Leonardo Corp. Releases New Hot Cat Report

The following document was sent by Andrea Rossi to E-Cat World. Note: I did not receive the attachments mentioned in the report below.



Date of the Report: October 9th 2012



Please attention for the reading: we used the point “.” to incicate the decimals and the comma “,” to indicate the thousands, not the vice versa as used in many Countries; for example: 2,000.00 means “two thousand point zero cents”.


The reactor is a cylinder which has the following dimensions:
Length cm 33
Diameter cm 8.6
(See photos in the Penon Report attached)


cm^2 891
Has been eliminated the internal cylinder, so that the energy has been measured only on the external surface with the Stephan Boltzmann equation.

Weight before the charge: g 4331
Weight before the test start: g 4351
Weight after the test stop: g 4350

Weight of the charge: g 20

Test started: Sept 25th h 08.00 a.m.
Test finished : Oct 9th h 08.00 a.m.
Total duration of the test: 336 hours


Time to arrive to the full operation of the reactor: 4 hours

Time to shut down the reactor: 4 hours
Net operation time of the reactor stabilized: 328 hours


Room Temperature: average 25 °C
Temperature reached after 4 hours: 1050 °C
Average temperature for 228 hours: 1050 °C


Self sustaining mode operation total time: 118 hours
Peak power employed: 5 kW circa
Average power employed: 2.4 kW circa (two point four kW)


kWh 278.4


T(°K)^4 = 2.838 * 10^12
W = 2.838 * 10^12 * 5.67 * 10^-8 * 8.91 * 10^2 * 10^-4 = 14,337 Wh * h^-1 (fourteen point threehundredthirtyseven kWh per hour)


KWh 3,268

COP = 3,268/278.4 = 11.7 (ELEVEN POINT SEVEN)


163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg)
(see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached)







This test is under scrutiny by an indipendent third party.


  • Karl

    Certainly very impressive almost COP 12. This will take time to digest!

    • Frank Sedei

      Correct Karl. This is the real focal point of the report.

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    A few charts showing energy balance and temperatures over time and a couple photos of the new reactor without the inner tube wouldn’t have harmed.

    • Ged

      Guess we have to wait for that independent report so it doesn’t steal their thunder 🙁

  • Does anyone know if the control method of running the hot cat will be similar to the industrial models. Has Mr Rossi come up with some new control gear to allow the hot cats to swing between self sustain modes and and a controlled mode.

  • Redford


    Why oh why ? Rossi was always claiming he was not really involved in the testing, and now this “Rossi says” stamp all over it. WHO are the third parties ? Let them get public & speak.

    • artefact


      • Michael

        A real independent test by a third party is totally controlled by that third party. Mr Rossi may watch and observe but not be a part of the test at all. I have done some tests for CE certification and this test simply seems useless.

        • Redford

          Yes, and Rossi also not behave the way I do when I am buying my bred. But wait, he’s not buying bred here as he states clearly. So I’ll have to check when he’ll buy bred to see his buying bred abilities, and you’ll have to wait for the independent test to judge the value of it. In the meanwhile is the present report of interest to some ? Clearly. So it’s entitled to exist ^^

      • Redford

        Woops ! Sorry, how did I miss that ?

    • Karl

      I suggest that you read the information next time “before” you send any unverified negative comment. It is clearly said above that this is preliminary and a complementary verification by third party testers will follow soon.

      • Timar

        The problem is that Rossi made similar claims several times before… let’s see if he delivers this time.

      • Paolo

        There are too much unverified “positive” comments….and unverified reports….

      • Redford

        Apologies. The caps made me flee but I should have read indeed.

      • Redford

        Actually I think the info was added a few minutes after the original posting. I was really here minute one ^^

    • Andrew Macleod

      He is very upfront about being part of THIS test. What’s he problem?

  • artefact

    COP of 11.7 is very good.
    But the hot cat used 228 hours in self sustained mode which it is not yet allowed by the safety certifier if I remember correctly.
    Without s.s.m. the cop is much lower (~4).

    • artefact

      mhh the ssm was just 118 so COP without ssm is better.

    • walker

      On artefact’s Safety Certification Question.
      1) Your point about safety certification is moot, product testing for safety certification means that safety certification applies to units sold to customers not research and testing rigs.

      2) Part of Safety Certification is tests to destruction or such actions as might cause the unit to fail. If your certification applied before product testing then one could not actually perform said tests.

      3) The requirement for the existing product “E-Cat” not run in a self sustaining mode applies to that product and only to those sold to customers. It does not apply to the “Hot-Cat”. It probably does not even apply to research versions of the “E-Cat”

      4) The requirement for the existing product “E-Cat” not run in a self sustaining mode, is not that, it is a requirement that it run off an electricity supply powered by the E-Cat. You could though run say an E-Cat and have it charge say a battery then charge and swap batteries. In order to gain a self sustaining mode.

      5) Self sustaining mode may mean gas saturation of the Hydride as with Celini and no external electricity.

      6) General safety means one would run a rig below expectation and over subsequent tests probably in a safe place, run the rig harder and harder until destruction.

      On the safety matter in general:
      If you question the safety, then implicitly you are accepting the product works.

      I appreciate scepticism it helps iron out bugs in a system.

      Kind Regards walker

      • artefact

        “On the safety matter in general:
        If you question the safety, then implicitly you are accepting the product works.
        I appreciate scepticism it helps iron out bugs in a system. ”

        I can not question the safety and my statement was not ment to be sceptism.
        I wanted to express that it would be a pitty if the e-cat will not be allowed to run in ssm at a customer. It is one of the strange, cool and really interesting things of LENR being able to run in ssm.

        But thanks for your post!

  • Pedro

    There seems to be an error in the calculation of the COP. Total test 336 hours, if which 118 hours in self sustained mode. That means electricity was on during 218 hours. Average consumption was 2.4 kw, so total power in was 218 x 2.4 = 523 kw. The 278 kw mentioned in the report is probably based on the duration of the self sustained mode (118). Using 523 for the input results in a cop of 3268 / 523 = 6.25.

    • Pedro

      In the calculation for the energy produced, Rossi calculates 14.337 Kwh/hr, which results in 4817 Kwh over a period of 336 hours. He calculates a power output of 3268 which seems to based on 228 hour. Ofcourse the hotcat was producing heat also during the self sustained mode, not only when on power.

      • Pedro

        Both inconsistancies can be explained by Paolo’s suggestion that te ssm of 118 hours is a typo… probably should instead be 118 hours on power, 218 ssm.
        This not only solves the calculation errors but also is a logical development: in the past we heared about 50% power, 50% ssm. Rossi has now managed to go to 33% power, 67% ssm. Ofcourse the ultimate goal should be to go as near as possible to 100% ssm. 4 hours heating up on power, 6 month ssm, COP through the roof!

        • Redford

          See above : I see it’s even better explained with no typo at all, ie if total operation time is irrelevant in the calculation because of the measurement time being just a fraction of it.

          • Pedro

            Redford, you probably are right.
            Very confusing that he bases all calculations on the first(?) 228 hours of a 336 hour test. The output calculation is based on 3268/14.337=228 hours. Input calculation is based on 118 hours. You would expect 228 or 110 (228-118) depending on if the 2.4 Kwh average is based on the total test time or the time the power was on, but he uses the SSM-time 118 which is not logical IMHO.
            Anyway, let’s hope you’re right, which would mean the COP of 11.7 is no calculation error. Great!

      • jfab

        “The Hot-Cat was not turned on.” (Francesco CH)

        • Ged

          When displayed to an audience in a conference room. I would not turn on a 1050 C device in a small space full of people and flammable things either, that would be insanely dangerous!

        • Peter_Roe

          If there is any purpose to your comment, I’m afraid it is not evident. Or are you just so desperate for something negative to say, that taking Francesco’s comment out of context is the best you can manage?

    • QC-JYM

      There seem to be a lot of things wrong with those equations, can somebody parse them properly pls?
      Example: T=1050 wich gives T(k)= 1323.15, if you time this to the fourth, it gives 3.065×10^12, not 2.838 as mentionned.
      SB formula is also incomplete as part of the SB constant are not showned!

      PLS enlighten me!!


      • Ged

        Remember that T^4 is multiplied by k, the SB constant, to convert kelvin to watts. If you do that, you get the numbers in the report.

  • I find two inconsistencies in the numbers:
    1) If the test lasted 328 hours (or 336 full) and if the average input power was 2.4 kW, the total input energy was then 787 kWh, not 278 kWh.
    2) With 14.337 kW output power and 328 hour duration gives output energy of 3915 kWh, if the input power (average 2.4 kW) is first subtracted. This a more than the quoted 3268 kWh.

    If we believe in the 2.4 kW average input power, the average COP is then 14.337/2.4 = 6, instead of 11.7.

    The output power 14.337 seems consistent with the cylinder dimensions. It seems that some below-unit emissivity was also included although it doesn’t appear in the formulas. Power lost by convection and the cylinder endcaps is ignored so the real output power was somewhat larger.

    If the “average 2.4 kW” refers to non-ssm only (rather than average over the whole measurement as I understood it), it changes the numbers, but still they do not match with 11.7 COP.

    There is also one probably typo: in one place the times is given as 228 hours which probably means 328 h.

    Although the COP comes out as being much larger than unity no matter how one computes it from these numbers and the test time is impressively long, the inconsistencies are big enough that one should ask Rossi for clarification.

    EDIT: My (1) is the same as Pedro found

    • Paolo

      I suppose there is another typo and the power employed section should read :
      NOT Self sustaining mode operation total time: 118 hours

      If this is the case then 118*2.4 = 283.2 kWh (close to the result published)

      • Pedro

        Yep, I agree… it explains all the other calculation errors. 228 hours self sustained, 118 on power. Great find Paolo!

    • Redford

      My impression is that the measurements are about what happens during the selfsustained mode. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMED seemms to fit with the above mentionned ssm : 278.4/2.4 = 116, ie nearly 118 (2.4 being circa)

      The logic of that I don’t get, thus…

      • Venno

        14337/1000 = 14.337 x 228 = 3268KWH
        can you immagine if he used 328 x 14.337 = 4702.5
        cop= 4702/278.4 = 16

        even better

        whats the fuss

    • Redford

      Ok thx to Pedro I think i may get it : there may be no typo at all. The Reactor would have run for 328h but the measurements would have been made on 228. Total energy consumed would then be for the 228 – 118 in ssm = 110h of not self sustained mode. Which is not an exact fit, but close one, for the 278.4 kWh with 2.4 kW circa average power employed. Then everything fits.

      In that case, the calculation may be ok, but it would be interesting to know why the difference between operation time and temperature measurements time, just to check there’s a good alibi against a “cherry picking” accusation.

    • andreiko

      Eerst goed lezen dan rekenen!!

  • Andre Blum

    Good report. COP=11.7 and very stable.

    Unclear to me is the “self sustain mode operation total time” figure. Does he just mean the time between drive cycles? I think he does. But Aldo Proia’s words let me believe there may be more going on….

    • Redford

      Wondering the same thing. The way data are put gives me the impression they illustrate some operations where sustain is actually triggered at will.

      • Timar

        I don’t think so – if this Report (particularly the COP) is supposed to be representative of the final product, the triggering mechanism would have to follow the same feedback parameters.

        • Redford

          Thing is the TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMED fits the bill for the SSM period (ie 118 h / 2.4 kW circa roughly equal 278.4kWh ), but then the other calculation doesn’t seem so follow that logic.

  • Timar

    Hmm. Impressive numbers but “Rossi said” once more…

    It seems a bit odd to me that Rossi claims to have dozens of employees in the U.S. and nobody available to write a report like this in proper English…

    • Karl

      Typical saying by a “schoolteacher” to comment on what he understands (language) and not on what he does not understand!

      • Timar

        Well, I prefer to comment on things I understand… there are way to much people commenting on things they don’t understand.

    • Tommy

      Timar: VERY good comment and I fully agree. Someone producing a prototype at a US company should be able to let the US employees create professionally written statements in clear english language.

      Rossi talks about different locations and we all understand that the can impossibly do it all alone.

      But we always hear the same one person named Rossi, not “his team”. In fact we do not even know which people are in the team, nobody can see them, talk to them, find them. There are no photos leaked by people who just drive to those companies and take some pictures from outside or through the window.

      His statements are always typical “forum-style” messages, like a chat. No letterhead, no good english, everything very unprofessional. This is just another evidence that makes me wonder if the whole thing is a big bluff. But if it was, why would Rossi do it? I do not yet see the reasons why he does what he does. Maybe he is just a bored old man trying to be recognized again?

      The story that Rossi does not require anybody to believe his claims until he starts selling a working product can not be true. He must show independant proof, otherwise he can not sell, he can not find investors.
      Even if he shows his E-Cat/Hotcat to potential investors/customers, these would never pay a penny without having independent scientific proofs of Rossis statements, especially when they read about Rossis history and the doubts that can be found by renowned scientists.

      Or do you believe that when a magician shows you how he disappears and re-appears at a different place that the magician really found a way to do “beaming” like in Starship Enterprise?

      • Steve B

        I have scanned patent databases but there is not a single patent application besides the orignal one from 2008 in the name of Rossi or Leonardo.
        Rossi mentioned many times the design of the reactor changed and that the theory is completely different by now. If this is true, then they must file more patent to protect their IP. He claims to have 60+ people, scientists and engineers. Being as productive as Rossi claims, we should expect many new patents Time from filing to disclosure is usually 18 months, so anything prior to spring 2011 we should see by now. But there is not a single invention filed for patent (since the one 2008). Not even one.

        • John

          Wouldn’t it be funny if it were a big con? Totally contrived? The question is, why would Rossi do this? THAT is the bit that I don’t understand.

          As for the e-cat, well until there is independent verification, this website is a nice distraction for me, something to check up on now and then. If the e-cat ever goes on sale I’ll buy one but if it never does, I’ll have a good laugh at these people suckered into it.

  • Possible typo for the hours: “Average temperature for 228 hours: 1050 °C”
    (listed under Temperatures)

    Should this read 328 hours?

    • Andy

      The value of energy produced with 14,400 Kw match well using 228 hours of time operation. If 228 is a typo, then this typo lead to an error in the calculation of the energy produced and COP. What a mess, again.

      • Redford

        “Again” ? He already made this kind of mistake ?

        Anyway this “typo” clearly needs some explanations indeed.

        • Andy

          I was referring to the usual unreliability of Rossi’s tests, in a way or another.

          • Redford

            What wasn’t reliable in last one ?

  • Venno

    Well Done ROSSI
    This guy is so scared of giving wrong info even if he is 50% wrong its still great


    “The reactor is a cylinder which has the following dimensions:
    Length cm 33
    Diameter cm 8.6
    (See photos in the Penon Report attached)”

    Can’t wait to see the photos.

    • artefact

      I can imagine that he refers to the Penon Report from July with some pictures:


      • Peter_Roe

        This is a little confusing, as the original Penon report shows the version with the core tube that has now been eliminated. Perhaps Penon performed a second similar set of measurements and has written a second report.

        Frank – are you pursuing the missing attachments, please?

      • Andrea Calaon

        The average power consumed is actually 2.36 KW, rounded to 2.4.
        It has been used for 118 h of the 336 h (35% of the time).
        The radiation power taking into account the room temperature (-T^4)and and a more realistic emissivity of 0.95 is: 13,550 W.
        This gives a COP of 11.1.
        If ones takes into account a minimum of convection, the COP raises above 12.

  • Michael

    “Has been eliminated the internal cylinder, so that the energy has been measured only on the external surface with the Stephan Boltzmann equation.”
    As far as I understand the energy is not measured. It is calculated! Why not cool it in any way, for example hot air and then a air-to water heat exchanger which makes the measurements easier, really much easier. The could buy a simple energy meter usedn in single family houses, eg. Kamstrup. Simple reliable meters.

    I don’t know what the weight reduction is, but if we use it for an annual weight reaction it gives slightly more than 500 g. How do we interpret it?

    • Ged

      Using just the black body is the most conservative measurement one can make, while still being reasonably accurate.

  • Italo R.

    Finally an overunit device!!!
    Four, six or eleven COP doesn’t matter in this moment.
    The important thing is that it is greater than 1

  • theBuckWheat

    Impressive but not verified yet by an unrelated third party. If nobody else was getting excess energy via LENR I would assume fraud, but they are so I am very hopeful as to what this will mean for humanity.

    This device and those like it will perturb the world power dynamic. Since Europe has rejected capitalism, and instead officially adopted a form of fascism (Lisbon Treaty: “social market economy”), when these devices mature to the point they can materially reduce energy costs, will government intrude to tax away those savings in order to pay its own bills? Let us hope not. But governments may excuse taxing these devices in order to pay for the unemployed coal miners. Then there is the effect on the power of OPEC and Russia via Gazprom.

    May we live in exciting times!

  • Filip47

    The third party test will rule out al the doubts.
    If there’s one.

    • Peter Poulsen

      Offcourse there is doubts until a reliable third party(preferally multiple) have confirmed the results.

      Why anyone wouldnt have some kind of doubt without 3rd party confirmation is beyond me.

      • Filip47

        My reply is a reaction to all the comments below.
        There’s a lot of tension in the air.
        The question is not: Is the Ecat real? The question is: Does the Ecat work as promised? When that’s comfirmed, we can go on to the next level.
        I believe there will be an answer to the question soon(hopefully november): Does the Ecat work as promised? will it be a working LENR device?

    • Tony76

      I checked the calculation. It’s OK apart from minor discrepancies explainable as rounding error.

      Let’s hope the “independent” test results appear soon and that they are done by independent and reputable organisations/people. The report should include error bounds.

      If they come out with such a report, Humanity version 2 begins.

      Nonetheless today is still only RossiSays, but one of his best. 🙂

      • Ged

        Third party on its way, thankfully! When, not sure, but sooner the better. That’s the report I’m itching for. I wonder if that professor at this conference is part of that report and will tell us something about it.

        There are serious high up people here, at this conference, so Rossi has to have a strong third party backing if he’s going to sway these guys and not be alienated by them.

        • Italo R.

          At the conference there is present the italian blogger of 22Passi, Daniele Passerini who is following the E-Cat saga from some years, supporting Rossi.
          Tomorrow he will certainly inform all of us on his blog about what he has seen and heard.

  • Voodoo

    100 hours of this test is totally missing – whitewashed

    • Karl

      Must be a typo as notified by several…

      • Voodoo

        If typo, so other calculations use this typo. Check yourself.

        • Voodoo

          in “Total Energy Output” is for calculation used 228 hours. Where is missed another 100 hours of test duration ??

          Another 100 hours of duration (in Sum 328 hours) was energy output 0,00 ??? [zero point zero zero]

          • Karl

            Ok I must admit I haven’t made any particular attempt to analyse the preliminary data in detail as this data is obviously followed shortly by a third party verification. However, I should guess Frank is checking with Rossi to have his corrections.

          • ant

            i made some little calculation :
            278.4 kWh / 2.4kW = 116 h

            so the “base time” for input electrical energy consumption average is 116 h.

            14,337 Wh * h^-1 * 116 h give 1663 kWh

            thus i found a COP of 1663/278.4 = 6 !!!

            i’m wrong?

    • Peter_Roe

      It is not entirely clear from the report as it stands when exactly in the test cycle the measurements were made. This appears to be just Rossi’s summary (possibly with omissions) of a more detailed report by Penon, and hopefully we’ll be able to see this more complete report when the attachments turn up. Let’s wait for further clarification before we start using terms like ‘whitewashed’.

    • Steve B

      LOL. Perhaps during the missing 100 hours the “independent” examiners were sleeping or went to toilet, and this time was excluded, to make sure nobody would claim the integrity of the study.

      • Redford

        Most probably they were actually doing their measurements. This is at least exactly what would be expected in the case of 2 groups doing measurements on one item. Not thinking about it first kind of demonstrate a bias, don’t you think ?

    • Ged

      That 100 hours is likely a period where it couldn’t be measured by Rossi due to the third party people using it. We don’t need those 100 hours for anything, we have the instantaneous energy out (kWh/h), as well as the average in from which to calculate kWh/h in. So we can calculate the COP just fine, as others have done.

      • Ivan_cev

        NO, he said he has make the measurements in parallel, this means simultaneously.
        in other words, there is two sets of instruments, Rossi is reading in one set and the independent testers in another set.
        I would like to see how Rossi calculated the avg power.

  • Simone

    Well, concerning the “typo” we can only make a few hypotesis…

    first hypotesis:
    (i guess this is what he wanted to write)
    test worked for 228 hours, 118 hours with energy input and 110 hours in self sustained mode.

    consumed a total of 278.4 kWh in 118 hours which means 2.35 kW/h which he could have rounded to 2.4 kW/h

    also he says it produced 3268 kWh which in 228 hours means 14.33 kW/h which is exactly the ammount he said.

    second hypotesis:
    test run 328 hours, 118 hours in self sustained mode which mean that 210 hours were with input. Since it consumed and average of 2.4 kW/h then the total input is 2.4*210 = 504kWh

    this said, we need to correct the output values since 328 hours * 14,33kW/h = 4701 kWh

    COP is 4701/504 = 9

    third hypotesis:
    test run 328 hours, 118 hours in not self sustained mode, which means that 210 hours were in self sustained mode.

    118*2.4 = 283kWh for input

    4701kWh from output

    COP = 16.

    so let’s say that even in the worst hypothesis the COP is 9 which isn’t bad at all!

    • Pachu

      another hypotesis:
      hard to get the numbers rigth when they are “tunned” or even not real.

      another hypotesis:
      “typos” are intentional.

      • Jim

        Your dollies are a lot less fun to play with, hunh?

    • Voodoo

      fourth hypothesis

      missed 100 hour was temperature lower then 1050°C, so it pass 228 hours of temp avg 1050°C.

      This 100 missed hours was energy output something lower because lower temp, so Rossi don’t calculate these 100 hours output.
      Question remains what input was this 100 hours.

    • lcd

      Cop and energydensity are probably conservative since he *measures* power in and out irrespective of time.
      Energy density is then conservative too.

      If you believe the numbers of course.

      I like Rossi’s tone this time.

    • Redford

      The 1st hypothesis is by far the best except there should be added “and there is no typo”, just the lack of mentioning that measurements period is shorter that operating period.

      • Peter_Roe

        That’s right – one test run, two groups taking it in turn to make their measurements after the device has stabilised.

        Edit: I see you already spelled that out further down the page.

      • G_Zingh

        Or alternatively this test has nothing to do with the 3rd party tests to be done when a final version of the Hot Cat has been decided upon from the many prototypes that are continuously being tested at the factory.

        Rossi may have simply co-opted a test that was already running to bring us up to date on current Hot Cat R&D.

        I think this is a great gesture on his part and I for one applaud the effort.

    • Andre Blum

      Your first hypothesis doesn’t make sense. He mentions the start and end date and time of the test. This *does* add up to 336h. So assuming he meant that the test ran for 228 is incorrect.

  • Kim G. Patterson

    There is a language barrier

    2 Figures stand out.

    Total in = 278.3
    Total out = 3268

    3268/278.3 = 11.73 = COP

    Forget time.

    If Third party gives the same figures for in and out
    energy then this is a game changer big time.


  • Andre Blum

    theory 5:

    The value mentioned for energy consumed (278.4 kWh) is what Rossi read from his PCE- 830 energy meter, exactly as everyone has been telling him to do.

    It is *not* derived from the numbers directly above that (peak and avg power; ssm duration) and the relation is coincidental. Those numbers may have been obtained from another source, and any factor of 2 that we are missing may have been the factor that the hydrofusion guys have seen, but Rossi sticks to the measured energy now, again: *as people have asked*!!

    • Redford

      It’s certainly works like this, except that there shall be a relation when he writes :
      Average power employed: 2.4 kW

      To me he’s just taking the measurements, then divide. Unless there’s a separate way to measer average power employed, but that would mean measurement tools inconsistent with itself. Is it even possible ?

      • Andre Blum

        theory 5b:

        The calculations started by reading the 278.4 kWh from the energy meter. He knows or reads the peak power is 5 kW and reports that. The number of 118 hours self sustain is also mentioned correctly.

        Then he makes a mistake to calculate the average power by dividing 278.4 by the number of self sustain hours instead of total hours, so we have a wrong number for average power. Average power should have been around 0.8 kW.

        This does not change anything to his COP calculations, meaning it is still 11.7.

        • Robert Mockan

          Theory X:

          A CEO with a doctorate degree who makes the kind of mistakes you suggest, and signs his name to a report that raises so many questions about accuracy of data and calculations, should be considered, at the very least, an unreliable source of information.

          • Ged

            There aren’t too many questions from what I see. The independent report by a university will be much higher caliber though, I agree completely.

  • CP in FL

    I expect to see the report by the independent third party testers by the end of this year or I am calling BS. I am not going to hold my breath. What is so difficult about having this device tested as a black box? None of the secrets inside have to be revealed. Only the power input and power output need to be tested. The world is getting tired of waiting for Mr. Rossi. Either prove what you claim or go away please.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      If third party confirms this
      then “your world” goes away

      That’s the real issue.


      • CP in FL

        Kim – I hope that a third party does in fact confirm what Rossi has been telling us. I don’t even mind waiting for years for this technology to come about. But I would like to know that what we are waiting for is real and not some scheme to make money. I assure you that I will not benefit either way unless this makes my electric bill go down.

    • Robert Mockan

      Going by the numbers Rossi provides:

      Average electrical power in = 2400 watts
      Thermal power out = 14337 watts

      COP (thermal equivalent power ratio) = 14337/2400 = 5.97

      There are so many evident errors in the accuracy of his data and calculations this latest “report” will do more damage to credibility than if he had said nothing at all. This juvenile effort is not reasonable from a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) with a doctorate degree.

      • Peter_Roe

        Robert, I think Ross’s report is probably just a rather hastily written summary of a second report by Penon. I am hoping that this report will be forwarded to Frank shortly as it was apparently lost as an attachment. Possibly the report plus the various attachments would have provided a more complete picture than the report alone, which does contain ambiguities. We probably should be used to such things by now.

        • Voodoo

          1MW E-Cat is some sort of Schrodinger Cat.

          E-Cat which is “already on market” i.e. shipped and delivered is at the same time not shipped and not delivered i.e. not on market.

          • G_Zingh

            I believe that the 1 MW low temp E-cat is already on the market.

          • Casey

            Yes, according what Rossi say. Problem for readers is, that because it is military customer, there is no real prove.
            Maybe some civilian customer agree to come out.

      • Ged

        Actually, the thermal power out is in Wh per hour. That is not the same as watts, so your calculation is actually off. (It is not W * h; Wh is its own unit, so you can’t cancel out the hours, as far as I see).

        Need to use the 278.4 kWh for the calculation.

        • Robert Mockan

          Rossi is displaying the Stefan-Boltzmann power formula improperly. Watts is the proper dimension in the answer, that he calculated correctly (even though his temperature factor is in error), but then he takes that answer, and arbitrarily dimensions it with the h*h^-1 time factor to imply changing the original answer, (that was in watts), to an energy variable, that, as you pointed out, has the dimension Wh per hour. Since I was calculating the thermal power ratio, and not an energy ratio, I used the proper answer of, 14337 watts, from the power formula. Most of the time data in the Rossi report is useless for calculations , since it is not clearly defined what state the reactor is in for the data. I would not waste more effort into trying to make sense of the report. All the energy ratio calculations look suspect.

          • Ged

            Oh hoh, I see what you are saying. Indeed, I agree. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence though, since we are just dealing with black body radiation.

        • Robert Mockan

          Ged, if you take a look at the formula that Rossi is trying to use, you can see the correct dimensions.

          Here is a good view of it:


          You can see that the constant is:

          5.6703×10^-8 with the dimensions “watt/(m^2K^4)”.

          When the dimensions are cancelled out that leaves just “watt”.

    • Peter_Roe

      Keep up, CP – that is exactly what we are waiting for:

      Please try to remember that you do not speak for ‘the world’ or even for any significant number of people, you are not calling the shots, and that your belief or otherwise is completely irrelevant. If that is too hard to accept, I can only suggest that you post your opinions on ecatnews.com, where they may be welcome.

      • CP in FL

        Peter – I will post when and where I please. I do indeed speak for the world that is waiting for a clean, renewable energy source. It is Rossi that keeps posting results of these “tests” that he is performing so he obviously wants us to believe him. I say show us real proof from a reputable third party.

    • daniel maris

      CP –

      You’d have to ensure it had no hidden batteries or a receiving aerial for microwave energy.

  • Dino Bacci

    I am just back from the meeting in Pordenone. It was very interesting with 200 ca. people attending. I saw the meeting was recorded and I believe it will be published. Several interesting comments from Andrea Rossi in the discussion. If necessary I will report later.

    • Filip47


      • Casey

        The numbers given by Rossi don’t ad up.
        Test started: Sept 25th h 08.00 a.m.
        Test finished : Oct 9th h 08.00 a.m.
        Total duration of the test: is 15 full days x 24h = 360hours,
        not 336 hours
        Minus, (start 4h and stop 4h) give us 360h-8h=352hours of test.

        Given by Rossi: Net operation time of the reactor stabilized: 328 hours

        Don’t mach the rest of calculations.

        Self sustaining mode operation total time: 118 hours
        Peak power employed: 5 kW circa
        Average power employed: 2.4 kW circa (two point four kW)

        328h-118h in ssm = 210h with power in x 2.4kW = 504kWh

        But the average mean, it is taken for 328hours, so…
        328h x 2.4kW = 787.2kW
        and wit real 352hours x 2.4kW = 844.8kWh

        Given is, temperature of 1050*C.
        If there is no cooling fluid for calculation of heat transfer, only produced amount of heat is measured by surface temperature, don’t mean it is right calculation of produced energy.

        If I take my pan while cooking, made with regular steel, the handle is very hot. But the other one made of stainless steel is cool.


        kWh 278.4
        How the consumed energy was calculated?

        The others numbers given by Rossi are also complicating, instead of explaining.

        • Ransompw

          September 25 at 8am to October 9 at 8am is 14 days not 15. Rossi is correct on the length of the test.

        • johnny

          I believe Sept 25 to Oct 9 is only 14 days and the number hours compute correctly.

          • Casey

            OK, it right 14 days.
            But the given 328 hours for 14days, don’t mach with the 228 hours used in calculation.

        • Tony James

          Tue Sept 25 to Tue Oct 9 is 14 days, not 15.

        • Ged

          The numbers are “good enough”, as the others have been showing. Even if you calculate it at the absolute worst interpretations, the COP is greater than >=6.

          Also, the devices used are listed at the end of the report.

          • Ivan_cev

            But the average power * hours of test, does not match the input energy, are some one able to give an explanation on this?

    • Peter_Roe

      Dino, thanks for the report. Can you throw any light on the Penon report that was supposed to be attached to Rossi’s summary at the top of this page? Were photos of the new ‘coreless’ hot cat shown during the meeting?

      • Dino Bacci

        Andrea Rossi brought a sample of the hot cat. It is a black pipe (sealed) 5 kg.
        Andrea Rossi handed the complete report to Franco Scolari (Polo Tecnologico Director). It will be put on the web, I understood-

    • Voodoo

      Dear Dino, when will Rossi be starting REAL delivery of 1 MW old thermal low-temp E-Cats ??

      Note: Real delivery means no “already on market”

      • G_Zingh

        I believe the 1 MW low temp E-cat is already on the market.

        • Dino Bacci

          Yes, you can buy. Delivery time 2-3 months, one million euros for the 1 Mw e-cat (so I heard in the after meeting)-

    • Luca Salvarani

      X Dino

      Toglimi una curiosità: cos’hanno detto gli esperti contrari alle LENR invitati per la tavola rotonda, in particolare il prof. Battaglia che io stimo molto? Rispondimi pure in italiano tanto agli altri questo punto credo che non interessi molto, grazie.

      • Chris

        Anzi, a me interessa. Dunque, Sabatini e Majorana mancavano, ma qualche altro miscredente c’era?

      • Peter_Roe

        Actually Luca, I think the reaction of any skeptics like Battaglia who were present might be of interest to many.

      • Dino Bacci

        Ti rispondo in inglese perchè forse può interessare ad altri. Prof. Battaglia asked about Ni isotopes, Andrea Rossi informed they are using Ni enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni. This has consequence on the Cu isotope formed. One Cu isotope has a half time decay of 1/2 hour. For that reason also the e-cat cannot be opened before 4 hours.

    • Ged

      That is a lot more people than expected for a three hour event, or so! Can’t wait to hear your report, and to see the video. Please keep us updated if you are willing, especially what the “round table” people talked about.

      • Babble

        How does the net energy produced = 3268 KWH when the total energy was 14.337 KW per hour x 328 hours of stabilized operation and energy consumed was 278.4 KWH (over the total period)? I get 14.345 MWH net. Power is in watts or KW and is just sold or totaled in KWH. You don’t buy a 500 watt hour power supply.

        This could use some additional explanation.

    • daniel maris

      Thanks Dino!

  • Chris

    In order for those values of mass to be interesting, they would need to be precise to fractions of a milligram. An excess heat of 3 thousand KWh means little more than a tenth of a milligram so, even allowing for a lot of energy going to neutrino flux, the gram less must be due to rounding and other possible causes.

    • Peter_Roe

      Quite so – conversion of a gram of matter to energy would have left a very large crater at the test area. Any residual moisture in the ceramic core and the fireclay end plugs would have been driven off, and there was probably some ablation of other materials such as the paint, at the temperature concerned. I imagine the weight measurements are just to indicate that no internal chemicals were either consumed or oxidised during the test process, so that the maryyugos can’t claim that the hot cat was filled with thermite!

      • Ged

        Exactly! That’s really the only point. To measure the loss of reactants would be far more difficult, but not impossible.

        • Chris

          Indeed, it would make more sense to do it with the smallest part that contains all reactants before and after, much lees that the total of 4 kg. An excellent instrument used by experts could do it.

      • Garry

        For sure… I think the magma would still be bubbling up from the divot in the planet’s crust.

        • Chris

          C’mon, the ratio is only a few thousand. For the same duration, it would mean quite a few MW but that isn’t enough to blow this whole rock apart.

      • Chris

        All it shows is there’s not much loss of volatile combustion products, which an exothermic chemical reaction doesn’t necessarily produce. What counts is the Ragone plot. So I still vote it wasn’t much use to show the initail and final mass.

    • clovis

      hi, Chris.
      If i could ask you to speak about neutrino flux, what is it, and maybe a link, i for one think that they neutrino’s are playing a part in lenr.
      for i have followed a search for the detection of neutrino, when they drilled the hole on the south pole ,if it’s true that neutrino were truly detected
      when they were checking the radiation levels of the hot cat, this would be a real discovery in it’s self would it not? neutrino flux interesting.

  • Voodoo

    Folks, if you would were students at industrial high school and you present to teacher such quality report with missing 100 hours of test, what would be your fate ?

    And these are doctorate and engineers. This is sci-fi.

    • G_Zingh

      You would be arrested by the inquisition for heresy?

    • Frank

      I fully understand that DR ANDREA ROSSI’s mathematic skills doesn’t impress you.
      One of my favorite videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

    • vbasic

      To your claim this is “all sci-fi”
      so were ray guns (lasers) so was a trip to the moon (Jules Verne) so was the Dick Tracy wrist phone. If LENR is all fantasy, the thousands of scientists and engineers working on it, wouldn’t go near it. But science fiction becoming reality happens all the time. The other famous one I remember from 50 years ago was the ability to type a question to a computer and get an answer. We have that today with Google. So if it is scifi, isn’t it an incredible story that we will soon see it become science reality.

    • Ged

      The 100 hours are meaningless, I told you that. Instantaneous power is what matters in this discussion. Besides, it was a typo and has been corrected.

  • admin
  • G_Zingh

    Copy of some slides from Pordenone up on 22passi.blogspot.com/.

    • Ged

      Thank you for the heads up!

  • Francesco CH

    Rossi brought the Hot-Cat prototype with him, showing it to the audience. The Hot-Cat was not turned on. Video and detailed report will be published soon.

  • mex silvio

    la temperatura misurata era all’esterno del cilindro. ciò significa che la reazione all’interno una temperature più elevate.

  • Omega Z

    I note that some nit pick the numbers. As Rossi has explained that this is converted from 1 type of documenting to another there may be some mistakes.

    As A programmer would tell you converting from decimal to hexadecimal to Binary & back things can be fine then Hiccup/ momentary Brain freeze- What did I do?
    It happens. Education doesn’t eliminate this human trait.

    Another thing is if your measuring small differences where you input a 100 watts & output say a 110 watts, very fine measuring is required to assure there’s no Errors. But there is a point where the Gains become so large that even a 10% Error is of no real consequence. Especially if your working on an ongoing ever changing design. Close is Good enough. Experience can tell you when you make gains. Only after closing in on a specific version would more precise measurement become important for refinements. This is probably where Rossi is at this stage.

    Once Locked in on a specific version, you would do extremely fine measurements & on 100 or whatever cores to look for Natural variations. Such as the 10Kw home version you may have a variation range of COP-6.1 to COP-6.5 You can now Confidently Guarantee a COP>6 for market.

    I don’t think Rossi is at the Extremely fine measurement Yet. Regardless he expects 3rd party testing to be very close to what he is reporting. This statement accounts for natural variations. No 2 products/Cores will be exact.

    3rd party tests will be more Important. I would expect there numbers to be more Refined. They are putting their Names to this. It is their Reputations at Stake therefore it’s even probable their numbers will be on the Conservative side.

    I’d also point out that Rossi has made no bones about it. These Tests were done under his watch. Very up front on this.