Appendix on Electrical Measurements Added to 3rd Party Report

A new version of the 3rd Party E-Cat report has been uploaded to site which now includes a new appendix on electrical measurments. This has presumably been done in response to charges that the test could have been faked by Andrea Rossi by means of supplying hidden power sources to the E-Cat. The appendix notes that during the March test:

All cables were checked before measurements began. The ground cable, the presence of which was necessary for safety reasons, was disconnected. The container holding the electronic control circuitry was lying on a wooden plank and was lifted off the surface it was resting on, and checked on all sides to make sure that there were no other connections.

We furthermore made sure that the frame supporting the E-CAT HT2 was not fastened to the
pavement and that there were no cables connected to it. Therefore, apart from its connections to the control electronics, the E-CAT HT2 appeared to be electrically insulated.

The appendix also includes a wiring diagram of the power and harmonics analyzer along with images of current and voltage waveforms. The waveforms for the measured voltages show are symmetrical sinusoids indicating no presence of DC voltage (hidden DC power is what some critics have charged could be the source of the apparent excess energy produced by the E-Cat).

The appendix can be found on page 30 and 31 of the report.

  • Methusela


  • pg

    OT: from Hydro fusion website:
    Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon

    Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
    Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.
    Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:

    Heat energy is produced according to specs.
    Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
    Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
    Electricity is consumed according to specs.
    250 kWe maximum power consumption
    166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6
    Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.

    Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at [email protected]. Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email.

    For more info see, ECAT 1 MW Plant.

    • Jerry Jones

      We like this “Pilot Customer” we need these around the World, great to see this moving forward – YES !

    • Redford

      That’s interesting. That tells they have a hard time to sell!

      • mcloki

        Odd statement. If they can’t find a participant then I would agree. But that is not the case.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I had the same reaction, the negative PR on Cold Fusion has really been effective.

    • Great find, pg — will put up another thread about this later.

    • Barry

      Great find pg, thanks.

    • Timar

      Well, I guess the skeptics will say that Rossi failed to find a gullible buyer for his fake 1MW E-Cat and is now trying to directly sell the fake heat produced by it (and chose Sweden for that deceit because in late autumn it is such a hot place that nobody will notice the lack of real heat)

    • Steve

      Is the COP=6 a correct figure?

      The 1MW is thermal whereas the 166kW is electric!

      Don,t get me wrong – I am an avid supporter of the technology and it’s humanitarian prospects.

      • Timar

        Yes. The purpose of that plant is heat production, so the COP is of course given for heat output, not for electricity.

        • Steve

          But the output is thermal and the input is electrical energy. You cannot simply divide one by the other for the COP.
          The units of energy have to be the same for the maths to be correct.
          One or the other needs to be converted first into an equivalent value, and then the output over input will give an accurate COP.


          • Timar

            Of course you can. Energy is energy. The unit of energy is Joule:

            J = N*m = kg*m2/s2 = W*s

          • Steve

            1MW =1MJ/s
            1 MW (thermal power) [MWth] = approx 1000 kg steam/hour
            1 MW (electrical power) [MWe] = approx 1MW thermal / 3

          • Björn

            You do this when you calculate the COP of a heat pump.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Here we go again!

    • daniel maris

      Very interesting, PG…PG tips are good LOL (for UK bloggers only!).

      Will be interesting to see how this one develops.

  • AB

    Does this definitely exclude any tricks involving concealed input power coming from the wall socket?

    • Methusela

      No ground, and no DC waveform present on any line, so yes.

    • robiD

      Actually no. New argument for skeptics at this point will be the presence of a signal with frequency components outside the PCE830’s bandwidth i.e. over 6kHz (99th harmonic), it doesn’t matter if this would be even less practicable compared to the DC component hypothesis.
      After that it will be the moment for hidden lasers and microwave generators and so on. 😉

      • Methusela

        That’s crazy though, would break other equipment plugged into the same socket.

        • lenrdawn

          You mean in case somebody had a 380V iPod with him?

      • Thinks4Self

        It would likely need to be over the 100k hz range to prevent the load or its harmonics from possibly being audible according to an EE whose opinion I trust.

  • John L

    Very thoroughly done – clearly No DC offset, which would
    make the waveform, asymmetrical.

  • Nicolas Chauvin

    Excellent news !!

  • Paul Mannstein

    Excellent news all around.

  • daniel maris

    Excellent, very reassuring.

    Of course no checks can ever be 100% but the more stringent the checks, the less likely it is a scammer will risk exposure by offering up the machine for testing.

    So this is very good news.

  • LCD

    Ha. I bet the skeptics didn’t see this coming.

    It looks like the people who have NICELY asked the testers to provide more background data, have been granted their wish.

    Thank you testers!

  • Dr. Mike

    This is what “peer review” is all about! There were questions and concerns from scientists and engineers (and of course the skeptics) that read the paper, then the authors made the clarifications and additions necessary to address those questions and concerns.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Finally, the ground wire skeptics have been silenced!! (:

  • GreenWin

    Nice to see the Levi-Essen authors providing evidence that rules out the skeptics most clamorous complaint – hidden wires. But this will not stop the chaos infusing the skeptic’s organization with increasing hysteria.

    And the die-hard Bob Parkists, will now claim hidden particle beams, holographic projections or (my favorite) invisible fishing line.

    • Thinks4Self

      As an avid fisherman I would love to hear the one about the invisible fishing line since almost all line is made out of stuff that is an insulator to keep you from killing your self with a bad cast.

      • GreenWin

        The fishing line meme comes from a skeptic of a magmotor video. You’re correct, it does not apply to E-Cat. I just like the absurdity. 🙂

    • Anonymous Reader

      I care more about what was inside the unit, and whether it is chemical at a higher energy density, but not high enough to be nuclear. Does the waste indicate the transmutation to copper for example, or is it simply iron or nickel oxide ash from within the cylinder. I would like to see Levi and more specifically Rossi address this, before or after he gets his patent, so as to prove to the skeptics that we have an economic revolution on our hands. I suspect that we have a real effect, but that the energy density and the means of providing the fuel is not such that we have a revolutionary device that can power the world. Only by seeing what went in, and what it costs, and what can be recycled out (and what it costs) can we understand the economic value of this (as opposed to scientific curiosity).

      Of course, with further work, scientific curiosities can be re-engineered into useful devices.

      Good luck Rossi and Levi et al. Keep working on professional answers.

  • Tom59

    Wonderful – and let’s make peace with the pseudosceptics. This is a gift for all.

  • Richard J. Pollack

    Of course, the real secret is that Rossi is using Tesla Technology to transmit massive energy without using wires, directly to the interior of the E-Cat… 🙂 Wouldn’t that be great!

  • B travers

    Hi Friends, I love this debate.
    Skeptics as well.
    I think things are really warming up.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Oh boy, that must have hurt a lot of skeptics. The biggest complaints just got answered by facts.

    I expect some really creative stuff from the non-believers camp now. (popcorn ready)

    On topic: I’m glad the testers updated the report. It will be much harder to criticize the report which should now be taken much more seriously by the scientific community.

    • Deleo77

      One of the skeptics on ECN made the following point below (and not surprisingly it was immediate embraced by other skeptics). I think it would be worthwhile though if there is an electrical engineer that could weigh in on what he is saying. It seems like something the testers will need to address in the next test.

      June 10, 2013 at 9:40 pm
      I am surprised that no one, not even the independent experimenters, has commented on the massive red flag contained in the caption to Fig 3 of the Appendix.
      “As far as measurements of current are concerned, it was ascertained that no current was present in the third phase, . . .”
      In a three-phase system, all three phases should draw the same current. In a Y-configured system the current in the neutral wire should be zero. If one phase is drawing no current the unbalanced return current passes through the neutral and should have been measured. In a Delta-wired system the return current is added to or subtracted from the two active phase connections. A naive power measurement may not give the correct result.
      The conclusion I draw is that there is something about the wiring configuration that we haven’t been told and that the observers should have realized this.
      I might also mention, as a sop to the “double wire” theorists, that a phase wire apparently carrying zero current is just what one would expect to see if it was being used to supply additional power.

      • GreenWin

        What’s kind of interesting is the inventor of three phase power was none other than… Nikola Tesla. Go figure.

      • Steve

        A 3 phase, star, un-balanced load answers your question.
        This is the normal way of supplying domestic power.
        Phase-balancing will have been dealt with further back in the supply circuit.

      • AlainCo

        rossi use monophase 380V…
        very classic.

        even unbalanced a powermeter do the job.
        I imagine that he use 3phase to assemble his MW ecat, balancing the phases over the whole machine.
        Deforming power is more annoying, since for big power companies bill the deforming power, or forbid it.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I have no electrical knowledge, but from what I have heard about the DC theory (what I suppose this is about again) it would have to be on a high frequency and fry everything electronic connected with it. They would have probably noticed something…

        I find the whole DC theory too complicated and see no reason for the scam, especially when so many other people are reporting successes with LENR. Also, too many people have been involved with Rossi and none of them has come out and declared Rossi a fraud. I don’t think Rossi would have been able to fool so many people. Especially where it baffles me what he would try to accomplish with it.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Probably has to do with AC after reading the comments better. See, I told you I have no electrical knowledge 🙂

  • Jordi Heguilor

    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

    The scientists that validated this report are fighting for their reputations like a cat belly up.

    Pons and Fleishmann will look like heroes next to them. They were wrong, or they went at it wrong, but were not fooled.

  • Steve

    Not sure if this has already been covered but found this on

    It paints an extremely positive picture of the recent test report and belief in the technology.
    Not what you would expect to see covered by a Big Oil magazine.

    Good for them!