You are here: PureEnergySystems.com
> News > October
E-Cat Test Validates Cold Fusion Despite Challenges
The test of the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) that took place on October 6, 2011 in Italy has validated Andrea Rossi's claim that the device produces excess energy via a novel Cold Fusion nuclear reaction. Despite its success, the test was flawed, and could have been done in a way that produced more spectacular results -- as if confirmation of cold fusion is not already stunning enough.
Andrea Rossi stands in front of his E-Cat
apparatus, October 6, 2011
Photo by Maurizio Melis of Radio24
by Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News
Andrea Rossi has made big claims for the past year, about his cold fusion "E-Cat" (Energy Catalyzer) technology. He has claimed that it produces vast amounts of energy via a safe and clean low energy nuclear reaction that consumes only tiny amounts of nickel and hydrogen. A series of tests had been performed earlier this year that seemed to confirm excess energy is produced by the systems tested. Some of the tests were particularly impressive, such as one that lasted eighteen hours, and was performed by Dr. Levi of the University of Bologna. Unfortunately, the tests were not planned out as well as they could have been and had flaws.
The most recent test that took place on October 6, 2011 in Bologna, Italy, was supposed to address many of the concerns about the previous tests, and be performed in a way that would put to rest many issues that had been discussed continually on the internet. Despite showing clear evidence of excess energy -- which is absolutely fantastic -- this most recent test failed to live up to its full potential. It was a big success in that it validated the claim the E-Cat produces excess energy via cold fusion, but it was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Or as successful as we, the outsiders looking in, would like for it to have been.
The Inventor's Mindset
One thing that should be stated is that inventors do not always think like the people who follow their inventions. They have their own mindset and way of looking at things. This should be obvious, because they are seeing *everything* from a different perspective. For example, when we think seeing the inside of an important component would be exciting and informative, they consider it a threat to their intellectual property. Or, for example, when we would like to see a test run for days, they are thinking that a few hours is long enough. In their mind, they know their technology works, and running it for hours, days, or weeks would be more of a chore to them than an exciting event.
In Rossi's case, he has worked with these reactors for many years. He has tested them time and time again. In fact, he has built hundreds of units (of different models), and has tested every one of them. He is aware of how the units operate and how they perform. Actually, for a period of many months to a year or more, he had an early model of E-Cat heating one of his offices in Italy. Satisfying the curiosity of internet "chatters" by operating a unit for an extended period of time -- beyond what he thinks is needed to prove the effect -- is just a waste of his time, according to his thinking. He could spend the time getting the one megawatt plant ready to launch.
Don't forget, Rossi is a busy person. In addition to finishing the one megawatt plant, he has a new partner company to find, a wife at home, and a life to live! We need to consider that he works sixteen to eighteen hours a day building units, testing them, addressing other issues about the E-Cat. Although he is a very helpful person in many ways (willing to communicate with people and answer questions), he simply does not have the time to grant all of the many requests made of him. If he did, he could not get any work done at all, and the E-Cat would never be launched, or ever make it to the market place!
The Outsider's Mindset
I consider myself an outsider. I have never built a cold fusion device, have never spent years working to develop a technology, and have never gone through the grueling process of trying to bring a product into the market place. Although I spend a lot of time researching various technologies on the internet, I don't work sixteen to eighteen hours a day. In addition, I have no vested interest in the success of any technology, other than simply wanting at least one to hit the market place, ASAP.
As an outsider, I do not think like Rossi thinks. I don't think the majority of people think like Rossi thinks, because they are not in his shoes. They are not working to the point of exhaustion, and do not have years of their life invested in an exotic technology. Due to the fact we do not think like Rossi, his actions or sometimes lack thereof can seem strange, bizarre, or odd. Sometimes, they can make us want to smack ourselves, to make sure we are not in some sort of strange dream.
The recent test on October 6, 2011 is an example of a situation in which outsiders would have liked to have seen a very different test. Here are examples of how an outsider would have liked to see the test performed, compared to Rossi's possible mindset.
(Please note that I am making speculations about what Rossi is thinking, and his mindset. I do not know for sure if my guesses are accurate. If they are not, then I would like to apologize to Rossi, and give him the chance to respond in any way he sees fit.)
In the recent test, the output producing capability of the reactors was throttled down for safety reasons. This may have been done by keeping the hydrogen pressure low, or adding less of the catalyst to the nickel powder. Also, only one out of the three reactors that were inside of the module, were used in the test. For an experimental test to prove the effect beyond a shadow of a doubt, I, as an outsider, would have loved to have seen the device fully throttled up, despite the safety risks. Even if it meant everyone that attended would have had to sign long legal disclaimers, it would have been worth it.
I think it would have been great if all three reactors were utilized, and they all were adjusted to produce their maximum level of output. This would have increased the amount of output produced dramatically, and would have reduced the amount of input needed. The more heat produced by the system, the less heat would have needed to be input via the electric resistors.
Rossi, on the other hand, probably thought throttling up the device to a high level was not worth the risk, and was not needed to prove that excess energy was being produced. It is true that an explosion causing injuries -- while probably VERY unlikely -- could result in a setback of his project, and possible legal ramifications. Also, in reality, the test proved excess energy was being produced even with only one, throttled down reactor being used.
So even though a test of the device adjusted to operate at full power would have been useful and exciting, it was not absolutely needed for what Rossi wanted to accomplish.
I would like to ask Rossi to consider performing a demonstration with a module both adjusted to operate at full power, and utilizing all three reactor cores. Even if he has to limit the number of people involved, perform the test remotely with cameras monitoring the module, utilize a blast shield, or only allow certain individuals (who have signed disclaimers) to go into the room in which the module is running.
A Longer Self Sustain
As an outsider, I have not had the chance to look at test data from these devices self-sustaining for long periods of time -- 12 hours, 24 hours, days, weeks, etc. I would really like to see one of these units self sustain for a *very* long period of time. This is not because I think the output of the E-Cat during the recent test was due to stored energy being released (the 'thermal inertia' theory being floated around the internet). In fact, I think that the flat line in NyTeknik's graph -- showing self sustain mode for three and a half hours without any drop in output temperature -- provides clear evidence against the thermal inertia theory. The reason I would like to see a longer period of self sustain, is that it would not only document a huge gain of energy, but one that no individual could rationally deny!
Rossi has claimed that these devices represent an alternative energy solution that could change the world. I think this is true. However, to show just how much potential this technology has, an even more extended test of the E-Cat in self sustain mode (at full power or at least with all three reactors inside the module being used), would have been much more impressive. I am not saying the Oct. 6 test was not impressive -- it was very significant because it demonstrated excess energy and proof of cold fusion -- but that a longer test would have been better. It would have done more to shut up the cynics (a few of which will never change their minds), and help the technology get into the mainstream (dumbstream) media.
I really don't think Rossi cares too much about showing off the technology's full potential, at this point. He also does not seem to appear to want the attention of the mainstream media, or at least any more than he thinks he needs. If he did, the test would have been far different, and would have produced such a gigantic amount of excess energy everyone's jaws would have dropped. My jaw dropped when I saw the flat line during self sustain mode (because it proved beyond a doubt the system was producing excess energy), but my jaw did not drop as far as it could have, if the period of operation had lasted longer.
Interestingly, I have known inventors, of unrelated energy technologies, that purposely held back from showing the *best* version of their technology. They did not want to show off too much, because they did not want to deal with the fallout of attracting too much attention. Instead of performing an amazing demonstration, they performed one that proved the point -- at least to their satisfaction -- but would not attraction too much attention. I think Rossi may feel the same way. If he had his way, he would have never done a single test before the launch of the one megawatt plant. It was Focardi that convinced him to do a public test, because he feared that (due to health problems) he may not live long enough to see the technology be revealed to the world.
A longer test (at least 12 hours) in self sustain mode would have been great, exciting, and would have produced even more excess energy. However, in Rossi's mind, it was not needed, for potentially valid reasons (at least from the perspective of someone on the inside).
I would simply like to humbly plead with Rossi, to try and step in the shoes of the outsider, and at the next test allow the module to run for a longer period in self sustain mode.
Modern Testing Methods and Tools
I have looked at the data acquired during the test, but have not had a chance to study it as in depth as I would like to. The data shows a clear gain of energy in my opinion, and confirms that the E-Cat is producing excess energy. As I said before, the test was a success. However, it could have been performed in a more modern way.
For example, all of the temperature measurements, power input measurements, and water flow measurements should have been fed into the same computer, to be recorded in a real time manner. This way all the data would have been automatically recorded into one data set, including the hour and second of every measurement. It seems data collection was not done this way at the test, and some of the data was actually taken by hand!
Because the data was not all automatically recorded into one computer during the test, NyTeknik (who had the exclusive right to be the first to post a report on the test) has not yet posted a graph that charts all the measurements of all the factors of the test. What I would like to see is a single high resolution graph, that shows all of the measurements that were taken of every parameter of the test. If one graph showing everything would be too complex for a non-expert to easily interpret, then a series of graphs would be ideal. This would allow everyone to more simply determine the total energy in, and the total energy out.
The data collected and the manner in which it was collected is good enough to show there was a significant amount of excess energy produced, especially during self sustain mode. It may also be good enough to show even more details about the excess energy produced. Sadly, I'm not an expert in scientific data interpretation, so it takes me more time to interpret data than an expert who does so full time (like Rossi).
I hope that when I have had the time to examine the data in more depth, I will see that Rossi's claims about the results of the test (not just excess energy but a six fold gain of energy, in a worst case scenario) are accurate. At this point, I am not going to doubt him. He is the expert, and there are many people going over the data, and hopefully more data from the test will be coming in the near future.
What I would like to do, is request that he upgrade his data acquisition methods for any upcoming public tests. However, from Rossi's perspective, the way the data was acquired was good enough, and proved the point he wanted to make. I respect his view, but I do hope that he will change his mind in the future.
For the record, I am not stating that I think better data acquisition techniques are needed to verify his technology produces excess energy, and even significant amounts of it. I simply think it would make analysis of test data much simpler, quicker, and precise.
One of the most useful tools in the scientific method is a control. A control is an object or thing that you do not try to change during the experiment. For example, if you were giving an experimental drug to a hundred people, you might want to have a number of additional people who do not receive the drug. You would compare how the drug effects the people who consumed it, to those who did not receive the drug at all. By comparing the two sets of people, those who consumed the drug and those who did not, you could more easily see the effectiveness of the drug -- or if it was doing harm.
In Rossi's test, a control system would have been an E-Cat module that was setup in the exact same way, except it would have not been filled with hydrogen gas. It would have had the same flow of water going through it, the same electrical input, and it would have operated for the same length of time as the E-Cat unit with hydrogen. By comparing the two, you could easily see the difference between the "control" E-Cat (that was not having nuclear reactions take place), and the "real" E-Cat (that was producing excess heat).
If a control had been used in the experiment, the excess heat would be even more obvious. It would have been so obvious, that it could have made the test go from a major success (with some flaws), to the most spectacular scientific test in the last hundred years.
Yes, a control would have made that much of a difference!
I understand that Rossi may not see the need for a control, when the test that was performed clearly showed excess energy without it. A control might have made the experiment so mind blowingly amazing, it could have attracted too much media attention, too many scientists that would want to get involved, and too many individuals wanting additional information. The result could have been that Rossi would not even have the time to finish his one megawatt plant.
However, from the view point of an outsider, I think a control would have greatly benefited the experiment. If it created too much media attention, perhaps someone could volunteer to work for a month as an unpaid intern, filtering through all of the requests from media representatives, and taking care of many non-technical tasks, so Rossi could focus on getting the one megawatt plant ready!
I sincerely hope that during the test of the one megawatt plant, and any tests before then, a control run will be performed, in which no hydrogen is placed in the reactors.
Rossi's Statement about the Test Results
Andrea Rossi responded to an email we sent him that had questions about the test. Here is the email, and his responses.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUOUS ATTENTION. PLEASE FIND THE ANSWERS IN BLOCK LETTERS ALONG YOUR TEXT:
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In regards to the latest test of the Energy Catalyzer, I have a number of questions I hope you can answer.
1) My understanding is that if a reactor core is not adjusted to be under-powered (below its maximum potential) in self-sustain mode, it can have a tendency to become unstable and climb in output. If the reactor is left in an unstable self-sustaining mode for too long, the output can climb to potentially dangerous levels. Can you provide some information about how the reactor core in the test was adjusted to self-sustain in a safe manner?
NO, VERY SORRY
a) For example, there was only one active reactor core in the module tested. How was the single reactor core adjusted to be under-powered?
b) Is adjusting the reactor core as simple as lowering the hydrogen pressure?
2) What is the power consumption of the device that "produces frequencies" that was mentioned in the NyTeknik article? Although the power consumption of this device is probably insignificant, providing a figure could help put to rest the idea (that some are suggesting) that a large amount of power was being consumed by the frequency-generating device, and transmitted into the reactor.
THE ENERGY CONSUMED FROM THE FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS 50 WH/H AND IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED, BECAUSE THIS APPARATUS WAS PLUGGED IN THE SAME LINE WHERE THE ENERGY-CONSUME MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN DONE
a) Can you tell us anything more about this frequency generating device and its function?
NO, SORRY, THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE
b) Is the frequency-generating device turned on at all times when a module is in operation, or only when a module is in self-sustain mode?
c) Some are suggesting that this device is "the" catalyst that drives the reactions in the reactor core. However, you have stated in the past that the catalyst is actually one or more physical elements (in addition to nickel and hydrogen) that are placed in the reactor core. Can you confirm that physical catalysts are used in the reactor?
YES, I CONFIRM THIS
3) Does the reaction have to be quenched with additional water flow though the reactor, or is reducing the hydrogen pressure enough to end the reactions on its own?
NEEDS ADDITIONAL QUENCHING
a) If reducing the hydrogen pressure (or venting it completely) is not enough to turn off the module, could it be due to the fact some hydrogen atoms are still bonded to nickel atoms, and undergoing nuclear reactions?
b) If there is some other reason why reducing hydrogen pressure is not enough to quickly turn off the module, could you please specify?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions, and for allowing a test to be performed that clearly shows anomalous and excess energy being produced. Hopefully, the world will notice the significance of this test.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER (I MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE THE SELF SUSTAINING MODE THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY PRODUCING ENERGY MORE THAN IT CONSUMED, SO THAT THE ENERGY CONSUMED IS NOT LOST, BUT TURNED INTO ENERGY ITSELF, THEREFORE IS NOT PASSIVE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION: IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SPOTS OF DRIVE WITH THE RESISTANCE HAVE A DURATION OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES, WHILE THE DURATION OF THE SELF SUSTAINING MODES IS PROGRESSIVELY LONGER, UNTIL IT ARRIVES TO BE UP TO HOURS. BESIDES, WE PRODUCED AT LEAST 4.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 6 HOURS AND CONSUMED AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS, SO THAT WE MADE IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 25.8 kWh AND CONSUMED IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 3.9 kWh. IN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHICH MEANS NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE CONSUME IS MAINLY MADE DURING THE HEATING OF THE REACTOR DURING THE FIRST 2 HOURS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE WORST POSSIBLE RATIO IS 25.8 : 3.9 AND THIS IS THE COP 6 WHICH WE ALWAYS SAID. OF COURSE, THE COP IS BETTER, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE REACTOR, ONCE IN TEMPERATURE, NEEDS NOT TO BE HEATED AGAIN FROM ROOM TEMPERATURE TO OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE.
WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL, ANDREA ROSSI
He claims that the test produced 25.8 kilowatt hours of power, and consumed only 3.9 kilowatt hours, not considering the losses from using two circuits of water and a heat exchanger. This would be very impressive for a system that is only using one reactor core (out of three), that has been adjusted to only produce a fraction of its maximum potential power.
However, from my analysis of the data so far (still trying to wrap my head around it), I have not been able to confirm his claim of a COP of 6. I am not saying it is not the case, or not in the data. I simply have yet to fully examine the data, and I am waiting for more data to be released.
Actually, I hope that someone will release all the data in one file and/or graph that will be easier to interpret. Perhaps NyTeknik, if they have not done so already, could contact Rossi or someone else who attended and recorded the data, and ask for any test data they are missing.
Bottom Line - Cold Fusion Is Here
The fact of the matter was that the October 6th test was a success in many ways.
- It documented a gain of energy.
- It documented a gain of energy in self-sustain mode.
- It documented massive "heat after death."
Most importantly, it proved beyond a doubt, that cold fusion is a reality.
Italian scientific journalist Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, who witnessed the test in Bologna,
"In the coming weeks Rossi aims to activate a 1MW plant, which is now almost ready, and we had the opportunity to inspect it during the demonstration of yesterday. If the plant starts up then it will be very difficult to affirm that it is a hoax. Instead, we will be projected suddenly into a new energetic era."
The test could have been made better in many ways. It had flaws. However, it was the most significant test of the E-Cat so far, for one reason in particular....
This graph shows that the E-Cat is a device producing excess energy, because the red line does not go down until after the hydrogen is vented.
- Some may legitimately argue about how much energy was produced, because we don't yet have all the test data in one easy to interpret graph or file.
- Some may point out the flaws in the test, such as the lack of a control, the lack of another several hours of operation in self sustain mode.
- Some may point out ways the test could be improved.
However, that graph by NyTeknik makes it clear the test was a success -- not a failure.
Mainstream media, your alarm clock is buzzing, it's time to wake up!
# # #
This story is also published at BeforeItsNews.
What You Can Do
- Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
- Join the H-Ni_Fusion
technical discussion group to explore the details of the technology.
- Once available, purchase a unit and/or encourage others who are able, to do so.
- Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of
- Subscribe to our newsletter
to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy
- Consider investing in Rossi's group once they open to that in October.
- Help us manage the PESWiki
feature page on Rossi's technology.
Other PES Coverage
PESN Coverage of E-Cat
For a more exhaustive listing, see News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- June 6, 2013 - EU Parliament gives LENR thumbs
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- May 30, 2013 - additional info on the E-Cat
3rd party test report (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- May 23, 2013 - E-Cat 3rd Party Results Posted (PESN)
E-Cat Validation Creates More Questions (PESN;
May 21, 2013)
Third-Party E-Cat Test Results
Posted - posted on ArXiv.org
May 20, 2013)
Interview with E-Cat Distributor License Broker, Roger Green (PESN;
May 17, 2013)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- May 9, 2013 - Interview with Rossi about recent 1 MW plant delivery
Interview with Andrea Rossi About 1 MW E-Cat Plant Delivery (PESN;
May 7, 2013)
LENR-to-Market MONTHLY -- April 29, 2013 - E-Cat teases with April 30
delivery date (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- March 28, 2013 - E-Cat 3rd-Party testing
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- March 7, 2013 - more on NASA (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- February 21, 2013 - NASA on nuclear reactor in
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- February 14, 2013 - Piantelli self-sustains 2
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- February 7, 2013 - CF 101 week 2 (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- January 31, 2013 - CF 101 week 1 at MIT (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- January 24, 2013 - Piantelli gets CF patent,
Rossi rebuffs (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- January 17, 2013 - Defkalion joint venture
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- January 10, 2013 - Rossi having problems
finding certification for home application (PESN)
LENR-to-Market Weekly -- January 3, 2013 - Hot-Cat creating
electromotive force? (PESN)