Rossi has been granted US patent on the E-Cat

(Updated continuously). Today Andrea Rossi was granted a patent on his LENR based heating device the E-Cat. I have not yet had time to study the patent further, but I just wanted to make it available here on the blog as soon as possible.


Note that LENR is not mentioned explicitly, but also note that the contents of the fuel mix are specified — lithium and lithium aluminium hydride as fuel and “a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form” as the catalyst. This is important since fuel and catalyst specifications are lacking from an earlier patent application by Rossi on the E-Cat, as far as I know.

Read more:

Posted on July 28, 2015 by Frank Acland on E-Cat World • 84 Comments

Here are some recent comments from Andrea Rossi on the performance of the new version of the Hot Cat that he is currently testing. Most recent information at the top:

UPDATE #5 (July 28, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has just posted that the first model of the new Hot Cat has broken down. He wrote:

Tom Conover:
As I explained in another comment on this blog few hours ago, the new Hot Cat has been destroyed, but we are making another with a correction that should resolve the problem.

It makes me wonder if the Hot Cat went into some kind of thermal runaway mode. Rossi says that over the years hundreds of reactors have been destroyed by one means or another, sometimes intentionally. His experience should be helpful in making the needed adjustments.

Read the full article here:


United States Patent Application 20140326711
Kind Code A1
Rossi; Andrea November 6, 2014


A reactor device includes a sealed vessel defining an interior, a fuel material within the interior of the vessel, and a heating element proximal the vessel. The fuel material may be a solid including nickel and hydrogen. The sealed vessel may be sealed against gas ingress or egress and may contain no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen. The sealed vessel is heated with an input amount of energy without ingress or egress of material into or out of the sealed vessel. An output amount of thermal energy exceeding the input amount of energy is received from the sealed vessel. The fuel material has a specific energy greater than that of any chemical reaction based energy source.


Rossi; Andrea; (Miami Beach, FL)


Industrial Heat, Inc.

Raleigh, NC US


Miami Beach, FL

Family ID: 1000000535808
Appl. No.: 14/262740

Download the patent application in PDF format:
Enter the following Patent Application Number:


By Dr. Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International

These are exciting times and Rossi (and his sponsors) and the research team of Levi, Foschi, Höistad, Pettersson and Tegnér, as well as Hanno Essén, are to be commended for their tenacious pursuit of what at times must have seemed a thankless job. The world looks forward to more. – Michael C.H. McKubre

Originally posted @

A team of scientists from Italy and Sweden have released a second, more substantive test analysis of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat. The report, “Observation of Abundant Heat Production from a Reactor Device and of Isotopic Changes in the Fuel” , was released on October 8 based on a 32-day test done in March 2014. The same team (Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén) tested an earlier version of the E-Cat in spring 2013 and released a similar, though not as conclusive, report. The new report concludes with a clearly written and positive statement:


In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.

All well and good. Is this confidence justified by the words in the report? Is there evidence of excess heat? My impression is “Yes” (but see below). Is this evidence unambiguous? Not as presented. Is there evidence of nuclear transformation? Yes, very clearly, but questions remain to be answered (or, in some cases, asked). Do the heat and nuclear production correlate quantitatively? Yes, possibly. Is the report perfect? No, no report is perfect, but this one is imperfect in little ways and large. There is curious inattention to detail—surprising for a document as delayed, anticipated and important as this. When asked to provide a review (sight unseen) I agreed; this is important. But I also realized that unless the report was perfect in every detail, whatever I wrote would annoy somebody. Here goes.

For the proponents of condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) this report provides valuable impetus and strong support for the case that nuclear effects occur (implicitly by novel pathways) in the solid state. More importantly, the report provides concrete and testable information about fuel and products, potentially of two separate branches of CMNS, of the sort to make theorists on both sides of the “reality question” very happy indeed. Have we risen to the standard of Dick Garwin’s “undoubtedly”? No, although he should be happy that multiple cups of tea might soon be available—perhaps on demand.

Although highly interesting, this report has problems at several levels that render direct interpretation difficult or impossible without further information and clarification. This is a shame and undoubtedly a source of great frustration to the CMNS community. There are substantive missing or broken issues dealing with the essential issues of calorimetry and sampling. There are also “minor” or ancillary points that I will attempt to outline to improve technique and reporting. The latter do not change the conclusions but do affect credibility. You will note that this review contains more questions than answers. Not all of these questions required answers before the experiment was run or the report written but, in my view, many of them should have been addressed.

Let’s start with the calorimetry, the balance (or reported imbalance) between power input and power output. We begin with the input energy. I have only minor issues with the technique employed for input power measurements and the interpretation of values. Measurement of three-phase power is a standard matter that is critical in numerous industries. The community of scientists and engineers knows how to do this precisely and accurately on scales extending from well below to well above the power levels in this experiment. There is every indication that the authors of this report are well aware of possible pitfalls and have taken care to address them. They address the issue of unmeasured current flowing in unseen “ground loops” by employing similar meters upstream and downstream of the load. These meters have harmonic monitoring capability in case unmeasured high frequency components contribute significantly to the input energy. As has been demonstrated many times (and again in this report) neither issue is “really real.” But questions have been asked about other similar experiments; this report anticipates them and answers them, before being asked.

First class, perhaps overkill, but one issue I have with the input power measurement is that the claimed uncertainty of ±10% seems far too large. My colleagues and I have considerable experience with almost identical measurements over a range of power scales from the small to the large. After ICCF17 in 2012, Fran Tanzella and I traveled to China to conduct power measurements and perform “calorimetry” on the 100-200 KW scale which we were able to accomplish effectively at the ±1% level of accuracy in an industrial setting using WattNode power-to-pulse converters. These meters are cheap and reliable, and can be used with good accuracy provided that current sensors are well matched to the voltage and current. For any sort of electrical engineer the measurement of power delivered is a “no brainer.” This is not an issue for this report but I would like to see the authors re-think and re-justify their asserted levels of accuracy in input power and energy measurement.

The report states: “The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube.” Do we know that this is the configuration (were the authors permitted post-test examination)? What does “primarily” mean? The report states: “In addition, the resistor coils are fed with some specific electromagnetic pulses.” What kind of electromagnetic stimulation? How much? How was this measured? When? Why? I do not expect an answer to the last but the rest need to be addressed quantitatively.

As a final point on input power I was surprised to see that this was measured not at the “calorimetric boundary” but at the power supply. This necessitates a correction to the power delivered to the test since the lead wires have resistance. The correction is small and appears to have been done correctly. It is, however, always better to avoid mathematical corrections by placing the voltage sense contacts at the points that define the boundaries of the interrogated heat.

The mode of calorimetry employed to measure the output power and by integration energy, is one with which I have little direct hands-on experience. When I first read the report I was inclined to accept the output power measurement at levels of say ~±10% accuracy (subject to quantitative verification using a finite element heat model). [Note that the report assigns ±1% to the accuracy of the output and ±10% to the input.] My intuition/experience would reverse these numbers. Heat lost from hot objects by convection and radiation is, like electrical power measurement, a very standard and well-documented engineering procedure with history extended back over 100 years. We know how to do this. Having said that, the complexity (and uncertainty) of the E-Cat structure render the interpretations “difficult,” or worse, “ambiguous.” Are these difficulties and ambiguities sufficient to negate the value of the report? I don’t think so, but verification is required. Let’s look at some of the issues.

Of primary concern is the complete absence of relevant pre- or post-test calibration. The mathematical description of heat losses from a structure with multiple parts and awkward geometry is not difficult but contains many terms and several assumptions. Perhaps with more direct experience I could trust the equations and assumptions to do their job, but I do not have that experience. Neither do the authors, nor does most of the “audience.” The only way to handle such uncertainty is via relevant calibration, ideally under identical conditions at and surrounding the operating point. The calibration that was performed was at a single point well below the points of ultimate operation. This is bad and bad. We need to determine the shape of the performance manifold empirically, ideally bracketing all points of operation. This was not done.

The “active” experiment operated at two base levels of heat output: ~1250W and ~1400W. The report says that dummy power was limited to 500 W. Even if the system had simple geometry and the calibration function was linear this would be an extraordinary departure from accepted and acceptable protocols. The explanation given for this divergence is not plausible. The authors claim that “some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables.” Even if true the options are several:

1) If you really cannot (or are not permitted to) operate above 500 W, use three calibration steps (say 300, 400 and 500W) to determine the shape of the calibration manifold. Extrapolation is bad but better than nothing.
2) Slowly increase the power while monitoring the resistance to anticipate and avoid “microscopic melt spots” by observing (and avoiding) points at which resistance rises rapidly in an unexpected profile.
3) Employ Joule calibration after the test when the operating regime has been determined. The internal sense control thermocouple (whose data are missing from the report) could easily be re-inserted after the products have been removed and then re-bonded into place for calibration.

The inability or unwillingness to do one or all of these things is a glaring deficiency in the thermal output record. That is not to say that this record is incorrect, but we cannot be certain that it is correct and the measurement uncertainty is undefined.

In the absence of calibration suitable and sufficient for accurate quantification, what can we learn qualitatively using the experimental data from the active run as its own “self-calibration”? On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production:

1) The issue of alumina emissivity is adequately handled in the report (it is needed to calibrate the temperature measurements) but not the issue of transparency. Without getting too technical, the rate of radiant heat release is determined optically. At issue is the extent to which the camera measures directly the temperature of the heating wires and the putative source of the “fuel” directly transmitted through the alumina container, rather than the surface as assumed in the heat calculations. This is not an area of my expertise. The arguments are subtle and may result in under, over, or accurate measurement of radiant heat loss rate.
2) No independent temperature measurement is provided of the contents internal to the E-Cat where the heat sources are located. Such a sensor was apparently present but the data were not provided or (apparently) analyzed. This is of concern as these data could provide strong supporting evidence for the radiant heat calculation and Point 1. Furthermore, nickel melts at 1455°C and the different Inconel alloys melt in the range 1390 – 1425°C, with the surface temperature stated in the report to reach 1412°C, and the heat sources known to be inside. Thus the “fuel or catalyst” (Ni), the heater wires and the inserted thermocouple sheath are all at significant risk of melting if the optically determined alumina surface temperature is correctly measured. Was this measurement correct or was the reactor on the cusp of failure when it was shut down?
3) Radiant heat loss rates increase with temperature so (ignoring the issues of Point 1) an increase of ~700 W output caused by ~100 W increase in input is definitely not expected. The other major term is convective loss, which increases roughly linearly with temperature so that such a steep upturn would be unexpected. However, convective losses are strongly affected by air movement both natural convective eddies and bulk air movement. No attempt was made to control air movement using closures or shields so the convective state of the air surrounding the E-Cat source is unknown and cannot be determined. The “good news” is that when the maximum output was achieved at 906 W input, and 2886 W total output, the convective loss term was only ~15% (431 W) so we really only need concern ourselves with convection (at the, say, 10% accuracy level).

I could go on. There are many tiny details of calorimetry that need better exposition and it is to be hoped that this will occur through open discussion.

I now turn attention to the “fuel” and products, and sampling. The fueling process is described in the report thusly:

After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team.

From the perspective of a chemist I have several issues with this stated procedure. A small envelope? What kind of envelope? About 1 g? How much mass exactly? How was the starting sample taken? By whom, with what tools, using what procedure? The report states, “It should also be noted that our total sample was about 10 mg, i.e. only a small part of the total fuel weight of 1 g used in the reactor. The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination…An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis.” How big is a granule? How many were selected? One percent (10 mg of ~1000 mg) is a pretty small sampling unless we can trust the randomness of the sample. How was sampling randomized? By whom was this done using what criteria?

The report states: “The reactor…is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly lithium” but also “it is plausible that the fuel is mixed with the standard lithium aluminum hydride, LiAlH4. Further evidence of that is obtained from the ICP-AES analysis which shows that the mass ratio between Li and Al is compatible with a LiAlH4 molecule.” I do not want to quibble but LiAlH4 is not mainly Li. And the fate of the Al is not mentioned in the analysis of the products. This might be a nice marker of metal loss and isotopic shifts, especially since natural Al is mono-isotopic.

All this is minor detail that should nevertheless have been addressed. What is not minor is the fact that Rossi himself made the fuel addition (using an undescribed procedure) albeit “in the presence of a member of the experimental team.” The fact that the reactant was inserted and extracted by Rossi with his own hands does not invalidate the technical data. After all, this is how most experiments are performed without chaperone. It does raise a question however and all questions unanticipated and unanswered in a report (particularly one of this potential consequence) tend to diminish credibility and thus significance.

Finally we get to products. When reading the report for the first time the thing that struck me with greatest pleasure was the apparent isotopic transformation from fuel to product. So many of us for so many years have been stating: “Show us evidence of nuclear products with non-natural isotope distributions and we will believe that the element was created or transformed.” This report presents clear evidence thusly: “The lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7% and 7Li 93%. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5%.” This finding is taken to a logical conclusion with an argument relating mass transformation to energy. The report speculates: “the depletion of 7Li might be due to the reaction p + 7Li arrow 8Be arrow 4He + 4He” and goes on to calculate: “If each 7Li nucleus releases about 17 MeV we find then that the total energy available becomes 0.72 MWh. This is less than the 1.5 MWh actually produced in our 32 days run, so more energy has to come from other reactions.”

Other reactions apparently occur: “Evidently, there is also an isotope shift in nickel. There is a depletion of the 58Ni and 60Ni isotopes and a buildup of the 62Ni isotopes in the burning process.” There is, however, no attempt at a mechanism or an energy calculation to rationalize the missing ~50% energy beyond a repeated wistful appeal to the “Coulomb Barrier” that has relevance only to the pairwise interaction of charged nuclei (that clearly did not happen).

In addition to an evident lack of even an overall mechanism to explain half of the produced energy several other problems occur:

1) If one were to reshuffle the neutrons of the five stable Ni isotopes in the directions of the revealed changes we would have a great deal of energy—possibly far too much, in fact, depending on the sources of the “new” neutrons.

2) If the “fueling” of the Ni half of the putative excess heat involves the Ni light isotopes, all of these are essentially depleted and yet the reactor was continuing to increase its rate of energy production (excess power). Rates of reaction are not expected to increase (one might state more strongly “are known not to increase”) with near complete loss of fuel. If the reactor had been run for a day or two more would we have seen the rate of heat evolution decline to zero?

3) One might perhaps argue that the Ni was “burned” first before the reaction started to consume 7Li but this brings up another issue. Whatever mechanism we postulate for the “Ni burn” this is hardly likely to be in any way similar to that tentatively proposed for Li. This means that we are required to explain not one but two new processes that occur under near-identical conditions.

4) The authors commenting on their analyses state that some elements present in the fuel samples are not present in the product samples. Just as for Al these elements are markers. We have three possibilities: (i) these contaminants (or deliberate additives) are participating in the reaction; (ii) they volatilized and exited an imperfectly sealed reaction chamber; (iii) the starting and ending “samples” are not the same. Whichever, I would like to know the answer and see some discussion of it. Possibly this is poor wording but it needs to be made clear.

5) I took issue with the insufficiently well specified process of sampling the fuel mix prior to introduction into the E-Cat. The product sampling is even less well specified and described. How was this done? Who was present? Who did what with what apparatus? Was this recorded on video? What was the chain of custody of possibly the single most important sample ever generated in CMNS studies? The authors and workers had no reason except their calorimetric results to believe that the sample was as important as it apparently was. But just to make sure we need to develop an agreed upon sampling technique and establish a documented chain of custody for any future samples. A mandatory requirement for an independent test is an effective decoupling of interested parties from significant activities.

And there must be future samples. This was not a replication of a previous demonstration. Rossi clearly had experience with this device operating in this mode but for the authors of the report this was a new and one-off experiment. One experimental result equates to zero experimental results. Nothing in science can be known without repetition.

As a final non-technical point, let me extol the virtues of technical and copy editing. I realize this report has not been submitted for publication and is therefore “in process” but little things distract from the bigger points that are being argued. In the conclusion the report states: “the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%).” These percentages add to 100.4% because the 58Ni analysis is mis-quoted from Appendix 4 which states 0.3% for this isotope. The natural abundance of Ni isotopes quoted throughout the report add to 100.6% because the abundance of 61Ni is listed as 1.8% in the report rather than 1.14%, according to Wikipedia. This does not make any difference to the conclusions but the reader is forced to ask “if these small details are wrong what else might be?”

On the whole I am encouraged. Considerably more work is obviously needed to validate the adopted mode of calorimetry and support better sampling and testing. But we are given something we can sink our teeth into both experimentally and theoretically: testable fuel(s) to products(s) nuclear burn at temperatures that have practical, economic and social potential. These are exciting times and Rossi (and his sponsors) and the research team of Levi, Foschi, Höistad, Pettersson and Tegnér, as well as Hanno Essén, are to be commended for their tenacious pursuit of what at times must have seemed a thankless job. The world looks forward to more.


About the Author: Dr. Michael McKubre is Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International. He received B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemistry and physics at Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand). He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Southampton University, England. Dr. McKubre joined SRI as an electrochemist in 1978. He is an internationally recognized expert in the study of electrochemical kinetics and was one of the original pioneers in the use of ac impedance methods for the evaluation of electrode kinetic processes. Dr. McKubre has been studying various aspects of hydrogen and deuterium in metals since he joined SRI in 1978, the last 25 years with a close focus on heat measurements. He was recognized by Wired magazine as one of the 25 most innovative people in the world. Dr. McKubre has conducted research in CMNS since 1989.


The images provided of the nickel, at high magnification, show detailed structures that provide important clues to facilitate replication of the E-Cat.

Original posted @

By Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News

On October 8th of 2014, a group of scientists and researchers from across Europe released a paper describing a month long test of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat or Energy Catalyzer. (See PESWiki’s news chronicle of this as it unfolds.) In addition to reporting on a clearly anomalous production of heat — ~3.5 times more than the energy put into the system — this paper, completely uncensored, revealed crucial information about the composition of the fuel used in the device. The high performance of the device ruled out any known chemical source of power by many orders of magnitude. PESN posted a feature story about this paper titled, “Apocalypse: The Four Horsemen of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat.”

Now, an additional paper has been released that provides additional analysis and even higher magnification scanning electron microscope images of the powder used in the reactor. In particular, nickel particles have been zoomed in on to reveal fine, detailed structures. These tubercles, cracks, and folds are most certainly critical to the ability of the E-Cat to produce practical quantities of power.

The article titled, “Analysis of Two Types of Nickel Powder” (source) was written in Swedish, but Google provides an adequate translation to English that seems fairly easy to read. The primary author of the paper is “Curt, Edstrom, Ralon”, and is dated January 17th, 2013.

The twenty-one-page paper provides the following introduction (translated by Google, with a few edits).

Samples obtained from Sven Kullander in December have been analyzed. The samples consisted of two bottles with approximately 1 gram in each bottle. One bottle is called “NEW” and contained the nickel powder Rossi used in the reactor, taken before any activity has occurred. The second bottle is called “OLD” and it contained powder used in one of Rossi’s reactors for about 6 months. This bottle also contained approximately 1 gram of powder.

When you look macroscopically on the samples, one can get the impression that nickel transformed by a nuclear reaction. At a more detailed level, it seems unlikely that the nickel is first converted to other elements where these then format the new structures. The only difference between the nickel powder in the new and old sample is a little “hump” in spectrum at the iron (Fig. 13 and 17 but not in Fig. 4), the signal is so weak that it is about trace amounts and may be derived from contamination of adjacent iron particles. If there is an exothermic nuclear reaction that can transform nickel isotopes or iron isotopes [they are] are unfamiliar [to us].

On the grain that contained Ni in the “old” sample measured no Cu whatsoever. The detection limit for Cu is lower than 1%, but to safely determine, the level should be about 1% Cu present. If there is some kind of unknown nuclear reaction where Cu is formed from Ni in any greater amount that is not decayed back to Ni, Cu must be embedded in the Ni grains.

Figure 9: The particles, which contained Cu in the old sample, contained 18% phosphorus, 12% oxygen and 70% copper.

A portion of this fragment can be oxidized, hence the presence of oxygen. Cu and P occur in a very common alloy used in brazing. Lod with CuP at these proportions are particularly common in plumbing jobs. Is it possible that this fragment is derived from such solder joints? The reactors constructed by Rossi seems to have consisted, among other things, of a brazed copper details.

To understand this paper, written in 2013, to the most recent paper released on Oct. 8th of 2014, you must realize that the powder tested in this older analysis was not from a different type of reactor. Certainly, the powder tested in 2013 did not come from the same model of high temperature reactor as in the 2014 analysis. Most likely, the powder came from a low temperature E-Cat reactor. Because of this, the additives or “catalysts” used in the two different powders are most likely different to some degree. However, I think it is likely that the basic nickel powder used is probably very similar. Both the old and new powder can produce vast quantities of excess heat when correctly stimulated by alternating current and heat.

A professional, high quality comparison of the analysis of the powder in both of these papers would be time consuming and require a great deal of knowledge in the field of material analysis. So in order to get the news out about the release of this paper, I will avoid going into excessive detail about every aspect of this paper. Other individuals, far more qualified than myself, will be more capable of providing such a comparison. Instead, I will post several facts and observations I have gathered from looking at the figures and reading the text of the paper.

More Fascinating Information 

As mentioned in the excerpt above, in this paper, two types of powder are studied: “new” and “old.” The new powder is fuel that had never been placed in an E-Cat reactor, and the old powder is fuel that had been used for six months. In alignment with the paper released on Oct. 8th, the new powder was composed of uniform particles of about one millimeter by one millimeter. The old powder, however, had a variety of particle geometries and was of a clumpy appearance. It seems that reactions took place in the old powder that may have caused the non-uniformity.

Analysis of the new powder revealed only carbon, oxygen, and nickel to be present. It is also important to understand that this method of testing cannot detect hydrogen or Lithium – both of which were found in the Oct. 8th paper. So these elements may, or may not, be present. The sample was prepared for analysis by placing it on a piece of tape which contained the elements carbon, hydrogen, and, according to the authors, possibly oxygen. This means it is possible that some percentage of the carbon and oxygen detected in the sample may be from the tape. The old powder, however, shows a wider variety of elements present, including the elements C, O, Mg, Si, P, Ca Fe, Cu, and Ni.

Various particles of the old powder contain different percentages of these elements. The report speculates that certain of these elements may be contaminates or from material used in the soldering of the reactor. Another important fact is that the testing method only determines the composition of the particles near their surface. The different composition of the old powder from the new powder could possibly be partly due to elements present deep in the particles.

Lithium and iron are both mentioned as potential catalysts, even though lithium was not detected. In the report released on Oct. 8th, both of these elements were detected. One aspect of the Oct. 8th report that excited me were the Scanning Electron Microscope images of the various particles. The ability to actually see, in some detail, the nickel particles was very exciting, because the protrusions or tubercles were visible. In the 2013 paper, however, the images are even more detailed, more numerous, and of a much higher magnification.

The Nickel Masterpiece of Andrea Rossi

My jaw dropped, literally, when I saw the images of the nickel particles in this paper. Although images of other particles were included, the nickel particles under high magnification were beautiful. Some of them appeared to be square in shape and composed of smaller cubes. Each sub-unit was visible, and they reminded me of brick work. Other particles were even more magnificent with spike like protrusions, ribbons, folds, and cracks. One very highly magnified particle seemed to contain geometric shapes. Although I’ve seen many images on the internet of nickel particles (commonly available for sale by suppliers) Rossi’s powder seemed more intricate and varied.

The above images show nickel particles at various levels of magnification. If the E-Cat is to be replicated, these surface features will need to be reproduced. (Sterling’s Comment: I’ve not followed this as closely as others, but an obvious question to me seems to be: Were the nickel particle attributes a pre-requisite condition by some preparatory process, or are they a function of the reaction itself — not a prerequisite, but a result?) I feel this will be every bit as critical in producing excess heat as choosing other additives and applying proper magnetic or RF stimulation with alternating current. What we do not know is if Andrea Rossi custom fabricates these particles in house from raw nickel, or if he purchases carbonyl nickel from a supplier and then further modifies them.

Bob Higgins is a researcher who has produced a document titled, “Surface Processing of Carbonyl Nickel Powder for Ni-H LENR Applications.” In this document, he obtains carbonyl nickel – with surface features similar to those found in Andrea Rossi’s powder – from a supplier and further modifies it through a process of adding nano FeO3 powder. He then runs the powder through a series of processing including the application of heat, sintering, and grinding. The result are particles that look similar to those in Rossi’s powder.

Andrea Rossi, E-CAT inventor

Andrea Rossi, E-CAT inventor

To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
Warm Regards
Andrea Rossi

Mats Lewan wanted to be clear that the report was NOT leaked. He explains on his An Impossible Invention site how publication came about:
The report has been uploaded to which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal until further notice from Journal of Physics.
new-ecat1 new-ecat DSC_0171

Sourced from  the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Nuclear Experiments blog


The following post is from The Journal of Nuclear Physics blog:

June 17th, 2013 at 2:27 AM
Dear Andrea, the future of your invention is deeply connected with your person, if something bad should happens to you, is there anyone who could replace you?
I hope you all the best!
Many thanks

Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Absolutely yes: our USA Partner has all the know how, with the industrial secrets. I am no more indispensable: just useful for the future evolution on which I am now working in the USA.
Warm Regards,

This means that inventor Andrea Rossi has already shared his secret catalyst with his secret US Partner.  If this is not mainstream news by the end of Summer 2013…  

The potential implication of this clean, comparatively cost-less technology as a solution to the catastrophic energy situation now facing the world is immensely important.

June 10, 2013

From Independent eCat News:

“In various comments following the publication of the HotCat paper on arxiv, it was evident that more checks were made to counter misdirection and error than formally included there. Broad hints were made that the paper could be updated to include more information. Arguably the primary area for concern among critics was the potential for sneaking illicit power into the input. I guess, with that in mind, some details of the power supply measurements have been clarified along with assurances that the control box and HotCat support frame were examined to ensure no hidden feeds could pass by these routes. ”

Thermal Imagery of E-Cat HT Reactor in Operation

Read original post here

Read the

Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device and the update,

Appendix on electrical measurements added here

June 3, 2013

University of Missouri, Vice Chancellor for Research, Professor Robert V. Duncan in Brussels, Belgium at the Parliament of the European Union, addressed the subject,

Discovery of New Nuclear Phenomena in the Condensed Matter State.

Click images to enlarge


P1070464 (1)




A generous grant to the University of Missouri for continued research

P1070471 (1)

Our media outlets are apparently missing the point, as they also did when reporting  the endeavors of Wilbur and Orville, the Wright brothers!


Original article and much more information on new energy technology can be found at the 2 2 P A S S I web site.

All the best!

Image  —  Posted: June 5, 2013 in Alternative Energy, anomalous heat, cold fusion, energy catalyzer, Fleischmann and Pons, LENR, renewable energy
Tags: , , , , , , ,