Friendly Fire

I am sure that very few people imagined that the aftermath of the Zurich E-Cat conference would end the way it did. An event that was intended to shed more light on the E-Cat has given way to a state of confusion as Hydrofusion, one of Rossi’s licensees, issued a press release casting doubt on the veracity of the high temperature E-Cat.

It is not unusual to hear criticisms of Andrea Rossi from various outside sources, but to receive such a vote of no confidence from a close associate is certainly a public relations blow for Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation — perhaps reaching to others in the LENR movement.

It should be noted that Hydrofusion has not disavowed E-Cat technology altogether. Indeed its own web site,, is still marketing the E-Cat, and taking pre-orders for E-Cat products. It looks like their problem is with the hot cat technology only.

To summarize, the problem arose when on September 6, a Swedish testing group tested a hot cat reactor in Bologna, and according to NyTeknik, measured input electrical power of two to three times higher than that reported in the recently published document released by Leonardo Corp., which, if true, would cancel out any excess heat produced from the reactor.

Andrea Rossi made multiple comments explaining the situation from his point of view, the latest of which is here (Caps in original):


So, with regards to the E-Cat, it appears we are pretty much where we have been for a long time, waiting for more information. There are some differences following the Zurich report. We now know the name of a certifying agency that has been involved in testing — SGS — and the nuclear engineer who has done some of the testing: Fabio Penon. From the report we have many new details about the hot cat, but the impact of the report has been muted by the report out of Sweden.

One report from the conference mentions the installation of an E-Cat plant in an industrial setting. On Dr. Myron Evans blog is a report from a conference attendee named Horst who writes:

I am back now from the congress. This was a big succuss with about 200 participants. Rossi attended all sessions and gave an extensive evening talk with myriads of details. Main topic of the congress however was not the technique but market introduction aspects and comparisons with other technologies.

The situation with the E-cat is as follows: Currently a 1 MW version in a container is going to be shipped. A first installation at military exists but cannot ve visited. In about 3 months a company in North Italy will have a first machine from series production which can be studied by interested buyers and investors. The 1 MW version has been certified for industry usage.

This is what everyone following the E-Cat story is really waiting for. Until we can see an E-Cat working there will room for debate and doubt. Andrea Rossi has always maintained that there will be no mass media attention until that point, and right now he is probably glad that there relatively little media attention.

So the wait for more information continues. As always we will be following the story here.

  • I’m not sure the ‘fire’ was that friendly, despite Rossi’s statement. The HydroFusion statement leaves the reader in no doubt that HF believes that the ‘hot cat’ is fake, and the timing of the ‘news’ on their web site was obviously chosen to cause maximum damage to Rossi at the end of his conference. In fact there was simply no need to make the announcement at all, unless HF needed a ‘reason’ to terminate any contractual obligations to Leonardo corp they may have.

    Unless HF allow a re-test of a hot cat in which heater input is controlled by a Variac rather than a ‘chopper’ circuit (as Rossi has suggested) it doesn’t seem very likely that they can continue offering the 1MW unit, as their business relationship with Rossi will have become untenable. In this case I hope Rossi can find a way to reclaim the domain!

    (btw, who is running these days? – it seems to be a ‘Rossi news’ site at the moment.)

    • Karl

      If Rossi is sure of what he has – it seems obvious he should look for other investor friends and possibly resellers. From my perspective and own experience, its not an unusual that innovators and investors have different views.

  • Andrew Macleod

    2 to 3 months, again? Rossi has to understand that his supporters are getting tired of the delays. I hate to say it but when Mr. Gibbs writes about “Jam tommorow” he is looking more and more correct as time passes. He needs to get it right this next time. I know that Mr Rossi has no control over the methods and equipment his 3rd party validateors use but the “mistake” his current validateors made could have been avoided had sufficient information been supplied (making an assumption here). No more excuses!

  • Adam Lepczak

    Francesco Ch stated that the Swedish engineers had the measuring equipment that wasn’t properly calibrated. When doing some test measurements on light bulbs (60W and 200W respectively) the indicated “measured values” by the “expert” was also twice the normal values…

    • jfab

      The lightbuld story is actualy not true. It is now known that the measuring equipment was perfectly calibrated. Please people stop getting your infos on in the WRONG places 🙂

      • Wolf

        Where is your source?

      • As Wolf says – prove that statement. Otherwise stop fabricating nonsense.

      • tappanjack

        Ahem! We are still waiting for your source??

        • Andrew Macleod

          Let’s look at this rationally…… A mystery tester comes from the US, does some measurements with some unknown equipment, using an unknown method, not publishing any data or report over a very short timeframe and this is being accepted as evidence of fraud? Frankly Rossis report holds way more water than this.

      • Andrew Macleod

        Septics don’t need to prove anything or show facts.

  • barty

    3 Months…the mayan calander ends and introduces us into a new energy era?

    Just a little joke, but the date fits!

  • dio449

    After a year of watching this unfold, it seems the methods to measure the output of these ‘cats’ gets more convoluted. I find myself wondering why one simply can’t wrap this hot cat in a copper heat exchanger, circulate water through it in a closed loop, let the thing run for x minutes/hours/days and then measure the temperature of the water. A simple thermometer will give you reasonably accurate measurement of the power output of the device.

    It seems that the question comes up on accurately measuring the input power, but at the end of the day the whole thing runs off standard AC power, why not just measure the whole thing. A regular AC power meter as used by the utility company. The key is to show more output than input, if the difference is so slight that these complicated methods of measurement are required then the effect if not really useful.

    At then end of the day AC in VS POWER out is all that really matters, that is what the end user is going to care about. If the effect is as strong as claimed then it will be abundantly clear even with the simple measurement I’m suggesting.

    • Andrew Macleod

      The KISS method is usually the best approach. When your reaching for the moon it’s best to keep your head down lest you trip and fall on your face.

      • vbasic

        In some respects, this is a non-story. The problem is at Hydrofusion. Whatever they measured or didn’t measure should have been discussed internally and requested retests. Hydro may have been furious they lost the chance to get millions in investment money. So in a moment they may may now regret, they lashed out. They must still believe in the original ecat. Their website is still up and glowing about the merits of it.
        What is interesting are the people who say that LENR fans are blinded by the light of the ecat. Frank chose to report the Hydrofusion press release, which a biased site wouldn’t have.
        I think lower temperature retests of the hot cat are in order. Commenter GED yesterday said it seems at 600 C the COP is excellent. But when pushed to the higher temps it drops horribly. Rossi so wants to get it run turbines, he sacrificed the 600 C breakthrough he achieved.

    • Balatelli

      good point. Of course it would be simple to measure only deltaT of liquid water. This was one of Krivits requests also.
      But Rossi complicated with phase transfers, wet and dry steam and so on. that made many people think it could be a scam.

    • Ivan_cev

      I fully agree, this is the best way to test this device.
      also have a control device to show the difference.

  • jedslater

    From Dr. Myrons Evans Blog

    “This is the first note on spacetime enhanced quantum tunnelling as a mechanism for low energy nuclear reaction (LENR). This note gives the complete detail of the calculation of the probability of quantum tunnelling in the Schroedinger limit. I can ask co author Horst Eckardt to check the algebra by computer as usual, and to plot eq. (40). The greater the difference E – V, the greater the probabilty of quantum tunnelling in quantum mechanics. So if V is enhanced by a spacetime potential h bar kappa, the nuclear fusion can occur in this hypothesis. The various reactions are summarized on page 8 from input to UFT227 by co author Douglas Lindstrom. This calculation can be made relativistic, and this route can be developed in UFT228.”

    Now I tried to follow the math but lost it during the calculations!!

  • Blanco69

    I actually feel quite encouraged by these developments. If the ecat is real then there’s a lot to play for. Big money doesn’t like not being in control. It would be unatural for there not to be one or two bloody noses along the way. I’d be totally gobsmacked if master fraudster Rossi had even built in some ” unforeseen setbacks” into his grand scheme. When there’s this much at stake I’d be surprised if we didn’t see more of this kinda thing. Thanks again to Frank, I can hardly keep up with events as they unfold in their unpredictable, and yet entirely natural way.

  • Lu

    It is my understanding that a 1MW system has already shipped in July:

    AR: “such prototype will be delivered, with the modifications which we will complete based on what we learnt from the model at work, to a European Customer in July.”

    and it is this one which after a month or two will be available for visits by invited parties. That time would be about now.

  • Mark

    The bottom line is : “Is the E-CAT a LENR-device
    or a good Electricity-To-Heat Convertor”.
    A simple independent test of 5KW E-CAT in
    a self-sustained mode can prove or disprove
    it…everything else is just prolonging
    the agony of fans, skeptics, investors,
    and believers that LENR will turn the Earth
    around its axis.

  • Lu

    In his response Rossi is saying a lot but he is not disavowing the actual measurement. Also Rossi’s statements regarding the preliminary status of the measurements appear to have been given after this particular measurement (September 6th) so it looks to me to be more damage control than anything. At this point unless the group taking this measurement acknowledges that it most likely made an error in its measurements, we have to consider that there are problems with the E-Cat despite all the blustering by Rossi.

    • Ged

      I’m pretty sure (but could be wrong) that the Sept 6th Hot Cat is a new version different from the one we previously seen, and that the problem lays with it maybe. Hence why we can’t make direct comparisons to the old version. That’s what I figured after reading the language from both Hydrofusion and Rossi.

      • Lu

        The Swedish article says the version is a new version but really, how different can it be and would such a difference mean anything? The issue is with the measurement of the current which is an ancillary system.

        • Ged

          No no, it is extremely important they say it’s a new system. That could be because the new system might use new wires that can handle way more power than 8 kW.

          The hot cat itself may be mostly the same, but the resistive elements could be different, which would completely nullify what we know based on the previous report. That’s why I held off bringing up the wires previously — as it may be different wires to begin with and not subject to the 8 kW failure limit.

      • Ivan_cev

        Why to use a new version, when you doing validation testing, use your more stable best result for the test. once validated and principle proven then risk changes and improvements, this continuous changing is disturbing.
        And more, why to believe by faith, Rossi needs to do more serious tests, now is becoming dangerous, there are investor risking money, legal issues could arise, Rossi needs to came with a prototype that shows the device is possible beyond any doubt.
        Actually I am not a Skeptic, but I do not want to believe by faith so I need evidence. don’t you?

        • Ged

          Oh, cause it’s the R&D stage for the Hot Cat, rather than the product validation stage. Sometimes in R&D, you actually have several different versions of the product flying around all at once, evaluating to find which version is most promising.

          • Ivan_cev

            Yes, you always evaluating, but if you selling something or trying to get an investor you will not show an evolving device. you have to have a concret solid prototype to show to the people who is giving money to you.

    • admin

      Lu, I think Rossi is saying that the measurements taken by the swedes are not possible given the max power of the resistors is 8 kW. (see Ged’s post and my reply below)

      • Lu

        See my answer/questions below Ged’s other comment.

        • Ged

          See my answer to your answer ;). But yes, at 8 kW, the wires, if they are rated for such, should fail (likely before hand; I’ve seen plenty of resistive heating elements burn out way before their rated limits, but never seen one go over). Once you get close to the draw limit, all sorts of weird things can happen. Such as, fire. But the big thing would be burn out of the wires. And then, of course, the amps and volts that would be pulled in at 8 kW are pretty huge and probably would be independently noticeable by more than just volt/amp meters.

          • The leads to the heater elements in the cures photo (the brown/blue plastic covered copper) look barely able to handle 8kW, let alone more. Its a pity there is no similar shot of the later set-up.

          • Ged

            That’s exactly what I was thinking about too. It’s good to have a second opinion!

            It is too bad we don’t have similar shots… I wouldn’t be surprised though if they beefed up the electrical system for that Sept 6 test.

  • (Regarding Ged,Rossi,Lu et al.)There is also the heat after death phenomenon in the report (the “Corrections” part). They measured 1460 Wh of energy liberated after the resistor was turned off. The heat capacity of steel and ceramic could maximally explain only 480 Wh (assuming quoted upper limit heat capacities 700 kJ/(kg K) and 900 kJ/(kg K) for steel and ceramic respectively) of this energy, with the measured temperature difference of 502 K. The remaining 940 Wh (about 1 kWh) remains to be explained. This energy is clearly larger than any chemically stored energy in the 20 or so grams of “active” material (for example, burning 20 grams of gasoline would give only 0.25 kWh).

    The heat after death energy estimate is independent of the input electric power measurement. Thus the “Hydrofusion version” of the power consumption (2-3 times higher than Rossi’s measurement) is inconsistent with the heat after death measured by the earlier testers by their IR camera. At the same time it is consistent with Rossi’s version, since the extra heat produced after turning the resistor off is about 3 times larger than what the material heat capacities explain, i.e. a factor which is not too far from the measured COP during the driven phase.

    It is all consistent with the assumption that the underlying process is anomalous and simply thermally driven with some memory effect (i.e. no need to assume some dependencies on thermal gradients as I speculated earlier).

    • Ged

      Thank you so much for this data analysis, Pekka! I had been wanting to do it myself, but just couldn’t find the time to get all the needed heat capacity info and equations.

      I think we can handedly say this input value myth is busted (for the report way have, anyways).

      Edit: Also, interesting that means it’s not dependent on the thermal gradients like we were speculating. Hm, dang. Such a great observation though!

      • The fuel (if 1.5 grams of it) is less than 10 micron thin layer on the surface of the inner cylinder (or the ceramic; I don’t know which one). Perhaps gradients are not relevant in such small scale. Essentially it is just nickel dust on surface, even hard to see.

        Maybe the anomalous process power density depends on temperature something like T^3.5 or so. Then it is kept at bay (stable) by radiative cooling (T^4) without active controls, although it does require active control with fluid cooling as in low-temp E-cats.

        Since there is no active control in the HotCat, the process must be stable naturally. It is stable if the cooling rate depends on temperature more steeply than the heating rate. The fact that the measured COP does not vary too much over the rather wide temperature range suggests that the anomalous process exponent is not much smaller than 4.

        • Ged

          Agreed. We’re actually fortunate this is the case, as then ambient cooling is enough to quench the reaction.

          Additionally, this seems to explain why there is such a large output response by the Hot Cat at a low input, and then saturation quickly thereafter, even along a very wide range of inputs. The cooling rate quickly outpaces the heat input necessary for the reaction. We might be able to estimate that input T exponential factor needed for the anomalous power density, if we could get a very accurate ratio of the fast Hot Cat output response versus the cooling, respective to input. I don’t think the data we have here is thorough enough for that.

          Hmm, I wonder, as you point out, there is a big difference with the low temp E-cat versus this not-needing-controls Hot Cat. I wonder if indeed having that thin nickel/catalyst paste negates the benefit of a heat flux that seems to be part of much thicker nickel preparations. Could even be a flux simply enhances the reaction, and thus this lowered COP of the Hot Cat is us seeing only the temperature dependent part of the equation, with any flux components removed.

          I suppose this also suggests that the Hot Cat is not suitable for a self sustained reaction.

          • K

            Unless you find a way to turn the flux…

          • Ivan_cev

            Why to speculate with this myriad of possibilities, how much could cost Rossi to build a blank control device, with the same resistance,shape,volume etc of the active ecat, put both in action an measure temperature, graph the difference and stop all speculation. Control devices in experiments difficult to measure are ecential. at the end of a day measurements are just a comparative observation against a establish pattern. In this case the passive device becomes the base line.

          • Ged

            Exactly true and correct, on all points!

            Our speculations above are trying to think about the mechanisms of the reaction from an experimental point of view; so we’re sorta on a different subject.

          • Kim

            I would like to purchase a 250 kilowatt unit.

            If you have a system that produces energy 24/7.
            Then you need to re tool and re think how a home
            can function with large amounts of energy in the form of heat and steam.

            A Home to Have:

            Central steam centrifugal freon pump. A large multipurpose
            central freon cooling plant in outside enclosed space. Capable
            of delivering Low side coolant for house environment, Large Refridge/Freezer.

            The house could be heated via the High side supply easily.

            The cooking oven run by Hot-cat Technology.

            This would take care of most of the high energy appliances of a

            The rest of the appliances could be run by electrical energy
            produced via heat conversion of the E-cat Turbine.

            I would like to purchase a 250 kilowatt unit for all my house
            hold needs.


          • Iggy Dalrymple

            I would like to purchase a 250 kilowatt unit for all my house
            hold needs.


            For someone that hates filthy lucre why do you want 20 times the usual home power needs? That’s big enough for AlGore.

          • Kim

            I was mostly think about when the systems are closed and
            run themselves.

            Perhaps this will happen in the distant future,
            perhaps I’m dreaming.

            I certainly would not want to have to supply the
            electricity to run a 250 kilowatt unit.

            I’m dreaming of true free thermal energy.


          • Omega Z


            Your actually thinking a little more to reality then most. A 10Kw E-cat could never come close to running the average home even with 50% Electric conversion. Just cut your number in half. That’s a starting point. Which is Not economical for majority of individual homes.

            Ok- We’re stuck at this starting point until other technologies improve including the E-cat. Only then will we be able to do more realistic calculations. It’s going to be a while.

        • Pekka, could you tell me where you found the information about the thin layer of fuel/catalyst please?

          • If the fuel mass is 1.5 grams (Rossi), inner tube area about 0.3*0.1=0.03 m^2 and nickel density about 9000 kg/m^3, it gives thickness of 5.5 microns.

          • Thanks, but I meant really the idea that the fuel is definitely in a thin film, as opposed to (say) several tubular capsules fitted into the ceramic heater core. Has this been stated somewhere by Rossi or ‘Cures’?

          • I vaguely remember having heard Rossi say it at some time, but I’m not sure if and where. Maybe it was in Zurich presentation. I watched part of it online, but haven’t viewed systematically.
            Edit: One thing is that it must be close to the inner tube because inner tube heats so much more.

          • hammerskoj

            Page 6 of Cures official report, row 5: … “while leaving the
            active charge inside the apparatus.” But inner tube has been removed.

          • hammerskoj: so then it should be on the inner surface of the ceramic. But I would think it advantageous to place the powder in good thermal contact with the inner tube. (If most power comes as X-rays, which I doubt, then it doesn’t matter which of the 2 surfaces the powder is attached to.)

          • Ged

            I think I remember talk of it being a fine powder or paste in the past, which is where I got that “paste” impression I’ve held since. Could be remembering wrong though, as it was months ago I think something along those lines were stated.

          • I’m not sure a simple paste would provide the degree of integration needed if hydrogen released from a donor hydride is to stay within the layer so it is available to the nickel substrate. Could be an electrochemical co-deposition layer of nickel, catalyst and hydrogen donor I suppose. That seems a bit high tech for AR though.

    • georgehants

      Andrea Rossi
      September 11th, 2012 at 12:32 PM
      Dear Steven N. Karels:
      Yes, we are working now on the issue of the interior cylinder energy: it is not easy, in the former phase we just made a rough consideration considering the T internal equal to the T external, also to compensate the loss of convective energy, mainly ( conuctive is poor) In formers reactors we made closed heads, to push the energy through up to the external surface, but the reactors got molten. But many measurements are in course, we will have very precise calculations.
      We have calculated the energy in the classic way, it is considering only the surface of the heads as radiating surface. But in this case we must make an integration of the convective energy.
      Please write to
      [email protected]
      I want to talk with you.
      Warm Regards,
      Andrea Rossi

    • Sanjeev

      According to the report the max power radiated was 9KW (First hypothesis) and 13 KW (Second hypothesis). If the resistive heater was rated for 8KW, it should have melted much earlier. The wire will heat up not only due to input AC but also due to the heat generated by the reaction.

      The above power radiation figures are conservative, so the max power could have been easily 26 KW, which means the resistor would have melted in few minutes. I may be wrong, but I had this doubt when I read that it was rated at 8KW.

      • Preston

        They claim to be driving them at 3.5kW, that may be low enough to tolerate some external heating.

  • Gerald

    For me things just don’t add up. Why telling about next gen e-cats, when your first version issen’t selling in big numbers. Are other company’s gaining ground? Put sand in there eyes? Is Andrea Rossi just trying to make a better product, not thinking about the big money? Is that what they are trying to do, force Rossi in delivering lower tempeture e-cats. Is it a fraud? I really don’t, but after being in Italia this summer I really can imagine that there is the place where you just keep on going on with trying and trying to get a lern reaction. And seeing Rossi on the stream live didn’t put my believe down. Sometimes he looked like a clown, but i liked it, it fitted the picture. I’ll just wait and read more info to come. Still a believer!!

  • s

    Also, as no one else has pointed it out, the maximum power rating for the resistors was done “by calculation”. The rated power for a component is supposed to be supplied by the manufacturer.

    • Ged

      They were probably rated for a maximum voltage/amperage by the manufacturer, from which one calculates power.

      • s

        I’m sorry but it is an industry standard that all resistors are rated by the manufacturer for power limit. Do an internet search if you disagree.

        • Ged

          Hm, like this ? Power or amps/volts isn’t even listed, just the ohms.

          • s

            Nice try. The website forces one to order a brochure for the full specification sheet. Order the spec. sheet and report whether it includes power or not.

          • Ged

            Hm.. I’m still having trouble finding spec sheets that list the power in watts. For instance this cabling spec sheet for wires used in aircraft only lists volts.

          • s

            We are talking about resistors not wires. I don’t say anything about wires, which are rated by gauge and current. Please re-read my post.

          • Ged

            Hm… again, here’s a heating wire spec sheet (Nichrome 80). Nothing but voltage once more listed (240 V to be specific, not even ohms are listed).

            Can you point me to sheets where power limits in Watts are listed, as I seriously can find nothing so far.

          • GreenWin

            Av: Mats Lewan NyTeknik Interview w/ Magnus Holm CEO Hydro Fusion
            Publicerad 18 november 2011 14:04

            NyT: There is great skepticism about Rossi’s technology. How do comment on that?

            Holm: “Until he makes an independent test, there is obviously a small chance that it does not work. We are willing to take that risk because it’s such an amazing technology if it works. Further support that it’s real comes from the fact that all independent physicists who have observed the tests are positive, and have expressed belief in the mechanism. I do not have much sympathy for the crowd of skeptics who insist in spending substantial time and energy, just to be able to boast a ‘what did I say’ if it should turn out to be wrong.”

          • Ged

            Ah hah, finally found such a spec sheet!

            Here the power limit is listed by Watts per Foot. So, to get the maximum power you can put through this constant watt wire, you’d have to calculate it from the length of wire you are using.

            So, yes, you’d have to calculate the maximum power you can use, indeed! Therefore, there is once more nothing wrong with what was said in the report. So far, three different spec sheets for wires, two of them heating wires, and for all of them total maximum power rating is something you’d have to calculate for your specific system.

            Edit: Actually, looking back at that Nichrome 80 one, now that I know what to look for, I think there is a watts per meter listed? I’m not sure, but there’s this 40w/m Cable____90 C for “maximum rated pipe temperatures (cable energized)”. I’m assuming that w is watts, anyways, and not some internal product name.

            Still, none of these is “power in watts”, and to get that maximum power, you’d have to calculate based on the length you take. And for the first one, based on the volt limits and I guess your own ohms testing.

        • Preston

          They are custom parts integrated into the device, the power rating depends on how they are mounted and numerous other variables.

      • Ivan_cev

        This is the rated power for a live of some years about (3 to 5), but you could easily put 50% or 60% more power for a limited time, (some hours), I have a 100 watt 12 v motor for my push bike, I am using it with 18v Batteries, well above the rated power.

        • Ged

          18 V batteries doesn’t mean it’ll draw 18 V, just that it could at max (as far as I know). Nor is volts power. You could draw 18 V and a lot less amps and have the same power rating.

          When dealing with resistive wires, I’ve never seen them go over their ratings. In fact, I’ve never seen them safely get to their ratings before blowing out.

          None the less, I’m sure there are others with a lot more experience that can talk about that (mine is indeed limited! And could always have been badly manufactured stuff).

          Finally, again, the temperature response curve only makes sense if and only if the rated powers we were given were correct within a -small- margin of error (they could be less than we were given and still work, but not much more).

          • Ivan_cev

            18 Volts will be constant unless the batteries are low in charge, the current is what will be drawn, and will be higher than using 12 volts, then p=v^2 * z ( z=impedance) impedance constant as is part of physical arrangement, so you en putting getting lot more power that the rated for the device.
            And yes, I just to be an electric electronic hobbyist and I did put resistive elements way beyond the rated power but after 50-60% they will sure fail.
            They are built with a tolerance, because resistors rusts over time and eventually fail but they must last at least the guarantee period, this is why if the element is new could take more power.
            I end up getting an electric engineering degree. but currently I work as IT consultant.

          • Ged

            Yep, you’re completely right and I was misspoken about the battery volts.

  • georgehants

    Have pushed Mr. Rossi as hard as I can, These are his latest reply’s, he is happy for them to be published.
    Nothing new, but clear.
    Thank you, I repeat that the indipendent third party test is in course
    since 2 months and will end, I suppose, within 2 months.
    Warm Regards,
    For the low temp already made the necessary tests. Next will be made by
    the Customers of the plants we are manufacturing. We are no more in the
    R&D phase for the low T ecats, while we are in R&D phase for the High T.
    Wasm Regards,
    My reply—-
    Mr. Rossi I fully understand what you say.
    What is now needed is clear conformation from one of you customers or
    certifiers etc. stating their testing results of the original E-Cat
    Rossi’s reply
    It will be published together with the validation of the high temp
    We are making all in one.
    Warm Regsrds,

    • georgehants

      An update he has sent me to publish—–
      What is unacceptable in all this mumbojumbo is that I said clearly that
      the indipendent third party tests are in course, will finish in 2-3
      months, and I said and wrote that all the present data are subject to
      corrections…but this statement has been pretty ignored and they are
      treating provisional and incomplete data as if they were final. Like to
      consider final the result of a foot ball match after the first quarter.
      Warmest Regards,

      • Kim

        Thanks for the information from
        Andrea Rossi.


        • daniel maris

          Thanks George – interesting to have that.

        • Ged

          Yes, thanks indeed!

    • Martin

      I am stunned that Mr. Rossi not only works 16 hours/day on his ECats but also finds time to read and write on the internet pretty often.

      • Ged

        You’d be surprised what some of us can do, then.

        • daniel maris

          I’ve worked 14 hours in a day before now and posted maybe 8 times on this site. It depends how you view things. For Rossi on his site as for me here, visiting the website and commenting is a form of relaxation. MOst of Rossi’s comments are very brief. Most days he rarely exceeds 200 words.

          • Ged

            I know how painful it can be, oh heck yes. You’ve worked seriously hard.

            Kinda depends on the line of work too. Some things involve a bit of waiting while multiple projects “cook”, and sometimes computers are more present than others, so access is available to multitask.

            And I completely agree, posting here is a nice stress reliever.

          • Ivan_cev

            An investor wants to put $10M in e-cat tech. So gets a company to make validations because they have INSURANCE, if the advice is wrong the investor demand them, one if the advice is wrong and the loss $10M, second if the advice is wrong and the miss the business for $10M.
            So the insured engineer goes on site with his equipment, and discovers discrepancies, probably he changes meters, and try again, then start to make conclusions, is satisfied and leave.
            Now what you change: The engineer or his meters.
            No you change the power supply! Why? Is the element causing the discrepancies.
            In fact you admit by your actions that the power supply is affecting the measurements.
            I do not believe the qualified Engineer is wrong, I believe everybody else was using standard digital meters designed to work with regular mains electricity. An not with cut by triac waves.
            Even if the ecat have a COP OF 1.1 It will be the discovery of the millenia.
            You make your conclusions

        • Stephen

          Ok let us be serious: in principle, Mr.Rossi could easily WIPE OFF and DERIDE any “friendly fire” as well as any “enemy fire” and do this with sound FACTS if he wanted to AND had the power to do so, i.e. if he had something real and solid. By AR declarations, this is supposed to be a large % energy gain on top of an absolutely HUGE power input. Something on which it is real hard to be mistaken about. In principle this effect is not sth like a blip on the screen… it’s more similar to a train straight into your face: you can discuss and quarrel about the first one, not really about the second one… it just hits you. And hard.

          Just one question: why no to clarify all these doubts? As mentioned many times… it could all be done without breaking any secret, so let us not use that explanation, pls.

          This is tiring: this story has been going on for over two years now… that is a long time. How can it be that somebody out there can still doubt there is no excess heat and there is no xtal clear answer to all this?

          This is a very disappointing status of the thing. I understand investors’ reaction.

      • Miles

        What some people consider work isn’t work. I think working 16 hrs a day on LENR is more of a hobbie to Rossi. Besides, I find reading everyone’s comments enjoyable & interesting.

  • Auenland

    “The 1 MW version has been certified for industry usage.”

    Even in Zuürich Rossi failed to make a proud presentation of this certified unit and the certification process and people continue to repeat such BS?

    When will they demand from Rossi what he always prays? Stop talking, show us the working units and evidences!

    • Martin

      A certificate number and/or the name of the institute/company shouldn’t be so hard to deliver. But I guess it’s all under NDA, as usual.

  • jacob

    It appears the resellers in Sweden are getting frustrated and are now realizing the obstacles in their way ,that they did not count on,like getting paid for the E-cats with some uncertainty clouded by the hotcats
    bad reputation all of a sudden.
    maybe it would have been best ,to focus on the performance of the low temp
    E-cat and it’s performance data.
    Hindsight is 50/50 I guess

  • the viewer


    Some 15 years ago the most well known Swedish inventor of modern time, was lurked into a setup by agents of the military-industrial complex. What was at stake was no more or less than the world market for global air-traffic systems. The inventors name is Håkan Lans (Hakan Lans) and the invention he had come up with was a self-regulating air-trafic system [named ADS-B or STDMA], with the possibility of getting rid of most of the old systems of radars and traffic-leaders. The cost of the new system was on a level of ca. 5% of the old, and holding a lot of advantages as higher flight safety, higher traffic narrowness etc.

    As soon as the system come to be known by the powers that be (foremost by the US avionics industry), offers was made to buy the invention. The FAA of US also wrote into a memorandum, that the invention of Mr. Lans, also put at risk American industrial interests. As either our self or Mr. Lans had access to Internet 15 years ago, he could not have the easy access into the ugly world affairs, that have shown it’s face since we got the new media. Mr. Lans therefore took the decision to keep the invention to his native country Sweden. This decision generated an attack om Lans and the system, by a conspiracy to use the US legal system to bankrupt Mr Lans and try to get hold of his invention. At the side of this US started high level processes at UN and other institutions, to hinder that Mr. Lans supreme air-trafic system should have any chance to become a standard system in US, as well as try to hinder it become world standard.

    Practically the set-up was initiated by having the CEO of a Swedish legal firm, moving in to become an neighbor with Mr. Lans, and beginning in a ‘neighboringly’ way to offering to rake in the royalty on one of his earlier inventions, one of the major systems of color graphics in PC,s. Somewhat reluctant Mr. Lans took the bait after some time. The next step in the complot was that a high-level agent (on state secretary level) in Pentagon, and who earlier had made an carrier by being a watchdog on US interests relative foreign arms deals etc., did leave his state secretary job at Pentagon, to travel to Sweden and work at the apprentice level, to help the Swedish law firm with Mr. Lans matters.

    On the US side a law firm was put into action to work with the Mr. Lans matters. It later on come to be shown, that almost all of the involved attorneys at that firm, had their earlier careers, at the main US government institution keeping watch on US interests, relative unfair foreign competition.

    Soon enough Mr. Lans become drawn into a more than 10 year legal fight in corrupt US courts, and the ‘very nice’ attorneys who had made up an contingency deal (no win, no pay) with Mr. Lans, soon also come to be drawing a steady stream of millions in dollars from their clients royalty account (the legal costs might have been around $20 million or so). A negative factor was that Mr. Lans also, by the deal with the US law firm, had his rights to be a witness in his own trial taken away from him. This fight was going on for about 10- 15 years and Mr. Lans giving very minimal help from the native country he struggled to keeping the invention in.

    The end result, as we only partially can see today, was that US succeeded in it’s effort to hinder Mr. Lans system being the standard in US, and so also partially globally. What US did, was to create two other, ‘made in US’, systems (somewhat technically inferior to Mr. Lans system), that later was set up to be judged beside Mr. Lans system, and anyone can easily guess which system of the three, that wasn’t supposed to be fit as a US standard. But separately the system of Mr. Lans, had at the time begin to get strong support in some European countries, Russia and others. The UN therefore later on decided that the world should have two different standards of the new air-traffic system. As a side information, it can be told that Mr. Lans system (in its marine version) become the SOLE world standard för marine traffic, under the name AIS (as a negative the UN institute handling the matter, pushed Mr. lans to deprive him of his royalty for AIS).

    On the legal side Mr. Lans recently made an deal with some of his major legal adversaries, but he still have to handle several court cases both in the US and Sweden. Below is some links for further information on the above (to read Swedish articles on the net, use Google translation).

    Wikipedia on Håkan Lans

    Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast

    Self-Organized Time Division Multiple Access


    Well, there is several direct similarities behind the two cases. First of all both of the inventions is new technology, who risk to take away todays earnings in their respective fields (of course the Rossi E-cat is the more fat cow, risking to lay most of todays global energy systems/earnings in ruins). By that we can also be most certain, that the powers that be, will set in ‘active measures’ also against Rossi and other pioneers of Cold Fusion (as against Mr. Lans).

    But the more interesting connection behind th two cases, is that a central factor in the set-up of Mr. Lans, was a secret group of investors, and ugly enough we now can se that such a secret group also have popped up relative to Mr. Rossi. In the Lans case the secret investors was guaranteeing the legal fees, but in the Rossi case they seems to act as more normal investors.

    The thing is that this group of secretive investors pops up, and as a result of their actions, succeeds in building up a lot of negative media hype against Rossi and his E-Cat, and also doing so in a what seems as very ‘nicely timed’ action relative the late E-Cat conference. As a result of this, I recommend Mr. Rossi to not judge the last days of attacks against him and his E-Cat as FRIENDLY FIRE, it might very well be your REAL ENEMY in action (ie. the global energy establishment). The secret group of investors should therefore be put into the sunlight to be dissected, as well as the individuals behind the Anglo-Swedish firm Hydrofusion, who makes the deals with the secretive group.

    • Thanks for this story. It proves (as many already assume) that US agencies and commercial groups working together will resort to absolutely any tactics they believe will protect their interests. These are not nice people and will not have changed (except for the worse) in 15 years.

      Rossi is ‘world wise’ and clever, but he may not be aware of the sheer depths that those who may lose from his innovations will sink to to defend their investments, and the sheer persistence with which they will carry out their agenda.

    • s

      So, are you trying to make a statement about the National Testing Institute?

  • s