[UPDATE] Andrea Rossi Provides Corrected Pordenone Hot Cat Report

Just received from Andrea Rossi — a corrected version of his report. He said he had sent the previous one accidentally, thinking it was the final version:

LEONARDO CORPORATION 

REPORT ON THE INTERNAL TEST PERFORMED ON THE “HOT CAT”

 

Report date: October 9th 2012

NOTICE : THIS REPORT IS ISSUED BY LEONARDO CORPORATION, NOT BY A THIRD PARTY. TESTS PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY WILL BE RELEASED UPON COMPLETION OF THE SAME.

IN THE PRESENT REPORT, WE ARE PRESENTING DATA OBTAINED BY US THROUGH A PARALLEL TEST PERFORMED WITH THE SAME INSTRUMENTATION USED BY SAID THIRD PARTY, ON THE SAME REACTOR, THE SO-CALLED “HOT CAT”.

PLEASE CONSIDER THESE FIGURES AS THOSE WE REASONABLY EXPECT TO SEE CONFIRMED IN THE FORTHCOMING INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TEST.

THE REACTOR WAS MANUFACTURED IN THE USA.

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION WAS CHOSEN SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE SWEDISH TEST PERFORMED ON SEPT. 6TH.

MEASUREMENTS WERE THEREFORE PERFORMED WITH THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE PRECISION, AVOIDING THE USE OF AMP CLAMPS AND VOLTMETERS, IN PLACE OF WHICH THE INSTRUMENT DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT # 2 (MODULATED BY A VARIAC INSTEAD OF A TRIAC POWER SOURCE) WAS USED.

DATA

Please take note of the data format: a period  “.” is used to indicate the decimals and a comma “,” to indicate the thousands, not vice versa as in many countries; for instance, 2,000.00 means “two thousand point zero hundredths”.

REACTOR DESCRIPTION

The reactor is a cylinder having the following dimensions:

Length:                   33 cm

Diameter:               8.6 cm

(See photos in the Penon Report attached)

Surface:                  891 cm2

The internal cylinder has been eliminated; energy measurements were performed on the external surface only, through the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.

Weight without charge:     4331 g

Weight before test:           4351 g

Weight after test:              4350 g

Charge weight:                 20 g

Test started:                     Sept 25th at 08.00 AM

Test completed:                Oct 9th at 08.00 AM

Total duration of the test: 336 hours

OPERATION

Time from reactor startup to full power: 4 hours

Reactor shutdown time: 4 hours

Net operation time for stabilized reactor: 328 hours

TEMPERATURES

Average room temperature:                                       25 °C

Temperature reached after 4 hours:                           1050 °C

Average temperature for the following 328 hours:      1050 °C

POWER CONSUMPTION

Self-sustaining mode operation, total time:  118 hours

Peak power consumption: about 5 kW

Average power consumption:       about 2.4 kW (two point four kW)

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMED

kWh 278.4

ENERGY PRODUCED

T(°K)4 = 2.838 * 1012

Wh = 2.838 * 1012 * 5.67 * 10-8 * 8.91 * 102 * 10-4 =  14.337 Wh * h-1           (fourteen point three hundred and thirty-seven kWh per hour)

TOTAL ENERGY IRRADIATED

kWh 3.268

COP

3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)

POWER DENSITY

163.4 MW * kg-1 (one hundred and sixty-three point four MWh per kg)

(see the Ragone Plot at p. 15 of the Penon Report attached)

INSTRUMENT USED FOR MEASURING

TEMPERATURE ON THE EXTERNAL SURFACE:

Optris PI 160 Camera (see Attachment 1)

 

INSTRUMENT USED FOR MEASURING POWER

CONSUMPTION DURING THE TEST

Tursdale Technical Services, PCE-830 (See Attachment 2)

 

EXTERNAL REACTOR SURFACE COATING

Black paint, proprietary formulation, resistant up to 1200° C, made specifically for Leonardo Corp. by Universokrema, Treviso, Italy.

This test is under scrutiny by an independent third party.

DIRECTOR OF THE TEST:

DR. ANDREA ROSSI

CEO

LEONARDO CORPORATION

  • Ged

    Only thing I spot changed is the 228 average temperature hours is now fixed to the 328 it should be, in agreement with the net operating hours. That, and formatting has been fixed, and a few arrant ,’s changed to their power .’s.

    Still wonder what those attachments are, but makes sense the other was an accidental draft send prior to final proof reading. It happens.

    • Ged

      Actually no, now the .’s are used where ,’s should be. Oh Rossi, you need an editor!

  • 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.

    • Ged

      Thank you Francesco, I greatly look forward to it. Any information on the “round table” discussion between all those folks? Will that be in the videos/reports?

      • Francesco CH

        It was filmed, but I do not know if it will be in the video.

        (I suppose it will, otherwise why filming it…)

        • Ged

          I sure hope so. To me that is most interesting, due to the importance of the people there.

          Albeit, a self sustaining Hot Cat, if accurate, is a huge news too.

    • Luca Salvarani

      To Francesco,

      Video and detailed report will be published already tonight or from tomorrow? Where? Thank you… I’m just eager to know.

  • Robert Mockan

    If Rossi report version 1 had an F grade, should we give him a D- on this one for slightly more clarity. The temperatures, times, and implied calculations are still questionable.

    • Luca Salvarani

      F grade, D- ??????? What do you mean?

      • Kim G. Patterson

        I believe that he is bumping the system
        to sustain and make stable.

        10 min in active power in, 10 min off (ssm)

        Controled thru software from the panel.

        Real Nice

        328 hours @ 1150 C.

        COP at 11.7

        Respect
        Kim

      • Ivan_cev

        a school grading in USA:
        A – Very good
        B – Good
        C – Moderately good
        D – Bad
        E – Almost null
        F – completelly bad (zero, nothing, nada)

        • Voodoo

          $) Crazy

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Will someone that can get through to JONP (I can’t), ask Rossi if he acknowledges that he has finally exceeded his old COP limit of six?

    • Luca Salvarani

      I don’t understand you:

      1) Whoever can write on the JONP and ask to Rossi
      2) He has clearly calculated an 11.7 cop. Maybe there are some misunderstandings such as commas or points… but not about the COP.

      • Robert Mockan

        Rossi calculates his COP using the radiant power output of the reactor. If that number is in error, everything is off the table as to accuracy. Take a look at my last post.

  • captain

    In simple words, Rossi has shown today that his ‘american salami’ AKA hot E-Cat is a 10KW power module.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 12th, 2012 at 3:34 PM

    Steven N. Karels:
    a- no, the modules are regulated to give 10 kW each of power
    b- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sanjeev

    So is this really a corrected report ? I just did a very quick check and all numbers are odd (wrong ?). Please correct me if I misunderstood something.

    The output energy is obviously wrong as discussed below, so the power density and cop are also wrong. It should be energy density really. Most units also do not make sense.

    The input energy seems to be wrong, if we believe the number of hours mentioned. He took a figure of 116 hrs instead of 328, 336 or 118, why ??

    Total input energy will be the integration of the power curve with the time. So I guess input energy remains unknown. He claims to have corrected the waveform issue, but no info is there on how it was done.

    3.268/278.4 = 11.7 , really? 😀

    The output hours also are unknown. The back calc gives another odd figure. I guess Rossi should do the CEO thing and let someone else do the testing and reporting.

    • G_Zingh

      I think Rossi is mixing and matching between the Euro system for number notation where eleven point seven is 11,7 and the American system where eleven point seven is 11.7.

      As for the rest, I can’t understand Rossi’s calculations either.

  • Sanjeev

    A simple calc without bothering about the duration, self sustain etc.

    Average input power: 2.4 kW

    Temperature = 1050+273 = 1323 K
    Room Temp = 25+273 = 298 K

    Output power = 5.67 * 10^-8 * 0.089 * (1323^4 – 298^4) = 15.4 kW

    COP = 15.4/2.4 = 6.4

    • Robert Mockan

      That is better than the number I got a couple days ago using Rossi numbers (uncorrected):

      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

      Can you explain what he is doing wrong to get 11.7, when we both agree the thermal power equivalent COP is only about 6? I’ve looked at his numbers and calculations a few times, and have more questions than answers.

      (I really would like to raise his grade on this latest report effort to at least a C).

      • Ged

        I think that 11.7 COP comes from when he integrates the power over the run duration to get the full kWh, and then divides the output kWh from the input kWh.

        I guess this would mean there’s some fine grained details we are lacking. If we had the raw data charts like last time this would be a breeze.

        • Robert Mockan

          I do not recall any video where Rossi uses calculus on a white board or chalkboard. All of his calculations, even at the demonstrations, have been algebraic, and even then there have been errors. The only way he could integrate the data from the experiments is to use a data acquisition module, and load the measurement data, recorded continuously, directly into a spread sheet for subsequent analysis. Otherwise a technician would have to monitor the experiment 24/7 and record measurements. Has he ever listed computer data acquisition in any of his reports? Have we ever seen raw data showing spread sheet printouts?

          I agree there is probably data we do not have access do, but even the raw data charts we had last time were not analysis printouts, just lists of numbers that we had to evaluate.

          • Ged

            We have seen some raw data at least. I even graphed that data in Excel and posted it here. That’s back in the Zurich report.

            Also, in this report right here we see he uses “3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)” Where the 3,268 is kWh, as is the 278.4. So that COP calculation is using the kWh over the full run, it appears. Though, as Sanjeev says, the input kWh is half what it should be.

          • Ged

            Well, half what it should be unless we take that 228 – 118 hours of self sustained (no input), which means 110 hours of input, so only 264 kWh of input. That means the COP is greater than calculated.

            So, in the end, we just have to wait for that third party report to get solid numbers.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, that’s a possibility. Even then the numbers are off by a large amount. He says 278.4 KWh very specifically. Its not possible to type that by mistake instead of 264.

            It looks like the input energy value used here came from somewhere else, like a plot or another instrument. He simply did not cross check it will other numbers.

            COP during ssm will be infinite. Ssm can be of any duration, and so the COP will be a different number every time the test is run. That’s why I expected that this duration will be simply excluded from measurements.

      • Sanjeev

        Your cop figure is almost same because the room temperature is negligible in comparison to Ecat temperature. So the error is not serious, only it shows that Rossi is not in habit of using this formula (which is odd).

        The 11.7 comes because he estimated the input energy as roughly the half of likely value. If you back calc from output energy then the hours used are 3268/14.337 = 228 hours, and you now use this duration for input energy also, which will be 2.4*228 = 547 KWh.

        Rossi has taken approx half of it, 278 KWh as input energy, so he is getting double COP. Well do not worry too much about this report, its a mess actually.

        • Robert Mockan

          Thanks!

          Rossi keeps a D on this one.

          Somehow he has managed to do it again.
          He has perfected a knack for saying so much, yet so little.

          • Tony76

            Start 09/25/12 08:00 AM
            End 10/09/12 08:00 AM
            hours 336:00:00
            power in 264 kwh
            avg T (K) 1323
            T^4 3063651608241
            Boltz. 5.67E-008
            len 0.33
            radius 0.043
            pi 3.142
            Area 0.09
            A*B*T^4 15.49 Kw
            Hours Self S 228.00
            W 3531.64 Kwh
            cop 13.38

            with formulae
            ;
            Start 09/25/12 08:00 AM
            End 10/09/12 08:00 AM
            hours =B2-B1
            power in =110*2.4 kwh
            avg T (K) =1050+273
            T^4 =B5^4
            Boltz. =5.67*10^-8
            len 0.33
            radius 0.043
            pi 3.142
            Area =2*B10*B9*B8
            A*B*T^4 =B11*B7*B6/1000 Kw
            Hours Self S 228.00
            W =B12*B13 Kwh
            cop =B14/B4

          • Robert Mockan

            Rossi revised it:

            net on stabilized = 328 h

            New calculation:

            Given: SS = 118 h per Rossi in revision

            Thus:

            power in = (328-118)h*2.4 kW = 504 kWh

            Sanjeez corrected power formula:

            T(K)^4-T(K)_room^4 = 3.056*10^12

            Thus:

            P = (3.056*10^12)(0.09)(5.67*10^-8)
            = 15.6 kW

            Power out = 15.6 kW * 328 h = 5117 kWh

            COP = 5117/504 = 10.152

            I am not saying this number is correct. Please notice that this interpretation of the Rossi report has one COP. You have another COP value. I have also calculated another COP value near 6, as has Sanjeez with another value. Others have calculated other COP values.

            The question we have now is why should anybody give any more credibility to Rossi when he continues to make reports like this one, where the data can be interpreted in so many ways?

            More important, do you have any idea what the critics and skeptics are going to do with this latest report? Rossi does not need enemies when his worst foe is himself.

          • Robert Mockan

            Corrections:

            “power in =(328-118)h*2.4 kW = 504 kWh”

            should be

            “Energy in =(328-118)h*2.4 kW = 504 kWh”

            and

            “Power out=15.6kW*328h=5117 kWh”

            should be

            “Energy out=(15.6kWh/h)*328h = 5117 kWh”.

      • Simone

        you both have calculated the thermal cop, while Rossi has calculated the electrical cop of the hot cat

        • Simone

          never matter.. i was joking.. actually no values makes sense here.. this report must have some errors concerning the operation time of the hot cat.

        • Robert Mockan

          Not quite. The COP we are calculating is the “thermal equivalent power ratio”. The electrical input in watts is equal to thermal power in watts. Thus COP is the ratio of thermal power out divided by (equivalent) thermal power in.

          Rossi is using an energy dimension, in the dimension kWh. He is arbitrarily forming that dimension in the power formula (in his revised report) calling the output Wh instead of the proper W (for watts), then implies changing it to W on the output by factoring it with h^-1.
          Since kW = kWh*h^-1, in effect he still has a power dimension until he factors with the number of hours the power applies, then he has the energy in kWh.

          Because the time data is not clear, that is why we are getting funny numbers when trying to calculate using energy ratios.

          Rossi should have done the conversion properly so it would be clear what he is doing, but the way he did do it is consistent with how Rossi seems to do things.

  • GreenWin
    • Dr. Mike

      From Rossi’s report we can certainly conclude that he has run his “hot cat” at a very high temperature for a time period of many days. This definitely demonstrates the proof of concept of the “hot cat”! However, the data and calculations are simply garbage for the many reasons pointed out in everyone’s comments. You would think that as inportant this report is to those of us thgat have been following Rossi’s progress, Rossi would have someone in his organization review and edit the report for clarity and correctness, then re-issue the report.

      • Blanco69

        Ok guys, I’m nervous again. Are we really to believe that the guy who’s been eating and sleeping these calc’s 24/7 for the past 3 years gets them so screwed up? I read the detailed interpretation of the data from guys here that are clearly more qualified than I am but these errors are, to me, inexcusable. Fair enough on the comma decimal notation, that’s a known difference but mixing KW and KWh and throwing in a few arithmetic impossibilities! Well that makes me incredulous! Why, after years of research and testing does he write up his findings on the back of a cigarette packet! The only thing that keeps me going is the hope that Rossi’s investors know more than I do because, on the strength of that report, I wouldn’t part with a penny/cent/euro/KWh.

        • Gerrit

          Ok guys. Are we really to believe that the guy who’s been setting up the scam of the century for the past 3 years gets the reports so screwed up ? …

          I believe that there is nothing to gain in speculating why Rossi behaves in his particular manner. It does not bring us one bit closer to the news we all want to hear.

          • Simone

            so again.. since the last correction which Andrea Rossi posted we can now say a few more things..

            he said that ssm is 218 instead of 118.

            this means that the hot cat operated between 336-218 and 328-218 hours.. which is between 210-218 hours..

            now 278.4 kWh total input / 2.4 kW average = 116 hours which falls into the above range, which matches quite accurately. Remember that the hot cat must have consumed something also in the 4 hours at startup so considering only 2.4 kW * 210 operating hours is wrong and surely the 278.4 kWh value as been a result of a mesurement and this surely considers all the input given.

            now he says that the output value as been conservatively lowered by 30% this means that we can simply lowered 30% of the full net operational time which is 328 – 100 = 228 hours. (100 is the first rounded number near 30%)

            output was 14.337kW * 228 = 3268kWh

            everything now matches and makes more sense

          • … and then the cop is about 16. Probably, by including endcap and convection losses it’s closer to 20. By the way, I’m not able to find your below-quoted question and AR’s answer in JONP, could you perhaps give a direct link to it?

          • Peter_Roe

            They are not there now, so it seems they must have been deleted for some reason.

            BTW Pekka, you can view and search an auto-updated list of the blog comments on JONP (minus the actual publications) here: http://www.rossilivecat.com/

          • I know, but I have noticed that rossilivecat.com systematically misses at least the “Cold nuclear fusion” entries that currently number 3238.

          • Peter_Roe

            Ah, does it. I wonder why that is? Back to wading through JONP then!

          • Maybe the script just tries to save network bandwidth by only loading the most recent blogs.

          • Peter_Roe

            Update: AR’s reply to Simone now appears in his note accompanying the final(?) updated, updated report! (Next topic). I suppose that may explain (sort of) the deletion.

      • Peter_Roe

        So the attachments, including Penon’s report, are missing again? And the calculations are still ambiguous/incorrect? This is getting a bit surreal, even by Rossi’s standards.

        This should have been a great moment for Rossi, but somehow he is managing to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”, at least from the POV of onlookers. As others have said, maths does not seem to be his forte, and he needs to learn to delegate – now! If we are not going to get to see Penon’s report (assuming it is a new one) for some reason (Admin?), I suppose we have to wait for publication of the 3rd party verification before we can celebrate a major step forward.

        If nothing else this saga is teaching me how to manage frustration with saintly detachment.

        • georgehants

          Ha, bubbly back out of the fridge.
          Thank goodness for the red wine.

        • ivan_cev

          Peter, Pedro, Rock, is our faith weakening?

      • Simone

        i asked a question on the jounralofphysics and Andrea Rossi replied this to me.

        Dear Cyrax:
        yes, the ssm number has to be corrected in 218, while the energy produced has been cut 30% conservatively.
        Warm Regards,
        Andrea Rossi

        • Blanco69

          Another point I’m nervous about is concerning self sustain mode operation. The first hot cat report, plus all the info that came out of Zurich, not a single mention of self sustain. Aldo Proia makes a throw away comment to Frank about tripping over self sustaining hot cats at Rossi’s place. In my view, poorly backed up when rightly challenged by Frank. Now self sustain makes a roaring come back in hot cat report #2. I could, of course, be mistaken here but I’m starting to form an opinion that; Rossi doesn’t like having to back up the self sustain theory with “data” but has had to resurrect the idea thanks to Prioa’s outlandish claims. Deeply, deeply suspicious! I’d happily eat my hat if proven wrong but I’m hanging by a thread here and not a drop of graphene in sight.

    • Peter_Roe

      Apart from the 1989-style rant by some pseudonymous blogger in the Grauniad (probably one of the most establishment-controlled rags in the UK) the quotes are all on the positive side. Its just a pity that Corneliussen sees fit to quote from that bit of nastiness in his subheading (or indeed to mention this garbage at all).

      • Gerrit

        I first thought the same thing, but then I got the impression that the author was actually showcasing the typical “tenor” of the pathological disbeliever crowd for what it is.

        Corneliussen spends a whole article on presenting the positive side and only one last paragraph to present an ad hominem blog entry. I think there is much implied in that comparison.

        Well educated readers (with basic communication skills) easily pick up the huge difference in style between the Nobel laureate and the anonymous blogger.

        Except of course for the pathological disbelievers who are unable to see that difference.

        • Peter_Roe

          Could be. Perhaps his editor told him to put some balance in the article, so he picked that rather ugly example deliberately, as you suggest.

  • If there is a typo in the average power, if it’s 1.4 kW instead of 2.4, then it would match roughly with 210=328-118 hours of non-SSM and the quoted total energy input 278.4 kWh. But then the COP would be about 16 (14.337 kW divided by ((328-118)/328)*1.4 kWh=0.9 kW), or in reality more since convection and endcaps were ignored.

    A separate (but numerically less significant) bug is that apparently he calculated nonsensically (273+1050-25)^4, whereas it should be emissivity*((237.15+1050)^4-(273.15+25)^4) where emissivity is less than unity, 0.9 or so.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    October 13th, 2012 at 3:26 AM
    DEAR READERS: SINCE ANOTHER PERSONALATTACK IS IN COURSE REGARDING MY PAST, PLEASE GO TO
    http://www.ingandrearossi.com
    TO GET THE STORY- BY THE WAY: THIS SITE HAS BEEN DEVASTATED IN THESE DAYS AND ALL THE PAGES IN MY DEFENSE HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. WE REPAIRED IT.
    WARM REGARDS,
    ANDREA ROSSI

    • George,

      Do you know where the attacks are being published?

      • georgehants

        Tony McDougall, sorry no, just Rossi’s link above.

      • Simone

        btw for those saying that COP is 14.337 / 2.4 = 5.97, it is not.

        why? because 14.337kW is the average output obtained in 328 hours (Rossi prefered using a more conservative value which is 228) while 2.4kW is the average input given in 116 hours. to match them up you need to put both values on the same timescale. make the math as Rossi did or simply calculate it in single units of hours and you will have the right COP.

      • georgehants

        Would it have been a good idea for Rossi and the third party’s to have published at the same time.
        just a thought.

        • Omega Z

          This conference was already planned. He had to present something.

      • Frank

        Maybe he is referring to the investigations done by Krivit.
        A few days ago he has posted the transcript of an (old) interview:
        http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/10/11/rossi-interview-transcript-excerpts-published/

  • georgehants

    The delay in knowing that Rossi definitely has a technology of the capabilities that he and Defkalion claim, is now causing serious problems.
    If governments had such conformation then the energy planning they have under way would have to be publicly reviewed and changed,under the knowing scrutiny of the population.
    The immediate release is not so important as the unambiguous knowledge that it is practical and shortly available.
    Rossi is now undoubtedly, unreasonably, (if genuine) effecting the welfare and safety of the World.
    There are many possible reasons for commercial and academic silence and confusion, but the time has passed when fair justification can be allotted to these considerations.
    No one needs to know the secrets, but the definitive proof that the breakthrough is genuine and practical is now essential.
    Mr. Rossi time to stop peeing around and show your hand.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      You should stop putting the fate of the world on Rossi’s shoulders. Even if the ecat turns out all that it is promised to be, there will still be murderers, rapists, wars, famine and the four horseman. The ecat is not a magical cure to the problems of our world.

      Just have some patience and hope that Rossi get’s the ecat to the market. Hopefully the world will then be a little bit better place.

    • georgehants, I so disagree with you. This technology is going to create enormous social and economic upheaval.

      Consider the oil pipeline that they are discussing building south of me. Once this technology is proven, the construction plans will cease. The price of oil will drop, of course, because the OPEC nations will want to sell as much oil as they can before it becomes useless. Cheaper oil will result in more energy use. However, North America has a shortage of refinery capacity. But are you going to build a refinery if it will be obsolete in 10 to 20 years?

      This technology is desperately necessary. However, its arrival will be complicated, and in many ways destructive.

      In my opinion, the more proximate a replacement is to the realization that it is coming, the less destructive the technology will be. I think that the best for society would be that commercial products are on the market before the scientific community, and the governments, even realizes that LENR is a valid phenomenon.

      • Farlie Paynter

        The Journal Of Petroleum Technology reported in their July, 2012 issue that cold fusion or some other new energy would make the oil industry obsolete. They know and are watching this extremely carefully, they are getting ready for the start of the change. But until then gasoline will remain really high in price and so will oil, so that China and Japan’s industrial sector will pay high prices for fuel and electricity.

  • Omega Z

    From what those here have tried to calculate & implied statements from Rossi consider this possibility.

    Maybe he was trying to push down the COP. At least that’s what the Errors would indicate. He also may have been in a hurry to transcribe the numbers. The Test concluded on the 9th. Conference on the 12th. Not much time.

    When the 3rd party results come out in November we may find the COP between 16 & 18. Personally, as long as their 6 or above I don’t care. The next step would be to see if this can be maintained once Fluid Flow is applied.

    • Peter_Roe

      All good points. In fact he had even less time than you suggest, as he sent the original report to Frank some time before the meeting.

      I’m glad he is finally dropping the COP=6 thing – it was not serving any useful purpose. Hopefully some sectors within the energy industry are now beginning to see how CF may not be a threat (if controlled), but could in fact increase their ‘bottom lines’ substantially, and ensure stability.

    • Steve B

      this is such an incredible mess with the numbers and calculations, with this level of professionalism how can we sure that the measurements have been done properly ? I have my doubts.
      How can we be sure that Rossi and his team has not manipulated the design of the experiments ? He supervised it and it was done on his premises.
      Really, we need to know who were the 3rd party experts, their qualifications, and we need to see their substantiated detailed report including a precise experimental setup description. I would rather wait a few weeks before receiving 3 updates within 24 hours.
      Till the I will remain silent.

      • Peter_Roe

        Good.

  • Brian Ahern

    Rossi’s own cLCULtions are off by four orders of magnitude ! The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891m2, not 891 cm.

    Any person accustomed to working at 1,000C knows the radiated power is far below the values stated. Shame on the E-Cat groupies for falling for this obvious error. Rossi has demonstrated less than unity, not over unity

    • HeS

      @:” It should be 0.0891m2, not 891 cm”

      No.

      Formula: 8.91 * 10**2 * 10**-4 = 891 * 10**-4 = 0.0891. Its OK

    • David

      WTF!
      0.0891 square meters are 891 square cms!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Apart from the errors in the report and the clumsy way it was written (Rossi does need an editor), which I see as somehow Rossi typical, the results of the test have blown me away for two reasons.
    1. Apparently Rossi can now run the hot kitty controlled in ssm for an extended period of time.
    2. The COP is finally going up which makes energy production much easier and cheaper.
    Can’t wait for the 3rd party validated test results.

    • Zeddicus,

      You had my thoughts racing with that “hot kitty” comment!

      We might see one in the next James Bond movie 🙂

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Somehow I keep reading the first point this way:

        Apparently Rossi can now run the hot kitty controlled in sm for an extended period of time.

        It’s just one letter, but it makes all the difference 🙂

      • 🙂

  • Harold Coffman

    All this accuracy comments, may be seeking seeking true results …
    but, they tend to hide the most important facts:

    Rossi did indeed create heat (output > input energy) from the E’Cat.
    Rossi did show amazing heat energy output from the recent H’cat test.

    The exact data and COP is not that important at this time,

  • Joseph Fine

    Frank,

    The Power Density of the HOT-CAT, as listed, is in error.

    It is NOT Power Density, but Energy Density. If the HOT-CAT ran ten times as long, the energy density would be ten times as much. The source of the error is the typo of listing the Energy Density as 163.4 MW per Kg when it should have been listed as 163.4 MW-Hrs per Kg. This is ENERGY DENSITY!!

    Dr. Rossi wrote:
    “(one hundred and sixty-three point four MWh per kg).”

    This is actually the ENERGY DENSITY.

    I told him about this by E-mail and he is aware of the error, but you should check with him first before you change what he wrote.

    The Power Density is 14.377 KW divided by the 20 gram charge or
    718.85 KW/Kg. I don’t know how this compares with gasoline.

    Joseph