Archive for the ‘Giuseppe Levi’ Category

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

Rossi Should Not Reveal The Catalyst, Until Intellectual Property Rights Are Protected

Property of Andrea Rossi

Property of Andrea Rossi


I have an interest in science, but as I am not a scientist, I care much less about understanding the physics of why the E-Cat device works than whether it produces heat or not.  Instinctively, I have had a positive opinion of the E-Cat since first hearing about the device in January, 2011.  After the March 2013 independent tests by accredited scientists obtained positive results, I have no doubt that it works, and that there has never been anything hidden under a deceptive sleeve.  Eventually, the world will understand the science behind the anomalous heat energy production of the E-Cat  device, but it seems that the only evidence that will allay skeptical criticism  is revelation of the secret catalyzing agent.  This undoubtedly has to be considered the intellectual property of Andrea Rossi and must be legally protected before divulgence.

I dislike the current Catch-22, and am openly impatient for the progression of what could be an immensely beneficial, clean energy technology for the good of the entire planet.

Photo of the reactor that was destroyed, according to the report since the reaction rocketed.  Foto: Giuseppe Levi

Photo of the reactor that was destroyed, according to the report.
Foto: Giuseppe Levi

We do not draw any conclusions, but we point out that the test gives an abnormal heat that is far beyond that possible with chemical reactions, says Bo Höistad, emeritus professor of nuclear physics and the representative of the group.

– To learn more about what is going on, we need to see what has happened with the fuel. In order to even talk about a nuclear transformation, we need to see waste. If there are no conversions at all in the fuel, then this is totally incomprehensible.

Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

(Submitted on 16 May 2013)


An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. 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.

The full report is available for download here:  PDF only


Andrea Rossi explains his E-cat Technology in June, 2011.

Some of the most up to date information can be found on the FreeEnergyTruth web page:

One of the chief scientists at NASA, Dennis Bushnell recently recognized the potential of the Andrea Rossi energy catalyzer to positively impact the energy field.  Although there have already been many demonstrations and the opening of Defkalion Green Technology’s 1 megawatt facility in Greece in October 2011, the scientific community and major media is just beginning to acknowledge the light of E-cat.

 “I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now.”

“This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.] – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley.

Interview of: Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley

Host: J. William Moore
Transcribed by: Steven B. Krivit

[Partial Transcript of Podcast, Excerpts on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions]

[This transcript is Copyleft 2011 New Energy Times. Permission is granted to reproduce this text as long as the text, this notice and the publication information are included in their entirety and no changes are made to this text.]

J. William Moore: I’d like to [look at] some of the [energy alternatives] that you think look most promising from your perspective.

Dennis Bushnell: The most interesting, and promising, at this point, in the farther term, but maybe not so far, is low-energy nuclear reactions. This has come out of [22] years of people producing energy but not knowing what it is — and we think we have a theory on it. It’s producing beta decay and heat without radiation. The research on this is very promising and it alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both [the] climate and energy [problems.]

MOORE: I find it extremely exciting that there might be something here, so what is it that you think is going on at the atomic level here?

BUSHNELL: Let me back up a little. [Stanley] Pons and [Martin] Fleischmann came out with an experiment that they labeled “cold fusion” about 22 years ago which had replication issues at the time. Also, all of the fusion theorists came out and said absolutely “This is not fusion.” And, of course, they were exactly correct, this is not fusion.

They’ve gone through 20 years of massive experimentation worldwide, in almost every country, where they’ve been able to produce this effect. But all of the energy produced by these “cold fusion” experiments over the last 22 years didn’t produce enough heat to boil water for tea. So people didn’t get too interested in it and nobody knew what it was.

Back in 2005, 2006, [Allen] Widom [and Lewis] Larsen came out with a theory that said, no it’s not “cold fusion,” it’s weak interactions using the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, only the weak interaction part. It says that if you set up one of the cells, and you don’t have to use deuterium, hydrogen works fine, nickel works fine and you don’t need palladium.

If you set this up you produce an electron – proton connection producing ultra-weak neutrons and if you have the right targets out there you produce beta-decay which produces heat.

At that point, in 2006, 2007 we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we’re just about ready to start finally, where we’re trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out whether or not it explains what’s going on. And in the process, we used quantum theory to optimize the particular surface morphologies to do this.

Then, as you mentioned, in January of this year [Andrea] Rossi, backed by [Sergio] Focardi, who had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide, came out and did a demonstration first in January, they re-did it in February, re-did it in March, where for days they had one of these cells, a small cell, producing in the 10 to 15 kW range which is far more than enough to boil water for tea. And they say this is weak interaction, it’s not fusion.

So I think were almost over the “We don’t understanding it” problem. I think we’re almost over the “This doesn’t produce anything useful” problem. And so I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. And if it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.]

MOORE: I think this was either last week or the week before last, I ran a story on this. I went and took a look at it – they were using hydrogen and nickel, I believe, using hydrogen gas and putting that into this device. In looking at the video and photographs, it looks to be about the size of a fist and that thing was running from about 10:45 in the morning till about 4:30 when they finally turned it off — and generating, I forget exactly what it was — but it was a significant amount of energy in the form of steam.

BUSHNELL: It produces heat and did so for days and was in the 12 or 14 kW range and they [will be] producing, with a large number of these devices, a 1 MW power plant.

MOORE: That’s a pretty exciting thing. Do you think that this theory that was developed — are these NASA scientists that were working on that theory?

BUSHNELL: No, the theory was developed by Widom and Larsen. Widom is a faculty member and teacher at Northeastern and Larsen has a company in Chicago.

MOORE: So that looks promising and so you can take and generate steam, and of course, that’s what a nuclear reactor or coal-fired power plant is all about. They’re just there to produce steam and turn a turbine and produce power.

BUSHNELL: Once you’ve got heat, you can do everything. We looked at using LENR to power a space-access rocket and it had better performance conceptually than a conventional nuclear thermal rocket.

MOORE: Wow! Exciting.
Thanks to Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times for the transcription of this interview.