NyTeknik Publishes Detailed Report of the October 6th E-Cat Test in Bologna;

Swedish technology magazine NyTeknik has published their report of the October 6th, 2011 testing that took place in Bologna. It comes in two parts: a news story about the event, and a detailed report which covers many particulars and measurements of the test.

Some interesting points from the news report: Professor Roland Petterson of Uppsala University states, ““I’m convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements.” Also we learn that the 1 MW Plant that was supposed to be shipped to a customer in the USA had not been shipped by Rossi because of contractual terms that were unacceptable. The 1MW plant demo is still scheduled to take place; however, the location or customer is still unannounced.

The detailed report explains that the E-Cat ran in self-sustain mode for around three and a half hours and in this state Mats Lewan reports that,”output temperature inside the E-cat was stable about 114 degrees centigrade, and water could be felt boiling putting a hand on top of it. The external temperature was between 60 and 85 degrees centigrade.”

  • Francesco CH

    My comment: it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind!

    • Renzo

      Hi Francesco
      please can you tell me what is the source for the story about the contract between Rossi and Kbcp ?? If confirmed this is extremely important. I’d be very happy to know that Kbcp is Rossi’s “very big” partner… your comment has been reported on Peswiki and Passerini’s blog but still I can’t find the originale source

    • When will the games stop?

      Let’s not take that leap just yet. When Andrea Rossi gets serious about releasing his discovery to mankind, then we can take that big leap. When the fun and games and demonstrations stop, then it will be time to celebrate, not yet.

  • Brian

    After reading the detailed report from NyTeknik, I think people should pay attention to a particular time, that is 13:38 (1:38 PM).

    13:38 (1:38 PM) was the time when the Delta T finally started to show a heating of the water in the secondary. Before 13:38 there was no positive Delta T, no heating of the water in the secondary circuit.

    Power to the electric resistance was switched on at 11:52 AM. For 1 hour and 46 minutes (between 11:52 and 13:38) there was no heating of water in the secondary, even when external power was being provided to the E-Cat.

    If this is really a nuclear reactor, the nuclear reactions only started at 13:38 (1:38 PM). That’s the key time of the experiment.

    • Martin6078

      @Brian.
      I´v seen the report as well. I´m thinking in the first stage of the test
      Tm > T out is why the heat exchanger works like a cooling divice. It changig at 13:38 is rising over 30°C in relation to steam generation.
      I think this report should convince all skeptics.
      best regards:
      Martin

      • I think Rossi should start up the E-CAT without all the water filled inside, because to heat up all the water of the primary circuit takes a lot of additional electric energy, which could be saved, if the E-CAT first is heated up in dry state, to start reaction.
        Although you should then be able to fill in cooling water fast enough, or the E-CAT may melt down, or maybe blow up.

  • William

    Inconclusive. The measurement of the “delta T” in the secondary can’t be trusted, since the equipment had very low accuracy, and showed unaceptable variations in the measurement of the temperatures of water BEFORE the E-Cat started to work…

    A very poorly managed experiment, with inconclusive results.

    If Rossi thinks that “the market will be the judge”, he is wrong. He is wrong, because nobody will spend money buying a device that was not properly and scientifically demonstrated to work. I won’t spend even a cent to buy an E-cat, until this greedy inventor agrees to permit high level scientists, in high level Universities, make scientifically correct tests, with no measurement errors and conclusive results. I’m sick of Andrea Rossi’s greed, and his denial in permiting independent testing.

  • rc5011

    Can someone explain the total net gain in power of this experiment. Based on the report that the net gain in energy is about 3KW/hr. However, it does not include the power required to start up the E-CAT before it is in self sustained mode.

  • LoKiLeCh

    Where the electrical energy is gone?

    The “law of conservation of energy” says, that energy will not be lost. If you put in 2,7kW for about 4 hours, (as described in the report), you can get this energy (38MJ) out again. For example as warm water. Its not new its from 1842 (Julius Robert von Mayer)

  • s

    The report does not give total energy input and total energy output. Nor, does it clearly state the weight of the reactor core. And, the volume is “supposedly” 20x20x1. Hopefully, one of the scientists/professors/physicists present can write a report with more technical detail so we can really see what happened during the test.

  • Steve Taylor

    “Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by
    two persons knowing their weight.”

    Seriously? How can anyone claiming to be a “scientist” allow this in a report?

    And the big reactor sale to the US has fallen through. Just like the Greeks. Much as I’d like this to be true, the behaviour of Rossi is so suspicious it all seems to a con.

    What’s with the reactor? Why would anyone build a boiler to feed a heat exchanger? Surely a closed-loop oil-filled feed to the external heat exchanger would have produced far more heat, and isn’t hard to build, so why do it wrong?

    • JPCCUSA

      “Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by
      two persons knowing their weight.”

      Are you kidding me?!?!? Is this what they call “scientific”?!?!? What if those people with known weight drank more water the previous night? Couldn’t they afford scientific scales and calibration sets?!?!? And all the people in the room accept that?!?!?!?

      If I was a scientist trying to prove my credibility TO THE WORLD, I would do my best to leave no room for skepticism. Unfortunately, Rossi can’t do that because that would expose his probable scam.

      • Wes

        Rossi deemed it to be scientic because he weighed only scientists with the scale.

        • John Dlouhy

          LOL I laughed so hard I have tears! Good one Wes!

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Before we put any credence in the ‘test results’, we need to be sure the unit disassembled was the same one tested: was a neutral observer present throughout the cool down phase, or did everyone go off to dinner and leave the unit to be replaced if a fraud is being perpetuated?

  • fred

    It all looks just like the Steorn saga.

    Inconclusive testing with hidden parts, very low output energy with uncertainty regarding the measurement methods, repeated weird behaviour from the “inventor”, a couple of naive scientists and engineers (and yes you can be naive and very smart at the same time, being the nasa chief scientist or having won the nobel price does not mean you can’t be manipulated) giving only the appearance of credibility, gullible bloggers and so on…

    I think it only SEEMS more serious than Steorn only because the alleged technology is not “free energy”, but some sort of unknown reaction with sort of fuel (nickel) so it looks “plausible”.

    • fred

      “According to Andrea Rossi, only one of the reactors was in operation during the test.” (from the NyTeknik report)

      1) “According to Andrea Rossi”. LOL
      2) Why not activating the 3 reactors for a more conclusive testing? Come on people, why would Rossi decide to activate only one chamber and produce an inconclusive demo, instead of activating the 3 chambers, eliminating all doubts and selling his product all over the world right now? I’ll tell you why: these “reactors” are probably highly efficient battery or fuel cell, and if you add the energy from this battery, plus the heat from the initial 4 hours “start-up” phase, plus good insulation and bad measurement, then you get this cheap demo.

      • James N.

        Why? I’ll tell you why. Because in self-sustain mode the whole device goes freaking nuts. It’s like a rocket that wants to take off it’s so unstable. It can’t support all three chambers going on at once. It goes into a frenzied loop where each iteration gets stronger and stronger until it eventually speeds off like a bottle rocket. Rossi is working on fine tuning everything and making it safe for the public but it’s not ready for prime time yet.

  • georgehants

    As there where 30 plus observer’s, scientists and engineers at the demonstration and none of them up to now have condemned, what any school child could measure, as a fraud, combined with Defkalion not saying it is a fraud, combined with NASA not saying it is a fraud, it will be the biggest fraud conspiracy in the world.
    My Champagne is back in the case, but if these so called scientists who attended are so dumb they cannot confirm or deny by tonight, or state clearly what else must be shown, to end this farce of scientific measurement dementia then they need to go back to school.
    Until these scientists and engineers report, every complaint from commentators is a direct reflection on them and not Rossi.
    Every word spoken is a judgment on their competence or lack of.

    • LC

      Your second paragraph is spot on!

      The others, perhaps, not so much.

      Why would NASA (or others) bother commenting on this one way or another, if it is not generally considered credible by the scientific community?

      And should it be a requirement to be an invited spectator to call “shenanigans” if that’s how someone smells it., especially given Rossi’s dubious past?

      I am passing on these comment from other boards, as I see them as highly relevant. I am not a journalist and cannot attest to their accuracy, if you can please do. It may be worth the research. I would love to find out that this really is legit. Until then, let light be a disinfectant.

      From: Piccasso Moon on
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2980l11323l0l11915l9l8l0l2l2l0l332l1658l0.1.1.4l6l0&q=cache:PTAShMWxKTcJ:http://www.theoilage.com/cold-fusion-breakthrough-t3515.html+petroldragon+affair&ct=clnk

      “Andrea Rossi was involved in a previous energy scam. It’s known as the “Petroldragon affair.”

      He claims to have a degree in engineering from Kensington University – a diploma mill that was shut down by court order.

      One of the scientific advisers listed for his “journal” is George Kelly of the University of New Hampshire. There is no George Kelly at UNH. There used to be one, but he died in 1967. And he was a psychologist, not a physicist”

      From orzetto posting on Slashdot.com:
      “Mr. Rossi is a convicted felon, known for the Petroldragon [wikipedia.org] affair: in the 70s, he claimed he could make oil out of garbage. He was eventually sentenced five times, including bankruptcy fraud of said Petroldragon society. He managed to dodge some more convictions thanks to Italy’s statutory limitations law.

      Prof. Focardi has an academic career spanning over 50 years, yet he has amazingly few publications. On ScienceDirect only about 10 publications show up, of which only 2 as first author and dating to the 60s, the other ones are publication orgies with a dozen of authors or so dating to the early 70s. The greatest is the latest publication, dating back to 1986, with TWENTY-ONE other authors, that over 25 years gathered only 4 citations. In any case, Focardi never published anything on fusion, cold or warm.

      The patent filed by Rossi [uibm.gov.it] is titled “process and apparatus to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen”. There is no mention whatsoever that the reaction is nuclear.

      The mysterious device is explained vaguely (also in Italian sources) referring to likewise mysterious unknown nuclear forces. So, there is no theory, no experiment that can be reproduced, only claims.”

  • Julio

    Andrea Rossi is playing games. Nobody is concerned about “self-sustained mode”. I don’t care about “self-sustained mode”. I care about ENERGY BALANCE. What was the ratio between ENERGY IN and ENERGY OUT? This is what matters. And measured in megajoules (MJ), not watts. I’m not worried about power (watts), but about energy (joules).

    So far, Andrea Rossi did not prove that this “Energy Catalyzer” can put more joules out than joules in.

    Everything looks like a BIG FRAUD. Andrea Rossi is now saying that he no longer has a “partner” in the USA. He probably never had one. This guy is a huge SCAM.

    • jcragris

      self sustained mode is no external power for 4h:

      The equation to have this is very simple :
      If Delta T in degree centigrade, the energy (J) in Joule to heat 1KG of water from 1 degree is 4180J.
      Delta T = Delta T OUT – Delta T IN
      If Delta T = 5° J=5*4180=20900
      To obtain Watt/h you must divide J by 3600 Seconds
      W=J/3600=5,86 W/h per KG
      If you have 0,600 cubic meter or 600 Kg of water to heat In one hour:
      600*5,86W/h=3,516 KW/h
      This is the energy from the E-Cat in the last Test.
      It’s not depend of the overall weight (80KG) from E-CAT , but only of the emitted heat of the core reactor.

    • We’re all concerned about energy balance. However you put in 1kw, you get out 3 and you have a 300% return. You put in 0 kw and you get out 3.5, now you have an INFINITE RETURN. Self-sustaining mode is the ultimate in energy balance.

      • John Dlouhy

        But energy BALANCE isn’t the issue. Energy DENSITY is the issue, in order to rule out a chemical heat source in the large and inaccessible shielded reactor core.

        • Fred L

          Large ? 20x20x1cm (400cm³ or 0,4L) according to witnesses. Try to put inside such a small space a known chemical reaction producing sufficient heat to boil 30L of water for 3.5h and raise by 5°C around 2m³ of water… If you can find that kind of chemical reaction in the world I bet it’s called “A. Rossi’s Cold Fusion”.

          • John Dlouhy

            Fred, a witness is someone who has seen something with their own eyes. The people who attended the demonstration were allowed to look inside the reactor and what they saw was a large block of material, as much as 18 liters in volume (estimating from the picture on Nyteknik) with fins on top. They were told it was lead shielding and they were TOLD that inside this massive block was a very tiny reactor core of the dimensions you state. They did NOT witness its size.

            Rossi has also told us hydrogen pressure is essential to the process and that very high pressures are needed. Do the dimensions of a thin flat shaped container as you describe, seem suitable for containing very high pressure gas? Think scuba tanks, or welding gas cylinders.

  • jeffsmathers

    Impossible! It is a Hoax! Science has proved this as delusion….

    There is no way man can fly a craft into and though the air!

    Ooops! Sorry, wrong century…..

    • Abraham A

      Funny. Yet, be glad there are skeptics. Without them, con men would rule this planet.

      Oh crap. Right century…

      • Well said.

        • Jeff Shorkey

          So then, why do con men rule the planet?
          TODAY!

  • SamK

    I’d like to see this work, really, but the immediate credibility of the results isn’t helped by:
    1) introducing a mysterious black box that nobody gets to examine or including “bathroom scales” (calibrated by person standing on it) in the experimental setup
    2) having the results published by a popular magazine
    3) posting “scientific papers” in support of E-Cat on a very bogus looking “http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/” website (with the whois ownership information purposely obscured).

  • s

    I spent a few minutes to enter the numbers in the report in a spreadsheet to calculate delta time and voltage X current at each step for input energy and delta time and (Tout-Tin) at each step for output energy. The calcs ran for the entire 526 minute test. I used 0.14 amps when the power was said to be off, and I did not zero out the -0.5C bias at the heat exchanger that reduced the output energy. The results were interesting. Input energy, which included the ~0.48amps during the self sustain mode, was ~ 34 mega joules. Output energy was ~ 87megajoules. I might have made some small errors during the calcs, but I did not make anywhere near 50 megajoules of error due to the number of small time increments. If someone else runs the numbers and sees a ~50 megajoule energy gain, then, in my opinion, the test passed.

    • Ramon

      Previous calculations had found an output of 50 megajoules. How did you find that 87 megajoules figure?

      Anyway, if the input power was only 34 megajoules as you say, that would be a considerable energy gain. The remaining mistery would be: what the heck is the device that was “emitting frequencies”?

    • s

      Lol, as I stated, I went through the test data line by line and calculated incremental energy. I calculated about 87Mjoules output and 34Mjoules input for the entire test. The 50.2Mjoules I earlier calced were from total time/total water/average deltaT in self sustain mode only. The calcs in this post are probably more accurate.

  • Pingback: Scientific review of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — [REPORT] | Midas Oracle .ORG()

  • Martin6078

    I have red the report of Mats Levan about E-Cat test.
    I have asked him by e-mail:
    Dear Mats.
    I´ve read your Test of the Energy Catalyzer. The energy of the condensed steam, which is wasted in the drain, must be added by the calculation.
    But I´m thinking you´ll need a few days for a completive publication.
    Many thanks for your enquire to test the E-Cat.
    I can´t understand why not all tree chambers of the E-Cat had been active. Why have you not used all chambers? When I want to sell a car, I don´t remove the plugs of the other cylinders.
    Warm Regards:

  • arian

    ANDREA ROSSI answer to sterling email

    THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER (I MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE THE SELF SUSTAINING MODE THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY PRODUCING ENERGY MORE THAN IT CONSUMED, SO THAT THE ENERGY CONSUMED IS NOT LOST, BUT TURNED INTO ENERGY ITSELF, THEREFORE IS NOT PASSIVE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION: IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SPOTS OF DRIVE WITH THE RESISTANCE HAVE A DURATION OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES, WHILE THE DURATION OF THE SELF SUSTAINING MODES IS PROGRESSIVELY LONGER, UNTIL IT ARRIVES TO BE UP TO HOURS. BESIDES, WE PRODUCED AT LEAST 4.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 6 HOURS AND CONSUMED AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS, SO THAT WE MADE IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 25.8 kWh AND CONSUMED IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 3.9 kWh. iN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHICH MEANS NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE CONSUME IS MAINLY MADE DURING THE HEATING OF THE REACTOR DURING THE FIRST 2 HOURS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE WORST POSSIBLE RATIO IS 25.8 : 3.9 AND THIS IS THE COP 6 WHICH WE ALWAYS SAID. OF COURSE, THE COP IS BETTER, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE REACTOR, ONCE IN TEMPERATURE, NEEDS NOT TO BE HEATED AGAIN FROM ROOM TEMPERATURE TO OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE.

    WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL, ANDREA ROSSI

    • John Dlouhy

      ANDREA ROSSI,

      WHY DID YOU CUT THE TEST SHORT AFTER ONLY 4 HOURS WHEN YOU SAID IT WOULD RUN FOR MORE THAN 12?

      WHY DIDN’T YOU LET ONE OF THE MANY SCIENTISTS SET UP THE MEASUREMENTS ON THEIR OWN?

      WHY DIDN’T YOU RUN ALL THREE CORES SO WE COULD SEE THAT THE POWER OUTPUT MATCHES YOUR CLAIMS?

      WHY DO YOUR BUSINESS DEALS KEEP FALLING THROUGH?

      WHY ARE YOU HAVING FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHEN YOU OWN THE MOST VALUABLE DISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD?

      WARM REGARDS

  • I did a bunch of number crunching on the data published by NyTeknik. Check out: http://nickelpower.org/2011/10/07/my-take-on-october-7th-e-cat-test/#more-155 I think my data is much more readable than the spreadsheet published by NyTeknik.

    I show that in self-sustain mode the output power was an average of 5200 watts. This, of course, was 1/3 the capacity of the unit. So the unit was demonstrating a respectable 15,600 watts. (Albeit somewhat less than the 35,000 watts as promoted.)

  • Neymar

    It would be much more simple if Andrea Rossi used a standard joulemeter in the input, to measure the exact consumption of electricity…

    It’s so easy to find and buy a joulemeter. Everyone has a joulemeter from the utility company at home. Why he don’t use it?

    • He did one better, he turned the input power off for 3.5 hours!

  • Matt

    I’m sorry, but the bathroom scale was scientifically calibrated by two people who knew their exact weight at that exact time? No one had a professional, scientific scale which was then calibrated to a calibrated weight

    • Where is the bathroom scale used? The NyTeknic report says that they used the following scientific instrument:

      * Scale
      Model: TKW 15 S
      S/N: 2917029003
      Max 15000 g
      d= 0.1 g
      Certified according to ISO 9001:2000

  • Wes

    Why did Rossi schedule a rushed demo in early October, risking a poor showing? I conclude that he was using this demo to force the customer to accept his terms, hoping the customer would put his concerns about the e-cats second to his concerns about a competitor snatching the deal after the public demo (which he had survived before). Manipulation, it seems, is the secret catalyst.

  • George Smith

    Heat storage, combined with an efficient lithium-ion battery hidden in the device.

    When the temperature of the steam starts to gradually decline, energy from the lithium-ion battery is gradually used to keep the temperature stable. But it can’t last for more than 4 or 5 hours…

    • Serdar Erkan

      You’re right George. To me this is just another scam. They are still talking about “uncertainties, “room for additional tests” etc. What kind of contraption is this? A power generator produces power and does not need supply of power to itself in the first place, except for momentarily during black-starting. What kind of pathetic reporting from this so-called Swedish institue: “youl could “feel” water boiling inside” etc.. Are these people kidding primary school pupils? It is a shame that people who should now better are acting like accomplices to these pretentious sunday-scienties and “inventors” who obviously know nothing about essential science of the subject, let alone technological and implimentation aspects. I’ve been a power field engineer for 34 years and believe I know a little about the subject matter. This is simply a heat-pump type of device with a COP od several factors (like any commercially available heat-pump), probably boosted with some energy storage capability, coupled with some obvious LENR effects (that do not really produce any net power) to make it look credible. LENR is a serious subject, albeit quite far from resulting in any stable, controllable and usable net energy production capability as yet, and is best handled by experienced scientists and engineers, not buy tricksters.

      S.Erkan, Nuclear Engineer

      • Francesco CH

        The test was very satisfactory and within 20 days the 1MW plant will be inaugurated.

        • PersonFromPorlock

          Unless ‘the government’ steals it, which is probably the next excuse we’ll hear.

      • DARIO

        FORSE LA TUA MACCHINA NON HA BISOGNO DELLA BATTERIA PER AVVIARLA? 🙂

        • Francesco CH

          : ) thumb up!!!

      • Stefan

        No surprise that nuclear engineer is in opposition, besides it defies all his expertise plus it poses a threat to be out of job.

    • There is no reason to think the test was fake as Mr. Rossi has a history in science and engineering and why someone would like to be banished from this media as Pons and Fleischman were. No one will repeat more this mistake, unless for economic reasons or madness and it´s certainly not the case. A simple use of titanium or vanadium powder inside can deliver some heat in a chemical way, there are many ways to deceive but the question is: Why ?

      Certainly, there is no reason.

    • Aman

      There is something about Ni-H that produces a high amount of energy, but only short time with a battery like effect. Other researcher produce similar results but the metal alloys take large amounts of energies for the process of manufacturing. So my guess: The energy comes from some galvanic process related to metal alloys,however you need a lot of energy to produce these metal alloys.

      Actually there is no proof that Rossi produces more energy since we do not know how the reactants in the reactor are made up. I assume that Rossi does not reveal his catalysts because they won’t be different from what other researcher came up with. Maybe Rossi made some optimization, but probably nothing that would be new to an extent that he could claim a patent for the process.

      I don’t know what kind of process control Rossi is employing on the reactor. He measures temperatures but there are no active elements that steer anything. He simply switches his reactor own, then it needs some time to reach its maximum with auxiliary power, than he switches auxiliary off and it emits energy for maybe up to 4h. After that, what does it takes to continue? Changing the catalyst?

  • Francesco CH

    Article from Il Sole 24 Ore (in Italian)

    http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi

    written by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis who was present at the event.

    SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE OF MAURIZIO MELIS:

    1) Melis tells us that Swedish and American representatives of the industrial world were present, but they refused to reveal which corporations they work for

    2) Melis tells us that representatives from the Univiersities of Uppsala and Bologna were present. The University of Bologna ordered its representatives not to talk with the press

    3) Melis states that this time, although margins of error were still present, the measurements were more solid compared to the the ones taken during the previous tests thanks of the new setting for the experiment

    4) In particular, the uncertainties concerning the measurement of the produced energy was eliminated (before there was the problem of the quality of the steam. This problem was completely eliminated by using a secondary circuit)

    5) however, critical points remain, because the test was no performed in neutral field. Melis hopes that soon university tests will be performed in order to eliminate the problem

  • Dr. Y. V. Kissin

    The test leaves little doubt that a significant amount of energy is produced in the e-cat apparatus in a self-sustained mode. Tre real amount of produced energy is significantly higher because a large fraction of the heat was wasted; the insulation was hot and the surface of the secondary heat exchanger was hot. Any specialist in heat exchange can guess quite precisely the efficiency of the total set-up. My very crude estimation is: the efficiency is not higher than 0.6-0.7. The 0.5oC decreasing of the measured deltaT value has no ground. Looking at the plot of the run, the real deltaT value was, on average, 5.0oC or higher. These two corrections alone will increase the energy production by a factor of 1.8-2.0.
    One simple experiment (a dry run), without engaging the e-cat action, would greatly increase the significance of the October 6 test:
    .Use the e-cat unit without nickel and hydrogen.
    Heat it, in stages, until the same electric power is applied. Wait until the steady temperature reading is reached and at least 30-40 minutes longer. A comparison with the Temperature/Time plot in the real experiment will tell when the e-cat action really starts.
    Turn off the heat and plot the temperature as the empty unit cools. The rate of cooling will tell whether there is any post-action in the real e-cat, after hydrogen is released.
    Two final comments:
    The post like the one above, by Gearge Smith, clearly show that the real opposition to the e-cat idea rapidly evaporates and only angly rumbling of defeated opponents remain.
    Second: any attempts to declare that there is some unidentified chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen that may lead to the heat evolution are useless. Nickel does not react with hydsrogen at increased temperatures. Ane there is no chemical reactions called “Well, I do not know”.

  • Francesco CH

    VIDEO ABOUT THE TEST (IN ITALIAN):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slIzU1esPIA

  • Luca Salvarani

    From Passerini, I think it could be very important:

    He writes that the e-cat will be soon indipendently tested by universities of Bolonia and Uppsala… so there will be no doubts, in any sense (positive or negative).

    • John

      Thanks. Link?

  • Roger Barker

    Who is Rossi trying to fool?! This is yet just another sham of a test and shows absolutely no convincing evidence of excess heat.

    Also Rossi has now lost his contract with the secret American company.

    • “shows absolutely no convincing evidence of excess heat.” Ok, so the thing was heating water at a pace of 5 horsepower (more like 8 by my calculations) for 3.5 hours. How did it do that if not by producing excess heat?

      “Rossi has now lost his contract with the secret American company.” Don’t write the American company off so fast. They sent Rossi a contract that had some lawyer’s additions. This is the way of contracts and lawyers. It makes them feel important. Don’t worry, if the American company believes that the e-cat is for real, they will get past their lawyers.

      • Francesco CH

        Rossi DID NOT LOST THE CONTRACT WITH THE US COMPANY.

        He decided not to sign until now, but there is a lot of margin of compromise BEFORE the start of the 1MW plant, and I think also afterward.

        THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THIS: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, i.e. the American company, wanted that the shipping in the US of the 1MW plant would be sent under the name of Andrea Rossi AND NOT under the name of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

        Now, this could seem a minutia, instead it is NOT a minutia: according to US law, if you start a nuclear plant on the US soil without authorisation the US govt can arrest you and put in jail forever and ever even if you live in the mountains of Afghanistan.

        Hence Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers wanted Rossi to assume this risk and not them!!!

        Of course Rossi said: “no”.

        MY OPINION: the contract will be signed, but due to legal implication the 1MW plant will not be inaugurated in the US, instead it will be inaugurated in Europe, probably in Italy.

        Just wait 20 days since now: the plant will be inaugurated, and it will be clear to you that the plant is able to produce A LOT of energy

        • Hello

          Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me how you know the name of the company is Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers? Do you have a link for this? thanks.

        • Bryan

          If Kleiner Perkins is the investor, that’s lame as hell because we can’t get in on that. They’re a private venture capital firm. I wish there was a way I could invest in Rossi’s invention.

          • I have invested in Cyclone Power (CYPW, pink). They produce steam engines for automotive and generator use. When the e-cat becomes the real thing, this company will take off like a rocket-ship. Its a bit indirect, but better than shorting a bunch of stuff. My money is also going to be hard into the first car company that produces a gas-less car.

          • Marcus

            They buy Nissan stock. They already have a 100% electric car. Their batteries look advanced also.

        • If a venture capital fund is with Rossi, then where is the venture capital?

          • Stefan

            It’s matter of specifics in contract, you make assumption that if it’s VC contract then they pay upfront; clearly it is only one of many possible arrangements and it’s all around portion of IP ownership. Rossi apparently is not the guy who gives up his property easily so VC may not have an upfront leverage option therefore Rossi must manage his limited resources very wisely to keep on…

        • Renzo

          Hi Francesco
          what is your source for that?? If true this is a very important news but I can’t find it

        • Renzo

          I mean it is important because it would confirm that kpcb is Rossi partner!!!

        • This is interesting. I think Rossi’s become pretty conscious of legal traps. How, by the way, do you know this?

  • Aman

    There is something about Ni-H that produces a high amount of energy, but only short time with a battery like effect. Other researcher produce similar results but the metal alloys take large amounts of energies for the process of manufacturing. So my guess: The energy comes from some galvanic process related to metal alloys,however you need a lot of energy to produce these metal alloys.

    Actually there is no proof that Rossi produces more energy since we do not know how the reactants in the reactor are made up. I assume that Rossi does not reveal his catalysts because they won’t be different from what other researcher came up with. Maybe Rossi made some optimization, but probably nothing that would be new to an extent that he could claim a patent for the process.

    I don’t know what kind of process control Rossi is employing on the reactor. He measures temperatures but there are no active elements that steer anything. He simply switches his reactor own, then it needs some time to reach its maximum with auxiliary power, than he switches auxiliary off and it emits energy for maybe up to 4h. After that, what does it takes to continue? Changing the catalyst?

    • Aman

      One more point: The 1MW consists of numerous single e-cats. Why so many? My guess, Rossi tries to do a cycling process switching between e-cats to overcome the limited time period of heat emission for a single unit. This would be same as trying to build a perpetuum mobile by coupling elements that do not produce excess energy. Probably the 1MW plant is not working as Rossi thought. I would like to ask him why he has so many single e-catts.

      • Fred L

        My friend, I’m a bit tired of reading such blatantly biased comment like yours. You make assumption upon assumpion with not a single fact to corroborate your skepticism. Do you really think that the “secret” catalyzer requires actually more energy than the reaction produces ? I will tell you something, if this is the case, Rossi a found the best battery design in the world. So in any case, this is revolutionary. In my opinion, if Rossi has decided to use 52 E-CAT’s instead of 1 BIG E-CAT the size of container, is rather easy to understand, first it’s much cheaper, and second it’s much easy to maintain, moreover you can make a progressive start and control the output power by switching on/off a certain amount of E-CAT. So his 1MW plant design for me is just perfect.

        • Aman

          Doing assumption is what drives science. I’ve clearly stated that they are assumptions, I’ve mad no personal attacks on Rossi. I do believe that there is something about Ni-x-H and no cheap scam like hidden batteries or the like. But, as others have outlined what is the energy density of this reaction. Calculations show about 100 kW produced from Ni in a 50ccm compartment. Still this would be questionable as a future source of energy and no cold fusion type of energy density.

          So why can’t Rossi get a patent on his process or haven’t tried?

    • Let me respond to your wisdom in this matter.

      1 – “Other researcher produce similar results but the metal alloys take large amounts of energies for the process of manufacturing.”

      Please show me where anyone has a battery-like device that can output 5 horsepower for 3.5 hours and fits in 3 containers that are 20*20*1 cm. What I know is that my electric fishing motor uses a heavy duty car battery. It weighs about 70 pounds. It outputs about 1 horsepower for about 1 hour. Lithium ion batteries pack about twice that punch for about 8 times the cost. If the kind of power that was demonstrated in this demo were available in a battery-like device, we’d have electric cars already.

      2 – “Actually there is no proof that Rossi produces more energy since we do not know how the reactants in the reactor are made up.”

      So if we don’t know the internals of the reactor we can get no sense of whether it was producing energy? My wife doesn’t know how a car motor works, yet she’s pretty sure that when she pushes the gas pedal it’ll go faster.

      Consider the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box. You will see that this “we don’t know what’s inside but we’ll figure it out based upon what goes in and comes out” concept is a well established scientific concept.

      3 – “it emits energy for maybe up to 4h. After that, what does it takes to continue? Changing the catalyst?” Well, let’s see, a few months back he and Dr. Levi ran the thing for 18 hours without needing to change the catalyst. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
      Could it possibly be that the thing stopped because he turned it off? He says that the thing runs without changing anything for 6 months straight. I know, he might be lying or exaggerating, but we do know it’ll run for 18 hours straight.
      BTW, do you know what a catalyst is? By its very definition a catalyst doesn’t need changing. Look it up.

      4 “The 1MW consists of numerous single e-cats. Why so many?” If you look at the 18 hour test you will see that it was outputting about 27kw of energy most of the time (it was a bigger reactor). However, there were periods where it was outputting 135kw. This instability, according to Dr. Rossi, was worrisome, so he built a smaller core to obtain greater stability. IE, bigger cores threaten to go BOOM! It might just be Rossi spinning a line, however it is believable.

      Happy now?

  • This thread has become tedious. Frank, have you considered pruning the tree of the dumbest skeptical goop?
    Just sayin’.

    • admin

      This is a place for people to share their opinions, so I am going to let comments stand so long as people use common decency, and are not blatantly insulting others. Down the road we can look back and figure out who had it right!

  • FabrizioFromBirthplaceOfColombo

    I want one to warm my house.
    I’m tired of paying so much for gas,
    and I want to see again the steam trains go.
    N.B. Fuck the skeptics

    Unus erat Mundus; Duo sunt, ait Iste: fuere
    Fresco on Columbus’ birth house

  • Nicacio

    During 1 hour and 45 minutes, the E-Cat was provided with electric input, and didn’t produce any heating of the water in the secondary. 1 hour and 45 minutes with zero output.

    I hope people remember this “detail” when they come to defend Rossi.

    • Fred L

      Your assumption is wrong. During the 1h45min when input current was provided at an average rate of about 2400W/h the 30 liters of water inside the E-CAT is heated from 25° to the boiling T°. And because the secondary circuit and his heat exchanger need STEAM from the E-CAT to heat the water flow… How the hell do you want the secondaty circuit to be heated if the water inside the E-CAT has not reached the boiling phase ? Moreover, unless you need no energy to heat 30L of water from 25° to 100°C the electric energy provided is not LOST it is stored in the water inside the E-CAT.

      • Stefan

        Apparently you are right, it’s really sad people type so much faster then they think ;o(

  • Gran

    Any type of nuclear reactuon takes tons of activation energy, fission or fusion. The fact that the ecat doesnt simply spring to lfe with the flick of a switch seems in line with a nuclear, not chemical reaction.

  • Penguin

    This report is very conservative. Using the figures published in the detailed report I came up with the following

    Total Energy consumed = ~9kw/h (includes power used for the control systems)
    Total Energy outputted = ~ 25kw/h

    The issue I have with the analysis is that it assumes a temperature differentail of only 4.7, and then subtracts 0.5 to be conservative, however the actual delta was around 7 degrees.

    I have repeated the calculations several times and got the same answer
    My calc based on following
    1.16 watts per 1 degree temp delta, per litre of water

    eg: just for the 3.5 hours of self sustain @ 641 litres per hour of water flow = 18.8 kw/h (using exact values provided at the various time intervals as below)

    Time Duration T Delta kw/h energy produced
    15:56 3 8.5 316
    16:13 17 8.2 1725
    16:22 9 6.8 757
    16:38 16 8.2 1623
    16:50 12 10.8 1604
    17:08 18 9 2004
    17:20 12 6.6 980
    17:33 13 6.1 981
    18:00 27 7.2 2405
    18:40 40 5.3 2623
    18:53 13 5.7 917
    19:03 10 5.3 656
    19:22 19 8.2 1928
    19:25 3 8.1 301
    Total 18820

    Conclusion
    The raw data, when crunched shows a net gain factor of around 3x. Of couse if the unit ran in self sustain mode for longer then this figure would be higher. Unless there was some kind of hidden energy source then it appears we have lift-off 🙂

    • I think the test could be optimized to use less electric energy for startup.

      Now they used a primary loop with heat exchanger and a secondary water heating loop.

      So while startup first they use much electric energy to heat up all water from switched on primary circuit, and heat exchanger looses energy too and heats secondary water.

      If they control the primary circuit better, lower the water level in primary heat exchanger and switch off its pump while startup, maybe they can safe 3/4 from used electric energy.

      • Fred L

        Following your comment, and based upon the pictures of the interior of the E-CAT… if Rossi can plug the secondary circuit directly on the heat exchanger inside the E-CAT, you actually don’t need the water to be boiling inside the E-CAT, the heat of the core will directly be transfered to the secondary circuit. From the report, the outside of the E-CAT even with the insulation was about 60-85°C which means that A LOT of the heat was radiated outside the E-CAT ! With this kind of new design, you just have to put the heater resistance in the core to make it reach the reaction temperature which is obviously around 120°C. You don’t need to heat the 30L of water up to 120°C in order for the reactor to start. And you get rid of the radiated heat because the water inside the E-CAT could be maintain lower because de secondary circuit with pump fresh water directly inside the E-CAT. I don’t know how Rossi plan to cool the 1MW container with 52 E-CAT (with 3 cores running and not 1) radiating 60-85°C each ?!!

        • well sure he should use a protective suit, like some worker in a steel factory, because if something goes wrong, some E-CAT would overheat, and could spring a leak.

  • arian

    From this picture you can see almost 60 to 70 percent of inside reactor
    filled with heat exchanger stick to core reactor like heat exchanger that stick to cpu in your desktop computer. i don’t know how this amount of energy can generate by this tiny core reactor without nuclear reaction.

    http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284879.ece/BINARY/original/DSC_0089_600.jpg

  • Martin6078

    Dear all.
    I have found the homepage of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. It is a consulting company for foeign enterpises to the US market. If Andrea Rossi has real contact to them-I don´t know.
    Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers: http://www.kpcb.com/
    Best regards:

    • NewVisions

      Kleiner Perkins is not a consulting company. It is a premier venture capital company with several technology funds. They were key to starting Google and Amazon and a number of other major companies. Their Green Fund is headed by Al Gore (former us VP under Clinton), and another major fund is headed by former General Colin Powell.

      They are “top dog” in the VC world. If they are actually behind this, then this is as real as it gets.

      “If”

      • roseland67

        Didn’t they back EESTOR???

  • arian

    if you go to http://www.e-cat.com you redirect to http://www.kpcb.com/.

    • This is very interesting. Not only are we directed to KPCB, but there is no mention on the site that I can find of the e-cat. This would be consistent with a breakdown in negotiations between the American company and Dr. Rossi. Could it be that Rossi is much more of an inventor than a negotiator?

  • Olivier

    The damage to LENR research is already done by repeated unscientific and obscure tests in non-neutral places, claimes over claimes and an apparatus that has a name and a price before tested in a independent laboratory.

    • jjjioman

      Ain’t that the sad truth. And who are all of these people who keep supporting these obvious fakes? Perhaps a team that’s working together to keep such research destroyed?

    • fred

      +1

    • gillana

      non so bene l’inglese spero che troverai un traduttore inglese-italiano.
      cosa importa dov’è il luogo dove è fatto un esperimento se molti invitati a fare test sull’esperimento sono famosi e competenti e sono state fatte tutte le prove del caso , quando l’esperimento è riuscito sia prima che dopo non sono stati trovati trucchi o apparecchi truffaldini o sospetti?

      • I started with google translate and enhanced your comment a bit:

        I do not know English well I hope you will find a translator English-Italian.
        What does it matter where the place where you did an experiment. Those invited to do several tests on the experiment are known and competent. They have made ​​all the appropriate tests. The experiment worked! Both before and after were not found equipment for tricks or anything fraudulent or suspicious?

  • s

    The test clearly passed. Output was at least 87Megajoules of energy and total input was ~34 Megajoules. This is > than a 53Megajoule energy gain which is very significant. And, the actual output energy was much more because the ecat was still over 100C and the delta T across the exchanger was over 2C when the data recording was stopped. And, there was a bias in the heat exchanger thermistors that reduced measured output energy.

    It’s interesting that people are saying the test failed or even lost energy when the numbers say otherwise. Perhaps wait until after you have calculated all the numbers for the entire test before commenting.

    • jjjioman

      I’ve seen calculations that one single ecat core alone could high enough moderately compressed hydrogen to produce 588 MJ.

    • jjjioman

      That’s nothing! rossi claims to use nickle. Not sure what the energy density of nickel is, but the known energy density of boron as a usable fuel is 138 MJ/L. At 50cm x 60cm x 35cm, that comes to nearly 15,000 MJ!! I don’t think rossi’s 34 MJ is must of an achievement.

    • s

      The argument against the ecat for 9 months was that the steam measurements were taken incorrectly and that caused the excess heat. Now, since this test has completely obliterated that argument, the argument is that there is some exotic power source stored in the ecat making the excess heat.

      The argument that it has an internal hidden power source is questionable because if it went on market, it would have a warranty or guarantee if it failed to work. Why would someone spend so much money to design and build something they knew would be returned by the customer when it failed after the hidden energy ran out?

      I wonder if people making arguments against the ecat are in industries threatened by the ecat if it works.

      • jjjioman

        * Yes, there are a lot of issues with the eCat. One at a time.

        * Compressed hydrogen is not some “exotic power.” It’s been around for decades.

        * About once or twice per year there’s a huge free energy fake. These people show no or very little interest in making $. Why is a truckload of people who support these fakes time after time, and these supporters always seem oblivious why anyone or group would want to do that. Come on! Obvious answer is that someone or group is trying to keep the LENR & free energy research reputation destroyed.

        Massive free energy investigation is coming your way, soon. What ever group that’s been creating these fakes every year will be caught, just like big oil was caught recently paying anti global warmest millions of dollars under the table.

    • s

      Other scientists have gone on record that they internally checked the Ecat for hidden wires or fuel sources before tests and before they allowed their name to be used supporting it, I believe. I’ll take the word of those scientists that the Ecat has no internal power sources.

      There must have been hundreds if not thousands of blog pages written saying the ecat’s excess heat was due to errors in steam measurement. Since that argument has been thoroughly shattered, it’s on to the next straw to grasp at…

      • I agree with you, the “excess heat was due to errors in steam measurement” argument is thoroughly shattered by this test. In addition, Rossi has demonstrated a stable self-sustaining mode. These two accomplishments are a lot for the October 6th test.

  • iivari

    Based on this, no infinite gain:

    http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/News:Real-Time_Updates_on_the_October_6,_2011_E-Cat_Test

    Look at the input Energy in the third figure. It never goes to zero. However, the plotted power at the “power resistor” (4th and 5th figure) seems to be at zero, so maybe the 15 MJ plotted (“energy in”) after 15:36 time stamp in the third figure is just a simple typo.

  • Frank

    Hi,

    Because the temperature measuremts at the heat exchanger inlet and outlet seems to be done very poor, I checked wheter the (calculated maximum) energy in the steam created by the e-cat matches with the claimed temperature gain in the heat-exchanger.
    The result is disillusioning: Even when you assume that all the water flow into the e-cat is converted into steam, the energy in this steam is far lower (approximately only half) of the claimed energy in the cooling water temperature increase in the secondary loop of the heat exchanger.

    Of course, the calculation is based on the statement in the test report, that the (condensed) water flow of the primary loop was 0,91g/sec.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Last week, on another website I was wondering if, when nickel and a metal oxide reached the right temperature immediately around the heating filament in the e-cat, a localized burst of energy (a powerful shock wave, or “explosion”, enhanced by having Hydrogen hanging around dissociated Oxygen!) was released that dissociated other hydrogen molecules from H2 into H1 atoms that then slammed into the atoms in the surrounding Nickel lattice, possibly assisted by Casimir cavities to focus and enhance the blast effect – a sort of reverse sonoluminescence process in that it involves a now expanding bubble slamming the hydrogen into the nickel lattice. So this, in other words, is one of the major roles the catalyst plays, why it is needed, and why energy initially needs to be added until thing get hot enough.

      Now It wouldn’t be the first time that a blast (in this case, intense microblast, but the idea is the same) was used to push particles together…and I understand in those other cases, quite a lot of energy is released as neutrons slam into surrounding metal atoms that split to produce more neutrons and so on – once the initial energy is added, away the ride goes!

      Anyway, if this were the case, then a set of filament wires running between two plates and packed around with finely ground “porous Nickel” (for want of a better term) together with the “metal oxide” in the presence of a vacuum to which hydrogen was then added under pressure would enhance the effect by providing more opportunity for localized thermite reactions next to the very many (very hot) fine heating elements to react (interplay) with the hydrogen introduced under pressure – maybe this is also why, when air / oxygen is present, the effect is not seen, as the free oxygen simply reacts with the hydrogen too soon, before any thermite reaction can occur.

      Now, such a hypothesis could easily be tested by any decent chemistry lab (without breaking the bank), by exploring the effects of using different pressures, geometries and mixtures and finding the optimum values for each.

      If thermite reactions near the heating filaments were playing a role then, in the limit (wires getting smaller and more numerous, like hairs, and heating more instant), an even more powerful fusion-based energy release system could be developed, scalable from a matchbox upward (initial external energy sources aside). Further, by synchronizing “energy pulses” through the material, preferably using electromagnetic energy, a high speed energy “wave” could be created to travel through the device to enhance the effect still further (though preferably not radially, as such a wave could be used to create a super-powerful implosion into a chamber of deuterium / tritium, something that would release rather too much energy…)