Breaking News

To anyone wondering why I only post ‘significant’ developments regarding the eCat, please note that at this point, I consider the eCat/Hyperion arena a giant waste of time. I admit to being baffled and cling to fading hope that the 7 scientists involved in the HotCat test have not been duped or worse. I sincerely hope that my radar is broken – the world needs a miracle more than I need to be right.

Despite the best efforts of our hardest sceptics, there is still a slim chance that Rossi’s bizarre behaviour is symptomatic of a lone genius riding a tiger. Unfortunately, apart from that one report, almost every other ‘fact’ supports the tentative conclusion that he is mentally ill or a fraud.

I give even less credence to Defkalion. The recent demo was impressive while you can suspend disbelief but that is only possible if you ignore that they too seem to be working to the beat of Rossi’s strange business philosophy. A child asked to test a furnace capable of multiplying heat energy with a COP of six or more could prove it absolutely and with ease without revealing what’s in the box. After years of failing to do so and given the extraordinary nature of their claims, if you do not wonder why, you are better at suspending that disbelief than I.

I could list a litany of clues informing my best guess but it’s all in the comments for those willing to look.

I have a keen interest in the dynamics of co-operation and thank all of you who have taken part in the discussion here and elsewhere. You may not have seen it as co-operating but in probing all corners and comparing what has been said with the reality of later events, we are able to build a better picture and recognise our own weak arguments for what they are. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate a troll from a person who simply disagrees with you. That problem is compounded when money is at stake. Emotions run high and conspiracy theories rampant. If fraud is indeed at the centre of this story, it is hard to believe those involved would not pepper the conversation with multiple personalities disguised as sincere believers.

For now, I will leave the discussion open. I continue to ask you to keep emotions in check and hold back on the tendency to call the peripheral players in this saga idiots or worse – these are real people and you do not know them.

To the hard sceptics, do not let the certainties that drive you cloud your thinking. I was disappointed in the quality of many of the rebuttals regarding the HotCat test. You do not need to exaggerate or throw shit at everyone involved – your arguments are strong enough without that nonsense and diminished with it. While my best guess puts me at your side, I do not believe that we can discount the Levi paper as insignificant. The jury is out whether its significance lies in the incredible dynamics of human behaviour or in the future history of the world. I know where my bet would lie. It’s a bet I’d gladly lose.


Edited to clarify that this post refers to the eCat and its like. Although, we cannot predict the outcome of such research, I do not consider LENR to be a waste of time or its researchers anything but scientists trying to find the truth.

Defkalion’s Demo Winds Down

DGT’s demo is in its final stages. I watched it from start to wind-down. This is simply a quick summary of my first impressions.

I was surprised by the level of detail and the apparent freedom given to those present. That said, I was disappointed to see that only Mats Lewan stepped up to the plate to stick his nose in on our behalf. I think we all owe him for doing that. {Thank you, Mats}. Where were all the other sceptics? As far as I can tell, this was not DGT’s doing but until we know more, we cannot be sure.

We are told that the complete video set will be available online presently. For now, the salient points are that an inert run was made to check calibration of instruments and gauge system parameters using Argon. The journalist (with a degree in Engineering Physics, I believe) was allowed to roam and measure, which he did. This included him causing a fuse to blow (we will have to await his account on that) when checking the input power. The control run was ended, the Argon purged and replaced by Hydrogen. After preheating, a plasma was struck by switching on the HT input and an apparent energy gain (mostly between approx. 2.5 and 3) and sustained with an input a little under 2KW and output hovering under 6KW.

I do not want to go into all the details at this late hour. For me, the bottom line is this:


If there was no cheating, this was an important day for LENR and perhaps the world. Unfortunately, we cannot conclude that. I am open to persuasion but DGT’s past let-downs have put me on guard. Any demo conducted on their own premises by a company making grand claims starts off with a giant handicap. I accuse them of nothing except leaving the barn door open after putting so much effort into this day. Those unconvinced will see hidden tricks and that will come as no surprise.

To give an example (and please, I am not proposing this is a credible mechanism): The display on the wall was generated by data fed from a computer. During the blank run this was reasonably checked with reality. However, it is easy for software to fudge things and for the fudge to hop around depending on what was being measured at the time. For instance, we only really care about delta T on the second run. How do we know it represented reality then? I doubt such a clumsy trick but that’s not the point. As scientists, the DGT guys know that is how things will be viewed by other scientists. Any demo conducted on-site is up for criticism. Period.

The big question therefore is: Will this be enough to persuade investors? I think it might for some. While I hang on to my scepticism until they present convincing third party results performed by qualified testers, I do bow to admitting that they delivered more than I expected and I now look forward to hearing more. In particular, I would be intrigued if they use this time to reveal the third party results they promised last year.

As with Rossi and his eCat, I hope to have my scepticism dashed. This was interesting but cannot be called proof.


The videos should appear here.


ICCF-18, Missouri University, Credibility & Defkalion GT

For the last 2 1/2 decades, cold fusion has been considered a fringe science. Placed alongside UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, it has been easy to attack this controversial subject. A common tactic is to denigrate those involved as idiots, incompetent, fraudulent, or merely misguided. There is a logic trap here. When a scientist dares to take a serious look and concludes that there is something worth investigating he or she is then labelled an insider and therefore suspect. Such was the fate of Prof Robert Duncan, now Vice Chancellor of research at the University of Missouri after he investigated cold fusion at the request of CBS’s 60 minutes. Thus we are reassured that the status quo is reinforced and that newcomers looking through the window can be certain that only freaks live there.

Slowly, slowly things are changing. Although the science is hardly settled at least there are signs that low-energy nuclear reactions are beginning to be taken seriously as a field to be studied. Since Duncan’s conversion, Missouri University has received a $5.5 million grant from philanthropist Sidney Kimmel to open a cold fusion research centre. Today, if you visit the University homepage you will be greeted with a large image advertising ICCF 18, this years annual cold fusion conference to be held there next week. The accompanying article does not hold back by using weak language. It is written by someone unafraid of the brick bats and stones lesser men would pelt him with.

Duncan says of LENR, “It has been undervalued and treated as a pariah science in the past, but now the world is beginning to realise how important it is.”

This is a welcome development. The University is to be congratulated and I agree with everything Duncan says. I also fully understand why a company such as Defkalion GT with their extraordinarily claims might be invited. However, that comes with a caveat. I sincerely hope that my scepticism is misplaced but the announcement of a demonstration by DGT would have been welcome long-ago. Now I cannot help but recall the previous promises that came to naught. Their presentation at National instruments last year was a complete disappointment and the audience were too easy on them IMHO. Confident talk about theory on the far reaches of credibility was a poor substitute for a believable demonstration. Perhaps next week’s announced demo will tick that box and my fears will prove unfounded. Those who have worked so hard to bring the science in from the cold should be wary of giving it all away too easily. Defkalion has much to gain by associating themselves with the likes of NI and ICCF but the benefit will only go the other way if the company steps up to the plate and delivers more than words or views of mock hardware.

Are we about to see something remarkable from Defkalion? I’ve given up expecting anything worthwhile from them but this is their chance to prove me wrong. I truly hope they do.




Professor Bo Höistad Answers Critics

Following the negative critique given to the Levi HotCat paper, the Italian magazine, IB Times, conducted an interview with Bo Höistad, one of the seven members of the test team and signatory to the paper. This is an appropriate choice because Ericsson and Pomp are Nuclear physicists at Uppsala. As a peer at the same establishment, Höistad is understandably miffed at the criticism and takes a pot-shot at them in return for their unprofessional attack. I have some sympathy for this. While they made some valid points it was obvious that their own paper was full of non-scientific observations reflecting their determination to find fault.

There is little new information but it is interesting to see Höistad come out fighting and standing by their findings. He does confirm that one of Rossi’s technicians started the eCat but otherwise he and Rossi left them to it. One other interesting snippet is that it is true that they did not get to see Rossi’s surgery to remove the’fuel’ but in his opinion this did not effect their conclusions because the results were in excess of ‘any’ known chemical fuel.

The article is here and the following is a Google translation:

There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party testing on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.

But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made ​​by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and puts openly questioned the results.

The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp – Published on , the platform of Cornell University on which they were made public also test the E-Cat, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. Is also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for the test to “black box.”

Ericsson Pomp and wonder how testers can be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.

Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” the reactor brings down a veil of shadow over into the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be used a second source of energy.

This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson Pomp and do not share the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories Leonardo Corporation made ​​available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by authorized personnel by engineer Rossi and not by testers themselves.

Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the reactor outlet (“dummy”).

Test indipendente
Independent test

The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: accuse their colleagues have done prevail their hopes on the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations reported prior, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson Pomp and therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never been proven to be a “abnormal production of energy.”

The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very heavy report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to be skipped to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.

We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent testing, to allow it to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.

IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson Pomp and bring into question the independence of the tester, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?

Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a provision very negative towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi there is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our results tentatively positive. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome ie if our results are correct within the errors estimated. For most of us give different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.

On the question of independence, is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.

IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson Pomp and it is also said that neither she nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?

Bo Höistad: How researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson Pomp that are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.

IBTimes: We come to criticism “technical”, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?

Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then did not take part in any way to the measurements.

IBTimes: The report some questions that are addressed in the study. As you know that inside the reactor is nickel and hydrogen because you could not open it? Because the reactor was put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?

Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance (see story)

IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – which has been used a second source of energy?

Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made ​​every effort to unmask an agreement of this kind.

At this point of our investigation does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far has not been so.

Note that we communicated in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder” (the title of the third-party testing, ed), and our results should certainly be controlled by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).

IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our article.

IBTimes: Finally Ericsson Pomp and argue that in tests made ​​by you will encounter a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is extraordinary steps quickly to conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to bad comments and mischievous. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics be hired to pseudo-science is simply an insult severe and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that you refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.

Here the abstract and full text of the study of Ericsson and Pomp

Here the abstract and full text of the independent third-party testing on the E-Cat

[With thanks to Delio77]


ETA – OT for this post but worth highlighting that Cold Fusion Now points out that the US Navy (Pamela Boss et al) has been awarded a patent involving transmutation through LENR. I reserve comment until I’ve studied it except to say that it is an interesting development given that their lab was closed down. Of course, a patent guarantees nothing – even so; US Navy Granted Cold Fusion Patent makes for a good tabloid headline.

After scanning the patent, I see it is for generating particles as reported in reference to their earlier CR-39 results. As with all things LENR, these were attacked at the time (what’s new?). With an application date of 2007, it makes no direct claim for CF or LENR but it is there in f9rm and explicitly references many cold fusion papers and claims].

Levi et al eCat Paper Critiqued

A constant refrain among members of the LENR community is that papers are not accepted by traditional scientific journals. Subsequent criticism by the tougher sceptics citing lack of peer review as evidence for lack of credibility has therefore seemed circular to me. For that reason, I welcome any rational critique from members of the scientific community in a position to judge. Rather than shy away or act defensively, LENR advocates would do well to study and address the issues. When your work is being torn apart, it has (ironically) been taken seriously enough to warrant the time and effort taken to study it. This is the way of real science. Normally peer review is conducted behind the scenes and authors are given the opportunity to rebut criticism. Due to the public-facing nature of arxiv, we get to see behind the curtain.

I admit to being torn. I agree with many (but not all) of the criticisms levelled at Rossi and his ‘tests’ but abhor the often nasty tone in which some of the discussions are conducted. With all that in mind, the publication of a paper by two nuclear scientists from Uppsala University is a useful development. It appears to be dispassionate even as the conclusions fall against the claims made in the Levi HotCat test paper.

We have heard most of the arguments here and elsewhere. They come down to the lack of true independence, the non-neutral testing ground, Rossi’s imposed restrictions, missing data and apparent lack of rigor when taking measurements in an environment where trickery cannot be assumed absent. While all of this has some truth to it, unless you assume fraud or gross incompetence among all participants, the observations diminish the power but do not kill the paper. The authors at times seem to pick problems that (to my mind) demonstrate their determination to find fault. Instead of highlighting the problem with the December IR test (due to insufficient knowledge of emissivity) they seem to dismiss it completely. They also claim the November test worthless and go on to imply that you cannot perform a black box measurement of energy balance when the device has already been switched on. IMHO such nit-picking could diminish the power of their critique. It is unnecessary as they have some valid points to make and make them well.

In all the biting and scratching we see on the forums, it is common among certain pundits to assume guilt is proven simply by casting doubt. I am sceptical of Rossi’s claims but it is important to recognise that just because you show that fraud has not been excluded, you cannot claim this as proof of fraud. The tendency by some to claim that there is no evidence for Rossi’s claims demonstrates their lack of understanding of the word. There is no proof but when 7 scientists witness, measure and report such evidence, that in itself is evidence. Taken in combination with previous demos, we can see that evidence exists to take the eCat seriously even as we recognise that proof is far from sight and doubt a reasonable stance. To a scientist, it is as if a group of people visited a magician’s workshop to witness a woman sawn in half. They are allowed to measure everything except what lies beneath the two halves of the table. When they then write a paper explaining how they proved to themselves that the woman was indeed halved and yet lived, they had better be prepared to be taken to task. This is not personal but common sense given the nature of the miracle and the history of tricks in the sector.

In the case of Ericsson and Pomp’s paper, I believe they fell short of proving the Levi paper worthless but did well to catalogue the problems with it. To me, three interesting points are worth highlighting among others:

  • Given the Hydro Fusion input measurement controversy, why wasn’t every effort taken to prove the integrity of the input beyond reasonable doubt? In particular, if the purpose was to use science to lend business credibility to the claim, why not bring an expert specialising in electrical power measurement to the party (eg from an independent testing facility)?
  • The second point of interest (to me) relates to the claimed power density. Ericsson and Pomp wonder at the lack of comment regarding power density which, at approximately 100 times that of a commercial fission reactor, is so out of the park as to be worthy of special scrutiny. In this case, they (Ericsson and Pomp) take the extreme of 0.3 g as their Nickel fuel mass. Remembering that we are talking about a (claimed) unknown process, it is a little harsh to compare it to fission instead of fusion. Taking 1g as the mass and energies akin to that of fusion, we can easily take out a factor of ten. Even so, it is still worthy of note.
  • The final point worth highlighting here is that the shape of the thermal waveform can be reproduced by assuming resistive heating on its own (but not the claimed scale of output/input).

There is much more to be said but this post is already too long. It’s worth remembering that, as a defence lawyer might cloud the issue with reasonable doubt to free an innocent (or guilty) client, in science you are guilty until proven otherwise.  It is always easy to find fault but the truth is that The Seven were there and Ericsson and Pomp were not. Even as I hold on to my scepticism, I remain astonished by Rossi’s performance. Ericsson’s paper is useful but does not destroy Rossi’s game. They show the test was not perfect – fine, but let’s not assume fraud just because you can imagine it. Make no mistake; his is an incredible feat. He let a group of seven scientists study the beast up close and personal for nine days when he was not present and then they went on to proclaim the lady halved and yet alive. You have to respect that even as you shake your head in wonder.


[Edited to change title from 'Peer Reviewed' to 'Critiqued' as - while it is reasonable to mention the lack of peer review and welcome this as a useful cousin - it is also reasonable to argue that this is not 'Peer Review' in the accepted use of the term in the scientific world.]

Sergio Focardi Dies

The following was posted on Andrea Rossi’s blog today.  Please respect the memory and feelings of his family and friends.  From all I have seen,  he was a thoughtful,  intelligent man who worked hard in the hope of bettering us all.

Andrea Rossi
June 22nd, 2013 at 2:46 AM

We all have lost one of the greatest scientists in the field of the LENR.
For me he has been a tremendous ally, he helped our work enormously and the safety certifications that we are obtaining are the fruit of his consulting during the last 7 years. For me he has been also a teacher for Physics and Mathematics, anytime I needed his help in these matters to better understand the theory behind the effect of the E-Cat.
He has always worked with us with total, absolute and disinterested attitude, thinking only the the interest of the Science behind the LENR.
All the newspapers of the scientific world will say what he has been in the Scientific and University world and his enormous legacy: he has been Professor of Physics, Mathematic, he has been the Dean of the Scientific Faculties of the Alma Mater University of Bologna and the founder of the Cesena branch of the University of Bologna. His pubilcations in the fields of Mathematics and Physics are monumental.
Now, after a long period of illness, that obviously all his friends have taken secret to respect his privacy, he ceased to suffer and starts a new duty for God under anothe form of life. I am sure he will continue to look after my work from where he is now.
See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never forget our work together and that day in the Brasimone Nuclear facility.
Yours Andrea Rossi

Hydrofusion Sells eCat Juice?

On Andrea Rossi’s blog today, the inventor implied that Hydro Fusion (the Swedish licensee) has found a company to act as a showcase for the 1MW eCat and that it is one he approves of. While I do not pretend to understand why this is needed, I do find the development interesting. There have been too many disappointments in the past but I have no reason to suspect Hydro Fusion of being anything but legitimate and if the sale goes through, it may shine a much-needed light on what is going on. Something must change if the credibility logjam is to be broken.


Gian Luca

Dear A.R. is it possible that the same choice made in sweden can be replicated in Italy by Prometeon? It would be a great & good chance, for the italian industry, to know LENR and your tecnology for a great future!

best regards

Gian Luca

>Andrea Rossi

Gian Luca:

The Swedish formula depends on the Licensees, not from us. Leonardo Corp sells the 1 MW plants, and the owners of the plants can use them the way they prefer: if they want to invest in a plant to sell energy, they can do it. We just make a due dioligence on the final Customer who buys the energy, before accepting the solution. Our Swedish licensee has proposed to us a Customer we like, therefore they are free to buy a plant to put it in the concern of their Customer and sell the energy. We gave them green light, but this is an initiative of theirs, not of ours.

Warm Regards,



Donning a positive cap and taking a giant leap by assuming the eCat is real, it is fun to consider what company or organisation might fit the bill. Given their obvious interest, available funds and their positive comments regarding the HotCat tests, the R&D consortium of Elforsk would be the perfect candidate. If Hydro Fusion pulls of such a feat with them (or a similarly credible) body, I for one will applaud and immediately reassess my position. In that spirit: Good luck, Hydro Fusion.


[With thanks to  Deleo77 in eCatNews comments]

Cold Fusion Passes Al Gore’s Lips

In a Google+ Conversation (published today) Al Gore said that there were “very intriguing explorations” in cold fusion research. He was aware that the preferred term was no longer cf and he did say that we should continue to concentrate on renewables as fusion was still speculative. Even so, it is interesting to note that the arena is being watched and it makes you wonder who and what other organisations are doing the same.

(Minute 19)

[With thanks to Harry Veeder on Vortex]

Psst! Wanna Buy Some eCat Juice?

Hydro Fusion, the Swedish license holders for Andrea Rossi’s eCat is making an interesting offer to entice a potential Swedish customer to test the water and act as a showcase for the technology. I’m not sure what to think of this. On the one hand it is interesting but I cannot help wonder why such a complicated dance would be required if the device simply worked as advertised. Potential customers could send their own engineers to Rossi to check the system out prior to buying. Why is it so hard?

I put the development under Interesting and Confusing

Wanted: Pilot Customer for ECAT 1 MW plant

10 Jun 2013/in News/by Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon

  • Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
  • Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.

Hydro Fusion is open to any type of heat application given the restriction of a maximum 120 C temperature. The ECAT’s energy specifications are:

  • Heat energy is produced according to specs.
    • Heat energy 1 MW thermal at up to 120 C
    • Heat exchanger from ECAT system to customer heat application.
  • Electricity is consumed according to specs.
    • 250 kWe maximum power consumption
    • 166 kWe average power consumption, i.e. COP=6

Hydro Fusion would like to receive quotations from Pilot Customers on both thermal MWh price and electric MWh price, based on an assumption of 7,000+ operating hours per year. Please specify clearly if your quotes depend on the outdoor temperature.

Pilot Customers, with an interest in this game changing technology, are kindly asked to contact us at Please write “Pilot Customer” in the subject of the email.

For more info see, ECAT 1 MW Plant.

[With thanks to Harry Veeder on Vortex]

HotCat Test Report Updated

In various comments following the publication of the HotCat paper on arxiv, it was evident that more checks were made to counter misdirection and error than formally included there. Broad hints were made that the paper could be updated to include more information. Arguably the primary area for concern among critics was the potential for sneaking illicit power into the input. I guess, with that in mind, some details of the power supply measurements have been clarified along with assurances that the control box and HotCat support frame were examined to ensure no hidden feeds could pass by these routes.
This is a welcome development. While I doubt it will satisfy those who will not be satisfied, it does show that the team approached the tests with a measure of healthy scepticism, assuming the possibility that they were being fooled. It also appears to back up the testers’ contention that Rossi allowed them to check whatever they wished beyond the control unit and reactor core as a black box system. For Rossi to give them that lattitude for extended periods of 4 and 5 days is an interesting piece of metadata on its own.
I doubt the arguments will cease but this addition just might give those who are open to persuasion a little pause for thought.

The paper is here.