# Why the Announced Test at Uppsala Should Show if Rossi’s E-Cat Claims Are Valid

I’m very happy to be able to have another guest post today — this one written by Dr. Johannes Hagel, of Neuss, Germany.

Being a physicist I consider the announced test of Andrea Rossis E-Cat at Uppsala as one of the most important of all the series of tests we have been seen so far. This for the following reason:

In the announced test for the first time there will be made use of a heat exchanger which transfers the energy of the steam output into a secondary circuit for heating water without boiling it. At least that is how I understood it from Rossi’s description. This means that a certain amount of water per time unit will pass through the heat exchanger with a given entrance temperature T1 and a larger exit temperature T2.

It is then very simple to compute the amount of energy which has been necessary to obtain this temperature difference at a given water flow through the exchanger (in fact a simple multiplication of three numbers). In addition, this energy measured will give an “approximation from below” to the true energy output of the E-Cat. This is because a heat exchanger, due to the laws of thermodynamics (as well as to non-perfect insulation) will never reach 100% efficiency.

However, with this method we will be sure that at least the measured energy in the secondary circuit has indeed be released by the E-Cat. This was not so easy to state using the old method of temperature measurement of the direct steam output as it has been done so far. This is due to a difficulty of distinguishing between wet and dry steam, wet steam still containing  some water in it. This remaining water has not been vaporized, i.e. the vaporization energy necessary to transfer water to steam (phase change!) has never been applied to it. Hence the thus computed energy output can easily be overestimated. If however, one transfers all the energy of the steam (dry or wet) via the heat exchanger, and uses it for heating water without boiling it things become very clear.

Of course the upcoming test has to be run for a sufficient amount of time to exclude a chemical process inside the E-Cat which could account for the observed energy output. As far as I understood the present E-Cat is considerably larger than the previous one. For the original one Prof. Levi (University of Bologna) excluded a combustion process after a test run of 18 hours. From the images shown I would guess that the inside volume now is at least three times the one before and thus the test should be extended for at least 60 hours or even more to exclude common energy sources inside.

However if all this is observed and any type of “hidden energy transfer” from the outside into the E-Cat (e.g. based on micro waves etc.) can be excluded then I would consider this type of test as a very rigorous and would be extremely pleased seeing a positive result.

Dr. Johannes Hagel, Physicist
Neuss, Germany

• Kolbie

My guess is, Rossie will either fail or more controversy will result out of the yet to come demonstration.

Rosie was proposed several time to build a self sustaining generator unit, i.e. combine his e-cat with a steam turbine and generator, get auxiliary power from that generator and prove that this apparatus would work. Without doing any measurements at all, anybody could verify his claims just by examination of the apparatus for manipulation of outside energy input. Rossie claimed 6 times energy excess for his small e-cats, small steam turbines and generators are available as toys from various resources, so it’s not clear why he won’t build a functional unit rather than being dependent of questionable caloric measurements.

• jcragris

Please do not speak in place of Rossi.
E-Cat is perfect to make heat (the primary goal)
Next demonstration in Uppsala with secondary circuit will remove all doubt.
Rossi is deciding what to do, not you please!
The construction of a good electric generator with a steam temperature of 200 ° is not a simple thing.
Rossi said a delay of 1 year minimum for this!!!!!
Patience please.

• Marco Blanco

I been following this story for months now and Dr Hagel as very concisely explained what the world needs to see from Rossi’s next test. You’d think that Rossi would be keen to make the next test as unambiguous as possible. If it is, then we can truly expect a revolution. If the next test does turn out to be full of obvious flaws then it moves Rossi away from the briliant scientist and closer to the sad attention seeker.

• “If the next test does turn out to be full of obvious flaws then it moves Rossi away from the briliant scientist and closer to the sad attention seeker.”

Oh, I think you are wrong! If Rossi’s technology works, independent of whether he can envision the “flaws” of the skeptics, he remains a brilliant scientist and engineer. If his technology doesn’t work, which I am finding very hard to believe at this point, then he is a brilliant fraudster. As an attention seeker, he could be doing much better than he is doing.

• georgehants

There is not long to wait now, and if successful Rossi will be the first to demonstrate new science (I think) since Einstein as all other progress has been based on theories already put forward.
There is no theory known within QM to explain the effect.

• David

I find it interesting that so many skeptics operate from the view point that Rossi needs to prove his system works. That may be true if he were a scientist attempting to sway the scientific community to his way of thinking. The problem is though; he is an inventor and an industrialist, not a scientist.
From his perspective proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt would only encourage others to jump into the game before he is ready to roll his product out. It would seem to me that the course he is taking, just giving out enough information to keep people interested, is best due to the fact that the uncertainty will keep the competition at bay for the last critical months before he is ready to reveal his work to the world.
It may not be the scientific way but as a manufacturer I might very well follow the course he has set if I were him. The most important thing for him is to be able to ship a product before anyone else is in the game. Scientific process be damned.

• georgehants

David,
I agree, history shows any new science faces irrational negative pressure to succeed,
mainly from science itself.
If Rossi succeeds perhaps science will begin to put its own house in order.

• “perhaps science will begin to put its own house in order.” Yes! Science, again, is new concept rejecting. Scientific journals are much more afraid of having egg on their face than they are enticed by breaking radical news. The scientific journal system, ultimately, is much better at maintaining the status quo than it is at separating out truth from fiction.

• Dr. Johannes Hagel

This is an ineresting point of view and looking at it from this side makes sense too. However we also have to account for possible fraud even though I tend to think there is none because of independent scientists having tested it. Anyway, there is not much time left and we will all know better and honestly, I do hope very very strongly that it goes in favor of Mr. Rossi. Because a lot of things will at the same time be in favor of all of us!

• georgehants

I would have to say Cold Fusion in general and not confined to Mr. Rossi, that if confirmed will be the icing on the cake.

• Brad Arnold

Understandably, a great deal of anxiety is focused upon testing the the E-Cat, attempting to achieve a bullet-proof result to convince skeptics of the validity of Rossi and LENR Ni-H. Unfortunately, I believe that only successful commercialization (i.e. selling working E-Cats in the market place) can truly serve to thrust LENR Ni-H into consensus reality.

I mean, look at the number and variety of tests already performed on the Rossi E-Cat: http://ecatfusion.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-biography-the-e-cat-fusor-story

Convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction. Will another test be the penultimate and prove once and for all the legitimacy of the Rossi E-Cat? I sincerely doubt it, no matter how well the test is constructed.

• “I believe that only successful commercialization can truly serve to thrust LENR Ni-H into consensus reality.”

Ultimately in this statement you are VERY right. Its one thing to hear reports of scientists way over there studying something. Its another thing to shower from the hot water of your personal e-cat.

Fortunately Dr. Rossi is planning to release a consumer version in November.

• Jonathan McCabe

I would have thought that all the energy produced would have to turn up in the output water eventually (assuming the insulation is good). Even if the heat exchanger is inefficient, that would just result in a higher temperature difference across the exchanger, but in equilibrium the flow of energy would be the same. I’m making a distinction between the useful energy and the total energy, it’s the total energy that is being measured by the change in temperature of the water.

• Dr. Johannes Hagel

Correct, since the primary circuit is a closed one. So the energy transfer is only limited by the insulation because there is no transfer to mechanical energy!

• Pingback: Sul test che si farà ad Uppsala « dibattiti()

• susan

This claim looks very promising but, as usual the verbs are in the future tense.
Does Upssala university knows about it ? Any word from them ?

• Franz

“…the inside volume now is at least three times the one before and thus the test should be extended for at least 60 hours…”
But the power output is also higher than the older E-Cat so wouldn’t the time needed to exclude common energy sources be also reduced by that factor?

• Dr. Johannes Hagel

This is right, I did not take this into account. So in the January test they reached 13 KW average power compared to 20 now. THis reduces the necessary time by roughly a factor of 2. Together with the volume increased by at least a factor of 3 the necessaary time would reduce to 18 * 3/2 = 27, say 30 hours. Anyway more is better in this case in order to still improve credibility.

• Marco DL

“However, with this method we will be sure that at least the measured energy in the secondary circuit has indeed be released by the E-Cat”
should be like:
However, with this method we will be sure that at least the measured energy in the secondary circuit minus the electrical fed energy, has indeed be released by the E-Cat

• Dr. Johannes Hagel

Hi Marco,

You are fully correct. When I wrote this article I was mentally focused on the self sustain mode of E-Cat operation with no electrical energy feed.

• It is puzzling that most of Rossi’s tests have been producing steam for all of the reasons stated in this post. However we must remember that Dr. Levi’s 18 hour test was heating water. It produced an average output of 15kw, which is a heck of a lot.

The main advantage of the Uppsala testing is that presumably it will be done both with independ testing equipment and with scientific rigor. In Dr. Levi’s interview with the infamous Steve Krivit, Dr. Levi explains how his testing was a prelude to formal testing — determining the parameters necessary to design a rigorous test.

I do wonder when the Uppsala test will produce released results. I also wonder why Dr. Rossi didn’t release the e-cat to this kind of testing months ago. I think it good for scientific integrity that the test not be done at the University of Bologna as people would claim a lack of independence.

• Giorgio Lazzarini

We look confident