producing COPs of 5.6 and 2.6 were conducted (while running the device without the charge in place did not result in anomalous heat). At around four days continuous operation, short of illicit nocturnal recharges, it is difficult to see where the report writers could have made a mistake.

The report authors include working physicists, chemists and a radiation expert:

  • Giuseppe Levi – Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
  • Evelyn Foschi – Bologna, Italy
  • Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér – Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Hanno Essén – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

You can read the full report here.

More to follow after due deliberation.

Posted by on May 20, 2013. Filed under Bologna,Close Up,Hands-On,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

93 Responses to HotCat Independent Report

  1. Acer Albereto

    May 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    this is great, great, great news !!! Nice to have you back

  2. Ransompw

    May 20, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    Nice to see Ecat News active again.

    • Methusela

      May 20, 2013 at 6:43 pm

      Seconded 🙂

  3. Ian Macmillan

    May 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    It is very welcome to see a credible positive evaluation of this thing.

    However, this is obviously an experimental device, up-graded from test to test, but far removed from the fully developed commercial product that has been promoted.

    So as usual, it all remains to be seen…

  4. Betuswonkel

    May 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Interesting read. There is also an explanation for the delays. The report states that the reactor of the first test melted down. Think that’s why the report was not published in October. Also interesting to read that more test are being planned. Seems Rossi might have the real deal after all.

  5. Rick Meisinger

    May 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    It is great to see this site active again!

  6. Harry Perini

    May 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Wonderful news.
    Nobel prize for Andrea Rossi ?

    I hope to receive my home Ecat soon.

    • Jim

      May 20, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      Probably won’t happen for a few years. Not until after the hot cat can generate electricity and they have been used in factories for a while anyway.

      But I’d love it. I hope Rossi at least makes a 40k electric unit for smaller businesses. I used to do tech support for a chainstore and overnight power failures caused all kinds of store problems.

  7. Ben Stuttard

    May 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Great news. Great for something seemingly thorough. And great to hear from this site again! For the first time in a long time, I’m enjoying speculating about future developments!

  8. Someone Laughing at admin

    May 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Hi Admin,

    how do you feel now?

    • admin

      May 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      By nature cautious but if this turns out to be as it seems, I will feel jubilant.

      • Someone jubilant as admin

        May 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        Great to hear we got you back on track 🙂

        • Spyros Vlahos

          May 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm

          I’m happy to have you back upstage

  9. ts

    May 20, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    This was not an independent test. The test was run by long time Rossi associates and some people who claimed they already believed in the Ecat. Call me when the Swedish testing institute, which failed the Ecat/hotcat in a previous test, confirms these results.

    • jfab

      May 20, 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Indeed. Let see how independant these tests are :

      – Giuseppe Levi: Long time associate of Rossi.
      – Evelyn Foschi: Nobody
      – Roland Pettersson: Believer and supporter
      – Hanno Essén : Believer and supporter
      – And 3 more swedish guys, probably friends of Essen, Pettersson and Kullander.

      Then we’re told the first test, the one with 5.6 COP, was conducted by Levi. What an amazing coincidence! The best (by far) of the two tests was made by Rossi’s associate.

      Then we learn the tests were done in Rossi’ warehouse. Which means Rossi was certainly there. Doh!

      We also learn the infamous David Bianchini was there to make measurements, how convenient to have such an handy guy around. lol.

      We were also told the test was performed by 11 Professors. Now it’s only 5 prof, 1 eng, and 1 nobody (Foschi).

      What a joke.

      • Paul Stout

        May 20, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        Six professors have put their livelihood and reputation on the line by signing this paper.

        Do you have any evidence to support making a joke of their courage?

        • Steven

          May 20, 2013 at 6:47 pm

          I read the actual report and I suggest everyone else should read it too. It’s a professional job and the test setup and reasoning is very well thought out. Unless there’s deliberate fraud by all the testers involved, this is definitive proof that the reaction is real, the input power is less than the output power, and the COP is an order of magnitude outside the range of chemical reactions. Unlike the original testing, there’s not much room here for “misunderstandings” or alternative theories explaining “anomalies”.

          • psi

            May 22, 2013 at 1:36 am

            Steven, I concur. Well put. The attacks on the credibility of the testers, merely because they have a Rossi association, are unwarranted. These are credible professional people who have too much to lose to rubber stamp something without being sure of the bases of their conclusions. The evidence of their study approaches the incontrovertible. Further tests are warranted will surely be forthcoming, but for now, chock one up for Rossi!

      • AlainCo

        May 20, 2013 at 7:57 pm

        do you think that physicist not having accepted the evidence of LENR, will accept to look into the telescope, since they had necessarily refused to read all the thousands of papers that let no doubt.

        if you accept the fact that LENR is real you have to admit that people who don’t believe in LENR are simply uninformed, incompetent or refusing to see facts.

        latest honest uninformed scientist who accept to see LENr is robert duncann on uni-missouri.

        maybe pettersson, and essen have been convinced by facts, recently, but sure he have seen the reality…

        necessarily someone aware of LENr, competent and honest, have to support LENR.

        so asking a physicist that is not a LENr believer, is like asking a DNA test to some one refusing to accept DNA existence.

        typical of pathoskeptics to ask impôssible things as evidence…

        you may also ask peer-review in a magazine that have an official policy to reject any LENR paper, like Nature, Science & similar gang.

        you may also ask Rossi to free his trade secrets, or similar impossible things.

        no hope science accept LENR before the first profit announce of a LENr company.

      • Gregory

        May 21, 2013 at 7:59 am

        This is ridiculous. Each research on a specific spot is made by group of people sharing some views, interest & intuition: ie small groups of people with connexion. There’s no denying in that and no problem about that as long as:

        1- there are no conflict of interest.

        You stated “Levi, long time associates”. AFAIK, this is plain wrong and there is no money link of no sort between Levi and Rossi. And of course with none of the others

        2- there is peer review

        This one is more tricky. I am much more interested by the possibility of a peer review than by the content of the article which is what I was mainly expecting balancing all the facts. It is not clear wether this will happen or not at that stage.

        That being said, your angle “they all now themselves prior to this!” is very weak. That’s how 90% of the papers are made anyway, what did you think ?

  10. Tom Baccei

    May 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    If this is NOT just another teaser, independent verification should (and must) follow, or nothing has changed. While it is exciting to rekindle the giddy possibility that such magic is afoot, the paradigm shift needed is still several steps away. Skepticism is still needed and entirely justifiable, but I just hope it can be expressed without the gloating superiority which was its hallmark in times past here on this otherwise very useful and exciting forum.
    I for one, still believe the human race is due for another transformative miracle, and this might well be it!

    • Anonymole

      May 20, 2013 at 9:35 pm

      Paul, it would indeed be a time of rejoice the day we are proved wrong about Rossi – I concur. I hope it comes.

      Tom, fingers crossed but with eyebrow raised.

      I must say that it was a pleasant experience reading this report if only that it appeared to be so well written. If Rossi can get this report writer to speak for him in the future, if Rossi never utters another broken English word again it would go far in his case.

      The discrepancy stands however between what “Rossi Say’s” he’s shipping and the primitive state of these test modules and the general empty appearance of the test facility. Still so many unexplainable or missing puzzle pieces.

  11. Acer Albereto

    May 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    seems that arXiv is the accepted pre-publication place for the majority of scientific papers today. It’s where research goes before being printed in peer-reviewed journals

  12. jeff clark

    May 20, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Quick question. On page 4 (last picture) of the report. There is a shipping container in the background. It looks new. Was the test run at Rossi’s factory? Page 2 says it was perfomed in Ferrara (Italy).

  13. jetmech

    May 20, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    so how much water (medium) was heated to what temperature?
    How much energy as observed by heating a mass of any subtance was observed?
    Why was the Ecat not simply tested for a month?
    By simply tested i mean by a customer?
    Or an INDEPENDANT testing lab?
    Why was there a need for Ross’s acknowledged supporters to conduct this test?
    Why NOT an independant lab?

    • Steven

      May 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm

      I read the report last night. The testing protocol you’re thinking of was appropriate for the original e-cat. What was tested in this report was a solid state unit called the “Hot Cat”.

      The method of measuring the energy released by the Hot Cat was a lot more straightforward. You measure the surface temperature of the unit with a thermal imaging device and convert it to power emitted using standard heat transfer formulas, which are described in the report.

      The report details significant improvements in the design of the Hot Cat controls between the first and second tests. In the second test, there was pretty strong evidence that the reaction was a separate source of energy than the resistor coils used to initiate it because the input energy was cycled and the reaction continued for some time. In addition the imaging showed that the heat of the reaction was higher than the coils.

  14. jetmech

    May 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    They have ALWAYS been Rossi supporters!
    What validity do they have?

    • Gregory

      May 21, 2013 at 8:04 am

      They have been people witnessing eCat and convinced by it. “Supporter” is your logic, not their. You’re in a soccer game, supporting a team, no matter what, just because. But not everyone is seing the reality with such simplifications. There are also thing such has witnessing facts, drawing conclusion, and feeling the moral responsibility to stand behind those.


    May 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm


  16. Jami

    May 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    So there really is a report (I admit I thought Rossi was making it up completely) but it’s been written by Levi and Friends. If we’d think that Levi would be able to spot and be willing to report on Rossi’s trickery, we would all be believers from day one (same for Essen, btw.).

    Doesn’t keep the believers from exclaiming that NOTHING will ever convince us “pathoskeps” (meaning the world outside of e-catworld) – not even the fourth and almost exact repetition of the lie we didn’t believe the first, second and third time it was told. And what happens now? They’ll be telling it a fifth time… in the summer. Can’t wait.

    • Methusela

      May 20, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Well, nothing ever will, will it?

    • Paul Stout

      May 20, 2013 at 7:27 pm

      I think it is safe to assume that the professors who signed this paper are quite familair with what happened to Fleischmann & Pons when they made their announcment.

      Based on the known reprecussions if they are wrong, I find it extremely hard to believe that these professors would sign this document if there were any possiblity that trickery was involved.

      So, I can either believe known experts that ran the tests, and who have everything to lose if they are wrong. Or, I can believe a skeptic, who did not witness the tests and has nothing to lose if he is wrong.

      Guess which argument I find more compelling.

      • Jami

        May 20, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        Wasn’t that the situation all along, Paul? Or what made Levi suddenly more believable (or more clever in order to detect trickery) in your eyes between 2011 and today? And the situation is of course totally different from F&P. They didn’t test a device built by somebody else. It was their work and their claims and their responsibility alone. Levi and Essen and the other guys only tested a device of which they don’t even know how it is supposed to work. They can always say they have been fooled and would get away with it except for being tainted a bit naive – even that didn’t change compared to 2011.

        • Ransompw

          May 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm


          I don’t think you get this. The reason for doubts about Rossi occurred not because of alleged trickery (none was really ever detected) but because the output energy was never adequately measured in the other tests (demonstrations).

          It was you and your cronies that created this scenario of a scheme to defraud. All based on innuendo and circumstantial evidence at best.

          It always looked more to me like a very basic prototype that needed a world of work to turn into a product (assuming it could be). Based on this report and the R & D that was obviously going on with the Hot Cat between the various tests, my scenario looks much more correct.

          Anyway, much of Rossi’s heretofore statements that looked like fabrications turned out to be exactly true and it is possible some of his other statements may be true also.

          But the bottom line is, the output energy measure in these tests is really very simple and can’t be off by enough to change the conclusion. And since it is now clear you have NO idea what you are talking about, I see absolutely NO reason to pay your charge of deceit, trickery or fraud any heed without a modest bit of proof which you don’t have.

          All of which means you are just full of it.

      • psi

        May 22, 2013 at 1:40 am


    • Gregory

      May 21, 2013 at 8:10 am

      It’s written by “Rossi & Friends” because to do months of works you need the motivation and the funding – and also trust from the industrial that you’ll respect his IP. Expecting everything else at that stage was highly realistic (which is often a condition to skepticism, asking for unrealistic clauses).

      That being said, IF this is published (and even if not), there’s a bigger chance now that people unrelated to Rossi will want to spend time on this. Hell, MFMP just asked for it. But will Rossi allow this ? Fact is he has already been very open about his findings, more than his own interest dictated. I don’t expect him to do more than that. That is already quite a lot. We’ll probably have to wait for products deliveries now…

  17. Anna Lingus

    May 20, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Well, I am just tickled by this new report!

  18. Pachu

    May 20, 2013 at 7:32 pm


  19. Henk Klöpping

    May 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Good to see you back, admin. Proper peer review and replication of the results need to be done now. I don’t think we will see that happen, but we can hope.

    In the meantime, don’t spend a dime on this!

    • Gregory

      May 21, 2013 at 8:12 am

      Technically, the replication is what happened. Peer review of it, yes, that would be great, although not very meaningful for this kind of work (unless you expect their methodology to have some flaws).

      More replications would also be great but as you say, it’s unlikely we see other unless made by Rossi’s factories ^^

  20. Tom H

    May 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    I’m looking for an accounting of H2 reaction with oxygen absorbed on nickel nano particle surface. Haven’t found it. How can it be eliminated from reaction heat?

    • Anon2014

      May 21, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      “I’m looking for an accounting of H2 reaction with oxygen”.

      So am I. I am also extremely skeptical of the 1 gram or 0.3 gram tare weight analysis for concluding the energy density. After all, in a combustion chemical reaction the weight can go up if the oxide remains after. We are not allowed to observe and therefore directly measure what went in or out of the reaction or combustion chamber.

  21. John Bull

    May 20, 2013 at 8:07 pm


    Good to have you back. It takes balls i guess. This whole thing needs to be told to the world (and you were / are good at that). Opportunity loss outweighs a possible scratch on your (our) reputation by far. Do not let the “snakes” get to you again.



    • NJT

      May 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      I’ll second that…

  22. Frank Foster

    May 20, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    NOW will the mainstream media take hold? What a joy to watch this history grow. 🙂

  23. Harry Perini

    May 20, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    What is Krivit saying now ?

    • Methusela

      May 20, 2013 at 10:30 pm

      Hissing, I would think.

  24. Tony2

    May 20, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Krivit will say what he’s been saying all along and still be correct in his reasoning. This “report” is nothing more than a ploy to keep the marks…err….I mean licensees…moving along.

    The test wasn’t indipendant by a long shot. We haven’t heard from Levi for two years and now he arrives with another successful test! And from what I can gather we still don’t see a conclusive power in/power out test done. “Industrially Secret Waveform”? Please. That’s just code for “since nobody can test the power of the controller nobody will be able to find the earth lead carrying power”.

    Nope. Sorry to bust the bubble but this isn’t it. I will guarantee you that on this date in 2014 there will still be no one who has ever tested one properly; observed one in operation anywhere on this planet; or who can identify any customer or identify the partner.

    My guess is that in the next several months something will happen to sour the relationship between AR and the partner (it will be, of course, something the partner will have done. I’d make it be that the partner decided not to give the profits to the kids with cancer. That would be perfect). This will lead to a dissolution of that relationship and another agonizing delay as AR searches for a new, good solid thoughtful partner.

    What a load.


    PS – Welcome back Paul!

    • Ransompw

      May 21, 2013 at 4:06 am

      It was most certainly independent. Only a pseudoskeptic would even make such a claim. Funded by other than Rossi, tested by 7 scientists through at least 3 seperate universities. Results monitored and recorded by these scientists.

      I understand how tough it is to admit you were wrong but believe me it is good for you. Just be a bit more objective from now on and maybe you’ll get it right next time.

      • Tony

        May 21, 2013 at 11:04 pm


        This is nothing but the same cast of characters that have been involed in the fraud from the beginning. How do you know it was funded by some other entity that AR?

        And there is no definitive test yet done that can’t rule out fraud. If the machine is overunity on heat production and the ecat supposedly needs only heat for control then some of that excess heat could certainly be looped back to run the thing until the fuel was exhausted. Why the 1/3 on, 2/3 off electrical cycle?

        Nobody is allowed to monitor the “industrial waveform generator”? The test takes place with AR at the controls, again? The test takes place in AR’s garage in Baloney?

        Indipendant? I guess you’re right. This is another test that is completely indipendent of anything that remotely resembles proof.


        • psi

          May 22, 2013 at 1:42 am

          You really don’t get it, do you?

        • AB

          May 22, 2013 at 12:40 pm

          > This is nothing but the same cast of characters that have been involed in the fraud from the beginning.

          Levi had prior contact with Rossi. Essén and Petterson have attended a demonstration in the past. The four other people are new.

          Besides, you’re suggesting that merely seeing Rossi or the e-cat once is enough to sully the reputation of a scientist.

          • Al Potenza

            May 22, 2013 at 5:14 pm

            Levi has been a close associate and ardent supporter of Rossi’s from the start. He can be seen in lots of photos from virtually every demonstration.

    • Gregory

      May 21, 2013 at 8:14 am

      “The test wasn’t indipendant by a long shot”

      Define “independant”. Depending on your definition we’ll realise that 90% of all science isn’t independant, or that this paper actually is.

      Skepticism is good for the debate, as long as it is used with intellectual method & honesty.

      • Al Potenza

        May 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm

        In an independent test, Rossi would provide the ecat as an isolated device, a so-called “black box” which the investigators would not be allowed to open. Rossi would also supply instructions. Other than that, every component, EACH AND EVERY ONE, including the mains power, and all measuring equipment and methods would be decided and would furnished by people who have not been associated with Rossi.

        Levi has been intimately associated with Rossi from the start. He has been roundly critiqued for doing an early convincing test of the ecat and then “losing” the data (as he told Krivit during an interview). He is the LAST person who should be doing an “independent” test.

        • Shane D.

          May 23, 2013 at 3:28 am

          Surely Levi, as did the others, felt the sting of the criticisms leveled over the past 2 years by the likes of you and Krivits…. amongst many more.

          He is, afterall, a prideful professional. A high level physicist! His whole life has been dedicated to science for a pittance of what his intellect deserves.

          3 years ago he was witness to a phenomenon he could not explain and had never seen before. In his mind it could only be explained by processes yet unknown. He did his duty to science and humanity by reporting what he saw/ believed and suffered the rath of his mainstream peers.

          He could have as easily taken the mainstream path of silence to protect his integrity, but he didn’t. Bravo to him.

          I would speculate that; feeling the scorn for his honesty and dedication to the profession, he very much wanted to have another crack at the ecat to prove himself right, or wrong, to his peers.

          He got his chance, as did Hanno and Petterson, and found that, yet again, the ecat (this time the hotcat), was indeed, performing as he earlier reported.

          They all had plenty of time to rethink just how Rossi could have fooled them the first go around. As a result they went into this prepared. You can tell because they were meticulous in distancing themselves from Rossis’ input. Their own expenses, equipment, travel.

          They did it right. Just how you guys said it should have been done years ago. Yes, they couldn’t do it where they wanted, view the ingredients, and see inside, but that is understandable in light of Rossis patent concerns.

          But they did everything as professionally, and above board as they could, hoping to gain the support of their colleagues and be believed.

          Looks like they wasted their time.

  25. Harry Perini

    May 20, 2013 at 10:40 pm

    So I should not sell my oil stock short ?

    • Al Potenza

      May 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm

      Sure you should. And you should invest the proceeds with Roger Green. Perhaps you can get the distributorship for Timbuktu. I hear it gets pretty cold there during the winters.

  26. dsm

    May 20, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    I wish I could get excited about this but IMHO it is little different from the original comments from Essen & Kullander.

    I do *not* see it as an independent validation of the science. It really comes across as a report on how excited some folk became at another ‘demo’.

    I fear this is yet another egg-on-face episode for those of us so intent on wanting and needing Rossi’s claims to be true. Andrea has simply lied to long and too often.

    Again I am predicting it is Andrea Rossi’s last gasp attempt to get the EPO to *not* reject his patent application for which he was notified to be prepared for it to be so. On 30th April Andrea’s patent attorney filed a rebuttal of their reasons for rejection. It has always been IMHO Andrea Rossi’s goal to get a patent outside Italy and to use (he has requested it) its April 2008 priority to be able to claim he was 1st and to then go after anyone else who tries to patent a similar process.

    So, IMHO this is still about Rossi’s patent application with the EPO and no scientific organization is going to regard it as validation of a LENR reactor.

    Sorry but that is how I see it.

    Also, I say all the above even after my good friend Peter Gluck has all but endorsed this as proof that Andrea does have a LENR reactor.


    • Ben Stuttard

      May 20, 2013 at 11:46 pm

      But Rossi has been absolutely plain about the fact that he doesn’t seek scientific validation of his machines. Similarly, the authors make no bones of the fact that they cannot speculate about how the energy is generated.

      As McKubre (? perhaps?) stated, Rossi’s approach has always been “edisonian”, i.e. practical. Screw the theory! If it works, it works!

      Now, I cannot see how anyone can dispute the conclusions of the report – that the heat being given off the housing of the reactor (not even the reactor itself), and given the most cautious assumptions (read the bleedin’ report!) is at least 10x what is physically possible from any chemical reaction of similar size and weight.

      As I think the authors imply, in the face of this astonishing and outlandish result, any quibbling is wilfully beside the point.

      • dsm

        May 21, 2013 at 12:18 am

        As I understand it, calling an approach ‘Edisonian’ doesn’t mean what you posted here – “Rossi’s approach has always been “edisonian”, i.e. practical. Screw the theory! If it works, it works!”
        Edisonian has always been a reference to doing an experiment 100s if not 1000s of times UNTIL something works. That was his famous approach to inventing the common household light bulb.
        Also “Now, I cannot see how anyone can dispute the conclusions of the report ” neither will I when it has been performed in a ‘truly’ independent setting where all calorimetry errors can be discounted to the satisfaction of mainstream science. (please please don’t resort to conspiracy theory and call mainstream science a plot against LENR – that is absurd and defies the interests of all nations and all peoples for new energy)
        What I fear keeps cropping up here is people getting angry & emotional with anyone who asks the hard questions. Believe me if Andrea truly has a working LENR reactor we will all know soon enough but he has simply cried wolf & blown the JoNP trumpet too long & too loudly for sensible people not to question very carefully claims that the greatest invention since fire is proven.

        Again examining the claims calmly and carefully is the *only* way to do so.


        • Ransompw

          May 21, 2013 at 3:40 am

          Just curious, but why are you assuming mainstream science will reject the paper. They might, but I’d give them the chance to voicd their opinion before assuming what that opinion will be.

          And clearly, the people that post on sites such as this and Quax’s are not mainstream, there noise can be completely discounted.

      • Tony2

        May 21, 2013 at 2:40 am


        Please. There is still no power in/power out test and AR has still not shown a device that can make a cup of tea.

        If the device does what he says then feeding back the excess power should keep the thing in SSM forever. Power in for 35% of the time at some unknown power while it simply hangs onto the heat for awhile until the next power in is, as has been pointed out, the way my electric oven works.

        Show me the gas ecat. Show me how you burn the gas to start the ecat reaction and then modulate that for 35% of the time. That would be real interesting to see. This is where the whole scheme will collapse. AR can hide the electrons – he can’t hide the burners necessary to heat a mass up to the point where turning off the flame will hold enough heat long enough to last 5 minutes.

        Show me.


    • Ransompw

      May 21, 2013 at 3:54 am

      Rossi didn’t lie at all about this process. He even acknowledged a serious problem back in November about the November tests. Well a reactor meltdown sure qualifies. And I see this report as substantially different, the energy generated is measured. No if anything this really calls into question the unsubstatiated theories of fraud etc. raised by those who now seem very uninformed.

  27. Ben Stuttard

    May 20, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    I’ll amend a paragraph (of my post above!) to forestall some possible facile responses:

    Now, I cannot see how anyone can dispute the conclusions of the report – that the heat being given off the housing of the reactor (not even the reactor itself), and given the most cautious assumptions (read the bleedin’ report!) is at least 10x what is physically possible from any chemical reaction of similar size and weight and duration.

  28. spacegoat

    May 21, 2013 at 2:22 am

    Welcome back ECN

    Here is valid criticism:

    Ed Storms:
    The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?

    and Marryyugo

    No, the so-called side by side test is not good enough. The dummy run was done with DC heating while the actual run was done with a “proprietary” power supply of undetermined frequency and wave shape. That would be sufficient for the measuring instruments, which seem to be limited by the clamp-on ammeters to low frequencies and rounded waveforms, to make a substantial underestimation of the input power.

    • Eric

      May 21, 2013 at 10:21 am

      It appears dr. Storms have not read the report carefully enough:

      Edmund Storms wrote:

      However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature.

      Jed Rothwell responds:

      They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE:

      “Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A K-type thermocouple heat probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase. The values measured by the heat probe were always higher than those indicated by the IR camera: this difference, minimal in the case of the E-Cat HT2, was more noticeable in the dummy, where temperature readings proved to be always higher by about 2 °C. The most likely reason for the difference is to be sought in the fact that the probe, when covered with the dot securing it the surface, could not dissipate any heat by convection, unlike the areas adjacent to it.”

      The word “dot” is defined earlier in the paper:

      “Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s coat of paint. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras (Optris part: ACLSED).”

      • spacegoat

        May 21, 2013 at 11:32 am

        good info.

    • LCD

      May 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm

      they checked the camera with boiling water, it aint that hard folks. Lot less places to hide crap.

      By the way Krivit is probably going to hang himself one day soon.

      • Al Potenza

        May 22, 2013 at 5:08 pm

        Krivit simply interviews Essen and, in so doing, proves conclusively that the test was not independent.

        He also proved that most of the work was done by Rossi close associate Levi and not by Essen who admits he could not reproduce the experiment without some “effort”.

        You have a problem with that? Why, exactly? (or do you plan to sputter impotently and irrelevantly as you usually do?)

        • LCD

          May 22, 2013 at 5:42 pm

          Just like he proved conclusively for you before that Essen and Kullander were no longer endorsing the ecat and were turning tale and running from it.

          Anyways my problem is not with that but with the fact that Krivit has so erroneously gone to the scam side that his pride will never let him acknowledge that it is real.

          And by the looks of it your are in the same boat.

  29. spacegoat

    May 21, 2013 at 3:16 am

    Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. May 14th, 2013 Newsletter:

    Plasmoid density triples, fusion energy rises with purer plasma
    LPP tracks down what disrupted the filaments
    LPP has rendezvous with physics Nobel laureate and former Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu as Congress sets eye on ITER costs,%20May%2014,%202013.pdf

    Take a look if you prefer your energy future to be based on science not blogging.

  30. MaxS

    May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am

    funny to have reactor meltdowns at this stage of the development, means the technology is beyond control. Why not have the product tested that Rossi claims to sell since 2011? Oh I forget, it was a lie. He never sold any devices.
    But why not have the device tested by truly independent people (without e-cat history) with their measurement devices, on their premises, just to exclude the possibility of manipulation. Why wasn´t it done?
    Why not use state of the art equipment and experimental setups (see Storms critique) that rule out inaccuracies and measurement errors?
    Bottom line verdict is: if you believe Rossi and his associates are honest, it may be real.
    If you include chances of manipulation, this is not good enough. Questionsmarks remain.

    • dsm

      May 21, 2013 at 8:37 am


      you naughty naughty boy !!! – RansomPW has claimed emphatically that Andrea did not lie !.

      He is a lawyer & lawyers never lie so in lawyer speak neither has Andrea so consider yourself admonished in the true spirit of lawyer speak.

      To RansomPW, if you aren’t hearing lies then clearly there are/were none. But some of us have a different idea of what a lie is compared to someone who is in a profession only a tad younger than ‘professional’ women. But in most cases those ‘professional’ women really knew/know what they are and accept it.


      • Ransompw

        May 21, 2013 at 12:18 pm


        I said he didn’t lie about the these tests. What he said about them since last fall turned out to be accurate and your fantasy version of reality which you dream up based on the most death defying turns of logic ever seen turned out to the fantasy they always were. That has always been my problem with your posts. Stick to actual facts and don’t assume some twisted version of reality from your fantasy world.

    • Ransompw

      May 21, 2013 at 12:13 pm

      You are delusional if you think the 7 authors are shilling for Rossi. Crtique their paper if you can, that would be useful. The rest is nonsense and an obvious grasp at straws.

      • Al Potenza

        May 22, 2013 at 5:05 pm

        Most critics of this latest show believe that the investigators were duped by Rossi like the ones before were but with a different method. I don’t recall seeing anyone who thinks that the Swedes were “in on it”. You’re just waving a straw man around, aren’t you, Ransom?

  31. Eric Woudenberg

    May 21, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Darn you independent test lab results! Now I have to start reading this stupid back and forth about Rossi again.

    When oh when will NASA/NIST/DOE either put this thing to death or light the world on fire?

  32. Rad

    May 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    maryyugo: “I have not finished reading the paper but I am skeptical”.

    Fair enough 😀

    • Roger Barker

      May 21, 2013 at 9:48 pm

      Haha! Our cross dressing friend George Hody aka Mary Yugo is a class act!

  33. stan

    May 21, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    might be as good as a heat pump.

    • AlainCo

      May 21, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      heat pump cannot produce energy, cannot be looped , cannot produce electricity…

      COP of heat pump and of energy source (like LENR or fission, or gas) are of different nature.

    • Methusela

      May 22, 2013 at 12:07 am

      Not the old ‘ground wire’ argument, again.

      I despair.

    • AB

      May 22, 2013 at 12:49 pm

      So the apparatus is glowing red hot but the fraudulent wires are not. That makes no sense.

      • Tony

        May 22, 2013 at 10:44 pm

        Actually that’s the way it would be. 20 gauge wire is capable of carrying 7 A in free air with no issues. 7A at 115 VAC is roughly 1 kW disregadring all of the AC cycle stuff. If I drive this into a resistive heater made to take it, the heater will damn well glow while you could stuff the wires in your pants and only get a slight giggle, if that. If I bring the wire diameter up to 18 gauge (still very thin), it will carry 10 A for closer to 1.5 kW. Home electric radiant heating works like this and if it didn’t every house that has it would have burned to the ground hours after throwing the breakers.

        Here is where the believers are wrong. In all of these demonstrations, there has been a device providing “frequencies” and these devices have NEVER been monitored. He just calls it now the “industrial frequency generator”. BS. This device is taking the line AC and running power along the earth lead and up through the isoloated Home Depot shelving work into the reactor.

        There has NEVER been an effective measurement of just what is going into the ecat. In October of 2011 during that test there was a 450 kW diesel generator running for the duration of the test and the measured output of the ecat by the “customer” was, conveniently,450 kW. For God’s sake doesn’t that set off bells and whistles?

        Tell you what – rerun this latest experiment and and ask Levi to hold one wire connected to the rack holding the ecat and another wire held in his other hand touching the outside of the ecat. I bet he nominates Focardi for the “honor” of proving the ecat real.


  34. Roger Barker

    May 22, 2013 at 4:29 am

    I just keep thinking a lot of people have put their asses on the line by saying Rossi’s eCat is legit. I would have thought pulling one over Hanno Essén would not be easy given he is a skeptic.

    • RonB

      May 22, 2013 at 7:09 am

      Esp when they had hours or possibly even days to be alone with the setup. Lots of time to look for tricks.
      The fact that the first test unit actually melted down is interesting and hasn’t been the topic of discussion. I wonder if the resistive heating even has enough power by itself to do that.

      There’s talk about the TRIAC devices used to control the reaction and to me that sounds logical. Most of these devices provide zero crossing and it’s easy to implement control loops using cycle dropping techniques to control the temperature.

  35. Al Potenza

    May 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Here is an interesting quotation of a comment on Forbes purportedly quoting one of the investigators. Seems he has his doubts.

    “Flemming Ravn 1 hour ago

    So I asked Bo Höistad some questions, the reply was in Swedish and I have used google translate.

    Here’s a quick and short answers:

    1) All input power was in full control.

    2) No hidden energy source in the frame

    3) This question is good that you set. In physics, we can not have faith or gut feeling for about a phenomenon occurs or not. We need to find out what actually exists through accurate measurements.

    As a nuclear physicist, I can directly say that, based on the well-known knowledge of core processes, the probability of nuclear transformations that cause heat production in the E-cat vanishingly small. Furthermore, if for some unknown reason yet to take place, they would leave traces, which has not been observed so far.

    We wanted to investigate whether Rossi’s alleged heat can be verified in an independent survey. The first result is that we have an indication that the heat actually occurs that can not be explained by any chemical process. How heat production is to remain obscure. The result is obviously very dramatic and absolutely must be further verified before any definitive statements can be made. We intend to do that in a next step.

    There is still much work left before we can determine if Rossi’s E-cat works. The results so far are interesting enough to continue that work.


    Bo Höistad”

    • GN

      May 23, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      Thanks Al,
      Prof. Höistad clarifies the results.
      There is (he is certain about it) more heat than we can expect from chemical sources but we have no explanation why.
      … still much work left before we can determine IF Rossi’s E-cat works.

  36. Guru

    May 23, 2013 at 6:09 am

    For minimalisation of economic losses in the World, it is very important to make this report published in serious scientific journal.

    And one question: “Where is the report from 4 universities” ?

    Even today a thousands of CEOs are doing wrong decisions, because they do not know about this technology-this report. So everyday losses in the world by wrong allocation of sources are around 3 billion dollars per day (direct losses) to 9 billion per day (direct plus indirect losses).

    All these involved folks are playing very dangerous game with their delaying and yes, no, maybe, April, no end of April, yes, no, hehe, hehe girlish games. They are causing billions dollars losses for few millions more potential their profit.

    CEOs of all companies need clear information for their rational decisions. Yesterday was late.

    Rossi, please stop playing greedish girlish games.

  37. Neil Farbstein

    May 27, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Deleted by Admin