Friday, May 27, 2011


After 5 experiments aimed to demonstrate the heat generation performances of the devices known as Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzers, a lot of skeptics are not convinced that the E-cat works
or think that the results are much over-evaluated. In four experiences from 5, the heat released was used to make steam- and here is the crux of the problem, where many duets of deaf where heard. The skeptics think that the steam generated is composed of a small quantity of vapors carrying a great amount of water micro-droplets, therefore the real enthalpy of the steam is much smaller than the values calculated.
Tons of electronic inks were consumed in these discussions but the opposite opinions are incompatible and the use of instruments for steam dryness or wetness- has no sense- the results will not be believed.
It is about small quantities till now- 4 to 13 kg steam per hour, the usual instruments give errors. What can be done- if we consider important to have the “absolute” certainty that the E-cat is really an energy source?

E-cat deniers and E-cat believers should unite and work out a PERFECT EXPERIMENT- that pleases everybody, is inerrant – a serious professional work with no improvisations or approximations. Can this be done? The first obstacle in principle is
Andrea Rossi’s repeated declaration- ‘no more public demos till the 1 MW test in late October’. The E-cat needs friends and supporters, probably it is still very perfectible and what harm could do a PERFECT TEST? I hope that Ing. Rossi will change his mind.

Actually the essence of the problem is steam- simple it is not necessary to measure any other characteristics of steam as its transparency or wetness just its enthalpy- its total heat. The simplest way to measure this including its evolution or variation in time is to use an ad-hoc steam-water mixer. A known weight of steam is mixed with a known weight of cooling water and the temperature of the mixture is measured and recorded. For numerical values on the Web- see please:

For example, 1g steam of 100 C mixed with 10 g water of 20 C will give 11g of water at 49C. The steam will be judged at its right heat value. We need two small pumps one for the cooling water one for the mixing water,  a mixer (e.g. a short tube with internal baffles, insulated) and temperature measurement as usual.
We will know if the steam is bone dry (the calculated values will result) or horribly wet. Beyond any doubt.

What else will ask the adamant skeptics- just let them say!


  1. It's much simpler to have no steam at all, increase the water flow, as was done in the February demonstration with Levi, so that temperature rise is significant but the water doesn't boil.

    However, just as there is no limit to the possibility of fraud, in the absence of fully independent verification, there is then no limit to imagination of fraudulent possibilities. Until independent verification is possible, there is, then, no "perfect experiment." And what many commenting miss is that Rossi has no need to demonstrate anything, he's got his work cut out already, and it will work, or it won't. If it works, he's done, E-cats will be sold, and you'll be able to experiment them six ways till Sunday, whether you are a skeptic or not. And if it doesn't work ... his name will be Mud.

    An interesting possibility, though, is that E-Cats work but aren't safe, or have too short a life.

  2. Thank you, dear Abd,and welcome to my blog!

    In an other message re. the same issue you wisely have stated: "There are lots of questions, and we simply have way too little data to answer them."

    I think this is valid too in this case. There were some start-up problems both in the first-repeated trigger) and in the second experiment- great thermal peak- drowned in a lot of waster.

    After that the experiments were down scaled from cats to kittens, including the plan for the 1MW demo- here the number of generators has increased > threefold.
    An aside-two natural questions here:

    1- the probability of troubles varies with the n-th power of the number of combined cats, what's the value of n?

    2- what's the maximum number of E-cats in a clutter, already thoroughly tested? I think this has to go stepwise.

    There are some problems with the high art of E-cats
    control and we will know they are solved when the devices will be fully automated and will happily work with zero input after an easy and very short-start up.
    Why steam experiences are better for control than water cooled ones? My instinct of engineer says that the problems of control are more dfficult for a greater temperature gradient- from the hot core to the cooling agent. in a case of steam this gradient is only approx 2/3 of that for water.

    That means that a really perfect experience should work with water cooling exactly as you say.It will be more convincing and much less vulnerable to the wickedly creative attacks of the skeptics

  3. What Abdul-Rahman Lomax said is correct. Rossi claims he has HUNDREDS of E-cats. Surely he can spare one or two to give to Sandia Labs, ORNL, CERN, U of Uppsala, Cal Tech, MIT or some similar reliable organization for independent testing. I am disappointed and suspicious because he has not taken this extremely obvious step.

    Condensing the steam in a simple copper heat exchanger in an insulated water bath made from a picnic cooler would be adequate. It could be done certainly in a couple of days. The bath can be calibrated with a small electric heater to account for the losses. That is plenty accurate enough for a gain of six in power which is what Rossi claims. It is incomprehensible why Rossi has not done this unless he expects that it would show the E-cat does not work.

  4. Dear Maryyugo,
    From the very start, Rossi has said, NO independent testing. The device is not protected by a strong patent, can be revers=engineered so in principle he can take the measures he want. And what could it help him if say Sandia Lab. "dares" to say that the Ecat is O/U at the KW level? Rossi goes his way.
    For steam condensation the method proposed by me is the simplest, no calibration. two thermometers do the job. I have suggested this directly to Rossi
    but my message was cut and I am disappointed.