NyTeknik Reports on Halted Swedish Investment in Hydrofusion Following Tests [Update: Rossi Responds]

This just in published by Mats Lewan at NyTeknik. It reports that a group of Swedish investors were prepared to invest 65 million (euros?)  into Hydrofusion, the company which is the licensee for the E-Cat products in northern Europe, and which is behind the Ecat.com website which accepts orders for E-Cat products.

The article states:

“Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden , to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than Rossi himself measured.The measurement used the SP called True RMS instruments

Hydrofusion today issued the following press release on their web site:

Hydro Fusion witnessed a new independent test of the high temperature ECAT prototype reactor on September 6th in Bologna. Although no full report has yet been received, early indications are that the results of the July 16th/August 7th reports could not be reproduced.

Hydro Fusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.

In his presentation at the E-Cat Conference in Zurich, Andrea Rossi mentioned that the testing that he was reporting was preliminary, and that more testing was “in course”. Today, Rossi released the following statement on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, most likely in reference to the news coming out of Sweden:

It is necessary that I repeat the following statement:



Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

The mention of using the Variac indicates that Rossi is trying to address the issue of electrical input — the Variac being a testing instrument (variable transformer) which allows accurate measurement and control of electrical input.

The original NyTeknik article can be found here:


No doubt we will be hearing more of this development as time progresses.

UPDATE: Thanks to Andre Blum for the following:

I sent Rossi an e-mail in line with what I wrote earlier in this thread (on True RMS algorithms.) Rossi replies:

Dear Sir: we resolved the èroblem with a variac, which confirmed, substantially, that our measurements were right,but I repeat that meny more measurements will be made by the validators. A final report will be published only after the end of the validation. At that point we will have no more aprototype, but a certified product and the measurements will be made directly in operation by the Customers.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

UPDATE: I received the following via email from Andrea Rossi in response to an inquiry about the situation this morning:

Other independent institutions are making measurements with a Variac, and the measurements are confirming the data of our report. As I said, the Hot Cat is still a prototype under research and development, we hosted the Swedish expert as well as we hosted other experts. The data have still to be completed, and that means results confirm the data we gave in our report, so far. In any case within a couple of months we will finish the cycle of independent tests and the results will be published in a scientific magazine. I wrote when I sent you the report last week and I repeat now that the reactor at high temperature is not yet a product, needs more analysis, measurements, tests to become aproduct, and I confirm it. To reach this target we are listening everubody. I am convinced that within 2-3 months we will have a very good final score, but of course at the moment I cannot give guarantees, even id we are investing all we can in this. We will see the final results.

Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  • Andre Blum

    I suffer from mood swings.

    • Camilo

      After following several “free energy” claims through the years, I’ve become acustomed to never expect more than to be dissapointed. Someday I hope to be surprised, anyway.

      • Ged

        In one way, it’s good training for controlling ones mood!

      • RGCheek

        Well, since the e-cat is not about free energy but releasing energy from some type of nuclear reaction, I cant help but wonder why you mention free energy in this discussion.

    • morse

      And what about the cold e-cat reactor (heater)? Has this been tested and what is the outcome?
      I feel sorry for Rossi, all his effort and time trying to bring a new power source to the market.
      The question is not if LENR is real but how much power can we get out of it? (Watts-Celani or Killowatts-Rossi)

      • Kim

        If they find a large discrepancy in his hot cat report

        they will dismantle his empire to the ground.

        He will be done, and the future of cold fusion will
        be set back 10 years.

        Its a tough game, and if you lead with your ego and greed
        you will lose.


        • Jim Johnson

          Would you be willing to offer an explanation of how all that is supposed to happen? Do you have any intermediate stages you would like to propose for the outcomes you identify? Any specific entities that might be actors in the activities you suggest?

      • Sanjeev

        It looks like they used a new model of Ecat with higher temp (untested) to impress the investors. A big mistake.

        Anyway, the problem was found on the input side, so it does not matter which model was used. I hope that they repeat the test with old hot cat model using refined input measurements and publish that report.

        Another surprising thing is that Matt did not report on LENR till today since last one year or so, but he reported the negative result. Does he know things that no one knows ?

        • Kim

          I agree with the “Big Mistake”

          The discrepancy is “very large” at 2 to 3 times more input.


          • Ivan_cev

            I do not believe in this discrepancy, is like having a volt meter measuring 240 * 3 volts in your house.
            Have you ever noticed that kind of error in your instruments?
            and is just measuring a resistive load.
            Long ago I asked Rossi if electricity was needed to prime the ecat and he replied “NO”, Then later He said Gas could be used.
            What I am trying to say is: there is no need of High frequency electricity even DC could be used. So I do not Understand why measuring the input power will be that difficult?

          • RGCheek

            Did that Swedish team find ANY OTHER problems with the testing? Or did they just abandon all other testing or retesting to double check and then flee?

            There were NO OTHER problems reported, and it wasnt even the 1MW unit that had the problem but some unknown prototype. The problem once discovered could have been addressed immediately, but, no the Swedes would not hear of it. That is a testing/certification process?

            It is literally impossible for the Swedish teams measurements to have been acurate as it it would have required twice the power than the electrical input could handle.

            Also, it is absurd to suggest that Seimens has been hoodwinked, along with NI and SGS-Swiss, or that all of them are in cahoots with Rossi.

            This is much ado about nada.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    The hot e-cat doesn’t have a self sustaining mode yet, that’s why the COP was lower then the low temperature e-cat. Because he always claimed a COP of 6, a lower COP can raise suspicion. If the measurements are higher dan 2, he would have no problem finding other investors.

  • Tom Ammons

    Volts times Amps is Watts(power) in a DC circuit. In an AC circuit we have power factor corrections which come into play if there is an impedance which takes into account capacitive or inductive effects. If Rossi is heating a purely resistive element these effects should be minimal and impedance should be close to resistance so true RMS measurements of Volts and Amps should give us power. But here Rossi is telling us they are not accurate. I don’t know what to think but patience with Rossi’s excuses of improper measurement methods is wearing thin–with me at least.

    • s

      The point you are missing, and the point many others are missing is response to a varying load. Instantaneous power is v * I at any moment. However when you have waveforms that vary rapidly, the power measurement becomes tricky. Go to the link above for true RMs and you will understand. Well, in my opinion only, it is possible Hydrofusions statement might signal a change for this. It is possible the Ecat story is coming to an end.

      • classi cos phi problem have an opposite effect, it should increase apparent (rossi) measures compares to real RMS measure.

        one way to get a factor of 2 is to feed with square wave. The dumb meters will interpret it as sine, and real square power will be twice the sinusoidal one.
        Normally if you feed square , you know it…
        moreover the factor is 2, not more.
        To have more you have to feed with high frequency, that may be filtered by the dumb meter. to have a factor of 2-3, it have to be tricky to adjust the frequency… too high, and you have zero, to low and you have the real one…

        if NYTeknik is right (we have to check) it smell bad.
        If I was aware of such fact,as an investor, I will run to Vancouver or Maidenhead.

      • Meta

        Translated direct fom the page…After the measurement the Hydro merger announced that the investment offer is withdrawn, and that the company will now examine whether polls affect the entire Xhighschoolx technology or only the new model.

        This is not the first time Rossi has done demonstrations and had offers withdrawn… some even paid large deposits ( 150,000) to see the demonstrations. When they saw these results they too took money off the table and asked for their deposits back. Alas Rossi does not do refunds.

        • Andrew Macleod

          Links please…

        • Ged

          “[P]olls affect the entire Xhighschoolx technology”? Huh?

          • “Efter mätningen meddelade Hydrofusion att investeringserbjudandet dragits tillbaka och att företaget nu ska undersöka om mätningarna påverkar hela Ecat-tekniken eller bara den nya modellen.” (From NyTeknik article linked to by Frank.)

            Manual translation: “After the measurement Hydrofusion announced that the investment offer was taken back and that the company will now study if the measurements affect the whole E-cat technology or only the new model.”

            (I have no idea why some automaton translated E-cat to XhighschoolX – maybe it wants to honour Pirelli high school students.)

          • Ged

            Haha, wow, that is kinda hilarious. That manual translation makes sense, thank you Pekka!

          • Jim Johnson

            Think about what actually happened.

            It doesn’t take much to scare off $11M. Play in Silicon Valley for a while to learn how much investor scrutiny is given to new technologies.

            The licensee of course is playing CYA, to protect their position. But notice they only mentioned the hot cat.

            Yes, they should have measured the input energy better (BTW, good catch yesterday to ivan_cev, who appears to have noticed it first).

            Worst case, the hot cat doesn’t work at all.

            Dented fender for Rossi, speed bump for LENR.

  • Kalle

    Was this the first truly independent test by 3rd party? Has low temp e-cat ever been validated by 3rd party? I have been 90% believer, 10% skeptic, until now.. This news was devastating.. 1Mw plants have been for sale almost a year now, why haven’t anyone seen one? If Hydrofusion knew that cold e-cat is true, I’m quite sure that they wouldn’t have made that press release..

  • Francesco CH

    Ok, here the problem:

    – . – . – . – . – . –


    – . – . – . – . – . –

    In other words, the problem stems from some interferences generated by the electricity passing through the resistors and detected by the instruments used by the Swedes.

    It is a problem that can be easily solved by inserting a variac before the resistors.

    • Wolf

      So this interference lead to the instruments showing two to three times the amount of the original input power? Will the Swedes also rerun their tests?

      • Francesco CH


        Rossi uses a kind of TRIAC circuit that can generate interferences during these measurements. The Swedes interpret those frequencies as energy used by the Hot-Cat, but it is a mistake because those frequencies are simply not absorbed by the Hot-Cat. It is a problem so small that nobody paid attention to it until the Swedes detected it.

        • Wolf

          Thank you for your answer! Do you know if the Swedes will rerun their tests?

          • Francesco CH

            This is a comment written by Carlo Ombello and I sign every single word written by him:

            Carlo Ombello
            September 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm

            It looks increasingly clear that they made basic mistakes in measuring the current input. As Cures refers on


            “Mi sa che hanno un problema. Il Rossi mi ha appena strillato (sono diventato sordo) che quando gli hanno contestato la misura prima è andato a prendere una lampadina da 60 W e l’ha attaccata all’alimentatore. Il suo segnava 59 W mentre il loro il doppio. Hanno controcontestato dicendo che la potenza era troppo poca. Allora, (la telepatia esiste) ha comprato una stufa da un paio di kW e i risultati sono stati gli stessi. Il suo segnava un valore vicino al nominale ed il loro il doppio”

            Translated: Rossi showed them their tools measured twice the input whatever source they were checking, a 60W light bulb first, then even a 2,000W electric heater, while his own tools were measuring current correctly…

          • Marius

            Makes it sound like the Swedes had their results predetermined. Maybe Magnus Holm & co got into a lucrative Big Oil linked business instead

        • sven

          The heating elements are resistive so they will burn the energy, no matter what the frequency is. If the high-frequency components are carrying the majority of the power, it is certainly of significance.

          • Francesco CH

            The significance is this:

            The kind of TRAIC circuit used by Rossi emits a wide range of frequencies, however the Hot Cat absorb only a small part of low frequencies and pushes back the high frequencies. The Swedes detected those high frequencies and interpret them as absorbed (ie used) by the Hot-Cat. Which is not! The Hot Cat simply pushes these high frequencies back and these are simply NOT USED by the Hot-Cat.

            Therefore, the Swedes count those high frequencies as energy used by the Hot Cat when the Hot Cat do indeed push those frequencies back instead.

          • sven

            Well last time I checked W = V^2/R in a resistive circuitry. Can’t see why it shouldn’t absorb the higher frequencies unless the measure was made a long distance from the elements and significant inductance is seen in the net. But, this should have become obvious while they where doing the measurement, they didn’t get the results that they hoped for so I would say that this scenario would be close to impossible. They must have tried to work out any possible faults in the measure while they where there.

          • Nicholas Payne

            Typically harmonics generated by the triac which can interfere with AM radio (1 – 2MHz) will have 99% of the energy below 50kHz so for all practical purposes, will be absorbed by the ecat which has minimal inductance and capacitance. However it has every opportunity to be NOT measured by standard voltmeters, ammeters and power meters, which might only have a bandwidth of 1kHz, so giving the ecat “free” unrecorded energy.

          • Ivan_cev

            Correct, a resistive load will absorb all frequencies and create heat.
            Rossi is using triacs to create high frequency so the digital meters do not read them.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            If the Swedes have gotten cold feet and Siemens still has
            faith, then maybe Siemens can buy the Swedes’ E-Cat franchise.

          • Auenland


          • freethinker


            Let’s just take a deep breath. Remain calm. Keep your seats. How ever much we hinge our hopes on Andrea Rossi, LENR still stands. Nothing has really changed in that respect, although the image has been somewhat dented. When, and I do say when, AR has a viable product, it will hit the market. If it is anything remotely what he promisses, it will be a whopping success. Regardless, LENR has gained momentum and will move along, avalanching the energy market.
            So. Relax. This is merely yet another spectacularly confusing event in the saga towards success, green energy and abundance.

          • s

            For an Ecat related company to lose a ~$11million investment when a reputable National Testing Institute calls into doubt power measurements is probably the worst thing that could possibly happen. It is always possible it was a misinterpretation of some sort. But it makes the ecat and LENR in general look very bad. We will see how this plays out…

          • daniel maris

            I think the big picture is positive in that genuine and thorough testing is being allowed.

          • ccatt57_77

            This is not what we expected and what this conference was billed for, now we have to another wait in the wings for months, imagine had the media overreacted and went there to report on progress to find out Rossi is still months away from ANY validation – disappointed.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            I caught very interesting information again from one of the latest 22passi RSS comment feeds. This is my summary of it:

            Does everybody remember the Hot Cat photo “leaked” by Cures? According to EXIF data, it was taken on July 16, 2012, 15:49. This is the same date of the test referred in the recent “Fabio Penon” report.

            Now, do you all remember that there were many criticisms on the reactor’s surface temperature, that it couldn’t possibly be over 800°C since it wasn’t glowing, etc? As a matter of fact, this was exactly the case. When the photo was taken, the reactor wasn’t that hot yet. Why?

            From the “Fabio Penon” report, according to the chart on page 11 (and the accompanying pdf containing more precise data), it appears that at 15:49 the reactor had a surface temperature of 872.8213°K, meaning 599.671°C – that is, 600°C. Simple as that!

            There have been hypotheses, even from me, trying to explain how could the reactor not be glowing red in that photo since it was supposed to be over 800°C hot. Truth is, it was cooler than that. Also, the fact that the actual temperature was almost precisely 600°C, makes me think that the photo was meant to be intentionally taken in that precise moment, for whatever reason.

          • Andre Blum

            good analysis

          • Omega Z

            Ivan Mohorovicic

            That’s what the 1200`C High Temp Black paint was for. To keep it from turning red. This allows the IR camera to accurately record the Temps. Pixel by Pixel variation. It was developed & used by the Military & Aircraft manufactures to study engines.

            Not positive, but I think this was described in the Documents released. I looked it up back when Cures leaked the original photo.

          • No, an ideal black paint makes an ideal black body which glows, colour depends on temperature. At given temperature, ideal blackbody glows more than nonideal one. But here apparently, as Ivan said, it didn’t glow because it was still too cool for that when the photo was taken. That explanation seems consistent.

          • the snake

            I believe this is a death blow ” …an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than Rossi himself measured”.

            Either Rossi tried to deceive, or he was never aware of a massive measuring mistake. Rossi’s statement about it is evasive. Even if the high temperature device is in early testing, Rossi after so many years would know how to measure input power correctly. There is no excuse to produce inaccuracies of 2-3 times. In particular not, when it was announced as a major event.

          • RGCheek

            Or the engineer got a fale reading that confirmed what he had already decided was the case, and left without double checking his measurement.

            Your supposition that the fault lies entirely with Rossi is beyond absurdity.

          • Omega Z

            According to Cures, the outer core was at 800+`C when the picture was taken. The black paint is supposed to stay black until 1200`C suppressing the color, not the heat.

            At 800`C, steel should be bright lightish red.

          • hammerskoj

            Wrong. In the steady state [time is enough], inner and outer temps [and kelvin] are the same. Reactor has been damped otherwise to constrain termocamera specs. Note peak temp [measured via laser gun] and use it to obtain real COP.

          • Not so. The inner surfaces are receiving radiation from the opposite side of the tube, and so cannot radiate as efficiently as the outer surfaces. I believe that it has been calculated that the inner surfaces can only shed heat via radiation at about 20% of the rate of the outer surfaces. They will therefore run much hotter at the equilibrium point.

            Pekka’s observation is accurate. In a post I noted the same thing when the picture was released, in addition to the apparent absence of any significant optical distortion close to the surface, which is characteristic of very hot objects.

    • Nicholas Payne

      Power measurements can be confused by non linear loads which would include a triac ac voltage regulator. That is why switching to a variac is a good idea. A variac is a special transformer with a sliding tap to tap off the voltage required, so is linear in operation. The issue of capacitance and inductance which can also cause problems in the measurement of true power, (capacitance and inductance being small in this case anyway ) will then become completely irrelevant. However I would suggest the use of nothing more complicated than an ordinary household electricity meter , validated by over a century of operation as the most defensible method of measuring the total electrical energy consumed to the required accuracy. It would need to be put in front of the variac and the variac itself which should be 10 times bigger than strictly required would be run open circuit to measure how much power it is taking (“iron losses”) . Then any “copper losses” due to current flowing to the ecat will be too small to be of any consequence. I say the electricity meter is defensible, since it is accepted by the courts in any dispute over electric power consumption. Also I say this in some detail, since it appears the experiments are being run by physicists, whose detailed knowledge of matters electrical may be on par with my detailed knowledge of quantum mechanics.

    • Ivan_cev

      What?????, the input load is resistive. so will absorb all frequencies.
      The meter is the one may not read all frequencies.
      Probably this is why we have never seen a ecat test with control devices.

      • making a resistor nearly purely resistive is very hard…

        as explained by cure it have capacitive and inductive components, dominant a different place, and with resonance… and the triggering of a triac can excites those resonance…

        this is why serious people use wattmeter, filters, and check with oscilloscope if they don’t miss something…

        loose job on two sides. much ado for nothing.

        I feel stupid too, because for me it was so evident that they used a wattmeter and not a RMS ampmeter…
        I’m more sadly surprised by the swedish team.
        and if Rossi claim of test (60W/2kW) are true, the swedish should have sustained any claim, even negative. if true, Rossi test was very good to raise doubt on instrumentation protocol.

  • Jeff Clark

    This is silly. First a simple variac is not the tool to use. It only outputs a percentage of what is put into it. Any fluctuations of input voltage will affect the output voltage. A regulated voltage power supply should be used. Second, as we say, Watts is Watts. It would be much simpler to prove out the E-Cat by using a DC power supply to control the heating element. No power factors to be concerned about. I work for a small electrical testing lab and is seems that we could have done a better job at validating the E-Cat than the schmoes that did it. Sheesh.

  • Victor Victory

    Personally i consider this to be a move to stop Rossi. This report must have been in the pipiline for a while but they waited for the conference to happen and simply put a question mark over the entire thing. Please do not forget that this technology has been validated by others so I would not dismiss it straight away!
    Previous attempts to discredit Rossi have happened before i.e. the complaint filed by Krivit in the US saying that Rossi is developing possible a nuclear product and he has safety concerns. I am following this story since it’s infancy and i learned to read betweek the lines.

    • Patrik

      The test is said to have been done septmeber 6. And when negative Magnus Holm obviously did decide to not appear at the conference.

      Probably he hoped to talk about his companys successful and definitive test at the conference but to his suprise and maybe shock it failed.

      • In the last thread, I flagged what I see as a problem with the latest tests, but it has now been left behind as there is a new topic. As it seems to be fairly important, I am re-posting the salient points here, in the hope that other engineering-oriented contributors will comment. It is unfortunate that there is a lot of Rossi bashing going on at the moment, and this post will not help.

        The following observations refer to the images in the ‘official’ document, http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123487015_1.pdf (excepting the first (Cures) image which shows an earlier unit).

        In the shot of the ceramic carrier (white core resting on scales), we see that all four spiral windings are placed in adjacent gooves on one side of the carrier, rather than being evenly spaced around the periphery. There are in fact grooves all around the ‘carrier’, as can be seen in the picture of the partially disassembled core (seen from the non-wire end laying on a surface). In this image we can see the cross-wire between two adjacent spiral windings, and image enhancement also shows a similar wire connecting the next pair of holes. These images therefore confirm that all four spiral resistances are placed together on one side of the core, and remained so for the test.

        Unfortunately we don’t know the orientation of the unit during testing. However, with all the heater elements on one side of the core like this, there would have been a possibility that this side was the one that ended up facing the camera. In this case, although the calculations were performed as if heat dissipation was even across the entire exterior surface, this was probably NOT the case. Heating under one area of the outer tube only would also explain the ‘edge anomaly’ that required in some fudging of the calculations.

        Of course, this asymmetric heater arrangement could also have influenced results the other way, if the heater elements were in fact on the side away from the camera or at some intermediate position. Nonetheless, it is an area of possible doubt which should not be present, and which seems to need addressing. I would welcome any comments on the above observation.

        • sven

          The problems with this type of power measure is that it makes a lot of assumptions regarding the radiative nature of the element and as pointed out here, the uniform distribution of the heat. This could probably be avoided by using a heat-transmitting setup, such as closed-loop circulating air in a black-box that would be cooled using water-heat exchanger and then the total power could have been easily measured by determining the input/output heat difference and measure of the water flow. That type of setup would have allowed the heat of the hot-cat to rise to it’s maximums but would have been independent from the environmental, structural and setup factors.

        • Ged

          As I said last thread, the problem is that we can only see into four of the grooves, the others are out of our vision. Additionally, those four ribbed grooves correspond to only two of the four wires. The other two wires are on the complete opposite side of the cylinder, and so cannot be part of the ribbed structures we see there. Looking at all the pictures, it seems pretty obvious the entire device is symmetrical.

          For instance, look at the picture of the disassembled head on view (page 6). You can see the points where the wires are looping in and out of the device, and that seems symmetrical.

          So.. I’m not sure what you are seeing? Maybe it is just a trick of the perspective?

          • Mmmm – you may be right. It is admittedly difficult to make out details even after enhancing the images.

            Sorry, I missed your post on the last page (found it now).

          • Ged

            Oh, it’s totally fine! So many posts flying around here it’s impossible to keep track. I’m sure I am missing tons of things, but c’est la vie.

            It is definitely difficult to make out the details. I wish we’d had a full panoramic around the device. I could always be the one seeing things wrong.

          • I just tried to post a reply, but it disappeared! I’ll try again:

            I’ve used another image enhancement package to get better views of the ends, and can see fairly clearly that each of the resistances does in fact loop back and forth through 10 channels. So of course you were absolutely correct, and heating should be reasonably even.

          • I’ve just used another image manipulation package to reprocess the images, and got some clearer results. I can now make out most of the cross connections in the end views, and it is clear that (as you say) each resistance does go back and forth through each of 10 channels – so heating is even. False alarm!

          • Andrew MacLeod

            I’m a little confused. Measuring energy consumption isn’t rocket surgery, its done in every home,business, and institution every second of every day in North America anyways.

          • Ged

            I’m sure the power company is having no trouble watching how much power the lab tests are consuming and billing them for it.

          • Andrew MacLeod


          • artefact

            Or you should re-check your bill from the power company. Maby you pay a 2 – 3 times too much 😉

          • Ged

            Whew! I’m glad we were able to make heads or tails of those pictures. Your imagine enhancing software sure is handy!

          • sven

            Well, Mats should then have no problem in getting a confirmation from the group that reported the error, that the error was their own and that they can then confirm that based on this new information that the hot-cat is the real deal and works.

            There is one thing that I miss from the measured temperature profile. In the earlier reports from successive LENR experiments, there has always been a trigger point, so that when the LENR process starts, the temperature rise gets much quicker as you would expect. In the current Hot-Cat report, it does however seem like a steady temp-rise through the whole time and in the same way, just a steady cool-down after the heating elements are turned off. Does that look strange to anyone or is there some physics that can explain why the process would behave like that?

          • georgehants

            Bernie Koppenhofer
            September 10th, 2012 at 2:25 PM
            Mr. Rossi: Sorry for the confusion, I am talking about the low temp E-Cat. How many can you produce in a month?
            PS I used the term “warm cat” for the low temp cat, sorry.
            Andrea Rossi
            September 10th, 2012 at 2:57 PM
            Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
            Using the outsourcing we can reach good numbers, because what is necessary for us to maintain inside our factory is the production of the core, and we can make up to 100 reawctors per day. In outsourcing we can reach the numbers we want, we have already selected a good number of possible suppliers. The logistics too will be outsourced.
            Warm Regards,

          • barty

            That means he is able to build 1 x 1MW container plant per day?

            Sounds great! Where is Patrik, wouldn’t he order one?

          • Patrik

            We ordered one a long time ago. Manus Holm kept saying delivery was just around the corner.

            I am guessing orders like ours is what got Magnus his investors that now pulled out.

            Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that Magnus Holm was sincere and realy thought he would soon have something to sell. He just never got any, thats what I think. Whenever you want to buy, Rossi talks about some new product that you can buy soon. He keeps dreaming up new versions when he cant deliver the old ones. I am starting to think Rossi is delusional.

          • Omega Z


            If I recall, you stated the need was for several hundred apartments. The 1Mw warm cats are only certified for commercial/Industrial. Your needs tho may be considered commercial, is also residential. UL/CE is required before their available for your needs.

            Holm’s interests in buying in as a partner/shareholder is probably based on an Electric producing Hot Cat. Buying in includes risk, but Electric Generation can justify the risk/costs due to market size.

            Otherwise He can remain a license wholesaler with very low risk as the Fee is held in escrow until certain requirements are met by Rossi.

            But who knows, Maybe they got cold feet because of 1 fail out of 3. Or Maybe They’ve had a better offer. Rossi is only 1 of several preparing to goto market. Maybe a competitor offered a much larger share per dollar invested.
            We’ll have to wait till the dust settles.

          • Mannstein

            Could be the thermal mass of the Hot Cat is much greater which would result in a longer time constant to reach maximum temperature.

        • Can someone point me to the measurement data made by Technical Research Institute of Sweden .I would like to see it .


          • Don Witcher

            I doubt that you will ever see it. The engineer was working with incompatible instrumentation for the setup. Seems the problem has now been resolve. Magnus Holms press release was premature and not very bright.

          • s

            Don’t criticize the messenger. I’m sure the technician from the Swedish institute performed the test up to the processes and practices standard for this type of measurement. What I mean is I doubt this was the first time they performed a power measurement of this sort.

          • Don Witcher

            You ever worked with a bunch of technicians?

          • s

            Yes, I have worked with electrical technicians. They were highly skilled and trained. They were only allowed to perform real world measurements after they had accurately performed the measurements in practice dozens if not hundreds of times using their calibrated measuring equipment. Someone else’s experience could be different.

          • Omega Z


            Even the Best can make mistakes. Especially on something they’ve never encountered before.

            Best to Measure twice & cut once. Not measure once & cut twice.

          • RGCheek

            S, so why didnt these Swedish engineers continue testing? Did everything else pass? Did they leave after only a portion of the tests were done? Or is everything else they saw valid?

            And I would expect a retest after a fail, discussion with the testee and then follow up, and not simply fleeing the building like a theif in the night.

          • Thanks Don
            From my experience in electronic engineering quite a few errors are made because those doing the measurement don`t really understand the limitations of their
            measuring instruments

          • Mannstein

            The output power measurement using an IR camera is not trivial.

        • Petrol

          I have a question regarding what kWh means on the chart on pg13 of the ‘official’ document PDF. For example 11:36 shows .20 kW and .211kWh. What does .211kWh mean?

          If the ecat was switched on at 11:21 assume it was consuming .20 kW for the whole 15 minutes it was on to that point it would be .20kW @ 1/4hr = .05 kWh. Total energy consumption is based entirely on this column.

          • Petrol

            Nevermind I was able to reproduce the entire chart using time of the next? measurement to calculate kWh.

            I hope this does not reflect a situation where kWh assumes constant power between non-triggered sampling intervals. If so the worst possible case assuming ever increasing power is 9.953 kWh vs 8.330 figure used in report.

            “In future tests, we recommend that voltage and power consumption measurements, which were recorded manually, be obtained automatically”

  • Marius

    Hope the Swedes are not pulling another “Assange”

    • That is food for thought. Being based in two countries that pretty much do what the US tells them to do, may make them vulnerable to pressure.

  • I am troubled from purely thermodynamic point of view. If a reaction is exothermic, it must be self-sustained if it is driven by the same form of energy it produces. Rossi reaction both produces heat and is driven by it, so once started it has to be driven by its own heat. This means it could be temperature-controlled by varying heat dissipation, potentially rising COP to infinity. Controlled heating could only prod the reaction if the reactants start to cool. Nothing like that was observed: the current was uniformly increasing and the COP was roughly constant.

    • Ged

      I share your view. The COP is also a lot worst than the low temp e-cats. I think perhaps the heating is out pacing the reaction, so most of it is going to waste. This is also possibly evident in the data, where we see that the first 1.5 kW of input jump the reactor to 800 C, but the next 2 kW only push it to 1066 C. It’s entirely possible that after reaching 800 C, the reaction itself was at its max, and the additional 2 kW were not actually affecting the reaction in a positive way (too much heat could even inhibit the reaction, due to damage to the nickel), just the basal heat.

      This also seems to agree with the curve shapes, and the response of the reactor temp to the input (as I graphed previously). I can’t do a full analysis of all this, so maybe you can make more sense of it.

      Still, when we look at the heat death of the reactor, it “stabilizes” into a slow decay at a 500-600 C range, again this is in agreement with the large jump in heat out to this temperature range in response to a small input of energy, from what I see.

      So, I think the LENR reaction capped out at producing 600-800 C of thermal energy, all the rest of the raise was from the input, and thus was wasted, hence the dropped COP. Since the reactor is in open air with a giant open shaft down its middle to rapidly dissipaite heat via convection, I would expect the reaction would cool and cease after awhile if the reaction rate is below the dissipation rate.

      This actually gives us insight into the rate of reaction for the LENR process; and as in agreement with all previous experiments and most theories, the rate of reaction is very slow, and so self sustaining is difficult as it’s a battle between heat production from the slow exothermic reaction and dissipation, as a certain amount of heat is required to over come the activation energy of the reaction. Direct electrical stimulation (ala Celani and others) seems to suggest that the energy of activation barrier can be surmounted by other methods besides simple ambient heat, where such direct stimulation doubled the amount of heat produced per unit input versus the heat produced from ambient nearby heating through an inactive wire.

      In short, driving the hot cat to 1066 C is a complete waste of energy. 0.5-1 kW input is all that is needed to stimulate the reaction to the 500-800 C that it works best at, in this device.

      • Kim

        I agree with your analysis.


      • We are used to chemical and hot fusion reactions whose reaction rate depends on temperature only. Maybe LENR reaction rate depends also on the temperature gradient (or equivalent the magnitude of the heat flux), i.e. local anomalous power density might be a function of temperature and heat flux at that point. If that would be the case, LENR activity might “escape” from the centre of the core towards boundaries and possibly get intensified too much because of the larger volume, or else stop upon reaching the boundaries – in either case it would be unstable and thus undesirable. But such instability might be prevented by a central heating driver which helps “define” the desired direction of the heat flow vector field within the core material (away from the centre). This is pure speculation, but my point is just that such logical possibilities also seem to exist.

        • Ged

          Definitely, such logical possibilities exist. And I really like your thoughts.

          If we consider the Brillouin (or was it Blacklight?) Q stimulation deal, where they suggest directional vibrational stimulation of the lattice (waves) causes bulk movement of the hydrogens, which then drives the reaction, a heat flux could maybe cause the same effect. Hm…

          • Or perhaps electric current in some other experiments (classical Pd-D electrolysis, maybe some wire experiments too)… Current is also a transport phenomenon which is a cousin of the heat flux.

          • Ged

            Very, very interesting. You know, when I think about it, if heat flux is one of the keys of this equation, that might be able to explain how natural gas could be used to replace electricity…

            We’re building some good experimental ideas here. If only we could get our hands on our own reactors…

          • Jim Johnson

            fusioncatalyst dot org
            quantumheat dot org

            engineers needed…

          • daniel maris

            Well it sounds like there is still everything to play for…a wonderful example of why we all keep tuning in.

          • georgehants

            daniel, it keeps the sale of red wine buoyant.

      • Lu

        I don’t think you can tell how temperature and input power are correlated based on this data. There would have to be a steady state of temperature for a given input power and correlated stepping of temperature with input power to work as you say. I don’t think the data shows this.

        Also it’s not clear what the role the heat from resistors plays. It was my understanding that the heat was to actually throttle the reaction not increase it. So I don’t think we can say what’s going on here since we don’t know how the reaction is controlled.

  • One more technical point. The ohmic resistance of materials will increase as the temperature rises. If anyone is attempting to calculate the power into the e-cat using the nominal room temperature resistance of the heater R*I^2 or (V^2)/R you will be greatly in error.

    • Preston

      I did the math below and all three ways to calculate power came out about the same(I*V, V^2/R, I^2*R). The 6 ohms seems to be pretty constant.

  • Sceptical

    New iPhone could boost U.S. GDP by up to 0.5 percent, JP Morgan says

    If ecat is real just for making hot water for heating systems (60° would be more that excellent) ecat can increase the GDP of the nations where it will be produced by X%

    And you will see a dramatic drop in the price of oil and gas.

    And a dramatic drop of CO2 emission.

    So Mr. Rossi please forget about hot ecat and just release a boiler that saves energy. If it is true.

    Hot Ecat can follow even in years, but until you release something all this cannot be accepted as true.

  • ivan_cev

    About measurements and units.
    Could someone tell me what kind of unit is a KWH/H as Mr Rossi always express?
    I think He has a bit of an academic problem!

    • andre blum

      not at all. He has proven to understand his units very well. He has been using kWh/h a lot, also in spoken language, to indicate continuous power. I think he does so exactly for that reason that many people use this incorrectly. I cannot comment on how common it is to use it this way, but is certainly correct.

      • Ivan_Cev

        Dear Andre, Are you in physics? continuous power? could you explain.
        KW is a unit of power.
        KWH is a unit of Energy, means a KW used during one hour, and this is way the electric provider charges us.

        • Andre Blum

          Dear Ivan, I am not in physics, nor do I have to be, as this is high school stuff where I come from.

          Exactly like you say, KWh (written with a low caps h — have you paid attention in high school?) is a unit of energy. So what is wrong with Rossi wanting to state how much energy per hour his device is generating? Would you see a problem if he had written MJ/h?

          With continuous power I mean to say ongoing power. Power in itself is an instananeous unit (as there is no time component) thus does not necessarily say that it will be there for a longer period of time. By using KWh/h Rossi clearly states that every hour it will generate that amount of energy.

    • As Andre says, kWh/h (or KWh/h) is a term used to express an averaged output. The term kW, as a measure of power implies a steady output at that level. When output varies (slowly rising or falling, or varying around some mean value) it is more accurate to express the power as kWh/h, i.e., the number of kWh (total energy) produced each hour. It is effectively the same as kW, just averaged over a period of an hour (or calculated as such) to take account of fluctuations or drift.

    • Omega Z


      It gets confusing even for the regulars. Kwh is what most understand/ or Not.

      When Discussing the E-cat you’ll see these terms a lot.

      Kwh= 1000 watts continuous for 1 Hour.
      /H =Heat
      /E =Electric

      Kwh/H is pertaining to Heat usually in the term of Output.
      Kwh/E is pertaining to Electricity usually in the term of Input.

      I’ve also seen people use
      Kwe for electric
      KwH for heat
      Very confusing/easy for layman to misinterpret & probably wrong for E-cat discussions. The Previous should be used as a standard.

      • Jambo

        Wasn’t there also supposed to be an article in a “well known scientific publication” about this time?
        Is that tomorrow? Cancelled? We’ve been waiting awhile for that one as well – a little impatient I suppose.

        I am indeed a believer but it seems like just one virtual (revelatory) zero after another…ad inifinitum.

      • RGCheek

        So, you are admitting Rossi was right all along or not?

  • captain

    I like to put your attention to just what Miles wrote and Omega Z replied, nothing more!

    Miles on September 11, 2012 at 11:20 am wrote:

    Still early days. This is just the few of many steps needed to get the “prototype” to market. Ok everybody, just breath !!!
    What was everyone expecting – An official Announcement? Too many people on this forum are eager for answers. Rossi needs to be 100% sure execution of the e-cat is perfect, take a seat and enjoy the show. LENR is real, it’s coming !!!!

    Omega Z on September 11, 2012 at 6:33 pm replied to Miles:

    Agreed. 6 months ago they were still stuck at 200`C
    Rossi has actually come a long way in a very short time. In a University Lab it would have taken a minimum of 10 years to make a 1000°C jump. People let their expectations get away from them.

    So, plz, don’t pretend to have fresh news from Rossi every day, every hour, every minute.

    I would be happy to hear from Rossi a good news say each season, not more frequently.

    If we don’t keep in mind this, all the pleasure to visit this blog, to participate to its threads is not a pleasure.