VG Energy and DAK Renewable Research to conduct field trials of LipidMax to boost corn oil yield
New graphene-wrapped sulfur-carbon nanofiber cathode for Li-S batteries shows increased capacity and long-cycle stability

Independent testing of Rossi E-CAT HT devices computes energy densities far above those of any known chemical source

Independent testing of two versions of Andrea Rossi’s E-CAT HT device resulted in computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities 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 sources,” the reviewers said in their open access paper, which is posted on

The reviewers were Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University; and Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Andrea Rossi claims to have invented an apparatus that can produce much more energy per unit weight of fuel than can be obtained from known chemical processes. His invention is referred to as an energy catalyzer named E-Cat HT, where HT stands for high temperature. The original idea behind Rossi’s invention goes back to experiments done in the nineties by S. Focardi at Bologna University and collaborators, in which they claimed to have observed an anomalous heat production in a hydrogen-loaded nickel rod. Later, an experiment was carried out by S. Focardi and A. Rossi using an apparatus with a sealed container holding nickel powder plus unknown additives pressurized with hydrogen gas. When the container was heated, substantial heat was produced in excess of the input heat. They speculated that a “low energy nuclear reaction” had taken place in order to explain the large amount of excess heat.

The E-Cat HT—a further, high temperature development of the original apparatus which has also undergone many construction changes in the last two years—is the latest product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation: it is a device allegedly capable of producing heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown.

As in the original E-Cat, the reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst, which is kept as an industrial trade secret. The charge sets off the production of thermal energy after having been activated by heat produced by a set of resistor coils located inside the reactor. Once operating temperature is reached, it is possible to control the reaction by regulating the power to the coils.

The scope of the present work is to make an independent test of the E-Cat HT reactor under controlled conditions and with high precision instrumentation. It should be emphasized that the measurement must be performed with high accuracy and reliability, so that any possible excess heat production can be established beyond any doubt, as no known processes exist which can explain any abundant heat production in the E-Cat reactor.

—Levi et al.

The review team conducted test measurements with the same methodology on two different devices, both built by Leonardo: a first prototype, termed E-Cat HT, and a second one, resulting from technological improvements on the first, termed E-Cat HT2. Both have indicated heat production from an unknown reaction primed by heat from resistor coils.

  • The E-Cat HT was a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the cylinder axis, and were as long as the cylinder itself. They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test.

    Inside the structure was an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges. Two AISI 316 steel cone-shaped caps were hot-hammered in the cylinder, sealing it hermetically. The outermost shell was coated by a special aeronautical-industry grade black paint capable of withstanding temperatures up to 1200 °C.

    The E-Cat HT was already running when the test began.

  • The E-Cat HT2 differed from the earlier version both in structure and control system. The steel cylinder was 9 cm in diameter, and 33 cm in length, with a steel circular flange at one end 20 cm in diameter and 1 cm thick. The powder charge was contained within a smaller AISI 310 steel cylinder (3 cm in diameter and 33 cm in length), housed within the E-Cat HT2 outer cylinder together with the resistor coils, and closed at each end by two AISI 316 steel caps.

    The E-Cat HT2’s power supply differed from that of the E-CAT HT in that it is no longer three-phase, but single-phase: the TRIAC power supply was replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection.

    The main difference between the E-Cat HT2 and the previous model lies in the control system, which allows the device to work in self-sustaining mode—i.e. to remain operative and active, while powered off, for much longer periods of time with respect to those during which power is switched on.

Test results indicated that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source.

  • In the E-CAT HT test (December 2012), about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35 kWh, a power density of about 7 · 103 W/kg and a thermal energy density of about 6.8 · 105 Wh/kg.

  • In the E-CAT HT2 test (March 2013), about 62 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of about 33 kWh, a power density of about 5.3 · 105, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1 · 107 Wh/kg.

The difference in results between the two tests may be seen in the overestimation of the weight of the charge in the first test (which was comprehensive of the weight of the two metal caps sealing the cylinder), and in the manufacturer’s choice of keeping temperatures under control in the second experiment to enhance the stability of the operating cycle. In any event, the results obtained place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the bounds of the Ragone plot region for chemical sources.

Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.

Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.

—Levi et al.


  • Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén (2013) Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device. arXiv:1305.3913 [physics.gen-ph]



Hard to believe. Well somebody has to invest finding whether it is real. It would be still very risky investment but worth making becouse oportunity is huge. IMHO in case there chance of sucsess is 1 out of milion still worth doing.


Didn't this go the hoax way of ESS capacitors year(s) ago?

Nick Lyons

Tests were performed in Rossi's lab with the device connected to his apparatus. Chances that this isn't a scam are about the same as my chance of winning the Powerball lottery when I haven't bought a ticket.


Same story as before ...and it will end as before


It is the "heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown" and "which is kept as an industrial trade secret" part that has always bother me. They may have something or it may be a hoax, we don't know. And we wont know until they follow the most basic rule of scientific rigor - reproducibility. These test have to be reproducible by independant researchers and more than half of those that have tried have failed. Heck, even his own devices fail most of the time: "Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center; 19 of these did not produce any electricity at all. The remaining units produced less than 1 watt each, instead of the expected 800–1000 watt."

Now it is possible that Rossi is not a fraud but he is doing a very good imitation of one. He's been jailed for tax fraud, convicted of illegal trafficking of waste materials and was arrested for gold smuggling and money laundering, he's lied to government regulators, and he claims a second "Laurea" title (common term for a final degree at an Italian University with an obligatory doctorate) in "Ingegneria Chimica" (chemical engineering) at Kensington University in California, a known diploma mill which was shut down by court order in 2003 and then shut down again when it moved to Texas.


I've done some reading on this and found that for those few independant tests that did work the researchers had access to Nickel with a high percentage of isotope 64. Nickel-64 can be purchased at 95% enrichment for about $100,000 for 5 grams. Is this the industrial trade secret that needs to be protected? Google "nickel-64 theory"

If the theory is correct this would produce 8 MeV for each reaction for the 1% of the nickel that is nickel-64. 80,000 eV for each atom of nickel. 1250 times more energy density by weight than any chemical reaction.

Nickel is the fifth most common element on Earth. The Earth's crust is 75 parts per million nickel. [Only iron, oxygen, silicon and magnesium are more common.]

World Nickel production is about 1.42 million tons per year. So if the Nickel-64 theory is correct and can be perfected then Nickel production would need to be increased. 1 ton of oil is equal to 7.3 barrels of oil. 11.7 million tons of oil per day is used in the world. 9000 tons of nickel that is totally used would equal that energy. 3.5 million tons of nickel per year used for perfected deuteron stripping reactions would equal all of the oil we use now.

Mining that amount of extra nickel is not going to be carbon neutral.


Two comment, Why would the professors doing the study ruin their reputation by either misleading people or faking results. They all appear to be knowledgable. ( there were others in the study but the report was only written by the six.)
In early 2012 Rossi stated very little nickel was used and it could be recycled.


The anomalous excess heat effect due to LENR has been replicated by a number of labs, specifically SRI, MIT, and in Italy, Japan as well as Russia, Israel, and the University of Missouri. Prof Hagelstein and Dr. Swartz at MIT held a one week Seminar this year on their experiments and also proposed a theory which would explain the phenomenon. They also demonstrated a device for the public last year which produced excess heat. Mitsubishi and Toyota have done experiments as well and shown positive results. This can't all be one big scam.


As usual ai_vin is gnashing teeth and snarling in a vain attempt to make the inevitable go away. The nickel in these LENRs serves as the geometric lattice for atomic H-driven quantum reactions. The last test used only 0.3 gram nickel and catalyst yielding conservatively a power density of about 5.3 · 10^5, and a density of thermal energy of about 6.1·10^7 Wh/kg.

Unfortunately for the denialists, commercial E-Cat research is being conducted by the huge Swedish energy institution Elforsk AB. They have released a statement:

"The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today."

And will be financing ongoing efforts to fully commercialize E-Cat HT designs into Distributed Energy Eesources. Say goodbye (eventually :)) to fossil, fission, wind, even solar. So nice knowin' ya.


Ah yes, more of the same from Reel. The guy just can't take constructive criticism.

You're right. LENR has been replicated by a number of labs and I never said it hasn't. I only pointed out more than half of those that have tried have failed.


I'm not saying there's nothing to see here but we have to be able to separate the chaff from the wheat and Rossi is being no help on that front with he secrecy.


And Mann, I never said it hasn't been replicated by a number of labs, just that failure has been replicated more often.


Once again Reel only proves he can't take constructive criticism.


ai_vin, I am open to constructive critique and admittedly your proposal that nickel will be a bottleneck is reasoned, if wrong. Wrong because the nickel lattice provides the geometric structure in which LENR take place. Other materials lattices can and have been used to produce the anomalous heat effect.

Many researchers recognize it is the geometry, not the isotope that matters. Nickel is cheap and abundant and in LENR devices like E-Cat can be recycled. It is not a traditional "fuel" that is consumed as in a chemical reaction. This is one essential finding of the Swedish/Italian validation team.

This technology is going commercial, likely with little or no further academic review. The utilities and energy companies have been warned of it. President Obama met privately on May 8th with utility CEOs to give the heads up. Will they wise up and start the hard work of converting to the LENR economy? Or will they go the way of the outdated iceman and buggy??


I have red once again. Second experiment was not so promissing. Using 35 kWh of electricity to generate 62 kWh of heat - regular heat pump could perform better. May be this is regular chiller effect.


@ ai Vin

Just because it has not been replicated everywhere does not mean this research should be abandoned. Not every heavier than air airplane in the early days of aviation was a success until Lilienthal and the Wright brothers demonstrated otherwise much to the chagrin of the mainstream physicists. In fact a number of them denied it was possible several years after the first flight of the Kitty Hawk. They finally ended up eating crow, no pun intended.


As I've said before: It is the "heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown" and "which is kept as an industrial trade secret" part that has always bothered me.

It could be worth something or it could be a fraud, we don't know PERIOD The requirement for openness has to be on the guy who was arrested for gold smuggling and money laundering.

Once we know what this "unknown" reaction is doors will open. Heck, if it is the answer to all our problems then it is TOO important to leave in this guy's hands and knowing what's-the-what will let more people to work on it. Maybe they'll find ways of improving it that he hasn't thought of and get it to market faster.


"Many researchers recognize it is the geometry, not the isotope that matters." And "4 out of 5 doctors say smoking is good for you." Remember that one?

You can always find an authority figure somewhere to support any claim. There are just as many researchers that believe the nickel-64 theory or some other theory altogether and some who even think we can get energy from shrinking hydrogen atoms. :/


Ai vin, I have been around quite a while and I have never heard 4 out of 5 doctors said smoking is good for you. I believe you are confusing 4 out o 5 doctors recommend smoking X brand.


Fair enough Jimr, but I remember seeing an article where a doctor claimed 'smoking reduces stress, and anything that reduces stress is good for you.'

BTW There are reasons why some hold to the nickel-64 theory - results of testing. After proper testing it is standard procedure to take your equipment apart and test it as well. Doing so they've found copper mixed in with the nickel, read the comments;


Correction: "Read through the comments." There are PAGES of them.





Roger Pham

There are many reasons for doubting the validity of the recent E-Cat experiment mentioned here. See:


Roger, the guy who writes for New Energy times is a severely disturbed fellow working for a competitor. Unfortunately he has alienated the entire LENR community by attacking qualified scientists on specious grounds.

HERE is an article germane to Green Car Congress:

"heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown" and "which is kept as an industrial trade secret" part that has always bothered me...

If you quoted in context these are two different things. We still do not understand exactly how fire "works." And the catalyst that Drs. Rossi and Focardi developed is protected IP just as any trade secret, e.g. Coca Cola's secret formula.

The comments to this entry are closed.