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

Defkalion Picks 1MW Testers

July 31, 2011

Today we learn that AR’s customer has nominated the scientists destined to test the 1MW plant in October. I take this to mean Defkalion as that particular plant is specifically built for them.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Roger Hill,
    Thank you for your suggestion: the Scientists nominated by our Customer , plus Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize), Sven Kullander (Sweden Royal Academy of Sweden and Uppsala University), Hanno Essen ( University of Uppsala), Giuseppe Levi (University of Bologna) and the very, very top level world-class Scientists of the USA already chosen by our Customer will guarantee all the necessary knowledge.
    I want not to teach to the cats how to “miew”.
    Warm Regards,

We also learn that the protocol has been addressed before the test. Given the public nature of this event and its obvious controversy, it is imperative that these protocols are rigidly followed and satisfy the scientists in attendance. This group must be independent and credible. If all this is true and we have a thumbs-up from these people, everything changes.

  • A. Goumy

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    In the answer you made yesterday to Prof. Josephson, you stated that “the 1 MW plant that we will start up in October will be tested […] by very, very high level world class scientists”. I guess that most of them, if not all, asked you for a detailed description of the experimental protocol you are planning to use for these tests, in order to give you feedback and get to a scientific consensus before the tests.

    If my guess is correct, would it be possible for your Readers to have at least a rough idea of this protocol, when it is agreed by all scientists ?

    Best regards.


Perhaps Steven Krivit should be invited to make sure everything is as it should be. That would ensure objectivity and keep those incompetent scientists from making fools of themselves. To identify an incompetent scientist, read what he says – if it supports Rossi’s claims, he is not doing things correctly and if it is critical then he is.

Posted by on July 31, 2011. Filed under Business,Defkalion,Hyperion,products,Rossi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

35 Responses to Defkalion Picks 1MW Testers

  1. maryyugo

    July 31, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    The simple fact is that Rossi’s claims have never been properly evaluated nor has the E-cat. I didn’t read Krivit’s very long reports yet but I think he was generally on the right track last time he wrote about the matter.

    It doesn’t matter WHO tests the E-cat. It matters HOW they do it. There are several acceptable ways and NONE has yet been done.

    First, heat of evaporation of water, as Rossi has done so far, is very error prone, just as Krivit and all the consultants he asked about it, are saying.

    The proper way to do the test, if you must make steam, is by “sparging” the steam. Running it through a simple heat exchanger and water bath and measuring the temperature rise in the bath.

    But the best method is to measure the temperature rise in fluid rather than steam. And the fluid must flow at a rate that creates a substantial rise in temperature. More than the five degrees observed by Levi. And the measurements must be accurately noted, photographed and documented, unlike what was done by Levi.

    Two E-cats must be operated in the above tests in parallel — one with hydrogen in it and the other without and they then should be interchanged.

    The test should be done without input power but if some power is needed, it has to be VERY accurately metered, as for example, with a precision power meter.

    Note that NONE of this has ever been done, none is specifically said to be planned and no demo or experiment yet has been done without the full control of Mr. Rossi including his supplying the power, the coolant and the means of disposing of the steam. None of that is acceptable.

    Easy and convincing tests of the E-cat could be done in a week. I keep asking myself why Rossi has not done them. I sure would have if I were him.

    • John Dlouhy

      July 31, 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Your assertion that “It doesn’t matter WHO tests the E-cat. It matters HOW they do it.” is intellectually immature and based on two ludicrous assumptions.
      The first is that you, I or the majority of readers have the extensive experience in practical experimental procedure to be able to design a sophisticated test procedure. To think we could have something valuable to contribute to people who are experts in the field with many years of education and practical experience is laughably naive.
      The second is that obviously we won’t be there to carry out these “brilliant” procedures of yours first hand with a functioning E-Cat and equipment that we ourselves have brought, calibrated, and understand fully how to use. Therefore we will be left accepting the reports of others who have done it in our stead. In which case we will have to trust that these people were competent, thorough, and honest in their evaluation. I posit that “who” does the testing is the only thing that matters from our perspective. Your preference for Krivit’s views over that of Kulllander, Focardi, Levi, and other qualified and respected scientists illustrates my point.

      • maryyugo

        July 31, 2011 at 9:03 pm

        >>The first is that you, I or the majority of readers have the extensive experience in practical experimental procedure to be able to design a sophisticated test procedure. <<

        Ahha… that's very funny. How do you know what I know? Are you perhaps a psychic?

        Actually I have extensive experience with both fluid flow and heat transfer. I worked in a lab which specialized in reactor safety and liquid sodium cooled reactors for many years. I also helped to design high precision biocalorimeters. I am *eminently* qualified to test Rossi's machine and I could do it PROPERLY in a week.

        • John Dlouhy

          August 1, 2011 at 6:07 am

          The anonymity of the internet allows you to say what you will about your qualifications obviously without any chance of verification. I’m not psychic. I was just basing my assumption on the unsophisticated nature of your suggestions. Be that as it may, the calorimetry is only half the necessary test and unless you are also an expert in power measurement you wouldn’t be able to properly test the E-Cat and my point stands. You do remember my point? That it matters more “who” than “how” for those of us without access.

          • maryyugo

            August 2, 2011 at 4:54 pm

            It takes an expert to read a power meter? You’re the one that seems to know nothing about this issue.

          • maryyugo

            August 2, 2011 at 5:52 pm

            Also, and I am being the psychic now, I think you’re probably a lawyer or a financial type. And one who knows absolutely nothing about science, the scientific method, and how claims which are extreme in character need to be tested — especially when they are made by someone with Rossi’s checkered past — a past which includes two failed new technologies, PetrolDragon and a heat to electricity device.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm

            I’ve received insults before but never anything so denigrating as being called a “lawyer”.

            You wrote…”It takes an expert to read a power meter? You’re the one that seems to know nothing about this issue.” …well one of us doesn’t.

            It definitely takes an expert to measure input power and here is why. (this is where I offer an actual argument instead of a baseless opinion, maybe you should take note)

            Electricity is the movement of electrons through a conductor caused by a voltage. Neither need be steady state but can be fluctuating and the power transferred is the product of their components that are in phase. There are different types of meters, analogue, digital, clamp, and they can all give misleading measurements if used incorrectly. For example a clamp (induction) style meter won’t read a dc component. An analogue meter may not detect a very high frequency component. And a digital meter is easily fooled by strongly non-sinusoidal wave forms, especially when integrating power.

            There are three power wires leading to the E-Cat and all three would need to be analysed for every possible power waveform that might be transmitted from a “modified” electrical outlet. In addition, any conductive path could be used to covertly transfer power to the reactor housing which itself is copper. For example the table top and legs could carry power from a hidden source in the floor.

            Furthermore power can be transferred by induction and present experiments are transmitting over several feet. A large coil hidden in the floor could be used to transfer energy to the E-Cat. Even radio waves and microwaves could transfer considerable power in the right configuration.

            I’m just a hobbyist though. I wonder what some actual experts could think of?

            Look maryyugo, I get it. You like to argue, and you desperately need to feel that you’ve won an argument to appease your ego so I’ll let you have the last word now. But I’ll leave you with something to think about. Maybe you shouldn’t be so emotionally involved in your opinions and in what you think you know. There really is no shame in being wrong. That’s a bad attitude that is formed in youth and often not grown out of. I am proved wrong on a daily basis and welcome it as a chance to learn. Occasionally I’m right but then I learn nothing. Consider the words of Socrates, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.”

  2. maryyugo

    July 31, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Oh… and the headline seems overly optimistic. Specifically who did Rossi pick? Other than the people who mishandled the job previously?

    • LCD

      July 31, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      Mary sorry to have to disagree with you again as I am also not convinced. But what you mean is no PUBLIC test has ever validated the ecat. There is no way you can know what you said. And yes five degrees can be plenty with the right setup.

      • maryyugo

        July 31, 2011 at 8:24 pm

        Yes, of course no PUBLIC test. What good is a private test in convincing the public, the scientific community, etc. etc.

        Of course a delta-T of 5 degrees is fine if the accuracy, calibration and resolution are adequate. I was trying to keep the technical part limited.

        Rossi never showed the calibration, in fact Levi never provided the actual data to Krivit, who asked politely, or to anyone. For asking, Rossi called Krivit a snake and a clown. How confidence building is that?

        • Jimbo Stoner

          August 1, 2011 at 6:37 pm

          MY: “What good is a private test in convincing the public, the scientific community, etc. etc.”

          Rossi ain’t your bitch. As long as he’s not taking tax money, he has no duty you or me or anybody but his customers. You seem to have a real hard time picking that up.

          • maryyugo

            August 1, 2011 at 9:19 pm

            I guess you could have said the same thing about Bernard Madhoff and it would have made just as good sense. Except that Madhoff is in jail for life. Why is that? He didn’t take any money and “he had no duty to anybody but his customers” — right?

          • Jimbo Stoner

            August 1, 2011 at 10:36 pm

            Don’t be ridiculous. This thing has to work in the marketplace, by driving a steam-turbine, and soon. If it doesn’t, Rossi’s jerky, and that’s all she wrote. No common points whatever with Madoff.

            And it’s “Madhoff”. A smart person would have picked that up.

  3. maryyugo

    July 31, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Almost forgot: another obvious experiment for Rossi to do which takes a day is to grab two of his many hundred finished E-cats. Feed one hydrogen and deny it to the other. Run both in parallel measuring the output heat by whatever means you want except it has to be precise and exactly the same for both E-cats. Run long enough to rule out a chemical or stored energy process by at least a factor of ten. Then switch the E-cats. That would tell you in a day whether they work or not. Rossi was asked about it and refused to do it.

    • mcap

      August 1, 2011 at 12:45 am

      The last comment of yours is a little naive to say at least, given your skepticism how would you know the 2 systems are run exactly in the same way since it is Rossi so far the only one able to run them?
      John is right is WHO is running the test that’s most important.

      • maryyugo

        August 2, 2011 at 2:07 am

        Obviously the test would have to be run by someone other than Rossi. How difficult can it be to set a temperature controller? That and the water flow rate are the only variables that can be changed during an E-cat’s operation. The purpose of interchanging the E-cats as to which gets the hydrogen is specifically to prevent on being tampered with and not the other. You’ve never heard of a “controlled” experiment?

  4. rockinghorse

    July 31, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Actually, if Rossi would have done a convincing test e.g. heating water in a pool, then it would not exclude chemical burding fake wery well. Now as method was very sloppy that E-Cat produced only just 30-70 % of what was claimed and, then it almost certainly means that there is no chemical fake behind! If he would construct a chemical fake, he would naturally squeezed every joule from hidden hydrogen bottle and make sure that people will notice that. Now as nobody is certain how much E-Cat actually produced energy, it is clear proof that E-Cat does really work!

  5. rockinghorse

    July 31, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Typo correction: burding should be burning.

  6. Tony

    August 1, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Actually, Krivit is in no way independent – as his recent hatchet jobs show. He would not accept the result of any experiment.

    • maryyugo

      August 2, 2011 at 2:08 am

      If Rossi obtained the right experiment (we’ve already outlined which ones many times– it’s the one he so far has refused to do), then nobody could not accept the result. Of course it would have to be done by someone other than Rossi.

  7. Pingback: Defkalion Picks 1MW Testers | eCatNow! – Energy Catalyzer News

  8. Rockyspoon

    August 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I agree with Tony–Krivit is a huge distraction. And to maryyugo, Rossi is past testing individual E-Cat units. His next demonstration is a 1MW unit comprised of many E-Cats. Apparently he’s satisfied that ALL of them work, not just individual units but we’ll know in about 3 months whether to celebrate or wait until irregularities are worked out. But further to your request: Rossi doesn’t need to convince the public–he only needs to convince his financial backers and his customers and he’s apparently done that. You’ll use the electricity eventually generated from these units whether there’s been a public demonstration that meets your standards or not–it makes no difference to Rossi.

    • maryyugo

      August 2, 2011 at 2:10 am

      >>we’ll know in about 3 months whether to celebrate or wait until irregularities are worked out.<<

      We may or may not know. We may get delays, rationalizations, deceptive or unclear demonstrations or just excuses. Who knows?

  9. 123star

    August 1, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    I agree with maryyugo.
    Not only I think that the tests are non-conclusive, but from the videos I’ve seen I am led to think that Rossi’s claims are incorrect.

    I remind you that
    7kg/h of dry steam (as declared by Rossi) corresponds to about 4400 W of power (considering only latent heat
    of vaporization). Check
    7(kg of water/h)*2260*(kJ/kg latent vaporization heat)/3600 seconds=4,4 kW

    2011 – Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer

    At 11:30 the steam flow is (visually) incompatible with 7kg/h of dry steam declared by Rossi.

    Compare with the video “steam-7kg/h.avi” by mariomassa55
    Side note, if the alleged 7kg/h mass flow is true, one could argue that Rossi’s steam is not dry but wet, so it wouldn’t correspond to 4400 W but to much less.
    The steam flow looks more like the 900W one shown in the video below: “Kettle steam comparison with Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer.wmv”.
    Therefore the steam output can be considered more or less compatible with the 750 W grid input.
    Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer (Andrea Rossi)

    In this video the steam flow is greater than in the previous video, but Andrea Rossi is caught with his hand operating power controls!
    Also, the bubbling sound starts abruptly just as the camera operator approaches the bucket.
    This is clearly very suspicious.
    steam-7kg/h.avi, by mariomassa55

    This is how a flow of 7kg/h should look like according to mariomassa55.
    Kettle steam comparison with Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer.wmv

    this video shows how 4400W steam output looks like and how 900W looks like.
    Test 3 – by MrPowwapuff

    1700W (effective 1200W) steam output through a hose

    Watch the videos before judging.

  10. James

    August 2, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Before we talk of refueling this thing lets see one that will actually do what has been stated.
    To be self sustaining it must provide it own source of Hydrogen and not be connected to any other power source.
    Heat can be converted to electrical energy with thermocouples that can charge a battery that provides starting power and control and electrolyze Hydrogen from water.
    The idea that it must be connected to an outside power source is a big clue this is a hoax!

  11. kade

    August 2, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    If the japanese power generation facility had a proper connection to an outside power source, the disaster that is now being delt with would not have happened at all.
    That is to say that if a stability problem with the power generation system, requires a stable source of power to correct the problem, as it appears the E cat does, connecting output of the power generator to its control input would be about the dumbest move one could make.
    The E cat from what I have gleaned from public information, is both driven by and produces heat. This is a tentatively unstable system, since it presumably can cause itself to increase its own reaction rate if the heat generated exceeds the heat removed. To ensure that the system remains stable, one would need to ensure that the heat removed is greater than the heat that could be generated by the reaction on its own. This can be done, but would require an external controllable heat source to start and stop or controll the reactor.
    To me, that at external source of power is required to demonstrate this device is further evidence that it is what it claims to be, it makes total sense.
    In terms of the power gains claimed, I believe that close examination of the very first report by Levi, which shows a photograph of the temperature traces during a test of an Ecat, show very clearly that the power gain is at least a factor of 12, before any steam is produced.
    This is evidenced in the rate of change of the water exit temperature immediately after ignition point as compared to imeddiately prior to the ingnition point when only the 1100 watts electrical input was applied to the system. The rate of changeof temperature in my estimation by eye is at least a factor of 12 times faster following the initial ignition point than before that point (take only the first five minutes after ignition as the measurement period). Keeping in mind that at this time, the water temperature is far below the boiling point, so the question about wet or dry steam is not relevent at this time.
    Since the bulk mass of the system must be increased in temperature with the water, the temperature can not change instantaniously but will change as a function of the heat input vs the heat capacity of the system. The initial rate of change of the stsrem and water temperature provides a calibration of what about 1100 watts of heat input causes in terms of rate of change of temperature a 12 times heat input rate to the same system bulk would cause a rate of change in temeprature that is about 12 times faster, which is what is shown but not mentioned in the Levi report.
    I do not need any more convincing than that.
    It is quite possible that the functioning of the device is still a bit unreliable, so non repeatability in testing could still be an issue, and may be what has lead to criticisms.

  12. Haldor

    August 3, 2011 at 8:11 am

    And another tester is added to the list!
    Andrea Rossi
    August 2nd, 2011 at 7:10 PM
    Dear Greven Grevesson:
    You are right: I will invite Prof. Peter Ekstrom to visit the plant.
    Warm Regards,
    A very suprising choice, because for those who don’t know Peter Ekström has been one of the most critizing scientist so far!

    • maryyugo

      August 3, 2011 at 5:31 pm

      You have to be careful when you read what Rossi writes. Ekstrom would be invited to VISIT the plant. Rossi said nothing about conducting tests of the plant. Looking at the plant reveals nothing. It is easy to make it look as if it works as long as you don’t conduct independent tests.

      The megawatt plant is not necessary or desirable for proving Rossi’s claims. The correct method, as John helpfully highlighted for me, is independent confirmation by someone other than Rossi running all the tests, providing the site and the power and the coolant and making all the measurements. And it can’t be one of his buddies like Levi. It has to be another university officially doing it or a major test lab. And a 5 kilowatt E-cat is just as good as a megawatt plant for the tests.

      Defkalion claims they will have their Hyperion independently tested at the 5 to 35 kw level IIRC. And they are supposed to obtain certification from the Greek government authorities. And independent testing from people who want to get franchises for Hyperions. We’ll see if they really do. So far, they don’t seem to even be able to maintain an open forum and a working web site without bad links.

  13. maryyugo

    August 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    There’s no reply option to John Dlouhy’s post above so I’ll respond here. He wrote “It definitely takes an expert to measure input power and here is why. (this is where I offer an actual argument instead of a baseless opinion, maybe you should take note)”.

    If you had been following the discussion, I have always asked that Rossi’s device be tested independently. That would mean that Rossi would not provide the power input to the E-cat. That has ALWAYS been an issue with his current tests and demos. Thanks for pointing that out. It’s a reason to DOUBT Rossi, not believe him. I appreciate your making my case.

    If the experimenter is independent, there would be no secret power sources on the input line. And it would be very easy to measure it with an ordinary clamp on ammeter. But if you needed to be exotic, you could always use this:

    As they say in the ad, it is VERY wide band.

    Stick to what you know, John. It isn’t debunking claims for energy making devices.

    • Anthony Reinberger

      August 4, 2011 at 1:23 am

      That’s quite the watt-meter. When Rossi did his first public test, I wondered why he didn’t use something like this. I would have bought one out of my own pocket (maybe a slightly cheaper one) and sent it to him if I knew he couldn’t get one. A completely automated script measuring and logging temperature, water flow and input power in Excel could have been set up by many university students. I wonder why it wasn’t and hasn’t been used since? He posted to me he “will consider it”. If his system works, which I hope it does, then he had no intentions of proving anything. If his system doesn’t work, then we will know why.

    • John Dlouhy

      August 4, 2011 at 3:26 pm

      maryyugo, next time just hit the last reply button in the thread and it will put your comment next in order. The system only lets you nest 4 times as the reply windows would become too small otherwise.

  14. Peter Heckert

    August 5, 2011 at 7:43 am

    Input energy measurement is not needed for a demonstration. Use a 1 kW transformer as input source, this serves as a 100% reliable energy bottleneck. It can deliver 2 kW, but will turn hot then and will reliably blow the fuse if more is drawn.
    If 10 kW output energy is created, this is a very convincing demonstration. Not precise, but very reliable and visible.
    Of course they must show off the output energy somehow. They could heat a water bath with a heat exchanger.
    High precision is not needed for this amount of energy. It is easy to show this off in a convincing way that removes all reasonable doubt.

    • John Dlouhy

      August 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm

      Hi Peter, of course obviating input power measurement is the right solution for a real test. Although a transformer ,somewhat of a black box itself, connected to the grid, might still invite skepticism from outside observers.

      Another method is to use a bank of lead acid storage batteries and a power inverter.. The voltage on the batteries gives a good indication of their charge with a well characterized margin of error. Assuming the test is run long enough with a large enough output properly measured there could be no doubt. The dc voltage measurement in this case is simple and reliable, and the input energy amount is absolutely limited. Of course BYOB.

      I suspect your method is the way specialists would actually run a real test for convenience sake, able to trust the function of the equipment they are using. It is of course well obvious to anyone in the field that Dr. Rossi has had no intention of offering an unequivocal test so far. In this light, it is mildly amusing (and finally monotonous) to read the posts of the pseudoskeptics as they pass the same 2 ideas back and forth repeatedly.

      Incidentally, I also read your post about the steam chamber’s small capacity, a very interesting point. In the Lewvan video, the functioning E-Cat actually has the chamber cut down even smaller.

      • maryyugo

        August 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm

        No, it’s not the way to conduct a proper test and a test would not be conducted that way. It’s trivial these days to measure power precisely and that is what should be done. What’s the cost of a proper meter compared to the billions of Euros or dollars this technology will eventually bring in… if it’s real?

        • John Dlouhy

          August 6, 2011 at 12:09 am

          As always, thank you for your insightful counterpoint.