3rd Party Report: E-Cat at Least One Order of Magnitude Greater Than Conventional Energy Sources

Here’s the report.


Also published on Arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Title: “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.”

Authors: Giuseppe Levi (Bologna University), Evelyn Foschi (Bologna, Italy), Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér (Uppsala University), Hanno Essen (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm)

From the Abstract:
Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources(Emphasis added)

  • Meralphy

    I went to double check the specification of the object sizes in the report. It states that v1 is 33cm long and 10 (or 11) cm in diameter. This would be a aspect ratio of 3 to 1. However, the provided pictures (assuming quadratic pixels and no weird scaling of the photos) show a ratio of ~4:1.
    For v2 it is stated: 33cm and 9cm which means 3.6:1. Pictures provided show ~4.2:1.
    What do you think?

  • Tom H

    Can someone with hands-on experience with IR imagery analysis comment if setting the device’s software to calculate a temperature AS IF the emissivity is 1.0 actually does what the author’s claim? This seems highly critical to the veracity of this report, particularly considering the wide range of emissivities that are possible for materials at or near the reported temperature.

  • Sinnfrei

    The persons named responsible don’t sound very promising. Unknown Italians, Swedish veterinarians, etc. The only one who sounds legit is Hanno Essén.

  • Tom H

    Lobos Motl seems to throw some cold water on the test results here: http://tinyurl.com/q798jrw

    He presents a table of emisivity for metals at various temperatures:

    Emissivity could be as low as 0.20. How much should we trust the thermal ‘dots’ used as a check?

    • Omega Z

      If the Emissivity was less then 1, then the temps would be under valued. Error would be counter the E-cat. Not pro.

      All their measurements were for negative benefit. Thus, the actual output was higher then the data & the input was lower.

      Then everything was discounted by an additional 10%.

      • Roger Bird

        Not so. Wikipedia: “The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.” Less than 1 (can’t be more than one, except in a unicorn world), means that not all radiation is emitted. Some heat is held back by the cylinder. The meter would read lower than reality. Therefore the real temperature would be higher.

        • Omega Z

          Agree 100% Roger.

          I posed it wrong. Bad day.
          Thanks for correcting my error

      • Tom H

        Radiative energy is proportional to emissivity x Temperature Exp 4.

        A lower grey body emissivity would mean less radiative energy at a given temperature. The authors over rode the IR imagers software to input an emissivity of 1.0 stating that with lower emissivity values the software would calculate higher temperatures. But you still need to put the emissivity into the SB equation. Lobos Motl provided a table of emissivities of metal and a 0.20 value seems as plausible as anything the authors assumed. Motl’s point is at 0.20 emissivity the energy output equals the energy input from the resistive heating.

  • clovis

    Hi, everyone.
    I have but 3 things to say, HAPPY, HAPPY HAPPY,—SMILE

  • wolfgang gaerber

    I´m so excited about if Steven B. Krivits will comment this in “The New Energy Times”.
    Will he comment it ?
    It´s difficult today. Scientists with awesome equipment and reputation can tell us that the world is a disc – and we have to believe.
    And if you drive a rusty old car – you are a criminal.
    Steven will probably tell us that they just couldn´t find the (hidden) wire.

  • stuey81

    im pleasantly suprised to say the least!!! – somebody pinch me 🙂

  • Rockyspoon

    Research and development of any product is fraught with bumps and detours. This is especially true of something based on a phenomena that isn’t well understood, even viciously denied by many scientists.

    Congratulations to Mr. Rossi for persevering. He’s made a significant contribution and if all he did was confirm what Pons and Fleischmann announced to the world back in ’89, it would be worth it.

    But I think this is just the beginning.

  • Zedshort

    Good to see the report. Read it and seems OK but I didn’t follow parts. What puzzles me is why has Rossi allowed this test to be “published?” If he has investors, then I would assume they have some insight into the operation of the device and don’t need to be convinced but would be satisfied with confidential progress reports. If they control Rossi why would they consent to let the cat out of the bag (no pun intended)? Who is being served by throwing out this report to a few hundred interested bloggers? BTW I like what I see. I was getting a little worried that I had been hoodwinked.

    • Garry

      It’s smart for the investors to do this. They want to test the waters, show people what’s coming, prepare for the emotional sea change. They can point to “validated results” to build support within the firm(s) and cement syndicates with other investors.

      • khawk

        I think that Andrea Rossi has been brilliant in his strategy. He has developed a following of advocates and skeptics by “sharing” limited glimpses to his progress. At no time in the history of humanity has the planet had a seat in the audience for this kind of research / breakthrough. Whether by luck, skill or a combination thereof, Andrea Rossi has conduced the worlds first major invention breakthrough via the internet / social media (well at least the predecessor of social media). It is also very smart that he appears to be starting to quiet down on his sharing of details. He has proven his point and gets to concentrate on commercializing this beautiful creation. Thank you and God Speed Andrea Rossi!

        • psi

          + 1. : )

  • John De Herrera

    Let us celebrate today the incredible achievements by Andrea Rossi and everyone who contributed to his success with the Energy Catalizers. A special thanks to all those who were involved with the independent third party validation report. I am very impressed by the report and feel confident this is a powerful new way to generate the heat energy, and soon, electrical energy the world needs. I hope we will soon see the end of the coal and nuclear power plants. jdh

    • Joe Shea

      Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

  • Robyn Wyrick
    • Robyn Wyrick

      Mark Gibbs, in Forbes:

      “But much to my, and I suspect many other people’s surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got.”

      “the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!”

      • Barry

        Let us congratulate Mark Gibbs on being one of the first in the media to eat his words.

        • Robyn Wyrick

          I think he was perfectly appropriate. He mentioned his misgivings, and then laid out how they were handled by this report. It’s a very good story, I think.

  • Omega Z

    If Anyone of significance we’re to take notice of Rossi, The E-cat Future would be effectively written.

    1 of the Contributors to the funding of these tests.


    Elforsk AB started operations in 1993 and is owned jointly by Svensk Energi (Swedenergy) and Svenska Kraftnät (the Swedish National Grid).

    IT Would Appear that Someone of Significance has Noticed.
    And there is to be a follow on test this summer of 6 months.

    So fuss about whether this test will be Published in a Peer Review. I think maybe that no longer matters.

    If I Recall, There was a Representative from ELFORSK at the Zurich Conference. I would strongly suspect from the statements from said representative at that time, That It was They who wanted this Test done.

    And I think I recall someone at ECW provided a link sometime ago,
    That ELFORSK was Funding a preliminary test on a Renewable Energy source & contingent on the results may provide further funding for more in depth tests/study. It was speculated at the time by ECW posters that maybe it would involve the E-cat.
    I don’t recall the exact funding, tho the 1st amount was small & the second was much larger.

  • vbasic

    Stunning. Rossi gave what he promised. If the results were negative, the scientists would have stated it. But the two separate tests showed what the thousands of experiments from most of the LENR experimenters shown, there is excess, useful energy. Another amazing moment, I think this site hit a record in the number of comments here. I wonder if it also has a record number of views today.

    • daniel maris

      I think it was quite a slow build in interest today because it is a Monday – lots of people focussed on their work. 🙂