Rossi: E-Cats Producing Now Producing Power Without Energy Input “Most of the Time”

Yesterday we reported that Sergio Focardi explained that the nuclear reaction inside the E-Cat reactor was started by applying a heat source of 60-70 degrees C, and that after the reaction was underway there was no need for the continuation of the heat source.

In the public demonstrations earlier this year made by Rossi and Focardi the E-Cats has a continuous heat source applied to the reaction chamber throughout the demonstration, but now it appears that in the testing that Rossi is doing that is not the case.

He was recently asked about the heating of the catalyzer by a questioner on his site:

” Can you tell me if your internal heater participates in any chemical reaction instead of only heat transfer?
If the heater is used as a “getter” for contaminant gases like some speculate then this dimensionally restricts your design. From what I understand and what you told me the heater is only for heat, do you agree?”

Rossi Answered:

“I cannot give information regarding the reactor’s operation.
By the way: in the stress tyests we are doing in this period with our modules we are making energy without energy supply from the reasistances for most of time. This answers, partially, to your questions. I am sorry if I can’t give more to you.”

To be creating energy large amounts of energy with minimal input has been the dream of many  inventors, technologists and thinkers for centuries — and of course something that has been held by many to be impossible according to current understanding of scientific laws. Rossi is now making a claim which will bring hope and excitement to many observers on the one hand, and most likely scorn and derision from other quarters.

Rossi appears to be moving ahead regardless of public opinion. He continues to assert that the only test that matters is when he delivers his first power plant to Greece in October, an event which he has recently stated is still on schedule.

  • david green

    Yes – that’s my understanding of what we have here. A nuclear reactor but at low energy levels. Before people get too scared we have to realise that coal fired stations produce significant amounts of radiation. My understanding is that any harmful radiation produced is absolutely minimal.

    All energy systems carry risks. A problem with wind energy is we have to use high energy electric cables to get the energy to population centres. Those cables have been implicated in ill health.

    E cat generators look like they could be sited v. close to population centres = brilliant for energy economics.

    • John Dlouhy

      Your point on radiation is well taken, and I agree with you. There’s probably more radiation coming from people’s smoke detectors and microwaves than Rossi’s reactor.
      I think, though, calling Rossi’s process a low energy nuclear reaction is a misnomer and yet everyone seems to be doing it. E-Cat’s produce the energy of 2600 gallons of gasoline from a roll of nickels and function at the same temperature as a Uranium fission reactor. That doesn’t sound like low energy to me.

  • Kevin

    Another (loose) analogy would be the Sun – nuclear fusion energy coverting lighter elements to heavier elements releasing energy in the process. Self sustaining (after initial ignition state), but It’s still not OU in the commonly used format of extra energy coming out of (essentially created in) a closed energy system. Focardi/Rossi just appear to have found a way to do something similar, but with different elements and at a much lower temperature.

  • Stuart

    It’s a bit misleading to say that this device running without any input power is “over unity” (perpetual motion) and “without any energy input”; it would be similar to saying that a campfire is functioning “over unity” because the torch has been removed from the system and the process is self-sustaining. Any reaction would only be considered over-unity if you disregard the total energy of the input matter and total energy of the output output matter. In this case, instead of burning logs, one is “nuclear burning” hydrogen.

    • Frank (admin)

      Good point, Stuart. Article modified accordingly!

    • John Dlouhy

      You make a good point Stuart. It also illustrates that the terminology used to describe this device strongly influences how it’s perceived. Terms like over unity, cold fusion, and free energy have clear connotations not always well respected. What Rossi has created is quite literally just a nuclear reactor. It is distinguished mostly by its lack of neutron radiation which means the reactor can be made small, simple, cheap, and safe. Presented that way it doesn’t sound so implausible, but of course the implications are still profound.