Rossi Third Party Test

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather

Recent reports released by an “Independent Third Party” on their analysis of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat HT system have got the world of free energy in a buzz. Critical questions are now coming forward that would suggest that the tests were both, not “Independent” and were not conducted in a accurate manner.




It has been roughly two years since Rossi first announced his Ecat to the world. Claiming kilowatts of excess energy in the form of heat, the energy catalyzer has spurred new research into the field of Cold Fusion(LENR). The road has been long and bumpy ever since. Rossi’s journey has been clouded with inaccuracies, leaks of information, misguiding information, and Rossi’s own dark past.


The recent report has renewed a frenzy confidence and new hope in LENR and in Rossi’s Ecat series. Frank Ackland, editor of E-Catworld.com, has closely followed Rossi’s saga and is in my opinion the most accurate news source on the Ecat. Frank correctly believes that 
the report could be a major step towards acceptance.

“There are people in industry, science and among the general public who have been paying attention but have been quite skeptical of Rossi’s claims will get off the fence and start taking him more seriously,” Acland told Wired.co.uk. “This is the kind of technology that people want to see come along, if only they could have solid reason to believe — and this report could provide that.”

“The report — “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device” — concludes that the E-Cat does produce excess energy, and lots of it. “Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements,” say the authors, “the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.” The E-Cat produced at least ten times more energy than any hidden batteries or other power source could have supplied.”

Steven Krivit, editor of New Energy Times shares my opinion on the recent test report. Krivit has been devout critic of Rossi since he made his first announcement.

“This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi’s facility,” Krivit told Wired.co.uk. “The measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in this scam since 2011. The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as research misconduct by some organisations.”

I can only hope that Rossi’s trend of inaccurate testing methods, falsified claims of testing independence, and misleading comments, are not a deliberate attempt to hide the truth. The truth will find you out in the end and this will happen sooner or later. 


View report below.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather
  • Simon Derricutt

    Before this report I was firmly on the fence as regards Rossi. I was pretty certain that he had seen excess power delivered, and that at times it was likely extremely high, but I had doubts on his ability to start the system and also to keep it under control. This report pretty well says that Rossi has now either solved those problems or thought that the risk of failure was low enough to risk someone else driving the system.

    Given the people Rossi now has become involved with (Siemens and NI amongst others) and his new investors and business arrangement, if Rossi had actually attempted to fool the authors of this report, that would have been a massive risk. He didn’t know what measuring equipment they might have used, that could catch any possible sneaky way of introducing extra power into the HotCat. To have been caught out now would be very expensive for Rossi.

    Assuming that there was no extra power fed in that was not measured, then the rest of the measurements are consistent enough to be confirmation. I’ve seen a lot of comments about the emissivity of the device, and how the energy output could be wildly different from what the calculations say. This is simply a red herring. The control test used dots of known emissivity and a thermocouple, and therefore this not only cross-checks the thermal camera but also says that the emission calculations are pretty close. If the emissivity was wildly different from the 1 they assumed, then the temperature of the thermocouple and that of the thermal camera would disagree more than the 2°C measured. I’ve complained before about the thermal camera measurements, but this time it’s backed with a contact measurement so I’m happy enough with the temperature and power calculations this time.

    The control measurement, using the same setup but with no active substance in the device, cross-checks the power calculations too.

    Unless you still think that Rossi has fooled or bribed the scientists who did this, the internal cross-checks in this report are good enough for an old engineer. I think the authors have too much to lose to take a bribe, and I think they were careful enough to check most things. Maybe next time it’s worth taking a short plug-to-socket extension lead with separate wires for the current-clamp in order to stop the “bifilar wires” complaint. I think this is very unlikely, but it’s been put forward as a way to fool the meters. Might as well nail this complaint of possible fraud solidly.

    Because this report covers the failings I’ve seen in previous demonstrations, I’ve come down off the fence and I’m now certain that Rossi can make one device that starts when asked and runs for 5 days or so, and will put out up to around 3 times the energy input. I’d expect it would actually run a lot longer than the 5 days, but I’m happy to wait for confirmation on that.

    Whether Rossi can yet mass-manufacture these devices is also something we’ll have to wait and see. I think the question now is when, though, rather than if. He’s obviously progressing with his research and is now able to do what he’s been telling us for quite a while he could do but actually couldn’t reliably do it then.

    • Kenneth

      Thank you Simon for the reply. I tend to get more skeptical when I see false statements from a claimant. Rossi has mislead the public many times in the past. While i don’t discredit the scientists who published the report, I don’t believe Rossi himself is trustworthy. The testing environment was not Independent of Rossi’s control although he stated that he had no control or even knowledge of the progress of the testing in the past before the report was published.

      The use of the thermocouple puts me at ease a little on the accuracy issue but there are still many holes to fill. I’m teetering on the fence still and will follow closely from here on out.

      • Simon Derricutt

        It’s true that you can’t believe a lot of what Rossi says. It’s to his advantage to mislead people as to what is actually in his devices and how he drives them in order to give him more time to get to market himself. He’s not a scientist, and does not have the ethics of a scientist of trying to tell the highest truth. He wants to make a profit and to have the kudos of a benefactor of mankind, and to be first rather than just one of the group. The testers, however, do appear to have that scientific background and integrity, and tried hard to cover all the Skeptics’ objections although they missed a few of the more outrageous proposed methods of cheating. Having seen the responses, though, I’m sure they’ll cover those on the next 6-month test.

        A lot of the complaints are largely nit-picking. Unless these guys are intentionally complicit in the fraud, the report is accurate enough to prove the point that Rossi now can build at least one device that can be started and will run for someone else other than Rossi himself. That is a major advance for something that is “impossible”.

        Overall, though, I’d probably still bet on Defkalion being first to sell a mass-produced device for the home user. They’ve been somewhat dark, but have a good team by the look of things. Although Rossi now also says he has a team, it’s possible that he’s not using them as effectively to solve the problems since I would have expected a better control system based on feedback and on timed and reactive cooling of the system rather than timed heating with T^4 cooling. The heat-cycling looks necessary to run the system, but it does seem that that cycling could run faster and closer to the limit and thus achieve a much better COP.

        One thing worth mentioning is that Steve Krivit has a personal vendetta against Rossi that colours all his writings. He considers Rossi a fraud, and I think that in return Rossi puts out bad information in Krivit’s direction just to have fun. Don’t expect an unbiased report from NET if you’ve paid the $80 per year to read it.

        Bottom line for me is that the report is accurate enough and independent enough to confirm that the device works pretty well as measured. I still think Rossi has issues with the control, though, and that it will be a few years before he can mass-manufacture.

  • Mark Dansie

    The Discovery Channel’s web site has come out with an article by Jesse Emspak (which features a large picture of Andrea Rossi at at its head) titled “5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk”.

    The five reasons listed in the article for being skeptical about Rossi and the E-Cat are :

    1. The Coulombe barrier — only possible with super high temperatures and massive brute force, such as in the stars)

    2. Gamma Rays — two inches of lead shielding would be needed to stop 96 percent of gamma rays from a fusion reaction, and Rossi would be very sick if even only four percent of gamma rays escaped from his device. There didn’t seem to be any shielding in his reactor.

    3. Transmutation — there would need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring. Rossi said initially that nickel is being transmutated to copper — not even supernovas can do that)

    4. Testing — during the test the reactor was never disconnected from the mains power even when their equipment measured no power was being consumed. The team did not test for a hidden DC wire.

    5. Catalyst — Rossi has not disclosed the catalyst he is using claiming it is a trade secret and this is a red flag.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Mark – I think Rossi’s misdirection is working well. How do we know what’s in it (Rossi says)? How do we know it’s a nuclear reaction (again Rossi says)? How do we know there’s transmutation (Rossi says)? Meantime, the report does state that the total radiation was measured as normal background, and although the testers did not look for a hidden DC wire, AC wire, RF feed or laser energy-feed, they were not limited in the kit they could bring and thus could have found such a thing if it was there (they just didn’t look for the really sneaky frauds). The heat measurements are good enough for an engineer, since the assumptions of emissivity were tested using the thermocouple and thus are not really an issue except down in the few percent up to 10% error range.

      If Rossi disclosed what he was doing now as regards catalysts and construction, then he’d have competition pretty soon. With a group of engineers working on it they could surpass him. Secrecy and misdirection are his best tools to stop that, since he can’t patent it yet. Not a red flag but sour grapes.

      A long time back Piantelli and later Focardi (though not as well) showed that they could get heat from Nickel-Hydrogen with a COP of around 2. Was that bunk? Again, no excessive radiation as regards gammas, but just the heat. Is Brillouin also bunk with a COP of around 2.1 last I looked?

      For some reason, various people have decided that since they believe it can’t work according to known theory, then it won’t work in practice. This is not the way either science or nature works – if you find that something happens against the theory then you change the theory rather than say that the experimental results are bad. Too many people have found that Cold Fusion works to say that it doesn’t, as documented on Jed Rothwell’s site. There are a whole lot of scientific papers about this, but largely not peer-reviewed since it’s “impossible”.

      One of the hallmarks of science has been reproducibility, yet from the get-go LENR/Cold Fusion has been known to be difficult to reproduce. The same experimenter could make 20 identical cells using what look like identical components and construction in each cell, yet only around half produced excess heat. We don’t yet know all the conditions needed to make it work, thus Rossi has actually succeeded pretty well so far. If he can get this to the point of mass-manufacture in 5 years then he’ll have done very well.

  • Mark Dansie

    As was expected the recent testing of the Ecat has been heavily criticized
    In this months Ny Teknik the headlines read
    Harsh criticism of report
    Energy measurement on the controversial energy unit E-cat, Which was published last week criticized now.

    Wagering halted after test
    A group of Swedes were preparing an investment in the E-cat.
    I think this second article was published after last September’s test results
    you will need to translate.
    Kind Regards

  • Mark Dansie

    Quote from New Energy Times
    From: Dr. Alessio Guglielmi
    To: Drs. Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
    Dear Doctors Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Pettersson, Tegnér and Essén,
    I have read your recent manuscript `Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder´ on arXiv[/b] and I am very perplexed.
    This brings me to asking another natural question: who will profit from the release of your manuscript? You do realize that Mr. Rossi sells distribution licenses and that he needs to convince customers to order some of his devices. There is no doubt that your manuscript will help his marketing efforts, but is this something that academics should do? Is it our job to help a private individual sell his stuff in the absence of solid, reproducible evidence?
    In other words, I wonder whether you are adhering to scientific protocol and I wonder whether what you are doing is legitimate for academics. Other people questioned your technical ability, but I think that the ethical questions that I am posing here come first, also because they are more understandable by the layman. I trust that you appreciate my frankness, and I hope that you can prove my concerns unjustified.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Basically, this is not an ethical question being posed here, but an attack on the credibility of the authors, otherwise why state “in the absence of solid, reproducible evidence”? That’s what they were trying to produce.

      It’s always been a bugbear with Rossi that he has had no scientific backup for his claims, yet when scientists try to do a solid measurement they are condemned for unethical behaviour because Rossi wants to sell E-cats when he’s done. It’s that Catch-22 again.

      • Djangus

        I think the issue is that the tests 1) weren’t really independent and 2) didn’t past muster as far as scientific confirmation is concerned.

        As someone who reads articles on actual scientific investigation on a daily basis, the paper published sticks out like a sore thumb. Accurate and reliable methods for measuring heat have been around forever, but they didn’t use them. There is no discussion of the physics.

        I mean, when you’re an independent third party and the inventor hands you a power plug and says, “240VAC, 50Hz, TRUST ME”, or whatever, a true scientist is going to verify the truth of that for his/herself. I mean, ask Mark Dansie about all the clever ways people try to fake things.

        The paper appears to laymen as credible and as such is a boon to Rossi’s licensing scheme. I think this is Guglielmi’s criticism — the paper is not scientifically interesting, does not answer any scientific questions, and whether intentional or not in the end serves only to make Rossi money.

        • Simon Derricutt

          Djangus – they also didn’t include the calibration certificates of the equipment used. From a pure science viewpoint we could pick holes in this for a while – it’s getting peer-reviewed on a grand scale.

          I’d assume that when they stripped the wires out of the mains cable to measure voltage and have them separated for current measurements they’d have seen either doubled wires or coax if they were there, and in any case this nit-pick is clutching at straws to find the source of the excess power. Rossi would have been a fool to have tried this method of fraud. If Mark Dansie had been there, he’d have most likely looked for more methods than these guys did, but I’m pretty certain that even Mark would have found nothing fraudulent here. That is not scientific evidence, but social evidence – the risk of being found out in a fraud is way too high with that calibre of person inspecting stuff, therefore most likely there was no fraud.

          In a scientific paper they should have been more rigorous, but as an engineer I see that there is no reason to doubt the instrumentation or the general conclusion. Although they did not have a ‘scope with them, the mains input measurement did have a display of the waveform to eliminate DC as the source of extra energy, but this was not in the report ( look at the Vortex discussions for the quote).

          In the past, Rossi’s lousy demos kept me from thinking he had a good process. This report, though it has its flaws, is good enough to convince me that he’s progressed beyond Piantelli and can control both his fuel manufacture and the device well enough for proper measurements to be finally possible. Some hints that a real calorimeter may be used in future, but I think that at the moment Rossi’s control of the process is not robust enough to run in an enclosure. It would most likely melt down if this were tried.

          The paper does not discuss the physics because, unsurprisingly, Rossi didn’t let them know what he thought it was. Levi may indeed know some stuff about what’s in there, since he’s been a friend of Rossi for a long time, but this paper is not intended to show how the thing works, only that it does work. For that purpose, I think it’s good enough. If the process has thus been shown to really work, I have no issue with Rossi getting investments and sales on the back of it, since it is no longer vaporware but real.

  • Mark Dansie

    Hi Simon
    I have enormous respect for you and one of the reasons I come to this site. I have been privy to some inside information in the past regarding Rossi and my question is why he is so reluctant to allow a simplistic caloric-metric test? I have in person spoken to different engineers and scientists who have visited only to be refused to be able to test the device in acceptable ways not just how Rossi dictates.
    The scathing articles about this particular tests are starting to flood in and it has served no purpose to gain any credibility.
    However on the happy side, there are a lot of researchers and organisations around the world making steady progress in this field and are being published and recognized. Rossi and his theatrics brings this into discredit.
    I believe the issue in the long run will not be understanding the process but engineering it into something useful. hopefully this will not be too far into the future.
    Kind Regards

    • Simon Derricutt

      Mark – I also have a lot of respect for you and your work. I’m just trying to be objective and get to the reality of what’s happening rather than react based on just beliefs.

      I think that in the past Rossi has not allowed decent calorimetry because he wasn’t certain enough that it would work. There are indications that he has come very close to meltdown during one of his demos and looked very worried and moved very quickly – can’t remember which one at the moment. After the meltdown/explosion in a P+F type experiment, people went down to really small quantities of materials to avoid the dangers, knowing that they didn’t know what could happen. Rossi has not done this, but has used relatively large quantities of active materials – not that surprising that he’s producing more watts, but for a long time he was actually producing somewhere around the 2W/m² of active surface. No more than Piantelli in reality, but just look at those megawatts. Possibly this is still the power rating, but we don’t know.

      The way I see it is that Rossi had seen some surprisingly large outputs at times, but could not predict when it would start, how long it would continue or how hot it would get. The 1MW device was a way to hide that problem, so after the ‘start-up’ period he had a reasonable percentage of the 100+ units active at any one time. The odd melt-down could be replaced in the scheduled maintenance, after all. He really has done a lot of work and thinking since then, and if it really was a scam he wouldn’t have needed to – he had enough “believers” to support him. Keely, after all, still had enough believers when he died and as far as I can tell still does. Rossi believes he’s got the answer and wants to make them real. Just a little problem with fuel manufacture reliability, start-up and control that he was certain he’d fix in a month or two. That month or two is now a couple of years, true, but he’s close enough now to start letting someone else drive the thing. Not quite there yet, but of course another couple of months is all it’s going to take….

      Those real researchers have given us a reason to think that Rossi may have something, and despite its flaws I think this report shows that he’s pretty close and that he really has a valid process. His issues are likely still in manufacturing the fuel, start-up and definitely in controlling it on the edge of instability without going over it. It looks like he’s now got enough credibility with his investors and business partners to get a group of engineers, so the extra input of ideas should speed up the fixing of these difficult problems. The critics don’t understand how difficult it is to do something “impossible”.

      Despite all this seeming praise of Rossi, I wouldn’t buy one personally, at least not in the first few years. I’m expecting an instability leading to meltdowns/explosions in a significant number of the first batches. I’d rather buy one of Bob Rohner’s machines, where at least I know how it works and that it’s safe. Unless Rossi gets a team of scientists and industrial engineers on his systems I wouldn’t be happy with the control algorithms and design. The scientists need to have a good theory of operation of Rossi’s process, and until it’s being sold for real very few will believe it works so we won’t get the good ones working on it. Selling some is the only way through this catch-22, and I think Rossi will have enough brave first customers.

  • Mark Dansie

    I think this video puts everything into perspective


    • Simon Derricutt

      Good one from Hank. Thanks…. Funny about the Bob Parks gold watch – the real speech at that point was about putting a bullet in the head (kugel in’s kopf). And yes, the Noble Gas engine may well be reality soon and we’re looking at Calvin Hoogerhyde just in case a magnetic motor might work.

  • Bill Mehess

    Does it really work or not? Unless Rossi allows untampered 3rd party testing the truth will not be know.
    One would think that he would above all matters want a universal proof of his work to be generally known and accepted. But just the opposite has happened.
    It sounds like all smoke and mirrors

    • Simon Derricutt

      Bill – I think it’s to Rossi’s advantage to have established science saying it won’t work providing he’s ensured that his investors have better proof. While at the moment there will be no big, well-funded team looking at the technology because it’s woo-woo, Rossi buys himself time to solve the remaining problems. He’s done well to get this far, but as I see it there are still difficulties in making it reliable. Rossi still needs more time to perfect it.

      I look at the report and see that they’ve covered all the things I needed except for clever fraud by Rossi. Unless they have been bribed, of course. I wanted a few things on the radiative energy emissions cleared up, and they did that by using a thermocouple, so I’m happy that it works in an engineering sense. I’m not asking them to use LaTeX to write their report, or to spell out everything they did. I’ve looked at who they are and who paid the money to have it done, and so I expect they are good, honest and competent. Maybe in the 6-month test they’ll dot a few more i’s but for any other room heater this would be good enough. Power in, power out, and check the IR camera and T^4 calculations using a thermocouple.

      It’s not enough to satisfy the people whose research grants are going to be chopped when Rossi has all his ducks in a row, but then again that could well have been the aim of it. For yourself, just read it through again and try to forget all the previous demos and the current furore. Do the figures stand up? Are their conclusions conservative enough? That’s about as good as you’ll get for now.

  • TRM


    Test description starts around the 1 minute mark.
    Those are they type of tests needed. Please send link to Rossi 😉

    Seriously other energy researchers have no problem submitting to repeated tests and providing samples of their chemical mix. Why does Rossi have problems doing them?