Larger Picture of Rossi in Lab with Three Hot Cats

There’s a new, larger picture of Andrea Rossi in his lab on Vessela Nikolova’s E-Cat-The New Fire website for her new biography of Andrea Rossi by the same name. The picture is of Andrea Rossi in his Ferrara, Italy, factory taken on September 26, 2013.

This time we see that Rossi is standing in front of an array of three hot cats.


Vessela writes:

“The photo was taken on September 26, 2013, with a good quality camera of an Apple smartphone using a flash, even if no reflections are visible because the shot was taken from a quite great distance and from above a loft.

“You are free to publish this picture in your blog or article, provided that you put a link to the source.

“If you click on the image I’ve posted, you can see the original photo, where you can distinguish many details, such as the title of the book that Rossi was reading: “The particle at the end of the Universe“, by Sean Carroll, winner of the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books.

On the table we can also see some notes, whereas for the technical part I refer to my sources”

More information about the technical setup and some of the equipment can be found at this link:

  • Billy Jackson

    damn 😛 can only see a partial clamp.

    • Ophelia Rump

      There are two visible loops on the floor with orange wire.

      • Billy Jackson

        thanks lady O! (i was looking for the hard clamps)

    • hempenearth

      ?? I can see three whole clamps and two partial clamps. On the floor there are two whole clamps and one partial clamp

      • Billy Jackson

        sorry i was talking on the device thats on the top table (next to rossi) next to the device thats got everyone in an uproar.. can only see a partial clamp on it..

  • NT

    Rossi is REALLY ticked off now:

    Andrea Rossi

    November 1st, 2014 at 6:16 PM

    E Hergen:
    I am really angry: how could you find this top secret video of us? As I always say, we have to trust nobody. Who gave you this very confidential info? Who is the stupid guy that underevaluated the importance of this video? Should I know, I would fire him, whomever he is. We’ll meet in Court.

    E Hergen

    November 1st, 2014 at 5:56 PM

    The first e-cat producing electricity:

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting the little yellow paper on the bottom left corner: It shows the shape of the currents due to the triac cotrol. It seems that Andrea Rossi is also interested in that shape. If the triac controller was just installed to control the heat input, you would not be very interested in the shape of the curents.

  • was there IR cam?

  • now you know why he use 3phase controller… for 3 e-cat

    • Sanjeev

      The most logical explanation is, perhaps he does not need to know the output accurate to 6 decimal places.
      A COP of 6-10 and output in KWs is sufficient to start development of a product. Rest is hair splitting.

    • Sanjeev

      The revealing thing here is that it does not need a 3 phase supply to work. One phase is enough with a simple power controller to set temperature.
      I think there is no magic of 3 phases or RF or magnetic stuff here, as some people are speculating. The purpose of an AC power supply is simply to heat the Ecat to a specific temperature. That’s all.

      The statement from Rossi that a gas powered Ecat is possible and he is looking into that line of product development is enough to establish that there is no requirement of any magical AC waveforms or RFs.

      • Gerard McEk

        That is difficult to say, because we have never seen a gas fired Ecat. (Maybe he then uses a many turns low power coil to generate a field).

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The magnetic effect (if there is any) would come from the fuel, not from the coils. It is possible that the gas-fired Cats will still have a coil, which would heat up due to eddy currents.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Or, more sophisticated: Imagine a coil whose ends are short-circuited. Maybe this is the case in the self sustained mode.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          On the Swedish energikatalysatorn site somebody has posted this document, which shows the effect of an inverted clamp in the PCE-830:

          Where does the assumption come from that one clamp has been inverted? Is there a corresponding photo in the report?

          • Curbina

            That issue was raised the very daythe report was published, and the claim comed from the report pictures.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Nevertheless, I cannot see anything suspicious in the photos.

          • Curbina

            There was talk about the clamps being reversed causing the “OL” marking (Overload). However, is ludicrous to think that this would be the case and go unnoticed.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            This looks rather like a snapshot mode, where the „OL“ symbol means “offline”. MFMP could check that out easily.

          • Curbina

            I’m not really concerned about it anyway. All the talk from Thomas Clarke about the wrong measurement of currents and resistances is probably going to be adressed at some point by the additions to the report.

          • AlbertNN

            It is not the OL, which indicates overload, that shows that one of the clamps was reversed. It is the direction (positive/negative) of the current spikes.

          • Obvious

            That clamp test was well done and explained.
            Just for the sake of discussion, what do the readings look like with the I2 clamp reversed? I’m guessing it should be more or less the same, but the I3 and I1 clamps can be visually verified in the correct orientation in the Lugano photo. The I2 clamp (yellow) orientation is more difficult to determine the position of.

          • Gerrit

            The assumption that one clamp has been inverted comes from the assumption that the ecat cannot work and therefore a measurement error was made.
            The “inverted clamp” calculation happens to match with the reported COP. Had the COP been different, for instance when the run would have incorporated “self sustain” mode, they would have found something else to match.

          • Omega Z

            You overlook the IR camera that tells him the surface temperature. And the Internal Thermocouples that give the internal temperatures.

            Yet complain about an apparently well used chair with duct tape on it.
            If you want pristine you should go to where a Million$ tax payer funded grant is used for research. Where it is not uncommon to find $20K desk & chairs & many sparkley comforts in a fancy lab can be found. And of that Million$, a mere $20K to $30K is actually spent towards the actual research. That’s OK, They will ask for another Million$ grant next year, as nothing conclusive was found under the previous grant.

            And Shame on Rossi for putting the money into the research rather then comfort & appearance. Just sacrificing 1 of those 3 Hot-cats would have bought him a $2K or $3K dollar chair easily.

          • LuFong

            It’s not an assumption, rather it’s a possible (however unlikely) explanation for an apparent discrepancy with the data (measured current for Joule heating). Another possible explanation is an unusual temperature dependence (scale and direction) on the resistance of the Inconel resisters. The reverse clamp is considered the simplest explanation. It should not be dismissed given the report made another incorrect assumption related to the current in their calculations (which doesn’t affect the result too much but still one has to wonder why they made suck a simple error and that the peer reviewers did not find it.) We are waiting for the Professors to address the issue.

            That’s a very interesting link as well. It shows the effect of the reverse clamp to imply a COP of 3.14 which is close to the initial values of COP they computed. It shows no warning beep for the reversed clamp but it also shows clearly that one of the displays show the situation that something is not right.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It’s a low-temp version, but not the same as in the old tests.

      • many speculation possible.
        the gas cat have a lower COP from rossi-says… maybe electric control gives better performances through some tricks… or just is it that you cannot control gas as easily as electricity and thus you cannot go as hot.

        the fact thate there are 2 branches (some say 3) in the reactor let me think there is some trick to make the reactor “breath”, by tiny heat change for example.

        we don’t have enough data

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thanks. Yes, the authors should clarify it as soon as possible.

  • Fortyniner

    There are a number of measurements Rossi could have been making, in which simple thermocouples would have been enough to provide feedback control and temperature measurements. In any case there appear to be a couple of IR cameras on tripods available if emission measurements were required. The Ferrara facility was funded by Rossi, who would not have wished to waste money on replacing old furniture.

    As far as your final comment goes – perhaps you could suggest why Rossi might have wanted to give away for nothing the IP that had cost him years of trial and error to establish, not to mention most of his assets?

    • Omega Z


      Jacopi’s post makes it quite clear he gave the image nothing but a quick glance & went straight for the attack. Posing as a Rossi fan no less.
      We’ve got his number.

  • Seppo

    I bet Rossi has more things to do with the E-Cat than just create evidence for us year after year.

  • Freethinker

    Is it not amazing how one photo like this can spawn so much resentment, from a big Rossi fan no less. To me it is obvious that you are not a fan at all, but rather here to cast doubt and shadows.

    Wrap your brain around this: you have no idea what Rossi have had attached or measured previous to this image of there after, not to mention what tests are ongoing in other rooms at the moment the picture is taken.

    It’s a snapshot. It’s one moment, one angle, in time and space. Don’t over analyze.

    • Donk970

      No kidding, this might be an image of Rossi trying to figure out the best way to set up calorimetry. The experimental setup could be in the process of being assembled and half the setup hasn’t been installed yet. Everyone is so starved for information and/or convinced that it’s a scam that they completely ignore common sense and go down these intellectual rabbit holes.

  • Curbina

    I am the only one that sees that this larger picture is one and the same from which the same previous leaked image was just a cropped image?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is a deliberate plan by Vassela to get maximum publicity.

      • Curbina

        LOL. Well, I was not implying any ill intention any way, just that I was puzzled by the talk about a new pic when was the same in its entirety. I am under the impression that Vesella is under contract with Rossi, anyway.

        • Mr. Moho

          This hypothesis might actually be not too far from reality.

    • Freethinker

      No, I see it too. 🙂

    • artefact

      Vessela told us when posting the first picture: “The photo below has been published for the first time 6 days ago in my book “E-Cat – The new Fire“. It is part of a much larger and interesting picture that I will release in the near future.”

  • Andre Blum

    I noticed that too. Also, the extension cord / splitter on the ground is one found typically in the US.

  • Curbina

    That bit escaped my attention, sorry.

  • ecatworld

    Interesting comments from Bob Higgins on Vortex-l regarding this picture:

    A wealth of information can be gleaned from this:

    Rossi is testing 3 hotCats simultaneously.

    Each hotCat is connected with 2-wires only – Each IS CONNECTED SINGLE PHASE! This probably means that the hotCat only relies on heat-up, not magnetic field interaction – certainly not rotating field interaction.

    The gray box has 3 thermocouple connections with one going to each hotCat

    The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3 hotCats via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the temperature of each hotCat independently.

    This gray box controller is designed to control each hotCat solely based on 1 temperature measurement per hotCat. The temperature controllers mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the setpoint of each hotCat (I.E. they are not being used just as temperature meters). A microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and then sets the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each hotCat.

    The red SCR box may be configured for delta SCR configuration for easy control of the individual hotCats, in which case a microprocessor would not be needed. Each of the little PID temperature controller panel meters could directly control the corresponding SCR in the delta phase configuration. Even if the red box had y-configured SCRs, they probably could be controlled with the panel temperature controllers with simple logic.

    Replication need not use a 3-phase heater coil inside the hotCat because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment. Replication just got easier. Basically each hotCat is just a small temperature regulated mini-tube furnace. It would be possible to design the replica to operate on ordinary US 120VAC, even with a 15A outlet using a triac dimmer with an inexpensive PID temperature controller from eBay.

    • theBuckWheat

      It appears that the use of 3 phase power during testing inadvertently sidetracked of lot of independent observers when in reality it was just a convenience for management or equipment reasons. The power levels involved really do not demand 3 phase power. As a matter of comparison, the heating element in a home electric kitchen stove is typically in the 4-6kw range and is easily supplied by a 240v outlet.

  • AlbertNN

    It is striking how much of the measurement equipment that are identical to the independent test. There are multiple manufacturers of power meters and IR-cameras, but still exactly the same was chosen and used.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    It is odd that the ratio between COP and electric power is almost equal for the first ten days and the rest. Here are the numbers (calculated from table 7, p. 22 of the report, column 2/8, average values):

    File 1-5
    power = 796.732 (W)
    COP = 3.176
    ratio COP/power = 0.00398628

    File 6-16
    power = 912.439 (W)
    COP = 3.65727
    ratio COP/power = 0.00400824

    That’s a difference of only 0.551%. Not what one might expect, I would say. Any ideas?

  • LCD

    it was cleared by Rossi, he’s toying with us.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The question is why it increases almost linearly, if the excess energy is generated by a very complex process.

    • because it does not increase linearly.

      COP move from 3.2 to 3.6 from 1250 to 1400C

  • Andreas Moraitis

    It is correct that you could assign two data points to many different functions. But it is conspicuous that the ratio is the same in both cases. I’m not saying that this necessarily indicates an error. It could well be that Rossi uses a control mechanism which ensures a regular rise of the COP.

  • Sanjeev

    It means a lot, to me at least.
    Does anyone think that Rossi is looking at a boring setup of COP<1 with expensive instruments which needed hundreds of man hours of work? And he (and many more employees of IH) keep doing that for months and months?

    It is ridiculous to conclude that since COP~3 in the test and since the same can be a result of a reversed clamp, all ECat setups, past or present, have a COP<1. This logic is incorrect.

    The most logical conclusion is that COP is really 3 in the test, given all past evidence. Its not a one shot experiment which was never done and will not be done again ever. It was done many times with different instruments and different types of AC supply (even without electricity, in case of gas Ecat).

    Still we are all waiting for a formal explanation from the authors of the report. I wonder why its taking them so long.

  • Obvious

    If I understand the set up correctly, the three cats are rigged as a wye, with a common neutral, which is not hooked to anything else (maybe a meter, but not to a neutral to ground connection).
    With a low conduction angle, then, essentially two cats are in series for each pulse. One phase and cat essentially is disconnected for each pulse.
    With each successive pulse, one of the cats from the previous pulse is disconnected, and a new one added, so that for each three pulses (modulated phases) and each full cycle of three phase into the triac, each cat gets two periods of conduction and one period of disconnect.