Rossi Defines High Temperature E-Cat Recipe (Hank Mills)

The following post was submitted by Hank Mills

Ever since Andrea Rossi announced the existence of the E-Cat, there has been ongoing speculation as to the ingredients contained that allow for the paradigm shattering invention to operate. Kilowatts of excess heat from soda can sized reactors, no nuclear waste, no radiation, no pollution, ordinary nickel and light hydrogen as fuel: the benefits of the Energy Catalyzer were beyond the dreams of many cold fusion theorists and experimenters.

As Rossi’s technology evolved, a high temperature version of developed that could produce stable temperatures of 1000C or beyond. In the paper ‘On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”’ co-authored by Rossi, some specifics about this version of the technology have been provided. No more guessing – now we have facts.

The most important part of any recipe is the ingredient list. From the Lugano report, we had strong evidence from analysis of fuel and ash that the main ingredients of the high temperature version of the E-Cat consisted of nickel, lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), and iron. Alexander Parkhomov then performed several successful replications using only nickel and LiAlH4. These tests produced not only a COP far beyond the margin of error, but also one experiment produced self sustaining heat after death. But from this new paper we have a concise definition of the high temperature E-Cat from Andrea Rossi himself.

In the paper, the authors specify that the system contains the chemical compound lithium aluminum hydride. A very defining statement is made in one part of the paper, “The Nickel-LiAlH4 system known as the E-Cat is one of several dozen LENR configurations for which excess heat has been experimentally demonstrated.”

So now we finally learn – officially from the inventor of the E-Cat – that the source of lithium, aluminum, and hydrogen detected in the fuel of the device is LiAlH4. There are other chemicals that provide lithium, but now we know exactly what was used in the Hot Cat tested in the Lugano report. From other statements made by Rossi confirming that Parkhomov had replicated the “Rossi Effect” we already knew this was a virtual certainty. Now there can be no debate.

Iron is not mentioned once in the paper, interestingly. According to the Lugano report, however, large amounts of this element was found in the fuel. It must serve some purpose. On various forums the guesses range from lowering the temperature at which LiAlH4 releases hydrogen, preventing the nickel from sintering as severely, breaking apart the molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen, acting as a magnetic stirrer, and other functions. The only way we can learn the function(s) of iron will be to include it in tests after the basic Parkhomov device has been successfully replicated.

Another important aspect of any recipe is temperature. When baking a cake, you want the temperature high enough to make the cake rise but not so high that it turns into a block of carbon. This report states that the lithium in the LiAlH4 vaporized and was evenly distributed throughout the reactor. The boiling temperature of lithium is around 1330C. This may give us a temperature range in which the high temperature E-Cat may produce the most excess heat. Of course some excess heat may be produced at lower temperatures — maybe this is the function of iron — but the evidence indicates the COP goes up as the boiling point of lithium is reached and exceeded. In Parkhomov’s first reported test in which a COP of 2.84 was produced, the external temperature of the reactor was 1290C. Due to the temperature differential between the inside of the reactor and the surface, this means the lithium in the reactor was most certainly boiling at around 1400C or higher. Replicators need to target this temperature in their attempts.

In addition to the ingredients and temperature range provided in this document, a large amount of theory is provided about how the Li-7 isotope can interact with a proton to produce Be which then transforms into two alpha particles. These alpha particles have a huge kinetic energy, but produce no gamma radiation. I’m not a physicist, so I will read and re-read the paper before I say much more about the physics. In a nutshell, however, it describes how the proton can interact with the lithium (another section deals with the interaction of a proton and Ni-61), but not how the proton is created or how it is capable of breaking into the nucleus. Basically, it seems like half of a theory. I can’t help but wonder if Ikegami’s theory of Chemonuclear Reactions can provide what this paper does not.

In conclusion, the four most significant things I gathered from this paper are as follows:

1 – Lithium 7 is the isotope that matters in the E-Cat. Lithium-6 is probably not involved.

2 – The basic ingredients of a hot cat (if you exclude iron or tiny amounts of other elements) are nickel and LiAlH4. We don’t need to try to substitute other chemicals until we have successfully used this one to replicate the Lugano device and Parkhomov’s devices.

3 – To produce significant excess heat, we need to reach the boiling point of lithium. I’m guessing that maybe vaporized lithium can go into all the cracks that molten lithium cannot. Recently, I did a lot of painting. I learned that if you paint a wall with a bunch of cracks you will cover them. However, the paint will not always fill in the cracks completely due to the surface tension of the liquid. Maybe vaporized lithium covers a higher percentage of reaction sites that might be ejecting protons than molten lithium. Also, I wonder if according to Ikegami’s theory if vaporized lithium might be more likely to experience nuclear reactions than molten lithium.

4 – The hot cat may continue to produce power even if the nickel has melted.

In conclusion, this paper confirms that the “hot cat” is in fact a super simple device, provides part of a theory, and gives an official recipe. For a tiny amount of money – perhaps a couple hundred dollars – professional and well qualified scientists can build a device that makes gigantic billion dollar “hot fusion” reactors look like something from the stone age. Large amounts of excess heat (perhaps a kilowatt from a gram of fuel) from a reactor that can sit on a desk top: no possible nuclear device can be better than this.

A new age of safe, clean, and cheap “cold fusion” nuclear power is upon us. Now, we have to decide what we are going to do. Remain silent and wait for the world to catch up to the fact the E-Cat is a reality, or encourage expert scientists in laboratories to perform replications?

I say we usher in this revolution as quickly as possible.

Hank Mills

  • GordonDocherty

    This makes a lot of sense. I believe the initial heat is generated by the Mouse – the Nickel / Hydrogen fuel – probably, as pointed out in “Hot-Cat 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made” by Eng. Roberto Ventola (Author), Vessela Nikolova (Contributor), this fuel is next to the heating element. This generated heat vaporizes (part of) the fuel in the centre of the cat – this is the Hot Cat bit – causing a uniform distribution and production of heat in the second sub-critical process of the Cat – as postulated by Roberto – see This book nicely provides salient details of the e-cat and hot cat as far as the start of 2015. Well worth a read!

  • Mats002

    Replicate! Then DIY kits for ‘seeing is believing’, then retire in a warm cabin 🙂

  • Mr. Moho

    Hank Mills: try Googling “bubble fusion”.
    If lithium is required to reach boiling conditions and generate collapsing bubbles for LENR to occur, then it might be a scaled down version of that, on condensed matter.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Using ultrasound stimulation might be an option to force bubble production.

      • Mr. Moho

        Possibly, yes. That might be what the “mouse” does. Interestingly, mice do actually vocalize in ultrasound range, by the way.

  • Wishful Thinking Fusion

    Hank, I think your comments are dead on. Based on your constant calls for higher temperatures I decided to throw caution to the wind and turn up the heat way past my heater manufacturer’s spec on my heretofore lifeless reactor last night….and interesting things happened. I can’t give many details until I get home tonight but here are some teasers:

    • Mats002

      Cigar from me! If not for XH you have it for breaking the wall.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks for sharing! I’ve highlighted your comment in a separate post. Interested to learn more about this…

      • Mr. Moho

        Interesting, but why not wait for more details first?

  • parallelB

    Hank, the large remaining problem is how lithium can add another proton without emitting gamma radiation.

    See also:

  • Axil Axil

    Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potential

    This paper has shown me how protons and neutron live together inside the nucleus, and it is a very comfortable idea. If this concept is true, then the lattice theory of nuclear structure is invalid.

    The referenced paper says that pions are catalyze out of the vacuum by the casimir force. This pions bounce back and forth between the proton and neutron so that the proton will turn into a neutron and a neutron will turn into a proton in a rapid cycle.

    Cook thinks of protons and neutrons as cue balls that never change. But in order to keep the neutron from decaying in 15 minutes, the neutron must be reset within that time frame and the ping-pong game that the casimir force creates though virtual pion condensation out of the vacuum does that. A valid theory of nuclear structure allows for the proton/neutron pair to go through their transmutation mambo.

    I believe that Cook needs to go back to the drawing board and try again.

    See this animation to see the proton/neutron mambo.

  • Mr. Moho

    If the cell is leaking hydrogen or the nickel powder adsorbed most of it, it’s likely that pressure will end up being anywhere between 0.5 and 1 bar, or possibly even lower, as reported by MFMP in earlier tests and more recently, Parkhomov. Maintaining a low pressure is likely the key if one wants to boil lithium by bringing the entire reactor to a set operating temperature.

  • bfast

    Your point is valid, but significantly overstated. You say, “the meaning of crossing the 1330°C “barrier” is exactly nil” Well, crossing the boiling point barrier is not at all nil. The boiling point does, as you suggest, rise with barometric pressure — however it still exists. As they are pressurizing and monitoring the pressure of the chamber, there is no chance that the chamber is at 1 bar. However, the temperature of the boiling point barrier can be accurately calculated when the pressure is known.

    “Chances that it is exactly 1 bar, however, are 1 to infinity.” Again, blatant exaggeration. If the “barrier” is at 1330 at 1 bar, it isn’t at some ridiculously wildly different point at 1.0001 bar. You even mention earlier, “point for a pressure of ~ 1 bar.” Note your ~. Why ruin an other wise wise comment with this exaggeration?

  • bfast

    “The hot cat may continue to produce power even if the nickel has melted.” Wow!
    On the iron content and “magnetic stirring”, is it your assumption that having iron filings in there will automatically cause stirring, or is it necessary to also bombard the chamber with magnetic currents? If the latter, then adding iron, but not the magnetic currents will do nothing, yes?

    • NT

      Remember when Rossi used to tell us that when the nickel melts the reaction stops – that was the failsafe reaction…

    • Axil Axil

      This is called a reactor meltdown and will result in a hole burnt into the ground.

  • Mr. Moho

    You’re right that when the pressure of a closed container with a boiling liquid reaches that of the equilibrium vapor pressure of the liquid itself, boiling and bubble formation stops. If this were the working principle, then excess heat would also stop when cavitation bubbles stop forming and therefore, that it would be advantageous to keep the cell in a constant non-equilibrium state. One could speculate this is exactly what Rossi’s SSM mode does.

    There’s so little data from those who claimed extraordinary excess heat from their supposedly boiling cells, it’s hard to tell what’s happening exactly. That those cells mostly failed or stopped working after a short while that happened isn’t helping either.

  • Excellent. Thanks Hank. I’m imagining batches of “e-cats” being carefully tested at the same time under same conditions to quickly consolidate data.

    • NT

      Wow LN, looking forward to your results shared here…

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP offers standardised 1550ºC in air heater long life element for experimentalists.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Having shown in the GS2 experiment that we could build a tight reactor that could take all the pressure the experiment could produce with a simple reliable sealing approach, we want to address the next major barrier to wide-scale effective replication – the availability of a reliable heating element capable of spanning the full temperature range in air for long periods of time, in the order of many months.

    We found in the *GlowStick* GS2 experiment, as in others, that the Kanthal A1 expands if not constrained affecting calibrations and if sealed in Alumina, both Dr. Parkhomov and MFMP have shown there wires melt down readily. This is not going to give us assurance of being able to run for long periods of time.

    We have already shown that Silicon Carbide can meet the requirements set out above – and now that we have found a reactor configuration that can handle the pressure without failing so easily as our ‘Bang!’ experiment, we have gone back to our source and asked them to quote on a new design.

    This could be used with single ended tubes and ours or Dr. Parkhomov’s sealing method, or with double ended tubes and our method, however, in this case, one end would have to be fixed when the core had been passed through the reactor.

    By having a standard high temp heating element – we can remove one of the main failure points and hopefully make more data sets comparable. It will also greatly simplify the apparatus building process.

    We would like to know how many elements people would be interested in. We would recommend a minimum of 3, 2 for a dual set-up, active and control, with a spare.

    Please take the survey if you are interested.

  • Owen Geiger

    Big thumbs up on your recent blog posts. Bit by bit what is needed for successful replication becomes clearer. This detail about the vaporization of lithium at a particular temperature and pressure should be added to the Replication Guide that’s currently in progress.

  • wpj

    I really don’t understand all this talk of lithium boiling- there is no lithium there! We have LAH which begins to decompose to lithium hydride and alane (AlCl3). What is needed after that, who knows, but it is not lithium in there but Li+ – the anion form. Additionally, I don’t know why they don’t use hexahydride which packs more lithium in there rather than aluminium.