Andrea Rossi Makes Available Safety Certificate from SGS

I have just received the following document from Andrea Rossi which is titled Voluntary Certificate of Compliance With Safety of Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1)

The certificate records that it has been issued for the E-Cat 1 MW.

It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004.

The document is dated 05/09/2012

Alternative link to the document: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EFA-rep-1107.pdf

EFA rep 1107

  • Ged

    Oh shoot, language I can’t read. However, I see actual data measurements. Max input was 200 kW? 1 MW power out… Water temps were 85 C in 120 C out… Is that a spec sheet?

    Welp, this says it all! That is one beautiful certificate for the 1 MW industrial plant. I hope someone can translate it all for us.

    Edit: Also.. looks like this was done on September 5th, if I am reading the European style date correctly. That or May 9th; but I’m pretty sure it’s September 5th, which fits with all Rossi said and what we know.

    Edit 2: I wonder if we can get our hands on those two technical reports… RVV.DM.MI.12.003 and .004.

    • Ged

      Ok, looks like most of it is also in English. Here’s the EU directorate http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:157:0024:0086:EN:PDF

      As we’ve known, this is a safety certification, I do not think it validates the full claim of the device (i.e. 1 MW output). But I don’t have time to read through the directorate, and we need those technical reports to know for certain if testing above and beyond the necessities of the directorate were undertaken.

      • clovis

        Hi, guys .
        YAHOOOOO, GREAT NEWS INDEED, Dr.Rossie is no liar he is a man that has faith in the greatest creator, that gives good gifts.—smile

    • Omega Z

      That’s May 9th

      Though Rossi may not have officially received it until latter.

      Also the 1Mw unit was operated by 3rd party.

      SGS would observe.

      I read something that Stated Rossi is required to be present during safety tests, but only as an Observer.

      Does not validate COP. Only safety performance.

  • GreenWin

    I for one am satisfied. But I have had little doubt about the veracity of LENR and cold fusion. We have 23 years of evidence, experiments, proofs, and replications. We have great minds and courageous souls on the team. This does not surprise except that it is finally, against great odds, arrived.

    Congratulations, Dr. Rossi et al.

  • georgehants

    Will need you techy guys and experts to look over this with your usual competent analysis before I can celebrate.
    GreenWin if you could stay up all night again I would appreciate the answer in the morning. Ha.

    • AB

      Does such a certificate indicate that there is a real, useful and safe production of anomalous heat?

      I find it difficult to imagine that a safety certificate could be issued without the type of testing that essentially proves that it’s real, but I would like to hear confirmation from the more knowledgable posters here.

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        If the machinery has been tested at full load to check whether it’s safe or not, and that in/out power and other parameters are within specifications in such conditions, it should be able to indicate that. But we would need the technical reports to be sure.

        • AB

          Precisely my thoughts. It cannot be certified as safe it it doesn’t get tested at full load. Now we just need those technical reports…

          • Renzo

            I don’t know, but if people don’t believe Fabio Penon’s report I doubt they’ll believe a safety test at full load because it too could have been a trick or error

          • Fibber McGourlick

            That would be outright fraud. Not likely.

      • Ged

        Yep. They had to turn it on and do things like emergency shut downs, power interrupts, and other testing, as per the directorate. They didn’t evaluate COP directly, but the main product specs had to be evaluated to make sure the device can handle the performance it’s rated to achieve (pressure, flowrate, temperature). That’s my understanding of reading the directorate itself.

    • GreenWin

      George, I should start charging you for this service! However, if you agree to share a glass of your bubbly when appropriate – I shall happily accommodate your request.

      • georgehants

        GreenWin, I happily agree to that. Ha.
        Where’s Peter.

        • Present and correct, George! Ged seems to be our main ‘interpreter’ of EU certification processes, so I’m just going with his analyses. The SGS safety compliance certification is another solid step, but I’m sure that there is plenty more in the works that we can’t know about.

          • georgehants

            Peter, I think GreenWin went to bed and left it to Ged, if he does that I might have to find another personal adviser.
            Do you think I could find a good one in the other place. Ha.

          • GreenWin

            George, of little faith, why do you doubt? Ged is but a trusted servant for whom we all give thanks! Now, to sleep.

  • Hurley

    This is great! I wonder how may operating plants sold it will take to panic the Wind, Solar and gas commpanies. Oil companies will have transportation for awhile.

    • clovis

      Hi, guys
      This is a thoughtful comment, we must be very vigilant that dr. Rossie stays healthy, and continues his work, and the only thing that will deter their onslaught against this tech, is the web and media. with enough eyes on him it will be hard for them to interrupt his work .

      • jacob

        Thanks Mr,Rossi

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    Now skeptics will complain that technical reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004 have not been made public yet and therefore that Rossi is hiding something.

    • Ged

      We can know the directorate http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:157:0024:0086:EN:PDF . For this certification, at the bare minimum all that the directorate demanded had to be evaluated and certified. So that gives an amazing foundation πŸ˜€

      Those technical reports belong to SGS, so not sure we can ever get our hands on them, unless Rossi was given a copy and he feels like giving them to us.

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        I wonder if load testing is performed for the sake of certification. This is a very long and technical document, I doubt most non-experts will be able to make any sense out of it.

        • Burt

          Easy now, they have certified that it is safe. I don’t think that they have validated the 1 MW output.

        • georgehants

          Ivan unlike other Cold Fusion sites full of just “opinion experts”, I think we have the real McCoy on these pages.
          Give them some time to read and we will get the best analysis available.

    • Renzo

      I’m glad that this time Rossi shut down Gary Wright’s farce but the safety certificate is a proof that the device isn’t an hazard for its users but it doesn’t prove that it works as claimed.

      Skeptics vs Rossi 1:1

      • GreenWin

        This is two blows to the skeptopaths:

        1) Defacto skeptic spokesman (the puppet snake) is confirmed [certified] troll

        2) Safety requires product operation in all modes specified by manufacturer. Full load operation is clearly a specified mode.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, we must be sure of what you are saying about a working device with input and output confirmed before true celebration.

  • Tangled Connections

    The best news possible. So happy. Well done Mr Rossi….Sanjeev, get your beers back out of the fridge.

    • georgehants

      Does anybody know how much it costs to have this analysis done.

    • Sanjeev

      Lol, beer is always in stock…
      I’m happy with this progress.

      It means there is a non-military plant somewhere and people can see it, perhaps.

      • Tangled Connections

        πŸ™‚

  • georgehants

    Rossi putting loads of answers on his page but no copy of the certificate yet.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

    • admin

      AR asked me to send a link of this article to the JONP, which I did.

      • georgehants

        Frank, yes I see it and his thank you.
        Shows how difficult things are for him when he apparently cannot put up his own certificate on his site.

  • cx

    scrib is down for me. Do you have alt download. πŸ™

  • Lu

    When Rossi spoke of certification before, he spoke of certification for a specific installation–at least that is how I remember it. On page 2 of this document, dating back to that time, also says among other things, “This certificate relates solely to the above identified prototype machine…” and “This certificate does not constitute a ‘product certification’…” On the other hand, Rossi during the Zurich conference seemed to me to imply a product certification which this is not. I will go back and look at this some more since it’s in his speech but on the face of it it is not the same.

    Still this is proof that there is an installation of a 1MW plant somewhere which is more than we used to know so that it is important.

    Anyone know how much energy is required to turn 1500kg/h of water from 85C to 120C? The temperature seems a bit on the high side, no?

    • admin

      Lu, AR said in Zurich that they had received a safety certification for the 1 MW plant — not the product certification.

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        But what about 1MW plants that Prometeon and others are going to start selling in October? Repeating the certification process for each plant sounds like a huge waste of money and time to me.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        What’s the difference? They certified the 1 mw plant. The 1 mw plant is a product. How else could you certify a product without examining the plant?

        • Lu

          The difference is that the installation is certified versus the product. The installation may be certified because of the specific use and procedures in place for it’s operation. These installation certifications can be used for data for the more general certification, which is what I thought was happening.

          • Ged

            Read the directorate, it answers all questions on meaning.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          Only the safety of the 1 MW prototype tested (“MW1”) is certified with this, not other/future plants. A product indicates something which has been manufactured in series.

          • Lu

            It’s not certifying the safety. It’s only certifying that Rossi has addressed safety issues in Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex I).

          • Ged

            Nope. It is certifying the safety of the device as per the directorate. Read the directorate to see what that means; but there’s a huge checklist.

            Rossi can use this for production of other devices, though each individual installation will have -a different- type of inspection to make sure of proper installation. That is -not- what this is. This is a certification of the entire device through many metrics. Again, read the directorate directly to get a good idea.

          • Lu

            Sorry. I disagree. It is only a CERTIFICATION that the particular machine was “designed and constructed in compliance with requirements”. It’s a QA kind of thing. The actual testing we don’t know about. In the meantime Rossi is claiming already has CE Safety certification.

          • Marius

            There is no serial number so it must mean the certification applies to all similar model plants as well.

      • Lu

        OK I went back to the Sterling Allen’s video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x7lFKrK6N70

        At 21:25, Rossi says (as best I can tell), “This industrial version, it has been certified.” Later shortly after this he mentions “voluntary certification” but still later still in passing he mentions that “next we will make certifications for the product..”. Later in the video, about 1:24:00 he talks about the acquired safety certifications for the “industrial plants.”

        My view is that the reasonable interpretation of this as someone is hearing him speak, is that he received a safety product certification.

        Also I am remembering some more history. He had mentioned that that the certification came recently (?) and unexpectedly.

      • Lu

        OK it’s not really a safety certificate as we are expecting. It’s a statement by SGS that Rossi has attempted to satisfy the safety requirements in 2006/42/EC (Annex I) for this one plant. It’s pretty toothless given that it is not an independent certification and I’m sure not very specific to the nuclear nature of the E-Cat.

        Still it establishes the presence of a plant. It also makes me distrust Rossi even more.

        • Wolf

          What do you mean? Where does it state that its an attempt? As I read it, Rossi submitted the device to SGS for safety certification. They tested it and concluded that it met the requirements needed by EU laws..

        • Ged

          It is the safety certificate we were expecting. Where are you getting this strange idea? Read the directorate itself, not the site summary (which doesn’t even reference anything from the directorate, it’s really a lackluster main site). It is really strict.

  • georgehants

    A guy on Vortex said he “gleefully” added the certificate to Wiki-rubbish Cold Fusion page and they deleted it.
    If I am reading him correctly.
    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg70858.html

    • barty

      I think he postet the certificate in the wiki deletion discussion.
      That’s a forum on wikipedia where the admins and moderators are talking about the deletions and reasons.

    • Timar

      No, he added it to the E-Cat page and to the discussion page regarding the proposed deletion of the article:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

    • georgehants

      Update to my above.
      ——-
      At 01:19 PM 9/13/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
      I gleefully added it to the wiki (and deletion discussion) !!!
      Of course it’s been deleted already as “a primary source with zero relevance”
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg70860.html

      • GreenWin

        Wikidrubbish “gleefully” deleted it?

        • Just hurriedly deleted it I suspect. Playing whack-a-mole is just a job for those involved.

          • georgehants

            Cold Fusion News
            Cold Fusion Energy & LENR News
            The Most Influential People in the World of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
            Published September 13, 2012 | By jennifer
            http://coldfusion3.com/blog/the-most-influential-people-in-the-world-of-low-energy-nuclear-reaction

          • An excellent read – it’s useful to pause from time to time to see where we are, as an increasing tide of reported developments and recently, verifications, comes our way. It’s also good to see the role of Dr Trouchard of NI being acknowledged, among the line up of impressive individuals who are (and have been for some time) spearheading the resurgence of CF.

  • georgehants

    Question put to Rossi on his site.
    The answer will be interesting.
    ——–
    Brian
    September 13th, 2012 at 3:23 PM
    Mr. Rossi
    Thank you for releasing the SGS certification, which is very interesting. The SGS certification mentions two technical reports performed by its engineers. Are you able to share these technical reports with us? If not, can you tell us about the testing done? Did the SGS engineers verify the COP/performance aspects of the device?
    Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions
    Brian

    • georgehants

      Rossi’s reply, disapointing to say the least.
      ——
      Andrea Rossi
      September 13th, 2012 at 3:54 PM
      Dear Brian:
      The reports are under NDA.
      Also the testing done is under NDA
      The SGS engineers have worked for the safety certification, not for the product certifications, therefore they did not work on the COP issue.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Sanjeev

        That was expected. There will be another certificate, possibly.
        This safety certificate is an indirect evidence and boosts the confidence in Ecat by a good margin.

      • Wolf

        Was to be expected. Its already curious that SGS allows publishing this certification document, as it states that it should not be used for advertisement etc.

        • daniel maris

          It’s a definite step forward. A formal certificate endorsed by a big company.

          I am looking forward to more of these small but credible steps.

      • Ged

        Rossi’s been saying that for the past month. He’s been telling us the truth straight up all along.

        • He seems to have decided to take a risk with SGS’s fine print, in order to fulfill a promise he made. If this is the case he is to be applauded (by us, if not by SGS!).

  • GreenWin

    “The machine with the characteristics listed below has been subject to peer review of a voluntary adequacy of the Safety Requirements of Annex 1 of Directive 2006/41/EC.”

    Presumably if subsequent product is built to these characteristics, it will meet safety standards without need for individual testing.

    • Lu

      It appears that compliance to Annex I of Directive 2006/41/EC means that the machine manufacturer (Rossi) has done a risk assessment and risk mitigation based on a list of identified safety requirements. It doesn’t really imply the machine is safe, only that the manufacturer has considered safety issues and addressed any that is found.

      SGS involvement was merely to check that Rossi did an adequate risk assessment and risk mitigation based on Annex I.

      This is better than nothing but it is no substitute for actual product safety certification which probably requires many hours of operations etc and an independent safety evaluation. As I said, it’s importance is that there is a 1MW plant out there somewhere where SGS visited.

      This is, of course, just how I see things based on reading the Directive and the SGS issued safety certificate as I am not experienced in any of this.

      • GreenWin

        Lu, as I recall Rossi described a series of changes requested by the Certificator -SGS. These changes would only have been requested to bring the machine to the Annex 1 Directive standard – it would seem. At any case, I am satisfied an independent third party “peer review” has taken place and the product tested meets the requirements.

        A final thought, SGS is in the big energy business. They certify safety of lots of oil & gas exploration equipment, mining, nuclear compliance, nondestructive testing, etc. Why would they certify a tiny energy device that if wrong, would jeopardize their entire business??

        “SGS, we provide independent services that touch the lives of millions of people across the globe. We provide you with industry leading inspection, verification, testing and certification services.”

        • Lu

          SGS could have asked, what have you done with regard to section so and so. Rossi comes back and says this is what I’ve done. Check.

      • Sanjeev

        If the safety requirements are met, then it does imply that the equipment is safe. How else can one make it safe ?

        I do not know whether Ann-I covers everything that is needed to make it safe, but if thats the standard than its done…officially.

        • Lu

          No. It only means that Rossi has addressed issues. It doesn’t mean that what he did actually works or that he has addressed all possible issues. SGS is only certifying that Rossi has addressed the safety issues.

          That’s my reading of it anyway.

          • Ged

            I posted the actual Directive document in the first comment to this article. There’s a lot that goes into this certification. The fact Rossi went to SGS instead of just saying he’s done it, means SGS had to itself evaluate every single consideration that’s part of the Annex I. You can read the actual document (not the site summary, which doesn’t say anything meaningful) and see all the requirements to get a good idea of what this machine has to have and be able to do to be certified at this level. It’s really strict.

          • Lu

            I read (quickly) the Directive and the actual Certificate. I think you all are reading way too much into it into what is essentially a QA certification. As far as we know there has been no operational safety testing that has achieved any credentials.

  • sven

    Well, to be fair, testing towards this directive is the real deal for a power-plant of this sort. The same would be required for a large Diesel generator to achieve a CE mark. Even if most of the parts are simple operator safety requirements, such as placement of controls, emergency shutdown button, fire protection etc, it does also require means for radiation protection and pressure hold for the whole system that must be strong enough to meet the specifications as they are listed on the front page. Some parts are therefore simply inspected and verified, other, especially the parts related with strength, pressure and radiation must however be tested. The annex does not contain requirements for “effective use” and therefore no COP was measured.

    The safety tests must however have been done under maximum specified conditions so the product was indeed running during the test. So, no COP but a major step towards bringing the product to market, comparing with the leaking working prototype that was demoed a year ago. I’m rather optimistic after seeing this SGS report.

  • Kim

    If I barrow 1.5 million dollars from the bank
    with a good business plan to buy a 1 million watt unit

    Thats about 10,000 a month payments for the barrowed
    money.

    How much per month of electricity can I make…

    If only 30% can be made into electricity then I
    should receive $15,000 a month from the electric
    utility company

    .07 a kilowatt hour.

    Yes, NO?

    Respect
    Kim

    • Kim

      Darn I forgot to subtract the price of
      the input power and the turbine generator.

      Now I don’t think I could break even.

      Respect
      Kim

      • daniel maris

        The 1MW unit is not cheap. I think it’s more about meeting specific needs e.g. military bases, isolated communities, places with no access to cheaper energy sources. It’s probably priced around the range of wind energy.

        • Kim

          I believe your right.

          Kim

    • georgehants

      If SGS evaluated a working device then the certification must eliminate all possible objections on the grounds of radiation leakages of any kind.
      The nuclear danger argument becomes dead in the water.
      This bodes very well for the domestic E-Cat certification.

      • Claes

        This is good news.

        But just to be a pain… The only little loophole I see in it is that it was run at Rossi’s premises and there is no COP indication. So if they ran it and it gave a COP of 3 with the wrong measurements they could have passed basically a toaster in the tests.

        If the COP is 6 however, as advertised, it would still have a COP of 2 with the wrong meter (if indeed it was a factor 3 error – I’m not entirely sure of that), and the COP is not very important. It’s only a matter of engineering IF IT WORKS. That it works is what is important.

        I really hope that it works – I find the prospect that it doesn’t work very depressing. But at the same time I’m a scientist myself and I just can’t ignore possible problems that I see.

        • Ged

          These are the classical E-cats. They use water temperature as the input energy. You can’t going to miscalculate that to any great degree. See Pekka’s calculations below too for some fun math.

          • Claes

            Ok, thanks!

    • jacob

      You are right,and the extra heat could heat a village ,a hospital ,a green house a carwash ,etc. for a profit as well

  • Kalle

    Report says:
    Water supply 1500kg/h
    Max input 200kW
    Water temperature in/out: 85/120C

    With very rough calculation, heating only water, not pipes or anything else:
    Power needed to heat 1500kg/h water flow from 85C to 120C is roughly 220kW. Seems quite inefficient to me.. 200kW electric input -> 220kW thermal output.. Did I forget something?

    EDIT:
    Maybe water input/output values are max values.. 85c not required?

    • Ged

      Input isn’t continuously required. The classical e-cat just needs an occasional drive every now and then, it isn’t constant, so that kinda changes the output ratio considerably. I wonder if that water in temp is the max temperature it can take in, rather than what it needs to be taking in?

    • Maximum pressure was specified as being less than 1.5 bar. At 1.5 bar, the boiling point of water is 112 C (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_4/3_4_2.html) i.e. less than 120 C. Thus if heated to 120 C, the water must boil and the output is steam. Then the heating power is

      (2260e3 + (120-85)*4.1855e3)*(1500/3600) = 1.003 MW

      Here 2260 kJ/kg is the heat of vapourisation and 4.1855 kJ/(kg K) is the heat capacity of water.

      • Ged

        Thanks Pekka! I kinda needed that reminder too. Oh, late nightness what am I doing up.

        • Remi Andre

          Sorry Pekka but I think there’s a little mistake in your maths. You can’t take the difference (120-85) as at 115Β°C the water is not liquid anymore. Moreover the heat capacity of water depends on T (even if this point can be neglected …).
          I think a more accurate value for the heating power should be :
          (2260e3+(115-85)*4.18e3+(120-115)*1.8e3)*(1500/3600)=0,997 MW.

          Here 1.8e3 is the heat capacity of steam

          Ok I notice the difference is peanuts but let’s try to stay rigorous…

  • Martin

    The shutdownrossi website is dead. Can anybody confirm that?

    • Ged

      “Nothing Found

      Sorry, what you are looking for isn’t here.”

      Seems so!

      • David
        • Omega Z

          This is for the 1Mw Low Temp (LT) E-cat.

          Safety Certification for Commercial/Industrial Use Only.

          This Safety test appears to have been done on May 9th. I assume Rossi didn’t receive it Officially until sometime in June. About the Time he claimed it was certified.

          From what I understand, this WOULD allow Rossi to apply a CE certification stamp on the product. A CE certification is but a Safety test.
          This would apply to Europe. I don’t know if this applies for U.S. It would depend on the particulars. SGS is International.

          Test was performed on Premises. It doesn’t specify exact location. I Assume at Rossi’s facilities or 3rd party premises.

          It was operated by 3rd party. I believe this is also required.

          SGS would observe.

          I read something that Stated Rossi is required to be present during safety tests, but only as an Observer. This makes sense as these tests would be both time consuming & expensive. Minor details can be worked out on the spot.

          This Test does not validate COP. Only safety performance. However the 3rd party could have done COP verifications simultaneously. This would be a separate certification. Maybe the 1 yet to be released.

          Note That: Even with Safety Certificate & a COP performance Certificate, A Customer would want an on sight Validation of COP after it’s delivered & in operation before signing OFF on Escrow release of payment & Final payment. This is pretty much standard procedure. What works fine at the factory may not work properly when delivered due to many possibilities.

          Purchase requires 1/3 value placed in Escrow. Released to Leonardo Corporation when the Customer Signs Off on the E-cat. That’s $500K. Anyone want to speculate on what Rossi/Leonardo think the 1Mw LT E-cat will cost to produce & deliver.

          • Renzo

            it was done on september 5, european date is d/m/y

          • Timar

            1) It’s from September 5th. Only Americans use such funny formats like MM/DD/YY or ugly units like inches, ounces, miles…

            2) Didn’t you read the last paragraph (or at least some of the discussion here)? It says unequivocally that it is a voluntary safety certificate applying solely to the tested prototype. It is by no means a product certification and certainly NOT a CE.

          • Agree about date formats – m-d-y is completely illogical. As for feet and inches, pounds and ounces, yards, miles, gallons (and especially pints!) I still use them all the time, alongside metric units when these are more convenient (like most Brits older than 40 or so). All road distance signs here in the UK are in miles, not kilometres.

          • Timar

            You are right, the UK is quite far off from the European mainland in some regards πŸ˜‰ However, in a philosophical sense those ancient units are certainly much more meaningful than the abstract metrical system. They are just increasingly confusing and unpractical in a modern world driven by technology and globalization. That’s the reasean why GB officially converted to the metrical system, I think (Remember how the NASA once blew up a sattelite because someone took cm for inches?)

            I absolutely agree when in comes to the pint. Cheers!

          • We prefer to think that Europe is quite far off from Britain, to their great misfortune. An urban legend says that a newspaper headline once read ‘Fog in Channel – Continent Isolated’.

            Cheers!

          • freethinker

            wasn’t the blown up satellite ESA? Ariadne 5 premiere launch, carrying payload (high risk – cheap deployment). It blew due to some sw issue with units.
            I might be wrong though…

          • Ariane-5 carrying Cluster satellites blew up because the processor made illegal numerical operation in a subroutine that was inactive but still for some reason execute. The error wasn’t seen with Ariane-4 because it had different acceleration profile, and the code had been copied verbatim to the next launcher. I remember it well because we had made plans to use the Cluster data.
            It was Nasa’s Mars Climate Orbiter that crashed to Mars due to imperial/metrical mixup.

          • GreenWin

            You gentlemen forget the more arcane units in the Brit system – the hand, and stone for instance. “In 1389 a royal statute of Edward III fixed the stone of wool at 14 pounds.” I presently need to lose a stone or two; add a hand, and hoist a pint.

          • Omega Z

            Timar

            On the Date you may be right. I’ve found a couple MM/DD/YY but usually 5th March 2012 format with the month spelled out. Found none with just numbers as shown here. Maybe Rossi can give Clarification.

            The Test was a Safety Certification. SGS is a notifying Body & can preform a EC type-examination procedure. A CE Safety Certification.

            http://www.sgs.fi/~/media/Local/Finland/Documents/Technical%20Documents/SGS_CTS_E_E_CE_marking_and_directives_en_11_v1.pdf

            Rossi said he has CE certification. Maybe in the Zurich Video’s.

            Also on his Blog
            Andrea Rossi September 13th, 2012 at 3:21 PM

            Dear Frank Acland:
            Thank you, actually I could not publish this certificate, we cannot use it for commercials, I asked the permission to do this, explaining that I had to defend myself from the accusation of having said not truly that we had it . It is a Voluntary Safety Certificate, it enables us to put the CE mark on our 1 MW plants.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Timar

            Sure the SGS can perform CE certification. This certification however is no CE (It may be an important prerequisite for such a certification though).

          • rainer

            hello – every good sold in europe needs a CE sticker or stamp . The manufacturer put in on it and does confirmate within that the product has all the security values needet in european community .
            The CE sticker is no safety test or the confirmation that a safety test has been done .

          • The CE sticker is the manufacturer’s confirmation that the product bearing it conforms to all relevant EU directives. The directives stipulate the safety standards applicable, therefore the CE sticker or logo IS confirmation that the device is safe to use (unless of course it is fake, in which case the manufacturer or distributor will be prosecuted).

          • Michael

            Some appliances need testing, for example gas cookers and gas boilers to get a CE mark. You can identify the testing laboratory/notified body by the numbers close to the CE letters. Emission limits have to be met, and other safety aspects.

    • Omega Z

      Yeah it just says NOTHING FOUND

    • Renzo

      I think he was also scared by what Aldo Proia said in the last interview

    • Timar

      Seems like Rossi shut down Shut Down Rossi πŸ™‚

      • David

        hahahah

    • Methusela

      Yes, dead here (from UK).

      Much ROTFLMAO!

      • Chris

        Interesting and encouraging as it is, it would be even more interesting if SGS made public the two outcome reports which the certificate refers to:

        RVV.DM.MI.12.003 and RVV.DM.MI.12.004

        Without these, we can’t really say whether SGS has tested its overunity performance or to what extent, they simply say that no one is likely to get hurt in using it, providing the the instruction manual is accurately followed by each operator. It is also worth noting that only the prototype is certified, so the document doesn’t constitute a product certification and it cannot be used for commercial or advertising purposes. This comes just before the fine print at the end (which refers to the General Conditions of Service). AFAIK and understand about certification for the CE logo, it remains the full responsibility of the manufacturer who markets/sells equipment under this logo, to make sure that it actually does comply to the EU directive 2006/42/CE. Therefore SGS has simply provided a professional service to EFA srl, assisting them in meeting this responsibility.

        So, in actual fact, we still need to wait and see… but with hope there can soon be customers who allow other prospective ones to visit their own one.

        • Redford

          Seems it wouls be illegal for them to do so (somewhere else in the comments there’s a source)

          • Ged

            Yep, it is the EU law that all parties involved in the testing (Rossi included I assume) must keep confidential any information from the testing that is not directly required for the health and safety of persons. I posted the direct quote below under the list of all the safety certificate had to test to meet the essentials of the Annex I of this directorate.

            So, I’m pretty sure we will never get our hands on those reports. It’s why Rossi says he’s under NDA, as is SGS about them: they are, as per EU law.

          • Chris

            Thanks πŸ™‚

            So we can’t know if SGS payed any attention to overunity performance. There’s a mighty difference between hazardous and not worth the investment. This is disappointing because yet again Rossi has been sloppy.

            We can only wait for any customers who don’t keep their identity a secret and hear about their satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

          • Ged

            Rossi hasn’t been slopping in this regard. It is EU law, nothing he or any of us can do about it. If SGS looked at that specifically and what they found is all confidential. We can blame bureaucracy for this. Maybe it’ll change in time though.

            Moreover, this safety certificate is one pre-requisite for selling the device in the EU (compliance with the directorate, more specifically). So, it was important Rossi did this.

          • Chris

            That’s not what I meant Ged. I had already acknowledged what you said about those reports, I also looked up and found that water heaters/boilers are one of the categories for which you are right about the CE logo being pre-requisite; it is not so for all products even though they must be compliant.

            Maybe it’s just me but I think Rossi had given the impression there would be more third party support of his claims. which I wasn’t aware of. Or maybe it was how the news was given here. It looked vaguely like the certifier would be a non-secret voucher of quantitative matters. i’m not blaming him for it not being so, only for not having been clearer in his announcements, a frequent problem of his.

            Mind though that, according to cases which go beyond my expertise, resort to the certifier isn’t always mandatory. Whether or not the manufacturer does, or must, actually brand it CE, when the product is not “considered to have a greater risk” he might even simply make sure (or bet his arse, balls and wife’s tender parts) that it is compliant with applicable directives. In any case the responsibility for this compliance (or his declaration of it) remains solely his own (and is distinct from that of the certifier, if resorted to). So, is the ecat to be considered of greater risk?

          • Ged

            I guess there is just some miscommunication. We’ve known since before Zurich that the industrial E-cat (this) was certified for safety by a third party. A safety certificate means the device is real, functional and safe, but it doesn’t guarantee the performance claims of the device. And here we see all Rossi was saying was completely true.

            The third party performance evaluation and report on the Hot Cat (not this 1 MW plant or classic E-cat) was given to us during the Zurich conference, here on this site.

            So, I guess I just didn’t see what it was you were referring to which was sloppy, and assumed you meant that safety certificate. There’s a lot of different certification processes and reports flying around right now, so it’s definitely easy to get things crossed or confused. No worries at all!

          • Chris

            Indeed, we are miscomunicating.

            The third party validations didn’t go so well; the one that didn’t fail doesn’t seem to carry a huge weight. So both these exposed some sloppiness on his part and that’s why my words were “yet again”.

            The certificate itself means even less than what you are saying, it doesn’t guarantee “real and functional”, AFAIK you could mark a cast tin shape as CE, without supporting your claim that it gives one cosmic vibrations that help them sleep or concentrate; this has no nearing on whether your product is harmful (unlike the ecat which, according to its claimed functionality, needs to be guaranteed stable and adequately sheilded).

            I was led to hope the details would shed some light, that’s all, but it seems no use clarifying yet again. You say they remain secret by law and I’m taking you word for it, even though I find it strange, because I’m having trouble finding this point in that .pdf doc. Could you please indicate precisely where it makes that point? What does this same law say about the case of the certifier being challenged? I would be inclined to expect more the opposite requirement.

          • Omega Z

            Chris Ged

            According to Rossi on his blog, SGS did not confirm COP. Their Job was to safety test it for CE listing.

          • Chris

            Thanks, I don’t sift through his blog much.

    • Renzo

      an user on Facebook reports that Wright posted the following message last night before deleting the content:

      “I just wanted to say my silence on Rossi’s latest news is because the investigation is going to the highest levels. (Possibly even higher than the European Commission). Rossi may have committed criminal fraud of a grand scale this time. I say β€œmay” because until I have the final proof that can be presented publicly, I cannot say anything more. Some papers have been filed, the beginning of notifications to the proper authorities has begun, but all of this takes time. I see nothing yet that requires a change to anything on the website.

      My first formal response will not be till next week sometime.”

    • Gerrit

      Rossi stated that he has contacted SGS to ask permission (as it is not allowed to use the certification for marketing purposes) to publish the certification, because he had to defend himself against false allegations that he did not have the certification.

      I think it is likely that SGS took some action that took down shutdownrossi, because the site published an email conversation from them.

  • Julian Becker

    deleted….

  • georgehants

    Hydrobetatron ‏@Hydrotron_lab
    Here you can download the wiring diagram of HydroBeta-Tron http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Schema%20HB%20(11.09.2012).pdf …

    • Ivan_cev

      page not found

      • Redford

        Add .pdf at the end of the URL. The link has been broken by the comment engine somehow.

    • That is potentially a helluva lot of power going into the device, going on the ratings of the transformer and variac. Once the plasma zone forms, resistance may go to a minimum, allowing quite a current flow. I hope that at some point we will be able to see operational data showing that more energy comes out than goes in (or maybe I missed that along the line?).

      • GreenWin

        Curious he uses two 10kHz band pass filters prior to the isolation transformer and variac. He’s also using a full wave rectifier – many experiments use AC @ variable Hz. Since this is Italy I presume he’s working with 220V, 50Hz in. And at these voltage/currents seeing a light show in the reaction vessel does not indicate LENR. It would be helpful to test for nuclear artifacts – i.e. gamma, x-ray, CR-39 tracks, transmutations…

  • s

    The safety cert is a nontechnical story in my opinion. So, I have no comment on it. The story concerning the failed test is still important. Note that the ecat people stated that, after the failed measurement, they had to change the way they tested power by adding a variac per the article below. Does anyone think that by changing the way they measure after the National institute test, the ecat people might be possibly acknowledging their measurement techniques needed an accuracy improvement?

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/

    • daniel maris

      What are you on about? Haven’t you read the list of safety issues that the certificate addresses, set out by Ged. How can you call that non-technical – unless you are trying deliberately mislead people?

      • Andrew Macleod

        Is the report concidered sales material? Within the Safty cert it states accuracy with sales litareture.

    • Andrew Macleod

      I see it as a non issue, a simple mistake. If I understand correctly(and most likely not), say you want to figure out how much power your digital camera consumes during charging… If you measure at the wall socket you will get one reading while if you measure after the transformer you will get another. This coupled with the fact that circuits are designed for maximum load (I believe the ecat has a vaired load). With a viariac before the measurement tools you can reduce the power to what the ecat needs limiting any reflections of unused power.

    • Karl

      Who can believe the fairytale by Hydrofusion and their failed attempts to finance the Rossi project. It could rather be a result of an attempt to hurt Rossi in finance debacle.

    • So rather than talk about a documented and published set of safety tests conducted by an established 3rd party tester in accordance with established procedures, you would rather try to amplify the significance of an unpublished, unsubstantiated ‘test’ of unknown purpose, quality or circumstances.

      Your intent in doing so is obvious, and indeed your entire purpose for posting here is becoming very clear.

      From ’25 rules of disinformation’ http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html:

      “4. Use a straw man. …. select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.”

      • s

        I am not a “strawman”. I am an independent observor. No test results for the safety inspection were released.

        Back to my original point, the ecat people seem to state that, after seeing the measurements by the National Institute, the ecat people changed their measurement techniques. Can someone stay focused on my post, and not bring up extraneous issues, and comment on how changing the ecat measurement technique after almost 2 years could impact the results?

        • If the relevant information was available it would already have been examined here. As it stands, it is unsubstantiated in virtually all respects. Provide some actual details of the ‘test’ setup and the parameters used and perhaps someone may be able to help you.

          BTW, it is the argument technique that is referred to as using a ‘straw man’, not yourself.

          • s

            Once again you choose to ignore my point. The ecat people, in the linked article seem to state that, after seeing the National Institute test results, they might have had to change the way they measured input power to not miss some of the energy going to the resistors. First, do you acknowledge that the ecat people appear to have made that statement?

            Second, isn’t it a scientific standard that if measurements are found to have been made incorrectly, then all measurements made in the past by the same technique are invalidated? I will leave it at these two questions right now.

          • See the comment by Chris on September 11, 2012 at 8:49 am. It is clear that the ‘hot cat’ is NOT a simple resistive load, and therefore simple measurements of power are not adequate. Rossi offered to substitute a variac power controller for his triac ‘chopper’ circuit but as far as is known, no test was conducted in this way.

            As I said, if you have more information, kindly provide it.

          • s

            Ok. I see that you refuse to acknowledge that the ecat people seem to state that they changed the measurement technique after seeing the national institute results. They also seem to state that measuring input is an example of an issue that is under probe. You can ignore these two statements if they don’t fit into your view of the ecat. Find the definition of someone who ignores facts like these while you are looking up definitions.

          • Omega Z

            S

            It appears the National Institute was using an Outdated device. May have been picking up frequencies that never fed into the E-cat.

            For me the real question is why back out of a deal when testing & development are on going on a prototype. Unfinished. Doesn’t make sense. Some other motive must be involved.

            But, NO WORRIES. Rossi is now going to run tests on both a loaded & Non-Loaded E-cat. A Blank. Results will definitely be unquestionable.

        • From 25 Rules of Disinformation:

          “9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.”

          • GreenWin

            Peter, you have nailed “s” dead on. He is a disinformant. Note too that he keeps “civil” in a transparent attempt to appear rational. This pretense to rationality is endemic to skeptopathic behavior. Don’t feed the troll.

        • Andrew Macleod

          It’s not changing the measurement techniques after 2 years…. It’s a 3rd party not using proper techniques on a new device.

        • Ged

          Your post is off topic to this thread (which is about the classical low temp e-cats, not the hot cat!). Besides, wasn’t the Variac for the hot cat mentioned before any of this? You are failing to be skeptical, and are believing one random report that does not fit the data readily available. What does that say to you?

    • Redford

      The issue I have with Hydrofusion test is that we don’t know who did it neither have the results. We just have a PR. OTOH we now have a set of testing by 3 new names with valid resume that we can evaluate. We have a security certification by a credible company that implies testing something working as intended, and the little data (in/out) seems to be entirely consistent with Rossi’s says. On the top of that we also other people around the world, also with consistent resume, demoing and publishing results that conforts what Rossi said from the beginning.

      Really I am open minded to skepticism and I’ve not yet entirely jumped in the LENR is real wagon just yet. But this swedish measure looks like another Dick Smith incident to me. Someone think he’s smart and has figured something with the input that every other missed. No matter how believing this on face value imply to assert that an awful lot of professionals have all made incredible mistakes, and the very small likeliness on it, all the skeptics jump on this because it confirms their beliefs.

      Well, I have no beliefs, one side or the other. I am treating both side of the coin equally. The rule is : Rossi has to proove what he says. He’s taking his goddamn time but I admit this last week I’ve seen very consistent progress. Enough to actually start to move the ball in the other side. Once Rossi will have published his results, skeptics will have to play a totally different game that will require real work, because the burden to invalidate Rossi’s proof will be theirs at that point.

      And actually a responsible skeptic would start to do the job now, because set of examination on hot cat is just there and you can’t just say it’s fake just because you say so. Sure scientific journal publishing more advanced results with 3 extra names will be better, but it will not be hugely different. We have results by 3rd party right now. That’s what we should be talking about, what their flaws are, etc. Unfortunately there is just not enough meat on the swedish bogus to discuss it. Hopefully it will come.

      • Redford, you wrote: “Rossi has to proove what he says. He’s taking his [expletive] time but I admit this last week I’ve seen very consistent progress.”

        Reading your comment, something just occurred to me. Different people like to do different thing. Andrea Rossi obviously likes to invent. So, maybe that is why he would rather make a “hot cat” work at all rather than to polish up a home e-Cat for boiling water, or rather than to prove anything about his earlier work to the world? Maybe this is just a personality thing? Some people are more “starters” than “finishers”? Perhaps Rossi does not have to “prove” anything to anyone — other than to do the minimum of what it takes for him to have the time and resources to keep inventing? Perhaps the personality to bring something to market, or to publish something solidly irrefutable in a scientific journal, may be a very different personality than one that makes creative breakthroughs or who keeps at some difficult engineering task that others have long ago given up on?

        That said, it seems like if Rossi really wanted to demonstrate the LENR effect irrefutably, numerous people have suggested ways to do that, including simply running one original ecat with the catalyst side-by-side with one without the catalyst and/or hydrogen supply, and comparing output (to see what the baseline effect is of the electrical heating). That could be done in an afternoon. It could have been done at the recent conference of licensees. Of course, then there are speculations on why Rossi might not want irrefutable proof of the effect yet. I guess we will see when we see — and there are also others claiming related effects (like the Pirelli School) who may also eventually produce universally convincing evidence.

        • Redford

          I fail to see how this would be more evidence than the 3rd party hot cat measure. Do your A / B comparison, and there will always be suspicion about is A truly different from B, etc. If David Copperfield can seems to fly, visual proof is not enough.

          I think Rossi’s right to go the 3rd party measure way. We now have specialists, 2 of them paid by 3rd party, signing a report with measurements. That’s something David Copperfield could not do. And it’s the way scientific truth is being establish. So that’s good for me.

    • Dionysius

      Not at all… what they are saying is that to avoid possible misreadings by various meters, they will go to a power supply that is less likely to create voltage spikes that may be interpreted as greater power input than is supposed.

  • MK

    ShutdownRossidotcom is offline :-))))))))))))

    • Andrew Macleod

      They just moved…. Ecatworldnews.com

    • cx

      Bet he deleted that post about the sgs certificate

      • Max S

        no, he did not. Shutdownrossi is back online again.

  • Invy

    Hopefully someone is watching this articles comment section (being 2 months ago)…

    Can someone tell me what I have to enter into here

    http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/Certified-Client-Directories/Certified-Client-Directories.aspx

    to get the SGS certificate… I want it to come from their database, just to ensure its’ validity.