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

Andrea Rossi NextMe eCat Q&A

May 30, 2013

The following Q&A is posted on Rossi’e blog. While I am wary of trying to figure out what we can take away from his numerous proclamations, I find his comments regarding the test conditions interesting. In various post-test author comments, it is evident that there were more checks undertaken than those published in the paper. Here, Rossi says that the testers performed various cautionary moves (such as providing their own cables) that I find reassuring. I have no reason to doubt this as – with so many authors involved – the statement would (I hope) be challenged by one or more of them.

Other comments of note include two further tests and an admition that things are not likely to speed up. As with all such postings, we must remind ourselves to treat them with caution. For some, that will mean dismissing them and for others, perhaps, provide another meta-data point for the Rossi enigmaCat.


  • Dear dr Rossi,
    we are interested to ask you a short interview. We leave here the questions. Thank you in advance for your readiness
    Kind regards
    Roberta De Carolis on behalf of

    The independent test results confirm the scientific validity of the Hot E-cat equipment. As it has been reported on the publication report, the performance has been verified successfully. But how could you explain the difference between the COP you stated in the past (11.6) and the results obtained on E-cat HT (5.6) and E-cat HT 2 (2.9)?

    Which are the main differences between E-cat HT and E-cat HT 2? Are you agree with the explanations provided by the researchers about the difference observed in the COP values?

    The tests are essentially  based on the measurement of the incoming and the outcoming energy, so they could not prove the reaction mechanism. Why should we be sure that this is a nuclear reaction?

    Hot E-cat is co-generation thermal-electric system, and you stated that production of electricity has been committed to Siemens AG, developing a suitable turbine to be coupled to the reactor. Could you confirm this collaboration?

    Do you believe that this important result could speed up the certification procedures for security? Could you estimate the timings?

    The delivery of three plants of 1 MW E-Cat in the U.S. is now official. However, in an earlier statement you mentioned customers, but now we came to know that they are industrial partners. Could you tell us if this delivery is just preliminary to the real one and when this will happen?

    We know that that a US client representative attended the test. Could you tell us whether he is the client buying the plant? Could you communicate to our readers the satisfaction degree expressed by him about the testing?



  • Andrea Rossi

    1- COP depends from temperature and many other factors. The Examiners also considered all the margin of errors in the worst situation against us, to be conservative at maximum. They wanted to be sure beyond any possible and reasonable doubt. For example: they wanted a wood plan to put on all the electric and electronic devices, they wanted to use their own cables of their own measurement devices, they wanted to lift and seat themselves any conponent to be sure no other cables or any kind of contact was there…combining all the margin of error against us we lost a lot of efficiency, but it is fine, since the scope of the test was not commercial, it was merely scientific: the Professors wanted to know beyond any reasonable doubt if there was an excess of energy or not
    2- Yes, I substantially agree. The differences are described in the report
    3- Because of the 1st principle of thermodynamic. See also the Ragone diagram
    4- We are under NDA
    5- No, I do not see any nexus. The certification for the industrial plants has been granted, though
    6- We delivered to our US Partner. He will deliver to his Customers
    7- Wrong: the test of the Indoipendent Third Party, made in March, has nothing to do with the test made by the US Partner on April 30 and May 1. The test made by the Customer has made possible for us to continue to work for the Customer. It has been better than expected, we got results better that what we has guaranteed.
    Good Luck to your magazine!
    Andrea Rossi


Posted by on May 30, 2013. Filed under Business,licencing,Media & Blogs,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

6 Responses to Andrea Rossi NextMe eCat Q&A

  1. Roger Barker

    May 30, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    See this is where I have a big problem with Rossi. When the “independent” test results were revealed there was some hope Rossi could really have something here. But then Rossi spouts this BS about not one but three 1MW eCats being delivered to customers. Yeah right.

    • Ransompw

      May 30, 2013 at 10:22 pm


      The person asking the question said 3 1Mw plants. Rossi just let it go. What Rossi said earlier is 3 devices were delivered to the US customer, a 1Mw reactor and two prototypes not 1Mw. (hot cat and Gascat).

      I have a problem with Rossi everytime he opens his mouth (or types).

      • Al Potenza

        May 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

        I have a problem with every time he conducts or allows a “test”. Each is worse than the previous one. My favorite though is still the one from October 28, 2011 where the huge generator was connected to the ecat, no detailed measurements were shown, and the entire invited group of dignitaries was mostly confined to a room away from the experiment where, presumably, they were treated to snacks of bologna and sips of wine.

    • knstanley7

      June 2, 2013 at 3:38 am

      yes, deliverd to industeral partners who have customers for the three 1mw reactors. so this company is marketing & selling the product here in the u.s. and world wide i believe

  2. John Milstone

    May 31, 2013 at 12:41 am

    Keep in mind that in the “cheese” videos, the poster was able to use unmodified test equipment (and cables).

    It’s the power cable that is suspect. During the next test, they should unplug it from the outlet for the 4-minute “off” periods. That would be the easiest and best way to insure that Rossi doesn’t have the power connection rigged.

    But, of course, they won’t do that.

    • knstanley7

      June 2, 2013 at 4:01 am

      your mistaken the power output was way to high,for that,also power supply was on only 35% of the time and off 65% of the time during the 119 hours of 850 degrees celsius,100celsius,water boils,212 fahrenheit, 1696 degrees f* low est.some unknown process is in the works here.