Report: E-Cat Plant Isotope Analysis Data Came From Uppsala University

On the Yahoo group New Vortex, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has posted a document that he says contains the original fuel analysis of the 1 year E-Cat that was posted on this site earlier this month (see this thread). Lomax writes:

I now have permission to upload the original file I received. The PDF shows the author as Bo Hoistad, one of the Lugano professors, who is at Uppsala University. The file title has that the sample was provided by Rossi, May 11, 2016, when he was apparently at Uppsala (along with Mats Lewan, who reports this on his blog).

The link to the document provided by Lomax is here (although I am not able to open the document here for some reason):

Engineer48 has sent me the document and it is available at this link:

The isotope measurements are the same as reported here earlier, but there is some additional information in this document which reads as follows:

“Isotope composition of a fuel sample obtained from Rossi May 11, 2016

“Preliminary results from a chemical analysis using the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) method. The ICP-MS is an integrating method giving the average isotopic composition of the whole fuel/ash sample being analyzed. The analysis is made by Jean Pettersson, Inst of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala

We know from Mats Lewan that Andrea Rossi visited Sweden recently where he was reportedly looking at a factory building that could be bought for manufacturing E-Cats. It sounds like on this trip he could also have provided a fuel sample for analysis at Uppsala University.

  • I don’t know how we got back to this 8 month old comment. But whatever.

    Here you go:

    The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
    brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
    following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
    powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
    moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

    I don’t know where Rossi was physically located for the duration of the test. Nor does he know where I was during that time.

    • Bruce__H

      OK. You said “Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test”

      That seemed to be so definite that I thought you must have some definite information. I believed you and It stayed with me. It coloured my opinion of the Lugano situation.

      BAsed on an analysis of Rossi’s blog postings I believe Rossi was in Europe at the entire time.

      • If I ever make any statements based on inside information I will let you know. Otherwise you can assume I’m just trying to connect the dots like you and most others in these parts.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Abd,

    Are my sources correct that you posted and outed the author of the analysis document, Bo Hoistad, but did not have his permission to do so?

    As Bo didn’t give you permission to post his document nor permission to expose him as the author, who did give you that permission and why Abd if that person was not Bo did you post the document?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I do not plan to watch E-catworld, but Alan Smith, who also apparently received a copy of the file, as did Engineer48, mentioned this on in . I have stated that I will give no information about how I obtained the document, and that I will not vouch for its authenticity.

      While some seem to be making inferences from that, they are not a part of the intended communication and could be counterfactual. I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.

      So, Engineer48, if you have information, how about you disclose your source? Did Bo give you permission to provide the contents of the document to Frank? Is Bo denying the authenticity of the document? Has Bo told you that I did not have his permission?

      However, one question I can answer. I posted the document because I expected that the actual document itself would be of interest. It apparently was. There seems to be some idea that there is something wrong with disclosing possibly confidential information (though nothing in the document says “confidential”), but nothing wrong with accusing people of lying and fraud without evidence, which happens routinely around here.

      I provided a document without any certification that what it contained was authentic. I simply passed on what was given to me. It is as if I found it in the street. Basically, if you want to know if it’s authentic, ask Bo! Or Pettersson. Or Rossi, but he’s already been asked, and his answer was evasive and misleading, obviously. Consider this a lesson in how to read Rossi. Watch out for implications that are not clear. He has not lied on this, AFAIK.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Abd,

        Thanks for the clarification that the person you claimed gave you permission to post the document and show it’s author was not the document’s author.

        The document I sent to Frank, which I removed the author, was not this document, nor did it have the same author. Even then Frank only posted the text from the document.

        Alan Smith’s comment to you on LENR-Forum is an interesting read:

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I have explicitly not stated that the person who gave me the document was not the author. I have given no information about who gave me the document, so “clarification” is weird.

          I wrote, you can see it above, “I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.” I’d think that would be clear.

          The document I posted appears to be an original document, the last modification is a few minutes after the creation. We already see here how people have edited original documents before passing them on, Engineer48 admits that, and if he is truthful, and if the document I put up is actually the original as immediately edited by the author, someone else also did this.

          I did not edit the document. I put it up as received.

          • LuFong

            You did say that the person who gave you the document received it anonymously. This pretty much implies that you’ve stated, although not explicitly, that the author did not give it to you.

            Thanks for doing so even though we still don’t really know what the results are for. There is too much connecting of dots with the Rossi story.

            • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

              Perhaps someone believes that every word is carefully thought out and fully corresponds with objective reality. That, however, is not objective reality. Hardly anyone is that careful. Perhaps someone is reading everything I wrote (which would be nice, actually). Frankly, I don’t care enough to look back and see what I wrote. I spent much of today looking into the history of Rossi’s Italian and German licensees, documented on newvortex. Much becomes obvious with study. Ciao.

  • Obvious

    Take 1 part natural nickel powder, add 3.6 parts Ni62, with 0.55% Ni64 in it, and 0.1% Ni58 and Ni60 in it (impurities, because getting 100% Ni62 is basically impossible, and Ni64 is on the preferred heavy isotope end of the processing where the Ni62 will accumulate in the centrifuge). Shake well in a small vial. Within analytical error, there you have the reported results.

    Be sure to mark the sample as fuel, rather than ash, on the analysis report….

  • Ah. Fair enough.

    So is videotaped and observed by the scientific team good enough for the ash extraction for you or are you in the sleight of hand camp?

  • Mats002

    I am only a layman so the paper is over my head, I can not follow it better than you. The paper might have some extra value knowing that Bo Hoistad – one of the Uppsala professors that did the Lugano test – is the professor for Gullstrom. The paper comes from the inner circle so to speak.

    • Chapman

      Very interesting idea. Of course, it may be a perfectly valid idea, and happen in some conditions, and yet not be related to LENR or E-Cats, so even if it is not what we are looking for regarding Rossi, it still has validity and should not be dismissed out of hand. I will look into it further, just for science sake, and see what I find. Thank you for the heads-up! (I love logic problems and digging into research notes. I’m twisted that way!)

  • Alan Smith

    You are right about the cost, but wrong about the noise. I have worked (and worked on building) differential gradient ultra-centrifuges many years ago. Since they generally run inside evacuated containments they are no more noisy individually than a vacuum cleaner, even at 100k+ rpm.

  • Axil Axil

    July 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I have just a simple question: I know that the standard E-cat plant can produce steam just over 100 C, but can you indicate to what maximum temperature steam can be produced if the steam system would be suitable for it? Obviously I am not talking about the EcatX or the QuarkX.
    Thanks for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    July 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.
    Warm Regards,

    A low temperature reactor does not run hot enough to use lithium. It must therefore use potassium. Any ash sample that has lithium in it comes from a high temperature reactor. The ash that is analyzed by Uppsala University came from a high temperature reactor because it contained lithium and not the one year test reactor.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Axil,

      I think you are drawing a very long bow there as Li melts at 180.5C.

      Would suggest the reactor temp limit is based on the materials of the case and other components and not the core temp of the reactor.

      We know the 1st flattened cubish ECat reactor core ran at least 400C and delivered superheated steam at above 100C.

      I believe the Swedes did a post fuel run for the above ECat and found both NI and Li changes.

      • Axil Axil

        That post fuel run was fro the Lugano reactor which is a high temperature reactor(E-CatX).

        The assumption is that the Swedes were analyzing the ash from the one year reactor test.

        This one year test reactor is a low temperature reactor whose maximum core temperature cannot vaporize lithium.

        That is why Rossi said he had nothing to do with that ash sample. That sample cam from a Lugano type reactor, which is a high temperature reactor.

        • Engineer48


          The 2012 ECat was also 100C low temp steam yet the reactor temp was 400C and liquefied the surrounding lead core.

          Li melts at 180.5C. You need at least double that to quickly superheat the steam.

          Where is any association that the reactor temp was below 180C because the steam was 100C?

          • Axil Axil

            It has been established that the Rossi low temperature reactor did not use lithium.

            It is not the melting point that matters, it is the boiling point that matters.

            The boiling point of potassium is 759 °C. and for lithium 1330C.

            I will try to find the reference for the claim that Rossi did not use lithium in his early reactors.

            • Engineer48

              Hi Axil,

              Even if that is so, the 1 year test reactor is not the 2012 flattened cubish reactor and it could have easily used Li to get the COP increase.

              Or are you suggesting COP > 50 is available without Li?

              • Axil Axil

                In my original post, Rossi told Gerard McEk: “The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.”

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil,

                  Rossi is referring to the entire reactor design that can handle circulating 600C fluid that would destroy a low temp reactor design.

                  So yes a HotCat or HotCat X reactor is a very different design. I don’t believe a 600C reactor will directly circulate water & produce steam. It will probably circulate a high temp liquid salt to a heat exchanged that can deliver the steam temp & pressure needed to drive a sub or super critical turbine.

                  That said there is nothing prohibiting the 1 year reactors from operating differently from the 2012 reactors and utilise Li to achieve the COP > 50 result.

                  Or do you suggest COP > 50 can be achieved using a 2012 fuel mix without Li?

                • Axil Axil

                  Rossi has his high temperature reactor design covered under his current patent. It covers Lugano, E-catX and the Quark.

                  He does not have the low temperature reactor design covered by patent yet, He is now working on it.

                  Ask Rossi if he is working on the low temperature reactor patent he used in the one year test.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil,

                  Rossi has stated the 1 year test reactor core is as per the patent. It is afterall a patent for a “Water Heater”.

                  Rossi also stated the QuarkX is covered by the patent.

                  Here is the issue you need to resolve, if as you claim, the fuel in the 1 year test reactors had no Li, how was COP > 50 and very long term SSM achieved?

                • Axil Axil

                  Rossi said that he had to constantly adjust(optimize) the reactor to get a cop of 50.

                  The Quark can produce a cop of 200. Cop 50 is not that much in comparison.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil,

                  The real COP was around 65 and that was for a real working plant running 24/7. The QuarkX was 200 but in a lab. Rossi did say the production QuarkX COP would be lower.

                  Still the point is Li is needed to achieve COP 50 and so the recently analyser fuel is from the 1 year reactor.

                  My big question is why would Lomax publish the document and reveal the author? I mean why would he help the Rossi cause as he is clearly anti Rossi. Something smells a bit off.

                • Axil Axil

                  you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden. That ash might well have come from IH from a Lugano like reactor.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil, who wrote:
                  “you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden.”

                  That is not what he said.

                  Please reread what he said very carefully.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil,

                  Try this

                • Axil Axil

                  OK I’ll parse it…

                  I never made those analysis

                  The guys in Sweden did.

                  those analysis have not been made or controlled by me

                  The guys in Sweden controlled the analysis.

                  and for me they simply do not exist.

                  Rossi must be talking about IH ash that he did not help in producing.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Axil,

                  What I read is Rossi being very careful what he says. Never saying he supplied the fuel, nor arranged for nor paid for the analysis.

                  However there is no way to get COP 50 without Li nor is there any way the 1 year test “Water Heater” can oblige the patent, which Rossi claims it did.

                  Point being Li can be in the fuel for a low temperature “Water Heater” as per the patent and thus the fuel analysis done by the Swedes, with the Li, can be for the 1 year “Water Heater” test.

                • Alan Smith

                  Lomax did not have the permission of the original author to publish. The person who gave him ‘permission’ had no authority to make public the origin of the document either. This is a breach of trust by someone.

                • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

                  I missed this. I do not know how Alan Smith gets his information that I did not have permission. I have neither claimed permission from the author nor no permission. I cannot provide more details. I did originally request clarification from my source, and it was clarified that, as far as my source was concerned, I could publish.

                  My only agreement of confidentiality is with my source, and I have not stated who that is, and thus it could be anyone with access to the file, and that obviously could include Bo Hoistad, and many others could be possible as well, it is just that the only relative certainty — if the file is authentic! — is that Bo was involved. And then we can expand the circle out. With whom would he share it?

                  Who had an obligation of confidentiality here? I’ll give on hint: I had no obligation of confidentiality except with regard to my source. I do not know about any others, beyond what is obvious: under the Agreement, if the sample came from the 1 MW test, that ash was IH property and Rossi might have been violating confidentiality by providing it to Hoistad. But I do not know that he did not have permission, beyond rumor. I do not know that Hoistad had an obligation of confidentiality, beyond speculation. All I know and will disclose is that the person who gave me the file gave me permission to publish it as-received. For all I know it is a total crock. But people can ask Bo if they want to *actually know.*

                  Oh, wait. Those are the Lugano professors. They don’t talk. Unless they leak files, perhaps.

            • Alan Smith

              Hi Axil. For evidence that Lithium was not used in early work just go back and check out the first Rossi patent application – the Italian filing. But your assumption that Potassium was used instead (at any time) is, I am sure, way off target.

              • Axil Axil

                Way are you so sure?

                • Alan Smith

                  Because it doesn’t appear to work.

                • Axil Axil

                  It works for Holmlid and DGT.

                • Alan Smith

                  Hey come off it Axil. You know DGT never had anything but hope. Holmid is a possible though- but there are differences between Rossi and him.

                • Axil Axil

                  So sorry, please forgive me but I trust Dr. Kim more than you and the people that influence you.

                  Just like P&F, there are some people that you trust more than anybody else.

            • Obvious

              The Krivit SIMs data has lithium in it.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Yes, the ash came from the last test — the continuously powered one.

    You’d have to take up the second issue with the Lugano team. I don’t think anyone has paid much attention to that particular piece of analysis… or at least I haven’t.

  • Frank Acland

    I don’t believe there was any self-sustain in the Lugano test. The testers said it would have added complexity to what they were doing, so they operated the reactor with a constant drive — if I recall correctly.

  • Mats002

    Hi Chapman,

    Have you considered the Gullstrom theory? It come from Uppsala based upon the Lugano fuel/ash sample.

    I don’t know if Gullstrom have more data to make his theory from. What do you think? The Li6 > Li7 idea is not present in Gullstrom theory from what I can see.