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

This blog post was originally published on

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 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.


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

Add yours

  1. Hi Mat,
    When is your second edition book coming? Are you waiting on the responses of the professors of recent TIP test report?

  2. There are a few changes to the experimental setup that, in my opinion, could go a long way to answering the skeptics.

    First and foremost, run the experiment without any connection to external power. Use a gasoline powered generator that is kept under surveillance, and measure the gasoline the generator is fed. There should be no power line connecting the experiment to any power supply except the gasoline generator.

    Second, split the fuel stream between two or more groups who will each categorize their sample independently, without sharing notes. Have each group commit to its final analysis prior to sharing information. Have the samples provided to the groups by someone wearing latex gloves, and have them wash their gloved hands immediately prior to contact with the fuel.

    1. “There are a few changes to the experimental setup that, in my opinion, could go a long way to answering the skeptics”
      There will be no setup that could change the mind of skeptics as long as Wizard and fellows are involved. Do you realky want to make us believe? Then let the team that revealed Hyperion trick tests the in and the out. But the enterpreneur will never let it happen, as game would be over.

  3. I watched every video and article I could find on the e-Cat and finally came across his history ( I remembered a video where he didn’t want to discuss his past. That was the first alarm bell right there. I went back and watched ( and can see how easily he could fool people. Little things don’t add up which make me very suspicious. The Ammeter shows 3.4A. He doesn’t show the voltage we have to take his word at 220V for Italy. It could be 660V. The wiring inside the control box just look like he has thrown a pile in there to look complicated when the real power cable goes in at the back on the bottom and probably goes straight back out to the running e-cat. I suspect it’s just a heater element in the e-Cat. The pump is on a different circuit (the power board runs to a different GPO) and is not included in his calculations. The amount of steam is less than my kettle. We have to take his word that they are going through 7kg of water an hour. I smell a rat. As for his 1MW plant why was there a massive diesel generator running and making it hard for people to hear their own thoughts. Whats it powering? Is it because mains can’t supply what he need to run the 1MW plant? He should be investigated before any other big businesses are sucked in. I think I read he has experience in thermoelectrics which makes me think it would be simple for him to hook up a TEG ( and run it stand alone and really knock the socks off everyone. To many questions and not enough answers. I bet he put in the Cu in the night before the test. I wonder who else is in on it. I’m done with Rossi. I’ll look for LENR elsewhere. I say he’s a snake oil salesman and I’m confident it will eventually be shown he has wasted mine and your time, and hard earned $$$ of the investors if they are real (who knows they may be in on it).

    1. “He doesn’t show the voltage we have to take his word at 220V for Italy”

      I do believe it was really 220V – he did non need more that time as long as people could believe the tiny smoke was high pressure dry steam…if you believed it, the in power had no more sense…
      The nice trick was to tell some small lies here and there, like the quantity of water, the driness of the steam, the temperature reached. He did not need more as long as those were not checkable.

      But the lesson from the past is: a lot of people believed those ridiculouses shows. Why should thye not believe at this one? If even we spot the trick and shoiw them we could replicate without any fusion at all, they will still believe we are making a fake while he was making fusion…

      Even if he would stand up in front on TV saying he was frauding everyone, you will find people saying he would have been forced to say so by some Hidden Force of Criminal People driving the World even if Being Drunk – or something like that. But let’s try tell them E Cat is a trick and a fraud – might be someone among believers will finally undestand, at least within 3/6/18 years…

  4. We all must understand by now, that Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat story is coming
    crashing down very soon.

    So why not to laugh at it and to ourselves? And remember, there is always room for new miracles in human mind.

    Who knows, maybe next time it is real.

    1. “Who knows, maybe next time it is real”
      For sure – there is a smart one who would ask:
      “How do you know?”
      Yes, next time might be there will be something to investigate, why not? Starting from tomorrow, I am sure, with results soon ready for next year.

  5. @Timar
    It’s called selfish (maintaining the present status quote at the cost and suffering of the others as long as possible). The motives are clearly driven by self-serving interests.

  6. @ Timar,
    He Certainly Has mastered the ancient art of sophism.
    You got the right word: sophism. Everyone who wants to understand cold fusion has much more advantages knowing sophistics, than physics. I would even say that cold fusion is essentially a branch of sophistics, or at least its more interesting application in recent years. Not for nothing the greatest achievements in this field are claimed by a philosopher.

    And a real masterpiece in this rethorical art is the reasoning you find in the first paragraph of the chapter 3 of the TPR2.

  7. @Ascoli: Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to belittle straw grasping. Some pathoskeptics have developed this skill to an extraordinary degree of sophistication. Stephan Pomp, for example, always manages to grasp enough straws to build a quite decent straw man from them. He has certainly mastered the ancient art of Sophism.

    @tyy: I’m sure you would be happy to be proven wrong. Very happy. So unbearably happy, actually, that you have to contain yourself within that wall of childish sarcasm that seems so oddly inappropriate given all that humanity could gain from the technology you ridicule. Pomp probably felt the same way when he turned down the offer to join the investigation on the E-Cat. (Sarcasm is infectous, you see?)

  8. @ Timar,
    I guess you also have an explanation of how they escaped the laws of thermodynamics?
    That’s exactly what I meant. In particular a possible simple explanation on how to escape the first one.

    There’s an awful lot of straw grasping going on lately…
    Yes, I agree. The TPR2 seems a good example.

  9. @Ascoli65: I guess you also have an explanation of how they escaped the laws of thermodynamics?

    There’s an awful lot of straw grasping going on lately…

  10. @ Mats Lewan, Giancarlo,
    pay attention to the calibration. I wouldn’t be so sure, it was so good.

    Please, carefully read at the beginning of Chapter 3, “Experimental procedure”. Do you agree with the reasons for limiting the power during the “dummy” at half the value of the loaded reactor? I am not. The only reason I can see leads me to imagine how to get a COP of 3 to 4, as well as to increase the output power of about 700 W with an input increase of only 130 W.

    Think about that.

  11. @Mats

    Hanno forwarded Bo Hoistad my mail so I think in a short while I’ll receive an answer to my questions.

  12. @Timar

    You write:

    “However, the truth is that people like you, many of them hiding behind anonymity”

    I have never, ever hidden behind anonymity. Follow the breadcrumbs, if you will, and you can find my email and my name. Even the country and city I live in. There are nobody else with the same name nearby, so you can even find my phone number.

    Who are you, Timar?

  13. Att låta Rossi starta, stoppa körningen, ladda bränslet samt ta ut “askan” efter körningen är inte bra om man eftersträvar trovärdighet.
    Även om det hela övervakades av flera personer.

    Gör om gör rätt!

  14. @tyy: Your blog is indeed a rich source for understanding the pathoskeptics’ psychology.

    In one of your recent comments you wrote:

    “With the other pathoskeptics, I am probably going to have to eat a hat-full of excrement, followed by a public humiliation by the Eternal Inquisition of the Internet.”

    This is a classic example of what Sigmund Freud called transference, spiced up with a gross image of anal fixation. Moreover, it shows that as you begin to surmise your own defeat, you already work on a new self-perception as being some sort of victim. However, the truth is that people like you, many of them hiding behind anonymity, are malicously denouncing accomplished scientists who are spirited enough to investigate a new phenomenon, without the comfort of a theoretical explanation, when they have seen conclusive indications for its reality. If people like you hold the positions, you try to silence them and if you don’t suceed doing so you try to destroy their careers, like it has been done to Fleischmann and Pons and many others. You are not the victims – history will get this right.

    1. Great sense of humor, Timar…

      By the way, did you already state this TPR2 is really a good paper from a scientific point of view? Any clues about why it is not reprinted on Nature? Do you think it will be (or should be) soon?

  15. @Mats
    from the table I read input power is increased from 786 to 924 watts. What do you mean by “According to my personal wattmeter”?

    Let us wait for Hanno’s reply 🙂

  16. Worrying strange details in the report……

    “The E-Cat’s control apparatus consists of a three – phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e.the current through the resistor coils, normally 40 – 50Amps) ,and by the temperature read by the reactor’s thermocouple”

    What is the 360 W, is that the controllers OWN consumption or the power it can regulate?

    How can the current be 40 – 50 Amps, this would correspond to 10 – 60 kW depending on nr of phases and where the current is measured. This needs clarification.

  17. @Mats

    1) Calibration was really good and is my starting point

    2) According to my personal wattmeter, when passing from File 5 to File 6 in Table 7 the input power was increased from 2472 W to 2903 W. The difference with the measured 2058 W and 2809 W can be a result of measurement change of accuracy due to a different ratio between convection and radiation mechanisms.
    Did you find in the paper where they consider the presence of the fins for radiation? Are you sure that the behaviour is temperature independent?

    1. @giancarlo — from the table I read input power is increased from 786 to 924 watts. What do you mean by “According to my personal wattmeter”?
      As for temperature independence you should turn to an expert in thermodynamics. I would be surprised to find that certain geometries should behave much differently at different temperatures, or that the accuracy would change by a factor 2.

  18. It becomes increasingly obvious that the denialism is rooted in psychology rather than in rationality. Ironically, pathoskeptics like to paint people acknowledging the conclusions drawn in the third party reports as deluded “cult followers”, while they constantly act as self-inaugurated inquisitors of the Holy Theory. This is not a far-fetched analogy. In the Middle Ages, the writing of the Scholastic philosophers and theologists were the most systematic and sophisticated “theory of everything”. Fortunately, we have made some progress since then. Today we have a theory that is based on empirical observations instead of religious ideas – and its heretics are not burned at the stake but rather denounced in internet blogs. However, the basic psychological motivation for the modern age inquisitors remains the same as for their medieval predecessors: The fear of the Unknown. For people like Mary Yugo or Stephan Pomp, a Black Swan is a much more frightening entity than the most horrible creature a nightmarish fantasy could imagine.

  19. @Mats
    Were I in your shoes I’d rather wait a few days before sending the second edition to print. I’ve had some problems with the input power measurements in the paper, so I decided to report them to Hanno Essén. Most probably I’m wrong (I’m pretty sure), but I’ll keep you informed.
    While I’m waiting for his reply, pay attention to these two numbers: 20 & 68.

    1. Good Giancarlo.
      While you’re looking at it, keep in mind that:
      1. A calibration was done on a dummy reactor, showing that measured input and output power were consistent.
      2. In case the calibration would not be valid for the active run, and if we suppose that the reactor didn’t produce any energy, we can conclude from the calculated COP that the input power is underestimated by a factor of about 3.4. Then we have to explain how an increase in input power of about 100 watts resulted in an increase of output power of about 700 watts (page 7) — twice as much as you would expect if input power was simply underestimated by a factor 3.4.

  20. “The second report is solid confirmation for a thinking, reasonable person”
    For years we, the skeptics have had our fun.
    Thanks to true believers, we will go on havng fun for many years…

    I really love those transmutations (but also COP measurement is nice, you know? No maths on it? What a pity… And the pce-830? There is a nice image where you can see it is Over Loaded – is really great – I wonder if someone from IH would take a look at videos or if no one of them cares, exactly like for the TPR1…): Ni62 from 3% to 98% and Ni58 from 68% to 0 .
    I wonder how it is that Nature did not published it and even the even more more valuable Arxiv kept (and keeps) that masterpiece on hold…
    Really a pity no 7 new teachers from 7 different University wanted to sign that paper, but we can be glad Levi and 5 others out of 6 of TPR1 signed the same – I wonder how sad should be the 7th that could not join the Party – for sure he must have had some pressing due to attend, like refill a tea cup… And someone should ask him why he left when he was so close to Nobel – as for sure a Nobel is coming, at least the Fraud Nobel Prize

  21. For years the skeptics have had their fun, constantly spewing out streams of bitter denialism. Please stop feeding the nasty little creatures, give them a taste of their own stale and acerbic stew and ignore their empty, piteous pleas for attention, it matters not what they think or say, it is what it is. The second report is solid confirmation for a thinking, reasonable person, if they are incapable of thinking or behaving honestly, then they do not deserve your/our time, thoughts or words. You will NEVER convince an intellectually dishonest person, they have effectively deceived themselves, so how will you ever prevail? You will never do so, so stop trying, they have lost, accept this victory and move past them while moving forward into a new and bright future.

  22. I would like to have seen the demo use DC as a power source. It can be scoped and easily monitored and measured even at 1500 watts. Rossi’s more odd journal entries was that his device required 3-phase and couldn’t run on DC… Of course, a DC voltage can be converted into any phase or frequency.

    I too would like to have not seen Levi’s name on the report. But I was pleasantly surprised by the revealing of the Lithium… That should help a lot with attempts at replication.

    My Rossi-faith-o-meter has gone up today…

  23. Thank you tyy for providing such a pointed insight into a pathoskeptic’s mindset.

    For people like you, only theory is real. Empirical evidence that doesn’t fit the theory is a nuisance that has to be eliminated – “no theory, no nothing”. That’s a revealing remark indeed.

  24. Still no replicability. Still no results from an independent group. Still no theory, no nothing. Just the same old hot air. Yes, here we go again.

  25. @Mary: “Will decide”: future tense (a verbal meaning not presently realized). I’m not a native speaker but I seem to have a better understanding of English grammar than you.

    Besides, you seem to have no idea of the difference between demonstrating a working prototype and developing a stable(!) and economically feasible(!!) production model. This is a process taking years and large investments, much more so if it is an entierely novel technology.

  26. @Timar

    What are you talking about when you say “market”? Rossi has had a supposed megawatt thermal power plant which uses only tiny amounts of cheap fuel for sale for three years. Delivery is supposed to be four months. Where is this “market”? Where are those plants? You don’t think anyone wants to buy a fusion or LENR thermal source? What market are you going on about?

  27. So here we go again! The pathological skeptics reiterate their old objections, albeit slightly more hysteric and irrational than before, while the scientific community refuses to even look at the evidence and the mainstream media continue to utterly ignore the subject – ignorance and dogmatism rule once more over reason and evidence.

    Alas, Rossi was right when he once said that only the market will decide and convince the public of the reality of his device. I did not understand it back then but I do now.

  28. Jed, Rossi can buy Ni-62 for about $20K a gram. That’s not prohibitive is it? Why was not Rossi (and Levi and anyone associated with them) simply kept OUT and away from the experiment? Why did they use clamp on ammeters which are susceptible to spoofing with a simple wiring trick?

    Isotopes are available here:

    This was just a rehash of the old and full of holes experiment. This should have been done by an illustrious team at a well known test lab or university physics department (officially). Ecats are for sale supposedly. The lab/university should have simply been given a commercially available module to test any way they wished. Then, there would be no question. As it is, there are nothing BUT questions. This whole test was a waste of time and effort.

  29. Tyy wrote: “Why is it then, that I read from the report, that Andrea Rossi has been present turning switches on and off.”

    It does not say that. It says just the opposite:

    “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.”

    Bertil Nilsson wrote: “Rossi loads the container, Rossi reload the ashes. . . .”

    Where would he get ashes with unnatural isotopic ratios? From some other reactor?

    You people are grasping at straws.

  30. Lol! C’mon, believers, dance and sing more loudly, please. Could you clearly state this is serious stuff from serously prepared professors and not a fake brochure? Please…

  31. Mats, could you please ask Höistad why they were not more suspicious of the power supply to the heaters? Why did they use clamp on ammeters which are susceptible to spoofing with a wiring trick? Why did they not provide their own limited and metered source of overall power for the experiment? Did they see that “cheese” video? Why did they not rule out such a trick? After all, THAT is what much of the critique of their earlier work was about.

    If memory serves, the Swedish Technical Institute rejected Rossi’s claims after using their own power source and metering. It only took them 30 minutes to conclude that Rossi’s power measurement was off by something like a factor of 2 or 3 — exactly the amount of the claimed COP.

  32. To the pathological skeptic its highly illogical at this point to point to the minutiae of doubt. As if parlor tricks could pass this type of test an to what end? 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.

  33. Have none of the believers seen the famous cheese video?

    – clamp on ammeters are inappropriate

    – three phase power is inappropriate and unnecessary

    The experimenters should have brought their own metered power supply to make sure that excess power was not drawn from the mains line through trickery. This has ALWAYS been the issue. That the experimenters failed to do this makes their use of an otherwise adequate control run worthless. Failure to account for trickery in the wires is gross negligence and incompetence. AGAIN. As for the isotope composition, where is the original fuel? Are we to believe it was all used up? Nonsense. Most likely, Rossi or someone he assigned, switched the powders through sleight of hand.

    I sure hope IH selles something based on this test. Then, we may finally know what is really going on.

    Meanwhile, I sure smell CHEESE!

  34. Rossi loads the container, Rossi reload the ashes. A magician loads a cylinder with red powder, shakes it and reload a white rabbit….or any other powder than red. Possible? Ask any magician. The scientists in this test are well aware that they know very little. From the summery: “Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heatingprocess would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions.” say the scientists. This means they cannot be sure at all. This goes for all of us.

  35. Kanon!
    Det här kan bli the biggest shift ever
    Näst steg måste vara att ta bort allt hemlighetsmakeri med “reaktorn”.
    Fler måste kunna replikera det som nu gjorts, och få igång rejält med forskning på att förstå
    vad som händer inne i reaktorn. Det kanske går att göra det ännu mycket bättre!

  36. 360 watt triac contoller?
    Really? you people are that stupid?
    You think 350watt of heat is coincidence?

  37. 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.

    I would be nice not to smell something fishy, for a change.

  38. Mats,
    Thanks for the reporting! There must be a lots of behind-the-scenes stuff going on with the various journals. I hope we get to hear about that sometime! And I sure hope it does come out soon in some journal or other. (Think about the scoop they’d be making!)

  39. Hej. Djupt imponerad av att ni lyckats hålla rapporten konfidentiell hela vägen. Lycka till med allt och hälsa alla! mvh, Henrik

  40. This makes me very glad and sad ad the same time – glad to see the report in all its glory and sad to see it released this way due to the blatant dogmatism in scientific publishing.

    1. You tell me… In my book you can read about their considerations on the subject. There will be some resistance.

  41. Well done Matt for sticking with this and congratulations to Andrea Rossi for his determination. Now let’s make this change the world for the better!

Leave a Comment. Latest comments are displayed on top. Comments are not threaded.

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 )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: