High Temperature E-Cat Report Published

Below are three separate documents which comprise the report that Andrea Rossi has authorized for release. The first document is the main report, the second is a data file from this report, and the third contains some corrections to the first report and expanded information.

Andrea Rossi asked that I issue this statement along with the reports.

“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but
much R&D work has still to be done.”

Penon4 (1)

Hot Cat Data


  • Andre Blum

    Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to find unexpected high currents.

    So a typical scenario may be this: you have fuses that repeatedly blow and your normal ampmeter does not find any justification for that fact. This True RMS meter would show you the real — higher — current.

    Now, we know such ampmeters and multimeters have digital displays that only update once every second, or half second at most. Somewhere in that meter, there must be an algorithm that determines what value to display next. Usually that would be an average value of the last period. But knowing that this device is often used to find unexpected high currents, could it be that it displays the max value? (or the max average of all the intervals of a typical duration that would be enough for a fuse to blow)?

    Depending on the duty cycle of the (presumably PWM driven) resistive heater, this may give too high values at swithing on. This is why he now suggests using a variable AC transformer, to stop using PWM.

    • Andre Blum

      will report at right article 😉

  • GreenWin

    The “Hot Cat Data” is from July 11, 2011. More than a year ago. What’s wrong with this?? Further, the temperature data peaks at 750C – significantly less than the cylinder interior 1100C found by Penon’s tests. Can we assume the convected radiation is responsible? Or the device is not driven to peak.

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      The 2011 year might be a typo (there are some in the Penon test report), but from what I can see temperature data peaks at 1074C, not 750C (see slide 11).

      • Robert Mockan

        Maybe temperature in Kelvin and Celsius is being confused? Some of the posters at the Vortex-1 forum discuss this.

        • GreenWin

          Maybe??? How fuggin stupid do people think we…

          Apologies Admin. This charade is WAY too cynical.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          True, I didn’t see that temperatures are in Kelvin degrees. GreenWin was right.

          I think however these are average temperature measurements for the external reactor surface, topping just over 1074K -> ~801C. The inside would be hotter.

  • GreenWin

    Can the Italian speakers confirm that Fabio Penon studied at University Padova??

  • s

    There is a lot of confusion about “self sustain mode”. I can’t find anything in any text book about “self sustain mode” exactly. The closest for this type of situation is “heat after death”. “Heat after death” is when a reactor produces energy as it destroys itself and destabilizes after the controlling input power is removed. If anyone can find an official physics definition of “self sustain mode”, please post a link to it.

    • Daniel

      There won’t be any “text book” because this thing is cutting edge heretical suspiciously fraudulent independent industrial research.
      Wherever you found that “heat after death” explanation is probably not what it means with the e-cat. Here it might be the amount of heat produced after cutting the supply of electricity to the unit.
      Self-sustained mode refers to how all e-cat devices need to be supplied some electricity to produce much more thermal energy then that electricity.
      Self-sustained mode would be if there were no external sources of electricity, heat or energy of any kind.

  • Chris

    It’s a bit disappointing as far as notoriety goes, seems one of them is a Rossi guy anyway.

  • daniel maris

    OK – why under an NDA? I don’t understand…

    And where is the validated data for the low temperature E cat? Why can’t that be released?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Does everyone agree the measurements in the above report are conservative?!

    • Omega Z

      Very Conservative.

      On purpose so no mistake about excess heat output.

      Also, This test also wasn’t for the purpose of COP but safety.

      • Ivan_cev

        How could you test safety, at a different regime of what you pretend to run. you must test safety at the max COP you can achieve.

  • Massimo Stefano Venco

    If the average COP is 2.2 at 500/600. C dgr then it’s possibile put in series. many ECAT and so obtaining COP progressively inncreased. After the first stage we will have COP 4.4, at second stage 8.8 etc always at the sane temperature. Is it corresct?

    • Marcello

      Unfortunately,still not.
      Input energy is electrical, output termical, so it would to be converted again to electrical throught a gas turbine but in that way COP is still not enought

      • Marcello

        *a steam turbine obviously,not a gas one, sorry.

      • Tor

        This is hot cat,not low cat.I think low cat still have coop
        off 6

    • This idea of using thermal energy from one device to boost another e-cat has been rejected by Rossi and those who are certifying the device as it could allow the device to run out of control. I have the impression the e-cat is very temperamental or I should say is unstable. If it is driven to too high a temperature, it will run out of control to the point it will melt and possibly cause an explosion of the coolant. Hence, it is operated in a pseudo heat-after-death mode where it needs constant boosting or else the anomalous heat will die off and shut down. It is safe to run it in that manner. I suspect there is some sweet spot temperature at which it will run with very little boosting but that point will be very near the point of instability and they would need a very good understanding of the behavior of a particular design and good controls applied.

      • If the only problem is that output of one E-cat is not completely stable and therefore cannot be used as the thermal driver of another one, it’s straightforward to solve the problem by having enough E-cats so that individual differences average out and/or a temporary thermal pool energy storage of some kind (molten salt, e.g.).

        If the problem is, however, that the heat of one E-cat is not hot enough to drive another one, that’s a more difficult problem to solve. That needs some amount of electricity, but still possibly much less than the COP of an individual E-cat.

        • Daniel

          That is what Rossi made with the 1MW power unit. Exactly because the output of a single unit is not that predictable.
          I think Rossi didn’t think of the possibility of using some other device as a buffer for heat transfer. That is why he says its not possible.
          Maybe gas pumping from the hot cat to a reservoir and from there to another hot cat unit, so any variation output of the first would not affect the supply of the second unit.

  • Wait a minute, this summing up of inner and outer surface areas simply does not hold water! Heat radiated in the orifice is reasorbed, so surface area of the opening(s) is only that matters. On the other hand, convective losses were neglected. There was obviously an abnormal generation of heat, but numbers are sloppy!

    • I noticed that. Part of the inner tube surface can radiate to the room but much is reabsorbed by the other side of the tube. The tube largely “sees” itself and radiates to itself. The correct way of adjusting that is to calculate what is know as the shape factor for the inner tube surface which is a bit bothersome. I suppose I should do it for as an exercise. But in this case the shape factor will be close to 0.2, I would guess, and that factor should be applied to the surface area of the inner tube thereby reducing the effective area and hence the amount of radiation from that surface.

      • Probably a rather good approximation should be to use as the inner tube area the area of the two openings at the ends, rather than the physical inner tube area. When viewed from outside, one sees a glowing surface from any direction (except directly from the front from where one sees directly through the device, but that’s a small solid angle, of order (3/30)^2=0.01 srad).

  • Alexvs

    Frau Uta Stechl takes word.

    • K

      Indeed. Why was it needed to shout: “NO, IT IS NOT TRUE !”
      After all, is is true.

  • Alexvs

    Bravooooo Mr. Rossi. Applauses.

  • Alexvs

    Mr. Rossi seems uncomfortable. The engineer bodyguard at his right is helping.

  • Marius

    -Expensive black paint mainly for measurement purpose.
    -Still not able to modulate the power output from a single Ecat module very well.
    -Official public test report in 3 months?

    • Marius

      -Confirms that more copper was found than should be there but very hard to measure from samples. Copper transmutation is side-effect.

    • Tangled Connections

      The lack of control over a single module is a big issue.Until a solution is found, no home unit?