E-Cat Tester Höistadt Interviewed on Italian Radio [Update: Testers, Not Rossi, took Fuel Sample]

Here’s an announcement via Daniele Passerini’s 22passi.blogspot.com site (translated via Google):

Today and tomorrow at 20:55, s ono coming two episodes of Smart City – voices and places of innovation – a must for those who continue to follow the story, really exciting, of ‘ Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) by Andrea Rossi ( Industrial Heat and laws now Cheerokee Investment Partners ). Maurizio Melis will trace the history of the E-Cat, will take stock of the situation and will interview in particular Bo Höistad, Professor of Nuclear Physics at Uppsala University, one of the authors of the last report that the public has been involved in this new technology promettentissima LENR: Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel.

UPDATE: Thanks to Giuliano Bettini on Facebook who provides this excerpt from the Höistadt interview which aired on Italian Radio 24 tonight:

Bo Hoistad briefly talked about the Lugano test.
1. Main changes from the previous test: we have proved an isotopic shift, particularly in Lithium and Nickel. This is sensational fact.
2. Possibility of trick? No, “WE, have picked up the sample”. Rossi was only there. (Obviously a magician can do it).

  • Ged

    Looking forward to this. Hopefully it won’t be hard to translate.

  • Mr. Moho
    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Maurizio Melis, the anchor (author?) of the program, on December 10 runs a program on nanotechnologies.
      On December 11, he runs a descriptive introduction and a historic rundown on cold
      fusion; he describes with much caution the introduction to LENR, Andrea Rossi and the E-cat.
      Melis begins by describing Fleishmann and Pons and their studies on these reactions,
      and the historic events that followed
      http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/player.php?channel=2&idprogramma=smart-city&date=2014-12-11&idpuntata=gSLAxpMwp, including the destruction of the careers of both scientists.
      Melis introduces the cold fusion issue and asks whether it is plausible that studies on
      cold fusion might have been abandoned too soon. He says that many, including scientists, strongly attack, even beyond insult, any reference to cold fusion.
      Melis mentions Harata in the 1990s and Eni in 2001 and their experiments, which have never been disproven.
      He states that researchers did not have the parameters in 1989 that are available today. Institutions, or the scientific press, or scientists of the mainstream do not want to even touch the subject. In such a heavy atmosphere, it is not surprising that people
      attracted by this subject have thus been “marginal” scientists.
      Melis continues citing Professor Peter Hagelstein, who at MIT studies a Nanor devices, and states that this type of research is performed at INFN by Francesco Celani and at ENEA with Violante. Also Dennis Bushnel at NASA, Melis says, expressed positivity on this subject. This is not a proof that cold fusion is real, but the issue is open.

      December 12 broadcast:

      Maurizio Melis announces the program on the ECAT, a mysterious invention which
      is a “boiler of sorts, running on cold fusion”. He speaks about this because on October 8, 2014, the Third Party Independent Report was released on the function of the ECAT. Because of the bad reputation that determined the fall from grace in 1989 of this branch of research, there has been skepticism from the outset, and there is no shortage of accusations of fraud if anyone attempts to analyze the subject in further depth.
      “The majority of nuclear scientists decry this effect simply as impossible, firstly because the temperature is way too far from the temperatures in the millions of degrees which trigger nuclear fusion in the sun and other stars; secondly because, apparently, cold fusion does not emit radiation, only heat. This goes against almost everything we know on nuclear fusion reactions.
      A minority of physicists think that such arguments are not sufficient to close the case, besides, various researchers, through the years, have declared to have obtained evidence that in reality this phenomenon does exist.
      The latest experiment on the ECAT was reported in an Independent test performed by members of the Universities of Bologna and Uppsala, and of the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The report is written by the same scientists who had written the previous test approximately a year before, in Ferrara. The ECAT had undergone other
      tests in the past to measure the heat that it produced.
      The idea was that if an object of a certain size produces enough heat, nothing happening inside of it, besides nuclear type reactions, can justify this production of energy.
      The ECAT had already been submitted to this type of evaluation, but with an experimental approach that could not completely rule out scams or measurement
      errors. Which of course had given the rise, more than understandably, to accusations of manipulation. Today we can say that this first objection has been overcome. In the last experiment Rossi’s ECAT – imagine a small cylinder, 20 cm long and about 2 or 3 in diameter – produced energy continuously for 32 days, remaining in a temperature range between 1200°C and 1400 °C, producing more than 3 times the energy absorbed during operation. But the most important aspect of this last test is that, for the first time, it was possible to analyze the fuel before and after the reaction. In fact, nuclear reactions leave traces that are absolutely obvious. I spoke about this with to Bo Höistad, professor of nuclear physics at the University of Uppsala, who attended this very experiment. Listen to how it went.”.


      Bo Höistad (in the Italian translation):

      “What we found was an isotopic shift; that is, either the chemical species changed, or the isotopic composition, the number of neutrons of the chemical species of origin, changed. This surprised us very much because we were very skeptical about it. But you can not be so skeptical to even try it, so we analyzed the ashes, with various different methodologies, so we could make sure that all gave the same results. And, like I said, we found an isotopic shift. And this is a sensational fact, because there can not be an isotopic shift without nuclear reactions having occurred. We have a clear shift with lithium and nickel, once again a surprising fact, but also useful to try to understand what might have happened in there.”

      Maurizio Melis (or interviewer):
      “This, that data you have noted, this shift of lithium and nickel, is it consistent with the amount of energy you have measured outside, in the form of heat?”

      Bo Höistad (in the Italian translation):
      “Actually, given the amount of fuel and the type of transformation that it has undergone at the end of the process, we can estimate how much energy must have been released. We did this calculation, which can be read in the publication, and the answer is yes: the amount of energy measured is consistent with what was expected”.

      Melis (or interviewer):
      “Professor, there are some who cast doubts on the experiment for the fact that it was
      Andrea Rossi, albeit in your presence, who introduced the fuel powder into the unit and then removed it at the end of the process. Do you think Rossi could somehow have manipulated these powders under your eyes?”

      Bo Höistad:
      “Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes. Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation.”

      Melis (or interviewer):
      “Did you choose the sample that was to be analyzed?”

      Bo Höistad:

      “Yes, of course. We picked the sample ourselves. But really, what can I say. In principle it is possible to fool anyone, if a person really has this gift.”.

      Melis (or interviewer):
      “In short, a magician or something.”

      Bo Höistad:
      “Exactly. But no, we don’t operate on that scale.”

      “In the Bo Höistad interview that you can read in full version of the Smart City page on the Radio 24 website, [I could not find the printed version yet, NT] the scientist repeatedly specifies that in physics a single experiment, especially when it presents extraordinary results, is never enough to change an established paradigm. And it is therefore necessary that this experiment is repeated and confirmed by another independent team. So the proven proof that the ECAT functions is not there. But the
      conditions are there now for a major research institution to take the trouble, once and for all, to confirm or refute these results. And it is also a call, finally, for someone to come forward.”

      • pelgrim108

        Thanks for the translation.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Entirely pleasure!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Web TV interview with Rossi by Salvo Mandarà:


    As far as I could follow, there are two new bits of information:

    (18:25) SSM lasts ¾ of the time (18/24h).

    (23:40) Some time ago Rossi said that he had spoken with a manager of a car manufacturer who told him that development and licensing of automotive applications would take a very long time. The news (at least for me) is that this manager was the CEO (amministratore delegato) of Volvo. Rossi has mentioned Volvo later on JoNP as one of the companies who are possibly looking into LENR.

    • Freethinker

      Volvo Car Corporation is owned by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group of China. Just so you know.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        They are a publically traded company, so at least parts of them are owned by private or institutional shareholders.

  • Buck

    This is great . . . thank you Giuliano Bettini for sharing important pieces of Hoistadt’s interview.
    I know that ITPR2 stands better the test of time when the author’s rightly defend the quality of their procedures and results.

  • psi2u2

    My only question is, if the testers took the fuel sample, where did the earlier story that Rossi had transported it come from? Because it seems to me that that became almost accepted as a matter of fact in several discussions. Of course I much prefer for obvious reasons a scenario in which the protocols did not require Rossi himself to be part of the chain of custody for the spent fuel – but I still bothered by the discrepant accounts. It may not matter anyway if things continue to develop at their present pace.

    • Hitesh Ceon

      I think it was just a common misunderstanding. It was a bit unclear in the report, but the way I understood it, Rossi only delivered the reactor and the charge to the labratory, during the testing the sample was taken by the testers, and then Rossi and IH retrieved the reactor and the remaining “ash” AFTER the testing was finished.

      • psi2u2

        That sounds like it could account for it. Thanks.

    • pelgrim108

      From the report ( page 7 ) : ( http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf )

      The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

      From that I gather that Rossi put in the charge and took it out again. From that charge, that was taken out of the reactor by Rossi, the team then took a small sample.

      • Gerrit

        Yes this is also my understanding. Rossi opened the reactor and from the ash that came out of the reactor a team member picked a few grains for analysis. If I remember correctly in the report is stated that 1 team member was present at fuel extraction.

      • we have interpreted as Rossi doing the extraction and filling, but the repor says “intervention”
        this mixed with Bo Hoistad statement can simply be advising and checking the operators don’t make mistakes.

        we should all be careful in our own interpretation before concluding.
        there can also be errors in the report in the words used , in the computation (especially the one having few importance in the context they are used… think about the C1/C2 non 3phase kirchhoff law, which may simply be a quick estimate).

        if they have done the sampling themselves, the conspiracy of the isotopes is refuted and since they filmed the room continuously, most conspiracy theories are not even possible.

        I hope the scientists will puiblish a corrected reports with more details, with some precision, with some corrections…
        my dream would be a second test, but it seems over.

        • pelgrim108

          Yes you are right. I looked up the term “to intervene” and that definition leaves room for – advising and checking – . I also agree with the whole of your comment.

    • Omega Z

      Actually it doesn’t say Rossi did or didn’t.
      People just jumped on this. Especially the skeps.
      I have always been waiting for clarification.

      I also believe there is a full 24/7 video of the events, Even tho Rossi told someone there wasn’t. I consider Rossi’s statement as a head em off at the pass. As in People repeatedly asking for it to be released. It don’t exit so don’t ask…

    • Frechette

      I think it came from non other than maryugo.

  • Andre Blum

    An engineer interviews Rossi on an Italian web TV

  • Thomas Clarke

    The isotopic evidence is crucial: it shows either deliberate deception of extraordinary inexplicable physics (not even explicable by LENR).

    If the sample is switched, this could have been done:
    (1) by Rossi on putting it into the reactor
    (2) by Rossi changing the reactor between dummy and real tests
    (3) by Rossi, who may have handled the sample after it was picked by a tester and could tehrefore substitute – one envelope is very much like another!
    (4) by any one of the testers while it was in their custody

    • Fortyniner

      Odd that the only explanation you seem to be able to put forward is prestidigitation by the ‘Amazing Rossi’, performed in front of a group of onlookers. His talents are obviously endless. A physical phenomenon that is currently unknown to science is, by definition, inexplicable. Until it is explained, of course.

      • Omega Z

        Must be in the troll handbook.
        I’ve seen this done often when back tracking.
        Used to discourage or taint things for new comers who may be trying to do some catching up.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      After EITHER follows OR in English. You completely forgot the OR though the EITHER is quite thorough. So to make your statement complete; what is your OR and could you please be as elaborate as you did with the EITHER?


    • bitplayer

      You left off the possibility that a unicorn switched the samples.
      You know, there’s no proof that there aren’t unicorns.

    • Frechette

      Let me know where you purchased the tin foil hat you’re wearing.

    • Omega Z

      1. If the Professors removed the ash, It wouldn’t matter much what Rossi put in it, Would it.
      2. Now Rossi switched the Reactor. I can see it. Hey Big Boy, Are you just happy to see me or do you have a Reactor in your pocket.
      3. See #1.
      4. Now were back to the Professors committing Fraud.
      Were Reaching a little bit now, Huh…

      Considering some of the questions & innuendo, I can understand perfectly why the professors don’t respond much. Most questions don’t merit a reply.

      • Thomas Clarke

        I don’t understand (1). Whomever removed the ash, if at some time prior the fulel was switched to a sample of Ni-62 it would explain the results.

        (2) My point about this is that we just don’t know. It is not required that any observer can explain which of teh many ways (I’m suure there are others I have not mentioned) this goes whong. It is required for the report authors to prove it could not go wrong.

        (3) Answered. It is not possible for untrained profs to be sure a small encvelope containing fuel or ash is not switched, even viewing it.

        (4) The “profs” are not one entity. Only 3 of them have claims to be independent. It would take only one of them to collude in the demonstration of this evidence, and it need not be one of the in dependents.

        As for the profs not replying to a clear error in teh report. Why would criticism stop them from doing this, if they could? Surely the way you answer criticism is by a reply, which is what they said they would do before the test. If the magic X3.3 is explained by change in resistance of a heating element then nothing could be easier than for them to note that the active test warm-up data shows this and retract their statement that the heater is Inconel.

        Until they do that the report is provably incorrect, and only people here will give it credence.

        • Omega Z

          It was not pure 62Ni. It was a mixture(clumps) absent only 2 nickel isotopes(61,64) & also contained lithium & aluminum. That’s how they found the lithium isotope shift from 7Li to 6Li.

          The 1st thing Rossi did was poor the powder in a test tube. No more envelop. The powder was then analyzed for radioactive components. It’s in the report. From the test tube, it went into the reactor.

          People make a big deal about Levi. Are you aware that, he was not a friend of Rossi’s. He was introduced to Rossi by Focardi in late 2010.
          Levi was the Original Skeptic. He ran many personal tests starting several months before Rossi’s 1st public test in January 2011.

          As to updating the report, I’m sure they will when they get around to it. As it wont be officially published & they live in different cities & countries they probably aren’t in a big hurry. All the original data is available to those of concern already.

          There is much we don’t know & probably never will. Like, Who was present at the test. Rossi part of the time & the 6 Professors that signed off on it. I’d bet other interested party’s were present to monitor it personally & that there was a 24/7 camera in operation for monitoring it.

          I’m also pretty certain others were present besides the professors during the 3rd run of the 1st TIP test. These tests are not done for us, but others of actual importance.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Thanks for the comments below. True – I have not proposed unicorns involved in a switch. But for the Ni fuel to turn into Ni-62 magically is equivalent:
      It was pure Ni-62, of a type that can readily be bought
      The other elements in the sample mysteriously vanished, including the Li (look at the concentration)
      The only other test on claimed Rossi ash found precisely zero Ni-62 enrichment. From a longer test. How is that?
      There is no proposed LENR mechanism that does this (they would all lead to much more diverse nuclear transformations).

      The hypothesis that this transformation is real seems to me a lot more Unicorn-like than anything else here!

      I’ll comment on some specific points below.

      • Obvious

        I am pretty certain that the previous ash analysis was from a short test.

        • Omega Z

          It was also from the Lt E-cat which likely had a different fuel composition. The Lt model doesn’t work beyond 200’C.

      • Omega Z

        “It was pure Ni-62”

        No it was not pure 62Ni. Only 61Ni & 64Ni were absent. 58Ni & 60Ni were present at lesser % then when started. There was also Lithium & Aluminum all combined in the clumps.

        This data was also drawn from a very small portion of the ash. They analyzed 3 clumps which had some variation in composition. Most of the ash had changed from powder to granular/grainy texture which was not analyzed. Without a larger sampling, you can’t really draw a firm conclusion on the amount of isotopic shift. Only preliminary as the professors are aware & voiced the lack of a larger sample.

        “The only other test on claimed Rossi ash found precisely zero Ni-62 enrichment. From a longer test. How is that?”

        Do you know of a longer test that we don’t?

        You also can’t compare this fuel sample with the previous one.
        The previous sample was from the Lt E-cat.
        In the Lt E-cat, once the internal temp surpassed 200’C, it went straight into runaway/melt down & the reaction stopped.

        The Ht & Lt E-cats are different and likely have different fuel composition.

        Posted In this thread:
        2. Possibility of trick? No, “WE, have picked up the sample”. Rossi was only there.

        ->(Obviously a magician can do it).
        I believe this to be sarcasm. Unless Rossi has real magic.

    • bkrharold

      When you say not even explicable by LENR, I was not aware there is any commonly accepted explanation for LENR. There are several competing theories, but none have been rigorously tested scientifically, due to lack of interest by the scientific community.

    • Obvious

      Or perhaps each scientist swapped the powder surreptitiously, and after a perfect serendipitous round-robin the original 1 g was accidentally run and subsequently analyzed, surprising all the scientists by the results….

  • ecatworld

    Rossi has consistently said that there would be that after troubleshooting on this plant has been completed they would need a year of ‘perfect’ operation before they could consider it ‘consolidated’. I’m not sure if the clock is ticking yet for the year-long run.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Had to read it a couple of times before I saw what you mean. Think you are right though as this makes more sense.

  • Obvious

    No “skeptical people” have shown the COP to be less than ~3 with anything other than unsupported assumptions. Most of these assumptions run contrary to reported measurements. If one does not believe the veracity of the reported measurements, then there is no need to make further assumptions to deny portions of the report.