New Analysis of October 6th E-Cat Test Demonstrates Validity of the E-Cat

Recently on the vortex-l discussion board there appeared an analysis done by Bob Higgins — scientist of Motorola solutions — of the October 6th E-Cat test in Bologna.

From my point of view it is a very deep and extensive analysis that clearly demonstrates a positive outcome of the test despite some known weaknesses. Although a lot of things could have been improved, the strength of the effect shown was so big that the effect of important flaws still remained only at a noise level, or as Higgins put it in nicer words – “have been of second order”.

The most important part of the analysis in my eyes is that Bob Higgins did a very detailed calculation of all the energy (including final stored energy inside the E-Cat) not having passed via the heat exchanger (i.e. lost energy), and thus did not contribute to the final input/output energy balance. Doing all these computations (containing heat radiation from E-Cat surface and many more) still in a conservative way, he arrives at a total Output/Input ratio of 3.

Clearly this ratio could have been still largely improved by allowing more time for the self-sustain phase of the E-Cat operation and there was obviously no reason at all why this should not have worked properly.

I strongly recommend reading the details of the analysis, which seems a really good piece of true scientific work, and to me as a physicist leaves only little doubt about the validity of the E-Cat.

Dr. Johannes Hagel, physicist, Neuss Germany

  • arian

    finally mainstream media in usa pay attention to andrea rossi.

  • Alexvs

    The whole story would be credible if a low scale prototyp without energy input (real self sustain mode) had be able to to light a tiny LED. The Defkalion, NASA, unknown USA buyer and similar items make the whole issue unbelievable. This reminds me the case “Perendev Magnetic Motor”.

  • John Dlouhy

    Dr. Hagel, it is with concern that I read your remarks about Higgin’s specious evaluation of Rossi’s demonstration. You say that it “clearly demonstrates a positive outcome of the test”. This would only be true if the purpose of the test had been to demonstrate an amount of heat somewhat larger than the electrical power input, but such a claim would hardly be remarkable, or worthy of any special attention. In fact that was not Rossi’s claim.

    His claim has always been that he has developed a small and safe nuclear reactor and a test to verify that claim must necessarily demonstrate nuclear scale energy densities. It must, at the very least, comfortably exceed known chemical energy densities. Higgin’s evaluation doesn’t even discuss energy density and with good reason. Insufficient measurements and observations were provided to do so.

    Considering the high energy densities of some esoteric chemical exothermal reactions and the unobserved volume inside the reactor beneath the heat exchange fins, we have not yet observed anything extraordinary. Higgin’s attention to detail, which you underscore, actually tends to obfuscate the unacceptable fact of Rossi’s provision, placement, and monitoring of the apparatus without independent verification. Your glowing support of this analysis, in spite of its overt shortcomings, is misleading to less technically minded people.

    For such an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof rests on Andrea Rossi. Science is a chain that can reliably lift our doubts, but only if all of the links are intact. Rossi’s demonstration lacked several of these. He may yet provide proof of his invention at a later date, but so far has failed to do so. To call Higgin’s analysis a “really good piece of true scientific work” you would have to abandon important scientific othodoxy.

    • Johannes Hagel

      Dr Dlouhy, for me only one fact counts. We have here a (black) box of roughly 50ccm, the reactor which – according to Higgins analysis – produced 3 times the amount of energy put into the system. And we speak of energies in the kWh ranges. The reactor does it without burning any known chemical because 50 ccm of such materia will not be able to provide the energy balance over the measured time interval. This and not more is for sure in my eyes and can be deduced from Higgins analysis. Did I say more than that?
      In my opinion this result is indicating the possibility of industrial application at least for heating purposes and most probably for much more. This is what counts.
      You are perfectly right. The experiment shown to us does not fully conform to good scientific standards. But why not proceed to applications NOW and postpone strictly scientific procedures to later? I guess that the electricity powering these strict experiments will then come partially from E-Cat powered plants. At least I do hope so.

      • John Dlouhy

        Dr.Hagel, Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. I have not earned the title of Doctor. I am merely an ardent enthusiast who has carefully followed Rossi’s claims since January, last. I agree with you that a technological application can of course precede a full scientific explanation as long as safe operating parameters can be demonstrated. My concern, which is now heightened by your statement, “for me only one fact counts.” is that the size of the reactor module is unknown and therefore cannot be counted as a “fact”.

        We must rely solely on Rossi’s word that the dimensions of the core are 20x20x1cm and that only 1/3 of it is operating. By his description it is encased in 5 cm of lead shielding to yield a box of 20x20x4cm(I’m aware of the math error, but I am relating to you strictly what was said).These dimensions yield a volume of 1.6 L and if the energy produced was verified to be from even this larger volume, it would still be significant.

        Unfortunately, observing scientists, while permitted to view the opened reactor housing, were unable to witness the core as it was occluded by the large metal plate supporting the heat exchange fins. The unobserved volume beneath this plate was substantially more than 1.6 L. Adding to the uncertainty, Rossi forbade visual inspection of the interior of the reactor before the demonstration, contrary to earlier indications.

        I apologize if my tone seems adversarial. I am simply puzzled as to why this obvious and overt consideration is being overlooked by several members of the scientific community. Could Rossi’s temerity have encouraged this oversight? Or have I simply erred in my interpretation of the report?

        So as not to end on a negative note, I still join others in the hope that Rossi has discovered something special, and that it will soon be demonstrated adequately or brought to market. It would indeed be a welcome turning point for humanity.

  • Pingback: Cold Fusion As Real As Ever | HEDLIGN()

  • Well, to make fools of 50 experts… Not very likely. Then Rossi is, if nothing else, a real genius, in least in scams.
    I red some papers on LENR, and they sound very impressive. They are work of serios experiments by serious scientists. They generaly produced excess heat in predictable and verifiable manner. Rossi’s eCat does it only with more intensity, but that is finally what catalysts do.
    My bet is 10:1 that’s for real. Well, tehre is some difference between reasonable reserve and utter nihilism.

  • Pingback: E-Cat e Andrea Rossi, nel web crescono i sostenitori della Fusione Fredda - Energia - GreenStyle()