Changes

<pre>Article is in translation and unfinished</pre>

<pre>Article is in translation and unfinished</pre>

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI J5" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 7.6 l/h).|thumb]]

[[image:Rossi_Focardi.jpg|Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (picture "La Repubblica"). A (yellow) dosimetric pump of the type "LMI J5" can be seen in the foreground (maximum flow: 7.6 l/h).|thumb]]

The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'' or just ''Rossi energy catalyzer'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor based on an assumed [[Cold Fusion]] technology which is planned to be brought to market in 2011. While allegedly using no more than several hundred Watts in electrical heating energy, it is said to emit a heat output capacity of more than 10&nbsp;kW. After reaching operating temperature the electrical heating is said to be turned off, the released heat should keep the process going. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref>, cold fusion <ref>Andrea Rossi and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi in their patent application, Page 12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref> of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor, leading to the formation of copper. As a side-effect of the reaction, ionizing radiation is said to be emitted, which was disproved by independent parties.<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> So far, attempts to replicate the experiment independently failed. The latest (partially public) presentations took place from mid-January to end of March 2011. A Greek business newspaper announced in March 2011 that the concept is central to a speculative investment-deal of several hundred million Euro.

The '''Focardi-Rossi Energy-Catalyzer''' (also ''E-Cat'' or ''Rossi Energy Amplifier'' or just ''Rossi energy catalyzer'') is an alleged compact fusion reactor based on an assumed [[Cold Fusion]] technology which is planned to be brought to market in 2011. While allegedly using no more than several hundred Watts in electrical heating energy, it is said to emit a heat output capacity of more than 10&nbsp;kW. After reaching operating temperature the electrical heating is said to be turned off, the released heat should keep the process going. According to Italian inventors, alleged engineer(see below) Andrea Rossi<ref>Rossi: ''I am a doctor in the Philosophy of Science and Engineering from the Universita’ Degli Studi Di Milano''</ref>, cold fusion <ref>Andrea Rossi and Professor emeritus in physics Sergio Focardi in their patent application, Page 12: ''the reaction actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion.''</ref> of hydrogen and nickel was taking place in the reactor, leading to the formation of copper. As a side-effect of the reaction, ionizing radiation is said to be emitted, which was disproved by independent parties.<ref>http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf</ref> So far, attempts to replicate the experiment independently failed. The latest (partially public) presentations took place from mid-January to end of March 2011. The respective experiments show several methodological weaknesses. A Greek business newspaper announced in March 2011 that the concept is central to a speculative investment-deal of several hundred million Euro. Inventor Rossi stated in April 2011 to have won a major customer in USA, whose identity may not be revealed due to clauses in the contract.

The actual inventor of the principle was Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli in 1989 who filed patent applications on it in 1995 and 2010.<ref>Piantelli, F., ''Energy Generation and Generator by Means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion''. Patent EP 0767962 B1, 1995. [https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?PN=EP0767962%20EP%200767962&iDocId=4823352&iepatch=.pdf]</ref><ref>WO 2010058288 A1: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR. 2010-05-27. Erfinder: PIANTELLI SILVIA; PIANTELLI FRANCESCO</ref> Rossi, who also attempts to have his invention patented, does not acknowledge that: ''"My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli. The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not."'' Some aspects of the claimed functional principle are also similar to descriptions in a patent of the Japanese Yoshiaki Arata from July 2005 (see below).

The actual inventor of the principle was Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli in 1989 who filed patent applications on it in 1995 and 2010.<ref>Piantelli, F., ''Energy Generation and Generator by Means of Anharmonic Stimulated Fusion''. Patent EP 0767962 B1, 1995. [https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?PN=EP0767962%20EP%200767962&iDocId=4823352&iepatch=.pdf]</ref><ref>WO 2010058288 A1: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR. 2010-05-27. Erfinder: PIANTELLI SILVIA; PIANTELLI FRANCESCO</ref> Rossi, who also attempts to have his invention patented, does not acknowledge that: ''"My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli. The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not."'' Some aspects of the claimed functional principle are also similar to descriptions in a patent of the Japanese Yoshiaki Arata from July 2005 (see below).

Internet rumours not verifiable claim this may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel "Raney-Nickel"], since two fires in Rossi's laboratories were caused by "Raney-Nickel". Foardi states that he does not know the composition of the catalyzer himself, only Rossi knows it. Focardi gave some speculations about the compound in a radio inverview on March 6, 2011. He believes that it is a chemical compound, not an element. It is not uranium. The obvious purpose of the substance is to catalyse the transformation of heated hydrogen gas (H2) in atomic hydrogen. (a discussion of possible catalysts for this purpose can be found in a paper of Romanowski from 1999<ref>S. Romanowski, W. M. Bartczak, R. Wesołkowski: ''Density Functional Calculations of the Hydrogen Adsorption on Transition Metals and Their Alloys. An Application to Catalysis'', (3.8.1999), Langmuir, 1999, 15 (18), Pages 5773–5780 - DOI: 10.1021/la981339q

Internet rumours not verifiable claim this may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel "Raney-Nickel"], since two fires in Rossi's laboratories were caused by "Raney-Nickel". Foardi states that he does not know the composition of the catalyzer himself, only Rossi knows it. Focardi gave some speculations about the compound in a radio inverview on March 6, 2011. He believes that it is a chemical compound, not an element. It is not uranium. The obvious purpose of the substance is to catalyse the transformation of heated hydrogen gas (H2) in atomic hydrogen. (a discussion of possible catalysts for this purpose can be found in a paper of Romanowski from 1999<ref>S. Romanowski, W. M. Bartczak, R. Wesołkowski: ''Density Functional Calculations of the Hydrogen Adsorption on Transition Metals and Their Alloys. An Application to Catalysis'', (3.8.1999), Langmuir, 1999, 15 (18), Pages 5773–5780 - DOI: 10.1021/la981339q

[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la981339q]</ref>). To complicate the identification of the catalyzer, observers were forbidden to do a spectral analysis of possible gamma radiation, since it might allow to identify elements of the compound.

[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la981339q]</ref>). To complicate the identification of the catalyzer, observers were forbidden to do a spectral analysis of possible gamma radiation, since it might allow to identify elements of the compound.

==Deactivation==

==Deactivation==

==History==

==History==

1989 was marked by wide media attention to cold fusion as a result of the claims regarding failed experiments by Fleischmann and Pons. In the same year, Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli (University Siena) believed to have incidentally observed a strong heat emission with temperatures above  1,450°&nbsp;C during an experiment with organic material which came into contact with nickel and hydrogen, which he could not explain. The incident was reported by several Italian daily papers. In 1995, Piantelli received a "Truffle Prize" for his observations during a "Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals".<ref>"Truffle Prize", second Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals, 1995</ref>

"Anomalies" when adding hydrogen to nickel are reported since 1936. 1989 was marked by wide media attention to cold fusion as a result of the claims regarding failed experiments by Fleischmann and Pons. In the same year, Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli (University Siena) believed to have incidentally observed a strong heat emission with temperatures above  1,450°&nbsp;C during an experiment with organic material which came into contact with nickel and hydrogen(nickel is used in industry as a catalyst for fat hardening with hydrogen), which he could not explain. The incident was reported by several Italian daily papers. In 1995, Piantelli received a "Truffle Prize" for his observations during a "Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals".<ref>"Truffle Prize", second Asti Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals, 1995</ref> Various workgroups have made experiments with electrolysis and also with nickel and hydrogen since then.

Physicist Sergio Focardi from Bologna University heard about this and teamed up with Piantelli to research the phenomenon. After several years they had built a nickel hydrogen rector and, in a press conference in February 1994, announced their reactor as a principle for "Reazioni Nucleari a Bassa Energia" (LENR, "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"), however avoiding the term "cold fusion".<ref>Press conference on 20.&nbsp;February 1994, Aula magna, University Siena</ref> Once more articles were published in the daily press and as before in 1989, there were no academic publications. An output of 40-50 thermal Watts was claimed. A nickel rod with a pre-treated surface which had been "degassed" for several hours was said to be enclosed in the reactor surrounded by hydrogen.

Physicist Sergio Focardi from Bologna University heard about the Piantelli's observations and teamed up with him to research the phenomenon. After several years they had built a nickel hydrogen rector and, in a press conference in February 1994, announced their reactor as a principle for "Reazioni Nucleari a Bassa Energia" (LENR, "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"), however avoiding the term "cold fusion".<ref>Press conference on 20.&nbsp;February 1994, Aula magna, University Siena</ref> Once more articles were published in the daily press and as before in 1989, there were no academic publications. An output of 40-50 thermal Watts was claimed. A nickel rod with a pre-treated surface which had been "degassed" for several hours was said to be enclosed in the reactor surrounded by hydrogen.

In 2007 Andrea Rossi is said to have offered Sergio Focardi a contract as a consultant, which led to cooperation.

In 2007 Andrea Rossi is said to have offered Sergio Focardi a contract as a consultant, which led to cooperation.

Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14, 2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station RAI (RAI&nbsp;3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists from universities. The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System" in an industrial area of Bologna<ref>Company GM System, Via dell'Elettricista 16, Bologna</ref> and not in rooms of the Bologna University as claimed on various places in the internet.

Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave a press conference on January 14, 2011 which was not only attended by Italian public television station RAI (RAI&nbsp;3) and numerous journalists, but also by several physicists from universities. The presentation was done in rooms rented from the company "GM System" in an industrial area of Bologna<ref>Company GM System, Via dell'Elettricista 16, Bologna</ref> and not in rooms of the Bologna University as claimed on various places in the internet.

During the press conference the function of the reactor was demonstrated for only a few minutes in an adjoining room. Varying durations for the experiment between 15 and 40 minutes are available. A close look at the measured data on the screen of a laptop allow to conclude that for a duration of 15 to 20 minutes the water temperature was higher than 100 degrees (see image). In the report about the experiment the data, which are seen on the notebook are omitted. It also speaks of a duration of 40 minutes, obviously the whole duration including heating up is meant. The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

During the press conference the function of the reactor was demonstrated for only a few minutes in an adjoining room. Varying durations for the experiment between 15 and 40 minutes are available. A close look at the measured data on the screen of a laptop allow to conclude that for a duration of 15 to 20 minutes the water temperature was higher than 100 degrees (see image). In the report about the experiment the data, which are seen on the notebook are omitted. It also speaks of a duration of 40 minutes, obviously the whole duration including heating up is meant. The values given about the water throughput which were used for calculating the heat output were inadvertent or deliberately incorrect and in truth less than half of the said amount.

 

The inventors reported about their experiment in their blog<ref>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360</ref>, and published three Youtube videos in Italian language [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc].

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). Inventors calculated the heat generated from heated water: 292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 degrees to 101 degrees (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied due to secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

During the press conference they stated the heat input was 600&nbsp;Watts, at an estimated output of 12,000&nbsp;Watts (12&nbsp;kW). Inventors calculated the heat generated from heated water: 292 grammes of water per minute were heated from 20 degrees to 101 degrees (dry vapour) and evaporated. The attending physicists were allowed to take some measurements. They were disappointed, however, as a spectral analysis of the gamma radiation was denied due to secrecy reasons. A detailed report submitted by independent physicists from Bologna University stated that no gamma radiation was detected, although the device was supplied with two openings for measurement purposes. Excerpt from the report:

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

:''[...] no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200 keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;<br>regardless of the internal details of the reaction chamber, shieldings and other industrial secrets, the γ rates measured with the NaI counters seem not compatible with the rates deduced or expected assuming that the energy production was due to nuclear fusion or decay reactions, as suggested in [1].''

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

Observers were allowed to weigh the hydrogen gas container before and after the experiment (weight: 18.6 kgs or according to other sources  more than 13 kgs). Even considering possible errors in measurement (duct tape still attached), hydrogen usage was estimated at less than one gramme, not enough to make conventional hydrogen combustion plausible. Link to the report: [http://www.psiram.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf]  

'''Inconsistencies:''' Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. It is obvious that a pump of the type "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 7.6 liter/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref>

'''Inconsistencies:''' Several incomprehensible informations were given after the experiment. Even weeks later the Rossi-Team has not reacted with a correction of said informations. Not only was the duration of the experiment with 20 minutes shorter than claimed, but there are also reasons to doubt the other claims of the inventor and operator of the experiment. The estimation of energy by evaporation of water was criticized in "www.physicsforums.com" in retrospect, as respective calculations were made based on dry vapour without fractions of condensed water which was not proven. The probe shown in the video can only measure the heat but not the dry condition of the steam. It was claimed that a combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was used but in the video a different probe, which looks like a SPC C45 0500 BEX - probe, can be seen. A HP474AC probe is not visible on any video. The throughput of water claimed at 29 mls/min. (= 17.5 liter/min) was doubted, too, as the pump used had only half of this capacity according to specification. A pump of the type "LMI J5" was used. The manufacturer gives a maximal flow of 7.6 liter/h.<ref>http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/site_files/seriesj5.pdf</ref> The calculated heat output given by the team is more than twice as high as actually possible with the in the video visible pump. Assuming just a couple of percent condensated water in the vapour would explain the steam generation just through the electrical heating.

==Undocumented experiment on February 10, 2011==

==Undocumented experiment on February 10/11, 2011==

On February&nbsp;10, 2011 a further "internal test" of the „E-Cat“ was carried out in Bologna, attended by allegedly "independent" physics lecturer Guiseppe Levi from Bologna University. Several websites contend the test instead took place on February&nbsp;18, 2011. According to Guiseppe Levi's description, published in a Swedish online article titled ''"Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion"''<ref>Mats Lewan: ''Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion'', "nyteknik.se", article from February 23, 2011. [http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Text]</ref>, a hose connected the device to a water tap in order to cool the "reactor". Tap water was said to have flown through the device at about 1&nbsp;liter per second and was warmed by 5&nbsp;degrees. The test was said to have run continuously for 18&nbsp;hours, a water meter quantified the flow and was checked by video during the night. The "reactor" was allegedly heated up for 10&nbsp;minutes with 1,250&nbsp;Watts initially and subsequently, only a control unit continued to be supplied with 80&nbsp;Watts, while an alleged constant thermal performance of 15 to 20 kW was established. The same source quotes Levi with the remark he excluded "chemical energy sources" as heat source now:

On February&nbsp;10 or 11, 2011 a further "internal test" of the „E-Cat“ was carried out in Bologna, attended by allegedly "independent" physics lecturer Guiseppe Levi from Bologna University. Sole witness was physicist Levi, leader of a physics faculty research group that got financial support for their aid in the project. Levi was also responsible for the poor report regarding the test in January. According to Guiseppe Levi's description, published in a Swedish online article titled ''"Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion"''<ref>Mats Lewan: ''Cold Fusion: 18&nbsp;hour test excludes combustion'', "nyteknik.se", article from February 23, 2011. [http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece Text]</ref>, a hose connected the device to a water tap in order to cool the "reactor". Tap water was said to have flown through the device at about 1&nbsp;liter per second and was warmed by 5&nbsp;degrees. Obviously this test should counter the criticism of the the testconditions in January. The test was said to have run continuously for 18&nbsp;hours, a water meter quantified the flow and was checked by video during the night. The "reactor" was allegedly heated up for 10&nbsp;minutes with 1,250&nbsp;Watts initially and subsequently, only a control unit continued to be supplied with 80&nbsp;Watts, while an alleged constant thermal performance of 15 to 20 kW was established. The same source quotes Levi with the remark he excluded "chemical energy sources" as heat source now:

:''...Now that I have seen the device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical energy sources are excluded..''.  

:''...Now that I have seen the device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical energy sources are excluded..''.  

Since the volume of the visible devices can be estimatet, interested parties in the Internet(Usenet) tried to find candidates for a known chemical reaction which could be done in the given volume and produces enough heat while having no problems with smoke emission, toxicity, costs and controllability. While a normal chemical reaction can indeed not be ruled out for the first demonstration in January, a replacement candidate for the alleged 18 hour experiment in February could not be found. The volume of the external control unit is said to be about 60 litres, but according to Levi contained only electronics. He estimated the actual reaction chamber at a volume of about 1 liter; the shielding is said to be a layer of 2 cms of lead with an overall weight of 30 kgs.

Since the volume of the visible devices can be estimatet, interested parties in the Internet(Usenet) tried to find candidates for a known chemical reaction which could be done in the given volume and produces enough heat while having no problems with smoke emission, toxicity, costs and controllability. While a normal chemical reaction can indeed not be ruled out for the first demonstration in January, a replacement candidate for the alleged 18 hour experiment in February could not be found. The volume of the external control unit is said to be about 60 litres, but according to Levi contained only electronics. He estimated the actual reaction chamber at a volume of about 1 liter; the shielding is said to be a layer of 2 cms of lead with an overall weight of 30 kgs.

Criticized was also the placement of the probe, which was supposed to measure the heat of the water during the test. The probe was inserted from outside the "reactor" and might have come into contact with an inner heating resistor which would have made an assessment of the heat output impossible.

Criticized was also the placement of the probe, which was supposed to measure the heat of the water during the test. The probe was inserted from outside the "reactor" and might have come into contact with an inner heating resistor which would have made an assessment of the heat output impossible. Further criticism was targeted at the start temperature which might even have been below the (unknown) room temperature, which complicates the interpretation of the data even more.

==Experiment on March 29, 2011==

==Experiment on March 29, 2011==

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25 kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4 kW. The same pump LMI J5 was used in this presentation as in January, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and with this plausible. The unit was filled with 50 gramm nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25 bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water would have been formed quickly since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat itself. The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

A six-hours presentation was made on March 29, 2011 in Bologna attended by invited Swedish physicists Sven Kullander and Hanno Essén. For "stability reasons" a smaller "energy catalyzer" with lesser output was used, which is said to have yielded 25 kWh in 6 hours with a thermal output of 4.4 kW. The same pump LMI J5 was used in this presentation as in January, but this time the capacity was compatible with the maximum flow capacity given by the manufacturer and plausible. As in the experiment in January water was evaporated, but without measurement the dryness of the vapour errors of up to 600% a possible. It is also impossible to find out in retrospect if all the water was evaporated, since a tube for warm water was near the steam port. The unit was filled with 50 gramm nickel powder. At startup hydrogen gas was pumped into the device with 25 bar but without previously pumping air out. To quote: ''The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a small impurity.'' (Remark: If oxygen from the air would have stayed in - as claimed - water could have been formed since the nickel powder would have acted as a catalyst). Heating was done with 300 Watt.<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece</ref><ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece</ref><ref>http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-fisici-svedesi-sulle-cat-e-una.html</ref> During the presentation isolation and lead shielding were removed from some shown Ecats but not from the used Ecat itself. The attending Giuseppe Levi made pictures which were published in Italian and Swedish blogs. The Swedish observers wrote a report, which was published in Internet blogs. They write in their report<ref>http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.</ref> that a normal chemical reaction can be ruled out:

:''Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.''

:''Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.''

The observers were allowed to examine two material samples: the nickel powder and "used" nickel power from an experiment which had previously been run for 2 and a half months. The used sample contained 10% copper and 11% iron according to an analysis done at the Ångström Laboratory (Ångströmlaboratoriet) of Uppsala university. Surprisingly, the isotope ratio of nickel and copper (isotope 63 and isotope 65) was equal to the natural isotopic composition.  

The observers were allowed to examine two material samples in advance: the nickel powder and "used" nickel power from an experiment which had previously been run for 2 and a half months. Rossi delivered the samples during a visit in Sweden. The used sample contained 10% copper and 11% iron according to an analysis done at the Ångström Laboratory (Ångströmlaboratoriet) of Uppsala university. Surprisingly, the isotope ratio of nickel and copper (isotope 63 and isotope 65) was equal to the natural isotopic composition.  

:''Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.''

:''Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.''

Professor Sven Kullander commented that such a result was extremely unlikely:

The stated ratios were: Cu-63 70%, Cu-65 30%. Professor Sven Kullander commented that such a result was extremely unlikely:

:''If this reaction chain would be true even though none of the responses that I mention can be made with the knowledge we have today, then isotopic distribution Cu-63/Cu-65 be greater than 80/20, probably closer to 99/01.''<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44471.html

:''If this reaction chain would be true even though none of the responses that I mention can be made with the knowledge we have today, then isotopic distribution Cu-63/Cu-65 be greater than 80/20, probably closer to 99/01.''<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44471.html

  Sven Kullander's additional comments on Rossi's Energy Catalyzer] im Mailarchive</ref>

  Sven Kullander's additional comments on Rossi's Energy Catalyzer] im Mailarchive</ref>