‘Hot’ Hot Cat Picture!

If the pictures of the shipping and testing of the 1 MW plant were not too exciting, take a look at the picture below. We have seen a picture of the hot cat in action before, but not like this. The photo has been posted by Daniele Passerini at 22passi.blogspot.com, and he says it is of a hot cat reactor pushed to its limits. According to Passerini’s post this was taken six months ago: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2013/05/fino-al-limite-di-rottura.html

I have to say I find it spectacular.

Hot Cat on Fire


  • Krish

    I voted “Don’t Know” regarding my view of the hot cat photo.

  • captain

    Picture, video… of an hot e-cat reactor… better listen to Rossi’s words.

    Time ago I’ve heard that the hot e-cat had a melting point of approx 1250-1300deg C and that the reactor was producing hot dry steam at 600C approx: and that was good enough.

    Now, the Rossi’s e-cat has an improved melting point of 1500C approx, and it can deliver safely hot dry steam at 800C approx: AN EXCELLENT NEWS.

    Gherardo
    May 6th, 2013 at 2:54 AM

    Dott.Rossi,
    In the past for the first e-cat you said that the reaction in case of malfunction (forgive my inaccurate wording) would melt the core and the reaction would extinguish.
    I was looking at the picture with the hot-cat cylinder red hot for the 800+ degrees temperature reached on the outside and was thinking how is that runaway situation now for the hot-cat.
    Thanks, Gherardo

    Andrea Rossi
    May 6th, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    Dear Gherardo:
    For the Hor Cat are valid the same considerations made for the E-Cat. The melting point of Ni is around 1500 C.
    Anyway that photo ( that has been published without our authorization, and we do not know how it has been leaked) is referred to a destructive test- experiment we made about 6 months ago. The stability temperature of the Hot Cat is around 350 Celsius
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Bob

      It’s strange that Rossi says the photo is of a “destructive test” and yet there is no blast shielding or other saftey measures visible. It’s just sitting out on the workshop floor next to the 1Mw unit.
      Not only that, there was someone close enough to take photos of it.
      Although there are no other people shown in the photo so maybe the rest of the workshop were hiding in the tea room. Who knows?
      Anyway, if that’s how hot it gets at the point of destruction I think the reports of 800 degrees plus are a bit over the top. The small pale yello area up the left side would be about that but the rest of the cylinder is not.
      Too many ifs and buts to come to any definitive conclusion.

      • captain

        http://www.cobraf.com/forum/PostsByAuthor.php?authorid=3994
        Interesting news but mainly comments are coming from Italy, thus the above link (in italian, sorry).

        And the blogger Cures, is missing now from that blog list!

        And another blogger, is no longer posting his comments…

        E-cat is born in Italy, prototypes and first 1MW plants are coming from the boot too, thus…

        • Roger Bird

          I won’t be stuffing all of that text into Google Translate.

  • Fisher

    This is a very nice photo. It gives some level of transparency but it still leaves a lot of questions. I wonder…Why not post a video of this same scene. It wouldn’t show any more of the machinery and process, so to speak, but it would show the distortions of heated air around the object. You have to admit that such a video would be pretty revealing and yet not give away any trade secrets.

    • Ecco the Dolphin

      According to some discussions I google-translated from 22passi, it looks like a video might actually reveal something. The large amount of hearing protection headsets laying around (I counted 7) in one of the photos provided by F.Fabiani on Rossi’s blog might be a clue.

      Besides, Passerini stated that he won’t reveal anything more about what happened in this photo.

  • Roger Bird

    OK, people, my screen was zoomed in, and so I could not see that there is a survey over to the right. Perhaps you’all didn’t see it, so I bring it to your attention.

    My side is winning, and since consensus science rules (at least in climate science) I win. But, seriously, vote.

    Also, there is an ad to the left for the American Cancer Society. The ACS spends 29% of it’s income on research devoted only to chemo, radiation, and surgery and nothing else. I wouldn’t personally give them the sweat from my underarm. When they say that they need our help to finish the fight, I say it would be nice if they had even started the fight. Cancer research has made no progress whatsoever in 50 years. They are exactly in the same position as hot-fusionists. Send us your money and we will have a cure (or over unity) in 50 years. Their problem is that they refuse to fund anything other than chemo, radiation, surgery, and the “killing cancer” paradigm, rather than the “strengthening the body” paradigm. As far as I can tell, the ACS is a money making operation for it’s owners and workers.

    • Anthony Rockel

      “Strengthening the body”? Well, you obviously haven’t bothered to acquaint yourself with the extensive work on immunotherapy and its clinical applications that has been going on in cancer research for over a decade, besides which, a number of cancers are already curable.

      • Roger Bird

        I looked in Wikipedia and they called it “junk science”.

        Just kidding.

        It is a step forward, and I have heard of it. However, after the person has been cured of that particular cancer, he/she is not necessarily a healthier person because the therapy utilized a very mere, tiny fraction of the person’s whole physical body. Gerson et. al. use(d) the entire person, including lifestyle to effect cures. And, please, for God’s sake, don’t say that Gerson is unproven junk science. The cancer mafia raises the level of proof so high that only pharmaceutical companies can afford “proof”. Immunotherapy is obviously better than chemo, radiation, and surgery, but it is very fractionalistic or partialistic, the opposite of holistic.

    • Peter_Roe

      Agreed – well said.

    • georgehants

      Roger as there clearly is not enough definitive Evidence to say otherwise, the only scientific answer is “don’t know”
      It would appear that anybody saying otherwise is merely stating an “opinion” that has been and is the most destructive thing that destroys science.
      To just have fun and guess if genuine is fine as long as clearly kept away from any part of Science.

      • Roger Bird

        georgehants, I don’t know which part of my post you are referring to. I stand by all and any negative statement that I have made about the ACS.

      • Barry

        +1 (Georges comment)