Andrea Rossi Makes Available Safety Certificate from SGS

I have just received the following document from Andrea Rossi which is titled Voluntary Certificate of Compliance With Safety of Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1)

The certificate records that it has been issued for the E-Cat 1 MW.

It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004.

The document is dated 05/09/2012

Alternative link to the document:

EFA rep 1107

  • Invy

    Hopefully someone is watching this articles comment section (being 2 months ago)…

    Can someone tell me what I have to enter into here

    to get the SGS certificate… I want it to come from their database, just to ensure its’ validity.

  • Andrew Macleod

    Is the report concidered sales material? Within the Safty cert it states accuracy with sales litareture.

  • MK

    ShutdownRossidotcom is offline :-))))))))))))

    • Andrew Macleod

      They just moved….

    • cx

      Bet he deleted that post about the sgs certificate

      • Max S

        no, he did not. Shutdownrossi is back online again.

  • s

    The safety cert is a nontechnical story in my opinion. So, I have no comment on it. The story concerning the failed test is still important. Note that the ecat people stated that, after the failed measurement, they had to change the way they tested power by adding a variac per the article below. Does anyone think that by changing the way they measure after the National institute test, the ecat people might be possibly acknowledging their measurement techniques needed an accuracy improvement?

    • daniel maris

      What are you on about? Haven’t you read the list of safety issues that the certificate addresses, set out by Ged. How can you call that non-technical – unless you are trying deliberately mislead people?

    • Andrew Macleod

      I see it as a non issue, a simple mistake. If I understand correctly(and most likely not), say you want to figure out how much power your digital camera consumes during charging… If you measure at the wall socket you will get one reading while if you measure after the transformer you will get another. This coupled with the fact that circuits are designed for maximum load (I believe the ecat has a vaired load). With a viariac before the measurement tools you can reduce the power to what the ecat needs limiting any reflections of unused power.

    • Karl

      Who can believe the fairytale by Hydrofusion and their failed attempts to finance the Rossi project. It could rather be a result of an attempt to hurt Rossi in finance debacle.

    • So rather than talk about a documented and published set of safety tests conducted by an established 3rd party tester in accordance with established procedures, you would rather try to amplify the significance of an unpublished, unsubstantiated ‘test’ of unknown purpose, quality or circumstances.

      Your intent in doing so is obvious, and indeed your entire purpose for posting here is becoming very clear.

      From ’25 rules of disinformation’

      “4. Use a straw man. …. select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.”

      • s

        I am not a “strawman”. I am an independent observor. No test results for the safety inspection were released.

        Back to my original point, the ecat people seem to state that, after seeing the measurements by the National Institute, the ecat people changed their measurement techniques. Can someone stay focused on my post, and not bring up extraneous issues, and comment on how changing the ecat measurement technique after almost 2 years could impact the results?

        • If the relevant information was available it would already have been examined here. As it stands, it is unsubstantiated in virtually all respects. Provide some actual details of the ‘test’ setup and the parameters used and perhaps someone may be able to help you.

          BTW, it is the argument technique that is referred to as using a ‘straw man’, not yourself.

          • s

            Once again you choose to ignore my point. The ecat people, in the linked article seem to state that, after seeing the National Institute test results, they might have had to change the way they measured input power to not miss some of the energy going to the resistors. First, do you acknowledge that the ecat people appear to have made that statement?

            Second, isn’t it a scientific standard that if measurements are found to have been made incorrectly, then all measurements made in the past by the same technique are invalidated? I will leave it at these two questions right now.

            • See the comment by Chris on September 11, 2012 at 8:49 am. It is clear that the ‘hot cat’ is NOT a simple resistive load, and therefore simple measurements of power are not adequate. Rossi offered to substitute a variac power controller for his triac ‘chopper’ circuit but as far as is known, no test was conducted in this way.

              As I said, if you have more information, kindly provide it.

              • s

                Ok. I see that you refuse to acknowledge that the ecat people seem to state that they changed the measurement technique after seeing the national institute results. They also seem to state that measuring input is an example of an issue that is under probe. You can ignore these two statements if they don’t fit into your view of the ecat. Find the definition of someone who ignores facts like these while you are looking up definitions.

                • Omega Z


                  It appears the National Institute was using an Outdated device. May have been picking up frequencies that never fed into the E-cat.

                  For me the real question is why back out of a deal when testing & development are on going on a prototype. Unfinished. Doesn’t make sense. Some other motive must be involved.

                  But, NO WORRIES. Rossi is now going to run tests on both a loaded & Non-Loaded E-cat. A Blank. Results will definitely be unquestionable.

        • From 25 Rules of Disinformation:

          “9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.”

          • GreenWin

            Peter, you have nailed “s” dead on. He is a disinformant. Note too that he keeps “civil” in a transparent attempt to appear rational. This pretense to rationality is endemic to skeptopathic behavior. Don’t feed the troll.

        • Andrew Macleod

          It’s not changing the measurement techniques after 2 years…. It’s a 3rd party not using proper techniques on a new device.

        • Ged

          Your post is off topic to this thread (which is about the classical low temp e-cats, not the hot cat!). Besides, wasn’t the Variac for the hot cat mentioned before any of this? You are failing to be skeptical, and are believing one random report that does not fit the data readily available. What does that say to you?

    • Redford

      The issue I have with Hydrofusion test is that we don’t know who did it neither have the results. We just have a PR. OTOH we now have a set of testing by 3 new names with valid resume that we can evaluate. We have a security certification by a credible company that implies testing something working as intended, and the little data (in/out) seems to be entirely consistent with Rossi’s says. On the top of that we also other people around the world, also with consistent resume, demoing and publishing results that conforts what Rossi said from the beginning.

      Really I am open minded to skepticism and I’ve not yet entirely jumped in the LENR is real wagon just yet. But this swedish measure looks like another Dick Smith incident to me. Someone think he’s smart and has figured something with the input that every other missed. No matter how believing this on face value imply to assert that an awful lot of professionals have all made incredible mistakes, and the very small likeliness on it, all the skeptics jump on this because it confirms their beliefs.

      Well, I have no beliefs, one side or the other. I am treating both side of the coin equally. The rule is : Rossi has to proove what he says. He’s taking his goddamn time but I admit this last week I’ve seen very consistent progress. Enough to actually start to move the ball in the other side. Once Rossi will have published his results, skeptics will have to play a totally different game that will require real work, because the burden to invalidate Rossi’s proof will be theirs at that point.

      And actually a responsible skeptic would start to do the job now, because set of examination on hot cat is just there and you can’t just say it’s fake just because you say so. Sure scientific journal publishing more advanced results with 3 extra names will be better, but it will not be hugely different. We have results by 3rd party right now. That’s what we should be talking about, what their flaws are, etc. Unfortunately there is just not enough meat on the swedish bogus to discuss it. Hopefully it will come.

      • Redford, you wrote: “Rossi has to proove what he says. He’s taking his [expletive] time but I admit this last week I’ve seen very consistent progress.”

        Reading your comment, something just occurred to me. Different people like to do different thing. Andrea Rossi obviously likes to invent. So, maybe that is why he would rather make a “hot cat” work at all rather than to polish up a home e-Cat for boiling water, or rather than to prove anything about his earlier work to the world? Maybe this is just a personality thing? Some people are more “starters” than “finishers”? Perhaps Rossi does not have to “prove” anything to anyone — other than to do the minimum of what it takes for him to have the time and resources to keep inventing? Perhaps the personality to bring something to market, or to publish something solidly irrefutable in a scientific journal, may be a very different personality than one that makes creative breakthroughs or who keeps at some difficult engineering task that others have long ago given up on?

        That said, it seems like if Rossi really wanted to demonstrate the LENR effect irrefutably, numerous people have suggested ways to do that, including simply running one original ecat with the catalyst side-by-side with one without the catalyst and/or hydrogen supply, and comparing output (to see what the baseline effect is of the electrical heating). That could be done in an afternoon. It could have been done at the recent conference of licensees. Of course, then there are speculations on why Rossi might not want irrefutable proof of the effect yet. I guess we will see when we see — and there are also others claiming related effects (like the Pirelli School) who may also eventually produce universally convincing evidence.

        • Redford

          I fail to see how this would be more evidence than the 3rd party hot cat measure. Do your A / B comparison, and there will always be suspicion about is A truly different from B, etc. If David Copperfield can seems to fly, visual proof is not enough.

          I think Rossi’s right to go the 3rd party measure way. We now have specialists, 2 of them paid by 3rd party, signing a report with measurements. That’s something David Copperfield could not do. And it’s the way scientific truth is being establish. So that’s good for me.

    • Dionysius

      Not at all… what they are saying is that to avoid possible misreadings by various meters, they will go to a power supply that is less likely to create voltage spikes that may be interpreted as greater power input than is supposed.

  • georgehants

    Cold Fusion News
    Cold Fusion Energy & LENR News
    The Most Influential People in the World of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
    Published September 13, 2012 | By jennifer

    • An excellent read – it’s useful to pause from time to time to see where we are, as an increasing tide of reported developments and recently, verifications, comes our way. It’s also good to see the role of Dr Trouchard of NI being acknowledged, among the line up of impressive individuals who are (and have been for some time) spearheading the resurgence of CF.

  • Chris

    Interesting and encouraging as it is, it would be even more interesting if SGS made public the two outcome reports which the certificate refers to:

    RVV.DM.MI.12.003 and RVV.DM.MI.12.004

    Without these, we can’t really say whether SGS has tested its overunity performance or to what extent, they simply say that no one is likely to get hurt in using it, providing the the instruction manual is accurately followed by each operator. It is also worth noting that only the prototype is certified, so the document doesn’t constitute a product certification and it cannot be used for commercial or advertising purposes. This comes just before the fine print at the end (which refers to the General Conditions of Service). AFAIK and understand about certification for the CE logo, it remains the full responsibility of the manufacturer who markets/sells equipment under this logo, to make sure that it actually does comply to the EU directive 2006/42/CE. Therefore SGS has simply provided a professional service to EFA srl, assisting them in meeting this responsibility.

    So, in actual fact, we still need to wait and see… but with hope there can soon be customers who allow other prospective ones to visit their own one.

    • Redford

      Seems it wouls be illegal for them to do so (somewhere else in the comments there’s a source)

      • Ged

        Yep, it is the EU law that all parties involved in the testing (Rossi included I assume) must keep confidential any information from the testing that is not directly required for the health and safety of persons. I posted the direct quote below under the list of all the safety certificate had to test to meet the essentials of the Annex I of this directorate.

        So, I’m pretty sure we will never get our hands on those reports. It’s why Rossi says he’s under NDA, as is SGS about them: they are, as per EU law.

        • Chris

          Thanks πŸ™‚

          So we can’t know if SGS payed any attention to overunity performance. There’s a mighty difference between hazardous and not worth the investment. This is disappointing because yet again Rossi has been sloppy.

          We can only wait for any customers who don’t keep their identity a secret and hear about their satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

          • Ged

            Rossi hasn’t been slopping in this regard. It is EU law, nothing he or any of us can do about it. If SGS looked at that specifically and what they found is all confidential. We can blame bureaucracy for this. Maybe it’ll change in time though.

            Moreover, this safety certificate is one pre-requisite for selling the device in the EU (compliance with the directorate, more specifically). So, it was important Rossi did this.

            • Chris

              That’s not what I meant Ged. I had already acknowledged what you said about those reports, I also looked up and found that water heaters/boilers are one of the categories for which you are right about the CE logo being pre-requisite; it is not so for all products even though they must be compliant.

              Maybe it’s just me but I think Rossi had given the impression there would be more third party support of his claims. which I wasn’t aware of. Or maybe it was how the news was given here. It looked vaguely like the certifier would be a non-secret voucher of quantitative matters. i’m not blaming him for it not being so, only for not having been clearer in his announcements, a frequent problem of his.

              Mind though that, according to cases which go beyond my expertise, resort to the certifier isn’t always mandatory. Whether or not the manufacturer does, or must, actually brand it CE, when the product is not “considered to have a greater risk” he might even simply make sure (or bet his arse, balls and wife’s tender parts) that it is compliant with applicable directives. In any case the responsibility for this compliance (or his declaration of it) remains solely his own (and is distinct from that of the certifier, if resorted to). So, is the ecat to be considered of greater risk?

              • Ged

                I guess there is just some miscommunication. We’ve known since before Zurich that the industrial E-cat (this) was certified for safety by a third party. A safety certificate means the device is real, functional and safe, but it doesn’t guarantee the performance claims of the device. And here we see all Rossi was saying was completely true.

                The third party performance evaluation and report on the Hot Cat (not this 1 MW plant or classic E-cat) was given to us during the Zurich conference, here on this site.

                So, I guess I just didn’t see what it was you were referring to which was sloppy, and assumed you meant that safety certificate. There’s a lot of different certification processes and reports flying around right now, so it’s definitely easy to get things crossed or confused. No worries at all!

                • Chris

                  Indeed, we are miscomunicating.

                  The third party validations didn’t go so well; the one that didn’t fail doesn’t seem to carry a huge weight. So both these exposed some sloppiness on his part and that’s why my words were “yet again”.

                  The certificate itself means even less than what you are saying, it doesn’t guarantee “real and functional”, AFAIK you could mark a cast tin shape as CE, without supporting your claim that it gives one cosmic vibrations that help them sleep or concentrate; this has no nearing on whether your product is harmful (unlike the ecat which, according to its claimed functionality, needs to be guaranteed stable and adequately sheilded).

                  I was led to hope the details would shed some light, that’s all, but it seems no use clarifying yet again. You say they remain secret by law and I’m taking you word for it, even though I find it strange, because I’m having trouble finding this point in that .pdf doc. Could you please indicate precisely where it makes that point? What does this same law say about the case of the certifier being challenged? I would be inclined to expect more the opposite requirement.

          • Omega Z

            Chris Ged

            According to Rossi on his blog, SGS did not confirm COP. Their Job was to safety test it for CE listing.

            • Chris

              Thanks, I don’t sift through his blog much.

  • georgehants

    Hydrobetatron ‏@Hydrotron_lab
    Here you can download the wiring diagram of HydroBeta-Tron …

    • Ivan_cev

      page not found

      • Redford

        Add .pdf at the end of the URL. The link has been broken by the comment engine somehow.

    • That is potentially a helluva lot of power going into the device, going on the ratings of the transformer and variac. Once the plasma zone forms, resistance may go to a minimum, allowing quite a current flow. I hope that at some point we will be able to see operational data showing that more energy comes out than goes in (or maybe I missed that along the line?).

      • GreenWin

        Curious he uses two 10kHz band pass filters prior to the isolation transformer and variac. He’s also using a full wave rectifier – many experiments use AC @ variable Hz. Since this is Italy I presume he’s working with 220V, 50Hz in. And at these voltage/currents seeing a light show in the reaction vessel does not indicate LENR. It would be helpful to test for nuclear artifacts – i.e. gamma, x-ray, CR-39 tracks, transmutations…

  • Omega Z

    This is for the 1Mw Low Temp (LT) E-cat.

    Safety Certification for Commercial/Industrial Use Only.

    This Safety test appears to have been done on May 9th. I assume Rossi didn’t receive it Officially until sometime in June. About the Time he claimed it was certified.

    From what I understand, this WOULD allow Rossi to apply a CE certification stamp on the product. A CE certification is but a Safety test.
    This would apply to Europe. I don’t know if this applies for U.S. It would depend on the particulars. SGS is International.

    Test was performed on Premises. It doesn’t specify exact location. I Assume at Rossi’s facilities or 3rd party premises.

    It was operated by 3rd party. I believe this is also required.

    SGS would observe.

    I read something that Stated Rossi is required to be present during safety tests, but only as an Observer. This makes sense as these tests would be both time consuming & expensive. Minor details can be worked out on the spot.

    This Test does not validate COP. Only safety performance. However the 3rd party could have done COP verifications simultaneously. This would be a separate certification. Maybe the 1 yet to be released.

    Note That: Even with Safety Certificate & a COP performance Certificate, A Customer would want an on sight Validation of COP after it’s delivered & in operation before signing OFF on Escrow release of payment & Final payment. This is pretty much standard procedure. What works fine at the factory may not work properly when delivered due to many possibilities.

    Purchase requires 1/3 value placed in Escrow. Released to Leonardo Corporation when the Customer Signs Off on the E-cat. That’s $500K. Anyone want to speculate on what Rossi/Leonardo think the 1Mw LT E-cat will cost to produce & deliver.

    • Renzo

      it was done on september 5, european date is d/m/y

    • Timar

      1) It’s from September 5th. Only Americans use such funny formats like MM/DD/YY or ugly units like inches, ounces, miles…

      2) Didn’t you read the last paragraph (or at least some of the discussion here)? It says unequivocally that it is a voluntary safety certificate applying solely to the tested prototype. It is by no means a product certification and certainly NOT a CE.

      • Agree about date formats – m-d-y is completely illogical. As for feet and inches, pounds and ounces, yards, miles, gallons (and especially pints!) I still use them all the time, alongside metric units when these are more convenient (like most Brits older than 40 or so). All road distance signs here in the UK are in miles, not kilometres.

        • Timar

          You are right, the UK is quite far off from the European mainland in some regards πŸ˜‰ However, in a philosophical sense those ancient units are certainly much more meaningful than the abstract metrical system. They are just increasingly confusing and unpractical in a modern world driven by technology and globalization. That’s the reasean why GB officially converted to the metrical system, I think (Remember how the NASA once blew up a sattelite because someone took cm for inches?)

          I absolutely agree when in comes to the pint. Cheers!

          • We prefer to think that Europe is quite far off from Britain, to their great misfortune. An urban legend says that a newspaper headline once read ‘Fog in Channel – Continent Isolated’.


          • freethinker

            wasn’t the blown up satellite ESA? Ariadne 5 premiere launch, carrying payload (high risk – cheap deployment). It blew due to some sw issue with units.
            I might be wrong though…

            • Ariane-5 carrying Cluster satellites blew up because the processor made illegal numerical operation in a subroutine that was inactive but still for some reason execute. The error wasn’t seen with Ariane-4 because it had different acceleration profile, and the code had been copied verbatim to the next launcher. I remember it well because we had made plans to use the Cluster data.
              It was Nasa’s Mars Climate Orbiter that crashed to Mars due to imperial/metrical mixup.

          • GreenWin

            You gentlemen forget the more arcane units in the Brit system – the hand, and stone for instance. “In 1389 a royal statute of Edward III fixed the stone of wool at 14 pounds.” I presently need to lose a stone or two; add a hand, and hoist a pint.

      • Omega Z


        On the Date you may be right. I’ve found a couple MM/DD/YY but usually 5th March 2012 format with the month spelled out. Found none with just numbers as shown here. Maybe Rossi can give Clarification.

        The Test was a Safety Certification. SGS is a notifying Body & can preform a EC type-examination procedure. A CE Safety Certification.

        Rossi said he has CE certification. Maybe in the Zurich Video’s.

        Also on his Blog
        Andrea Rossi September 13th, 2012 at 3:21 PM

        Dear Frank Acland:
        Thank you, actually I could not publish this certificate, we cannot use it for commercials, I asked the permission to do this, explaining that I had to defend myself from the accusation of having said not truly that we had it . It is a Voluntary Safety Certificate, it enables us to put the CE mark on our 1 MW plants.
        Warm Regards,

        • Timar

          Sure the SGS can perform CE certification. This certification however is no CE (It may be an important prerequisite for such a certification though).

    • rainer

      hello – every good sold in europe needs a CE sticker or stamp . The manufacturer put in on it and does confirmate within that the product has all the security values needet in european community .
      The CE sticker is no safety test or the confirmation that a safety test has been done .

      • The CE sticker is the manufacturer’s confirmation that the product bearing it conforms to all relevant EU directives. The directives stipulate the safety standards applicable, therefore the CE sticker or logo IS confirmation that the device is safe to use (unless of course it is fake, in which case the manufacturer or distributor will be prosecuted).

      • Michael

        Some appliances need testing, for example gas cookers and gas boilers to get a CE mark. You can identify the testing laboratory/notified body by the numbers close to the CE letters. Emission limits have to be met, and other safety aspects.

  • Julian Becker


  • Claes

    This is good news.

    But just to be a pain… The only little loophole I see in it is that it was run at Rossi’s premises and there is no COP indication. So if they ran it and it gave a COP of 3 with the wrong measurements they could have passed basically a toaster in the tests.

    If the COP is 6 however, as advertised, it would still have a COP of 2 with the wrong meter (if indeed it was a factor 3 error – I’m not entirely sure of that), and the COP is not very important. It’s only a matter of engineering IF IT WORKS. That it works is what is important.

    I really hope that it works – I find the prospect that it doesn’t work very depressing. But at the same time I’m a scientist myself and I just can’t ignore possible problems that I see.

    • Ged

      These are the classical E-cats. They use water temperature as the input energy. You can’t going to miscalculate that to any great degree. See Pekka’s calculations below too for some fun math.

      • Claes

        Ok, thanks!