New scientific report on the E-Cat shows excess heat and nuclear process

The reactor used in the test is made of alumina and is significantly thinner than earlier hot E-Cat reactors.

The reactor used in the test is made of alumina and is significantly thinner than earlier hot E-Cat reactors.

A new scientific report on the E-Cat has been released, providing two important findings from a 32-day testrun of the reactor — together leading to the clear conclusion that the E-Cat is an energy source based on some kind of nuclear reaction, without radiation outside the reactor.

The first finding is an energy release which puts the reactor way beyond conventional (chemical) sources of energy.

The second is a dramatic shift in isotopic composition in the fuel after the testrun, meaning changes have occurred in the atomic nuclei of the elements present in the fuel.

The report is entitled “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” (Download here) and is written by Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér and Hanno Essén, all of whom also wrote an earlier third party report on the E-Cat.

In the concluding remarks they write:

“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.”

The authors are very careful not to make any decisive conclusions on how the reaction occurs. Yet, they make some interesting remarks, among them considerations on similarities with observations in astrophysics.

Without any optimization with regard to input power, the reactor produced between 3.2 and 3.6 times the input power, and a total energy of 1.5 MWh from about 1 gram of fuel. The reactor was switched off according to plan, with no signs of the reaction slowing down. As I point out in my book An Impossible Invention — an energy source of this kind will have huge consequences for humanity, possibly solving a series of global issues.

In order to avoid doubts that were presented with regard to their earlier report, several things have been changed: The measurement was performed during 32 days in a neutral laboratory in Switzerland, electric measurment on the input power has been improved, a 23-hour test of the reactor without charge was done in order to calibrate the measurement set-up, and chemical analysis of the fuel before and after the run has been performed with five different methods.

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 D.

I asked Professor Bo Höistad, one of the authors, a few questions on the report:

Mats: What do you consider to be the most important take-away of the report?

Höistad: That we have been able to do an isotopic analysis of the fuel before and after running the process, and that the results indicate the presence of nuclear reactions in the process.

Mats: What have you done differently this time, based on the experiences from your last measurement and report?

Höistad: An accurate measurement, particularly the control of energy balance without fuel in the reactor, and a isotopic analysis of the fuel.

Mats: What reactions do you expect on the report?

Höistad: Hopefully that the interest in the possibility of achieving LENR reactors get a decent boost, and that critical overtones in the debate are downplayed in favor of scientific discussions.

Mats: What do you personally feel facing the inexplicable observations you have made?

Höistad: As pointed out in our paper, we face a phenomenon without explanation. However, we can not categorically reject the clear experimental results just because a credible theory is currently lacking. We need to relate to the actual experimental results and continue the investigations to gain more knowledge about the LENR phenomenon.


  1. “Höistad: That we have been able to do an isotopic analysis of the fuel before and after running the process, and that the results indicate the presence of nuclear reactions in the process.”

    Did Hoistad keep his eyes on the fuel the from start to finish, or did Rossi switch the material when I was alone ?

  2. Kärnreaktion utan något tecken på att en sådan äger rum, utan radioaktivitet eller strålning, intygad av kärnfysiker. Rossi har funnit sina perfekta medarbetare. De flesta inom facket skulle snabbt ha konstaterat att alla tecken på en aktiv kärnreaktion saknas, tackat för sig och återvänt hem. Det finns ju ingenting i apparaten som kräver deras speciella kompetens.
    Men så gör inte Rossis utvalda grupp. Rossi har sagt att det SKA inte finnas några tecken på kärnreaktion. Det är en kärnreaktion i alla fall.
    Det är då det går fel. Rossis kärnfysiker ger sig in i ett område där de inte har spetskompetens, där Rossi är deras överman. Han har kompetensen och han har haft gott om tid att förbereda sig.
    Den här gången förser han dem med en mager räfflad katt av aluminiumoxid. Surprice? Det vet vi inte. De kan inte ta något prov från räfflornas ryggar. De kan inte fästa ett termoelement på katten för att konfirmera temperaturen. De får inte värma katten mer än försiktigt, till långt under arbetstemperatur, vid det inledande dummytestet. De får framför allt inte kika inne i katten. De ges inga möjligheter att arrangera ett pålitligt kalorimetriskt test eller förse den med el från en egen källa. De går ändå med på Rossis villkor och intygar efteråt att det måste röra sig om ett litet kärnkraftverk. Den slutsatsen kommer från deras oförmåga att se en annan förklaring. Liksom Sherlock Holmes konstaterar de att om alla andra förklaringar är uteslutna så återstår endast en enda hur otrolig den än verkar. Men då har de även uteslutet möjligheten att de har blivit överlistade av Rossi. Det är stor risk att de är Rossis nyttiga idioter.

  3. If it was confirmed, let us expect a trend of monopoly on nickel mining, from the ones that possesses the oil, gas and coal…

  4. Now, it is time for the USPTO, and others, to grant patents protecting this IP. Real research and development will not take place without it.
    The potential for genuinely world changing applications is so great that no time should be wasted in guaranteeing the rights of the owners in ways that encourage them to permit others to develop the technologies that will improve life for the hundreds of millions now living on the edge of, or already in, abject poverty.

  5. In reply to “the Pathoskeptic camp”, and their complaints about using thermal imaging that I have seen elsewhere.

    If you used any form of direct contact, it would immediately be claimed:

    1. the direct contact was used to pump energy into the system
    2. the direct contacts were measuring hotspots, and were not at all representative
    3. loose contacts were giving false readings or, if in direct contact, the characteristics of the measurement devices moved “out of band” as the high heat invalidated use of device
    4. results from the measurement system cannot be trusted, as the system’s characteristics change as the measurement system heats up
    5. the measurements were being fiddled anyway (for example, by hidden equipment somewhere along the wires)

    likewise, if a liquid was used, and measured, it would immediately be claimed:

    1. all of the above for direct contact plus:
    2. the assumptions about flow rate are wrong
    3. not enough steam (remember that one!)
    4. the probes measuring the liquid (or steam) temperature were in the wrong place
    5. the liquid contained impurities
    6. need to run the e-Cat at very low temperatures, to raise water temperature from ambient to, say, 60 degrees – at the same time, of course, claiming the ambient temperature was incorrectly measured, so invalidating the claimed (small) difference between ambient and system temperatures.

    Thermal imaging, while not “perfect” (nothing is):

    1. cannot be used to pump energy into the system
    2. provides a view across the whole piece (and, indeed, tends to underestimate, not overestimate), so avoiding the charge of measuring hotspots
    3. by (calibrating) and using more than one thermal camera, “single points of failure” in the measurement system are ruled out.
    4. cameras are physically decoupled from the system being measured, so impacting least on the system being measured
    5. with (known temperature) calibration points and one of the cameras being mobile, measurement error (uncertainty of measurements) can be much reduced, even when the background temperature fluctuates
    6. means the measuring equipment remains cool (again, decoupled) – not the case otherwise
    7. records raw data – that means any measurement adjustments made after the fact are transparent and well understood. Ultimately, there is always the raw data to go back to.

    So, thermal imaging was definitely THE BEST CHOICE for measuring the heat being put out by the system (running at 1400 degrees) – with a (very conservative) COP of 3.2 – 3.6, “rounding errors” can also safely be discounted.

  6. Hi all

    In reply to The Pathoskeptic

    i) Rossi put the powder in their test rig at the start and left

    1) The scientists then did their fuel analysis from a sample
    2) The scientists did their tests on Coefficient of Performance (COP)
    3) The scientists did the post reaction ash analysis

    ii) When the Scientists had finished, Rossi returned and took the powder away

    Kind Regards walker

  7. To the pathological skeptic its highly illogical at this point to point to the minutiae of doubt. The thing works. Its time to start criticizing how well it works and how it can be put in more hands in order to propagate the technology, surely technology that does not work cannot be propagated, that would be a productive use of your time.

  8. This test has actually been conducted with exactly the same team than the previous test. And shouldn’t the test have been independent? Why is it then, that I read from the report, that Andrea Rossi has been present turning switches on and off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s