High Temperature E-Cat Report Published

Below are three separate documents which comprise the report that Andrea Rossi has authorized for release. The first document is the main report, the second is a data file from this report, and the third contains some corrections to the first report and expanded information.

Andrea Rossi asked that I issue this statement along with the reports.

“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but
much R&D work has still to be done.”

Penon4 (1)

Hot Cat Data

Corrections

  • Ged

    Oooo, this is the hot cat validation report, not the E-cat safety report. So many interesting tidbits, it’ll take awhile to digest this all.

  • Ivan_cev

    Hang on boy, not to fast!
    See resistor elements in e-cat,
    220v and 6 ohms, this will give 36.67 Amps
    watts=220*36.67=8066.67
    this is 8kw.
    Please some one correct me

    • Jim Johnson

      This comment needs clarification.
      Who does the “boy” refer to?
      And the 8kw are mentioned in the Technical Data table, associated with the 220/6.
      What specifically is it that you wanted to be corrected on?
      Respectful communication, or engineering math?

      • Ivan_cev

        I just wanted to point out that the resistive element has the capacity to create the reported power.
        I would like to see a test with a control device (which does no have an active (nickel,Hydrogen,etd)) elements.
        both feed with the same volts and Amps at the same instant.

        • Ged

          A control test is absolutely important. Too bad most people outside of science don’t think about controls. But I hope someone does exactly what you described.

          Also, there’s page 12 of the primary report. They did indeed do your calculation (and you are right on) for the wire’s theoretical max, but they manually controlled the power input and kept it below at 147 V/24.28 Amps, for 3.6 kW in, measured downstream of the power control box. Regardless, the Hot Cat gave 8.4 kW of thermal power through extremely conservative measurements, which is 400 W above what the wire could do (and no wire is 100% efficient).

          • Ivan_cev

            I have seen also the report, I was a bit worried about the correlation between input and output power seems a bit linear, although is a slight jump close to the beginning of the graph.
            The professionals making the report are putting their names and reputation on line, as certifiers of this “impossible” device. Lets congratulate and thank Rossi for his efforts.

          • Jim Johnson

            1 year of engineering, n! years of software; now I know why they’re not the same…

          • Ivan_cev

            ?

          • Ivan_cev

            The graph show temp vs time, but temp is related to output power,
            and during the time plotted the voltage input was raised, seeing a correlation between a linear resistive input and a linear output did worry me. I expected no linearity in the output as is an active system

          • Ged

            Actually, I just took a look to see if that linearity was the case, and it isn’t. It just seems like it due to the temperature over time graph — but the input wattage was not raised linearly over time. Take a look at the graphs I made:

            https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-1idAkWHIMbMVRXTThJNHFCdFE

            You can see that to go from room temperature to 800 C, it only took a 1.5 kW input. But to go from 800 C to 1000 C, it took 2 kW of additional input.

            The temperature to input is logarithmic. My second graph best shows that, where it’s temperature graphed against input power.

          • If they can get the COP up, that would be fine. The operating temp would probably fall to say 800C anyway when coolant is running through, so its actually very good that this coincides with optimum output.

  • Renzo

    I save here from the previous thread two new names that add to the list of people involved with Rossi and the ecat testing:

    Fabio Penon, consulting engineer:
    http://tinyurl.com/cz9ykzb
    ph.d in nuclear engineering, main activity in business management, testing and quality control, industrial systems

    Fulvio Fabiani page on Linkedin with his CV:
    http://it.linkedin.com/pub/fulvio-fabiani/20/534/1b3
    and Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/fulvio.fabiani

  • jedslater

    I must say that this is great news, my off-grid home is now a reality. If you (Rossi) was a girl I would kiss you all over… maybe I’ll do that anyway 😉

    • If you wanted to stop him in his tracks – that threat ought to do it!

      • Wait a minute, this summing up of inner and outer surface areas simply does not hold water! Heat radiated in the orifice is reasorbed, so surface area of the opening(s) is only that matters. On the other hand, convective losses were neglected. There was obviously an abnormal generation of heat, but numbers are sloppy!

        • I noticed that. Part of the inner tube surface can radiate to the room but much is reabsorbed by the other side of the tube. The tube largely “sees” itself and radiates to itself. The correct way of adjusting that is to calculate what is know as the shape factor for the inner tube surface which is a bit bothersome. I suppose I should do it for as an exercise. But in this case the shape factor will be close to 0.2, I would guess, and that factor should be applied to the surface area of the inner tube thereby reducing the effective area and hence the amount of radiation from that surface.

          • Probably a rather good approximation should be to use as the inner tube area the area of the two openings at the ends, rather than the physical inner tube area. When viewed from outside, one sees a glowing surface from any direction (except directly from the front from where one sees directly through the device, but that’s a small solid angle, of order (3/30)^2=0.01 srad).

  • freethinker

    What about COP? Only reference I see is max 3. Values given seem indicate it roaming around 2-2.5. Should it not be close to 6? What am I missing here?

    • admin

      One thing that Rossi mentioned was that there was no self-sustain periods in this test. In the ‘classic’ E-Cat, Rossi has said that the drive is off around half the time.

      I didn’t catch the reason that self-sustain was not used in this test, but someone mentioned that Rossi said it was a requirement of the certifier that it should not be employed.

      • freethinker

        Well, if self-sustained mode is not in play, where COP is theoretically infinite, then that would limit the avg COP. The after-death cooling of some 500 degrees in 34 min, how would that compare to a black body theoretical situatation, I wonder. It would be an exponential, but my gut cant compute if the after death is normal or there is actually stll a lenr reaction ongoing. Anybody close to a physics formulae book and calculator?

        • Omega Z

          When they turn off all power, it dies.

          In self sustain mode there is still some power supplied with by a frequency generator.

          • GreenWin

            Can the Italian speakers confirm that Fabio Penon studied at University Padova??

          • epode
          • GreenWin

            It says nothing of the University he studied at. So, he has no degree? Or, is he too in the “gambling industry?” BS.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            It’s written right there.

            He graduated with a degree in nuclear engineering at [the University of] Bologna in 1982.

            Not Padova.

          • Andre Blum

            Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to find unexpected high currents.

            So a typical scenario may be this: you have fuses that repeatedly blow and your normal ampmeter does not find any justification for that fact. This True RMS meter would show you the real — higher — current.

            Now, we know such ampmeters and multimeters have digital displays that only update once every second, or half second at most. Somewhere in that meter, there must be an algorithm that determines what value to display next. Usually that would be an average value of the last period. But knowing that this device is often used to find unexpected high currents, could it be that it displays the max value? (or the max average of all the intervals of a typical duration that would be enough for a fuse to blow)?

            Depending on the duty cycle of the (presumably PWM driven) resistive heater, this may give too high values at swithing on. This is why he now suggests using a variable AC transformer, to stop using PWM.

          • Andre Blum

            will report at right article 😉

          • Hy , all

            Yes, I always also request an engineer for my bath heater to be sure if is too hot .. I’ m suspicious by nature ,

      • jfab

        I guess self-sustaining mode might be considered dangerous at this stage, as it could eventually gets out of control in a sort of feedback loop.

        • Ged

          Might be the hotcat can’t do self sustaining though. So much heat to deal with…

      • Barry

        Frank, pardon my simple mind, but are you saying self-sustain periods would raise the COP average to perhaps 6?

    • Lu

      Also there are a lot of worst case assumptions and heat elements that are ignored. The key point here is not the COP other than it is above 1 (which it is).

      • Andrei

        Agree, two key points in the report:
        + Excess heat is REAL
        + The excess heat is well ABOVE any chemical reaction

  • Andrei

    Amazing!!! Monsters like Exxon Mobil, BP, Total, Gazprom …. will gone soon! The age of oil is ENDING! The age of abundance is COMING!

    • Ged

      Well, we need oil to make plastics, medicines, and a bunch of other products we all use every day.

      • Andrei

        OK, we will synthetic oil from C02 and H20 on demand at cheap price if energy is almost free

      • Sanjeev

        No need actually. Plastics are more harmful than petroleum. They do not decompose. These products can be replaced by better materials… simply because the better alternatives will be dirt cheap when the LENR economy ripens.

      • GreenWin

        Don’t forget nature’s oils from lipid rich algae or biomass.

  • Andrew Macleod

    Energy density of 470KWh/kg compared to gasoline 12.7 KWh/kg. I want one for my truck, 30000km per tank, sweet!

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      And that is an extremely conservative estimate. They accounted as “spent active material” also the sealant and the blackbody paint that got lost during the reactor disassembling process.

  • The Cold Fusio/LENR trend is irreversible.

    • Kim

      Very True.

      Now We need to change Mainstream Media Bias.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Tony76

        That will never change whilst ownership is tiny and right of reply non-existent.

      • Ivan_cev

        Not completely sure, as long as many proprietary secrets are keep.
        If Rossi died today, how you will get the catalyst?

        • Omega Z

          Ivan

          1 Other person knows. That Information is also proprietary. Rossi Insurance plan.

    • ccatt57_77

      Francesco CH – who is a Rossi insider has posted on another board that we should be ready “Sunday” for a surprise at the conference, Sunday could shed a glowing light on the ecat.

      • DaveS

        URL?

      • Lu

        “Prepare for the surprise of tomorrow,

        i.e. S . . . . . . u n d a y”

        My guess is it has to do something with S…G….S.

      • Renzo

        It has to do with Siemens.

        Daniele Passerini has written the same on his blog, he wrote that it is not an official outing yet but something that could prelude to it…

        • In Sunday’s afternoon programme 14:30 “Novel concept for the conversion of heat into electric energy, with Demo“, Highly efficient method for generating electricity from low temperature heat, Dr.sc.nat. Hans Weber, London/GB and Zug/CH. Maybe it’s this Hans Weber: Head of Product Management Diagnostic Solutions at Siemens Energy (http://de.linkedin.com/in/hmjweber)

          • Renzo

            Hans Weber is a common name, I don’t think they are the same person… the one at the conference is in the field of alternative energy

          • OK, you are probably correct. Will be interesting to see some “Demo” anyway.

          • Marius

            -Expensive black paint mainly for measurement purpose.
            -Still not able to modulate the power output from a single Ecat module very well.
            -Official public test report in 3 months?

          • Marius

            -Confirms that more copper was found than should be there but very hard to measure from samples. Copper transmutation is side-effect.

          • Tangled Connections

            The lack of control over a single module is a big issue.Until a solution is found, no home unit?

          • Alexvs

            Bravooooo Mr. Rossi. Applauses.

          • Renzo

            and from Passerini’s phrase it seems as something unrelated to the conference

          • Alexvs

            Mr. Rossi seems uncomfortable. The engineer bodyguard at his right is helping.

          • Chris

            It’s a bit disappointing as far as notoriety goes, seems one of them is a Rossi guy anyway.

          • GreenWin

            The “Hot Cat Data” is from July 11, 2011. More than a year ago. What’s wrong with this?? Further, the temperature data peaks at 750C – significantly less than the cylinder interior 1100C found by Penon’s tests. Can we assume the convected radiation is responsible? Or the device is not driven to peak.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            The 2011 year might be a typo (there are some in the Penon test report), but from what I can see temperature data peaks at 1074C, not 750C (see slide 11).

          • Robert Mockan

            Maybe temperature in Kelvin and Celsius is being confused? Some of the posters at the Vortex-1 forum discuss this.

          • GreenWin

            Maybe??? How fuggin stupid do people think we…

            Apologies Admin. This charade is WAY too cynical.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            True, I didn’t see that temperatures are in Kelvin degrees. GreenWin was right.

            I think however these are average temperature measurements for the external reactor surface, topping just over 1074K -> ~801C. The inside would be hotter.

  • s

    If one does the math, you will see that the energy density of this test was only about 8 to 10 times the energy density of compressed hydrogen. This, in my opinion only, is hardly earth shattering or encouraging in terms of commercial prospects. With the claimed COP of the Ecat steadily dropping from the initial claims in Jan 2011 of >30 to ~ 2.2 to 2.5 now (which is below the level needed for electricity), huge doubts have started to set in for me.

    • Kim

      Well engineered products will serve the thermal heat industry.

      The electrical production will have to come later.

      Also the COP may improve with 50% input on and off as with
      the lower thermal E-cats.

      Respect
      Kim

      • steve77

        can anyone please tell us what this ALL means in laymans terms, and when can we see real products from what the report indicates?

        • Ged

          Probably be awhile till (if ever) this materializes as a product. The message is basically, it works, it’s hot, but the COP is not so great although that is calculated in the most conservative way possible using black body radiation.

          • Thanks for saying that Ged. That is precisely my take on the info made available so far, but I didn’t want to rain on anyone’s parade! We have (further) proof of the reality of the ‘cold fusion’ phenomenon, but we still seem to be some way from an unlimited and inexpensive energy source. The Siemens ‘demo’ could possibly change this view though…

        • Andrew Macleod

          I’m a layman myself but most of this means that the COP (energy output compared to input in a ratio) 3:1 is lower than expected. It could be higher when the unit runs for a period of time without input. It’s like your tv running for a while after you unplug it. As for marketable units as I understand the the industrial units (1Megawatt) is avaiable for purchasing but the home units will be some time due to bureaucrats.

        • Robert Mockan

          In laymans terms, the Rossi E-Cat is a heat booster. Put electricity into it, get 2 to 6 times the heat equivalent out. The high temperature E-Cat value to science is something more important. There are no mechanical-magnetic-metallurgical states not altered when operating near the melting point of nickel. This puts the theory people squarely back into needing physical-nuclear-chemical explanations. It would seem electrical current is definitely forcing the LENR at high power density.
          The falling COP is revealing. For practical applications what we need to know is what percentage of the high temperature output is heat driven LENR, and what part electric current driven LENR? If it is, for example, 0.1 per cent heat driven at 1200 C, then increasing the catalyst load 1000 times should result in 1200 C output driven by LENR heat only. Whatever that percentage is, will determine the next step in using LENR for energy independence for the individual off the grid. Simply, how much catalyst is going to be needed to make self sustaining reactors, not needing external electric power?

      • s

        That may well be the case. But, they called “self sustain mode”, heat after death this time. It is possible that those without a scientific background have been led to believe that heat produced while the reactor decays and destroys itself after power is removed is something it is not. In my earlier posts, I pointed out that the plant reactor in Japan last year stayed in “self sustain mode” for maybe 6 or 7 months or more while it decayed and destroyed itself. I also pointed out that none of these tests show how the reactors perform for a full cycle after self sustain mode.

        Also, the loss of ~20grams or more of “active” material seems rather high for the production of what amounts to maybe 8 or 9 hours of normal use electrical power after the 1 to 3 conversion.

        • GreenWin

          Where in the report is there indication of reactor decay “destroying itself?” You don’t need to know much science to grasp that s… And sort of a big difference from the Japan crashed nukes… there is ZERO radiation from this e-cat.

          For the layman: Japanese nuke disaster = deadly radiation and 20 years + $35 Billion to clean up not counting fissile waste; (Pu239) half life is 24,000 years.

          Rossi e-cat = ZERO radiation, 2.5-6.0 COP (more out than in) at a fraction of the cost of all other energy sources. Non-polluting, recyclable ash.

          Also, this is a PRELIMINARY report of a “hotcat” product IN DEVELOPMENT. The report serves hard evidence there is a remarkable energy density for reactor size and the heat boost cannot come from a conventional chemical reaction.

        • No, by heat after death they simply mean decay of the reaction after all input ceases. This is not the same as self sustain mode, which was not attempted (as I’m perfectly sure you know).

          The 20g of ‘lost’ material included putty and paint dust lost during disassembly, and steel sublimated and oxidised from the inner tube by heat. If 20g of mass had been converted to energy there would have been a sizeable new crater at the test site, rather than a controlled and sustained release of heat without any radiation.

    • Ged

      It seems the higher the temperature one drives the E-cat, the lower its COP becomes. Albeit, the measurements here are conservative, with no control for conduction or heat loss from the exposed inner surface.

      It may still be close to 6 if one does the 50% self sustaining system. But it’s curious none the less. Heat just doesn’t seem to do LENR any favors at the moment; I feel like there’s something missing.

      At 1000 C it would be theoretically possible to get a near 50% conversion to electricity rate, which would allow excess electrical production. But it would be pretty slight. Hard to make an electrical generator with this COP.

      • Ivan_cev

        The Data could tell as the graph show input power (V*I against output power, it seem quasi proportional to me, we should see a plateau at some point to say lower temperature is better

        • Ged

          Graphed it, and indeed we see this sorta logarithmic looking response, where rapid rise in heat at lower input values, and then very slow rise of heat to high input values. That is, the hot cat begins to response less and less to the raising of the input as it gets hotter.

          So, there is diminishing returns! That means there is a sweet spot of power in and heat out with the current set up… it seems to be at 700-800 C, not the 1066 C they pushed it to (it takes more than twice the input to go from 800 C to 1066 C as it did to go from room temp to 800 C).

    • Andrew Macleod

      The technology is in its infancy. With time comes a greater understanding and optimization sets in. Who knows there may be a better fuel or a better way to exploit this energy. 10x compressed hydrogen a great start.

      • Kim

        I agree.

        The optimization will improve when the
        Technology goes main stream ect…

        Respect
        Kim

        • s

          The math for 50% duty cycle self sustain is : COP(total) = 2 X COP(input on). So, a COP of 2.2 with input = a COP of ~4.4 with self sustain 50%. This is the same thing as pedaling a bike to a high speed then coasting without pedaling down a hill. You go further than you would on a straight surface but you eventually stop.

    • Bob

      I agree that COP of 2.2 would be of marginal benefit for many applications considering the investment required. The ROI might me very low or take a long time.

      That said however…

      Hot Fusion has never reached 1.1 yet and is unlikely to in the next 30 years if ever and after millions and millions of investment. Yet many still trumpet this technology! Here LENR is reaching 2.5 NOW and with very little research dollars invested. Given acceptance, our engineering community (regardless of the “scientific community) will possibly improve that COP several fold AND bring the cost down even lower!

      When computers first came out, they were huge in size, extremely expensive and could not compute what an experineced engineer and a slide rule could in minutes.
      Now they cost little, fit in your hand and can caluculate in GIPS.

      The steam engine was the first revclutionary power source. It gave HUGE power increases at the time. I recently viewed an early 1900’s steam tractor. It weighed tons, was 12 feet tall and 25 feet long. It produced about 18 horse power. My lawn mower has 18 horse power and cost about $1000.

      The Wright brothers plane flew less than a 100 feet on it’s first flight. Now, 747’s cross the world every day.

      The point is, almost all new technology is discovered in an infant state. Like computers, tractors and air planes, LENR will take a little time and it could very well become the “Earth Shattering” revolution you seek.

    • Claes

      Well, if I’m not mistaken, this says virtually nothing about the COP? They fired it up and let it decay as far as I can see. Too bad there seems not to be any self-sustain mode, but the main point is that it does seem to work. That is the big thing, the rest is “just” engineering.

  • Julian Becker

    So we know at least that one of the universities is Padova (Fabio Penon)

  • The paper’s author writes English as badly as Rossi does. Can’t they afford a few bucks for a proofreader/translator?

    • Andrew Macleod

      I didn’t find it too bad. Some parts were a little cumbersome to read.

    • Luca Salvarani

      Dear Joe

      I’m sure that all your politicians, bureaucracts, public “employees” (I consider employees only who work in the free market!) and so called ” green entrepreneurs” who have been wasting billions of taxpayers’ money are perfectly fluent in English and also much more politically correct…. I just prefere Rossi and his not fluent team that don’t cost us nothing and are really changing the world! Wake up please and don’t be so naive.

      • John

        I totally agree. If Rossi has 61 people on the payroll, the idea of having a part-time interpreter on the payroll is madness, sheer madness, I tell you!

  • I was mistaken about the proofreading; it was needed for the language on the slides, which I think was written by Andrea Rossi, not the certificators/validators. The actual report seemed fine.

  • Lu

    I’m looking at the data. I’m a bit disconcerted about the part about measuring voltage and amperage:

    “Due to the fact that panel meter data were found to be quite discordant from those measured by the voltmeter and the ammeter, it was decided to ignore the former and use only the voltmeter and ammeter data recorded manually in the course of the test.”

    It would have been nice to get both sets of data (panel data and voltmeter/ammeter data). Also the V/A data we do get appears to be samples of the data. The temperature data we get, however, is for the duration of the test. It would be nice to get all the data so we can do our own calculations and graphs.

    Also I think it would have been better to run the test longer that 6 hours. Maybe some of this will be forthcoming at a later time.

    All in all, given the data and the names on the reports, Rossi has made a strong case for his E-Cats.

    • Ged

      It just means their control box’s readout was not accurate enough, and so they had to go measure everything directly down stream. That was a good thing. I think they list the Volt/Amps/Calculated Power on page 13 only for each time there is a change to the values.

      I was able to graph it versus the temperature at each given time, and it is very interesting. See above.

      • Lu

        Hi Ged. I take it to mean that there was a large discrepancy between the two readings and they went with the voltmeter and ammeter since it gave two readings.

        I see what they did with the data but I would have added it up differently to get similar but different totals.

        • Martin

          There are some names and dates in the embedded pdf info. Anybody checked that?

    • Ivan_cev

      Measuring power in AC is tricky, it depends on the Power factor, in the case of a resistive load power factor = 1.
      whoever I am surprised the certifier did not bring it’s own calibrated tools.

      • bob

        This is something that bothers me too. why is it always Mr Rossi’s instruments being used? I am sure they are ok, but if he wants the rest of the world to believe he is on the level, then he needs to be completely separate of the tests. Instruments can be tinkered with after all. I guess when all this secrecy and NDA is finished, there will be no need to worry about it anyway. Come on Mr Rossi, sell some stuff to someone who is not scared out of their minds to let their names be known. 🙂 Please.

        • GreenWin

          Bob, have you seen any of the program or videos from NI Week?? There were MANY people there involved in LENR including highly credentialed scientists. Do they distance themselves from e-cat? Yes. But Ansaldo Energia sent a representative of its CEO. Ansaldo was witness to Rossi’s October 28, test in Bologna.

          • bob

            No I haven’t seen them yet Green, but I will. Don’t get me wrong. I am a big fan. I just don’t understand why things have been done the way they have. A rep from a major organization with his own equipment would go a long way towards a better acceptance of E-Cat and maybe better backing by the scientific community.

  • Ged

    Just so everyone can see, I took the raw data for the times when the input power was changed, and graphed that against what the reactor’s temperature was measured at at that time. You can all see it here https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-1idAkWHIMbMVRXTThJNHFCdFE .

    Ivan_cev brought up a point about linearity, but the Hot Cat temp out is not linear against power in, and instead appears to be very logarithmic. There seems to be a diminishing returns after 1.5 kW of input getting the reactor to 800 C.

    Or as I said to Ivan below, “You can see that to go from room temperature to 800 C, it only took a 1.5 kW input. But to go from 800 C to 1000 C, it took 2 kW of additional input.”

    Also notice from the graphs, that the rate at which the input power was increased over time, grew over time (they jacked up the power more frequently and at a larger extent as the test ran on), but the heat out from the reactor maintained a steady rate of change after it hit about 700 C.

    • Ged

      One problem with my first graph is that time is not completely linear (there’s some clusters of time points start, middle, finish), so both lines would probably be a bit smoother if it were. Thus the second graph is more interesting for seeing the hot cat vs power in response, since temp is directly graphed against power.

    • Ivan_cev

      Yes, the V=I*R is linear, but the input power will not be linear as is related to the square of the current, or the square of the voltage depends how you see it. P = R*I^2 or P=V^2/R this is why the input power is not linear. Thanks for your clarification, your conclusion give a lot of light to the subject. So if you keep close to the sweet point the COP raises significantly.

      • Ivan_cev

        Sorry, I do not understand your second graph, why the temp is constant?
        in the data the temperature is not constant

        • georgehants

          Well, by all the responses on page it would appear that yesterday has helped to confirm Rossi and the E-CAT.
          That must be Wonderful news for the World.
          Hopefully today will add even more information and Evidence.

        • Ivan_cev

          Sorry again, it was too late at night, the temp is not constant, is just that when power turns to 0 temp still raises a bit.
          In the original report you see a little spike when when power is turned off, this could mean that if you turn power on and off at certain intervals, you could have small periods of ramping self sustaining reaction. I will love to see a test with intermittent but same magnitude power.

          • Ged

            Good catch! I think I remember such experiments (at least what sounded like them) were done back on the low temp E-cats a year ago or more. Pulsed input stimulation also agrees with Brillouin’s (I think? or was it Blacklight?) view of the method.

  • Sanjeev

    Thank you Frank for the report. Its a treat.

    Its surely more accurate and thorough compared to previous ‘cold’ cat reports. It is very very conservative, a worst case scenario, so it leaves no doubts that the setup works ! We do have some new effect, I have never seen anything like this before.

    There are some ugly parts in the report, like the hypotheses and IR camera issues, but nothing serious. Only thing is (like Lu has said below), the V-I data should have been continuous. But I’ll trust Mr Penon here because he must have seen that the V-I do not fluctuate a lot and stay at the set values, else he would have asked for real time logging.

    He should have used RMS type meters to rule out high frequencies in the mains supply. Skeptics will raise this issue surely.

    Weight of the active charge is roughly measured. It looks like most of it was putty weight (from the photos), so the actual charge consumed was negligible, which means the energy density figures are way too low than actual. Density of above 4000 KW/kg is possible.

    The COP is also worst case COP, actual could be 5 or above. The prototype passes the safety test anyway, it is surprising because Rossi has previously said that there is gamma radiation. I guess its shielded by the steel tube ? Most probably there is no gamma radiation and Rossi was wrong or this setup is different may be.

    • Patrik

      Maybe it has to do with how pure the hydrogen gas is. If you have deuterium in it maybe then you get occasional flashes of gamma. And if you have “clean” hydrogen gas maybe their is no gamma.

      • s

        There is a lot of confusion about “self sustain mode”. I can’t find anything in any text book about “self sustain mode” exactly. The closest for this type of situation is “heat after death”. “Heat after death” is when a reactor produces energy as it destroys itself and destabilizes after the controlling input power is removed. If anyone can find an official physics definition of “self sustain mode”, please post a link to it.

        • Daniel

          There won’t be any “text book” because this thing is cutting edge heretical suspiciously fraudulent independent industrial research.
          Wherever you found that “heat after death” explanation is probably not what it means with the e-cat. Here it might be the amount of heat produced after cutting the supply of electricity to the unit.
          Self-sustained mode refers to how all e-cat devices need to be supplied some electricity to produce much more thermal energy then that electricity.
          Self-sustained mode would be if there were no external sources of electricity, heat or energy of any kind.

  • Omega Z

    COP guessing.

    The Test did 1 think. Ruled out Energy from things other then LENR & COP>2.2.

    Done based on worse case gains & still allowed a COP>2.5 Average without self sustain mode. 2.2 minimum / 3 maximum. 50% self sustain would equal 4.4 minimum / 6 maximum.

    I suspect the COP guess is still wrong. My Explanation Why: Ramp Costs…

    Going from 0 to 60 in a car gets very poor mileage. After reaching 60mph the mileage greatly improves. And an Aircraft burns hugh amounts of fuel taking off. Cruise speed not so much.

    Haven’t studied all the graphs, but those I did look at seem to show a constant ramp up. Start to end. So the COP readings were looking at don’t show the true COP.

    What would be interesting is if the test was ran an addition 6 hours for better Data using the input/output on those 6 hours at a steady Temp. Additional test with self sustain mode would also be nice.

    Considering the Above, I would suspect the COP>6.

    But that’s just my opinion. Maybe someone here could do a calculation on just the last hour if there’s enough (call-it) cruise period. Or an Hourly breakdown start to finish.

  • Alexvs

    Very promising although only promising.
    It seems that the hot E-Cat needs further research but fortunately we have months ago the classic E-Cat ready for sale.

    If instead of using 65000 Kcal = 272000 Kjul = 75 Kwh to warm 1000 Kg. water from 15ºC to 80ºc you could use only 75/6 = 12 Kwh, it means a huge cost saving. Most users which want E-Cats for heating purposes have their problems solved.

    For other purposes i.e. electric generators, deslinization plants etc. it is only a question of time. Let’s be patient.

  • Marius

    Direct questions to Rossi has started now

  • georgehants
  • Massimo Stefano Venco

    If the average COP is 2.2 at 500/600. C dgr then it’s possibile put in series. many ECAT and so obtaining COP progressively inncreased. After the first stage we will have COP 4.4, at second stage 8.8 etc always at the sane temperature. Is it corresct?

    • Marcello

      Unfortunately,still not.
      Input energy is electrical, output termical, so it would to be converted again to electrical throught a gas turbine but in that way COP is still not enought

      • Marcello

        *a steam turbine obviously,not a gas one, sorry.

      • Tor

        This is hot cat,not low cat.I think low cat still have coop
        off 6

    • This idea of using thermal energy from one device to boost another e-cat has been rejected by Rossi and those who are certifying the device as it could allow the device to run out of control. I have the impression the e-cat is very temperamental or I should say is unstable. If it is driven to too high a temperature, it will run out of control to the point it will melt and possibly cause an explosion of the coolant. Hence, it is operated in a pseudo heat-after-death mode where it needs constant boosting or else the anomalous heat will die off and shut down. It is safe to run it in that manner. I suspect there is some sweet spot temperature at which it will run with very little boosting but that point will be very near the point of instability and they would need a very good understanding of the behavior of a particular design and good controls applied.

      • If the only problem is that output of one E-cat is not completely stable and therefore cannot be used as the thermal driver of another one, it’s straightforward to solve the problem by having enough E-cats so that individual differences average out and/or a temporary thermal pool energy storage of some kind (molten salt, e.g.).

        If the problem is, however, that the heat of one E-cat is not hot enough to drive another one, that’s a more difficult problem to solve. That needs some amount of electricity, but still possibly much less than the COP of an individual E-cat.

        • Daniel

          That is what Rossi made with the 1MW power unit. Exactly because the output of a single unit is not that predictable.
          I think Rossi didn’t think of the possibility of using some other device as a buffer for heat transfer. That is why he says its not possible.
          Maybe gas pumping from the hot cat to a reservoir and from there to another hot cat unit, so any variation output of the first would not affect the supply of the second unit.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Does everyone agree the measurements in the above report are conservative?!

    • Omega Z

      Very Conservative.

      On purpose so no mistake about excess heat output.

      Also, This test also wasn’t for the purpose of COP but safety.

      • Ivan_cev

        How could you test safety, at a different regime of what you pretend to run. you must test safety at the max COP you can achieve.