Prof. Giuseppe Levi and Dr. David Bianchini, of Bologna University have issued their preliminary reports about the Rossi/Focardi January 14th and 16th cold fusion experiment in a pdf running 12 pages. The report describes the heat production during the preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor.

While ‘cold fusion’ works for a headline as an attention getter, or detriment or descriptor, the Rossi/Focardi device seems described better as a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.  The principles prefer “energy catalyzer” for their discussion.  Whichever description works best, the Bologna pdf offers some interesting information.

To start with Bianchini’s radiation examination and report turned up, well.  Nothing of note.

Rossi Focardi Energy Catalyst Reactor. Click image for the largest view.

Levi’s heat production report offers a good photograph and block diagram of the device.  From the narrative and the block diagram one can discern what is happening.  It seems the reactor contains the specially prepared nickel and is flooded with hydrogen gas with some heat input delivered with electric resistance heating at about 1100 watts to start and reducing to about 400 watts when the reaction initiates.  A flow of water is introduced and rises in temperature to just over boiling producing a steam source.

Rossi Focardi Energy Catalyst Reactor Block Diagram Schematic. Click image for the largest view.

The discussion offers that Levi inspected the device looking for electrical, water and hydrogen connections.  He found a 220V 50Hz EU standard line feeding to the control box that connected with five wires to the reactor, a water inlet line and water / steam outlet line, and the hydrogen connection.  Levi even elevated the control box to examine its weightiness.

The measurements included watts at the 220V line, ambient air temperature, water temperature, and steam temperature.  The second test included a dry steam measure.  Values for the hydrogen rely on tank weights before and after.  Water flux was set and measured by collecting and then weighing an amount of water in a container in a given time.

A paraphrased edited quote from the University of Bologna scientist runs:

After approx 30 minutes a kink can be observed in the yellow line (A line recording the steam output temperature). Because input power (1120 W also checked via a clamp amperometer) was not modified (see fig. 5 later) this change of slope testifies that the reactor was ignited. After a startup period approx 20 minutes long a second kink appears where the reactor power was almost constant taking the water to ≈75°C.  A second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites raising the measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1°C and transforming the water into steam. At this point we can try a simple calculus in order to evaluate the power produced. In order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1°C, ≈ 168*4.185 = 703 J are needed.  The water inlet temperature was 15°C so the ∆T was 85°C. We have 703*85=59755 J.  To this energy one must add the evaporation heat ≈2272 J/g * 168=381696 J. Total energy in 45 sec is 59755+381696=441451 J, and power is 441451/45=9810 W.

Rossi Focardi Energy Catalyst Reactor Temperatures. Click image for the largest view.

Prof. Levi concludes (edited):

The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive and, together with the self-sustaining state reached during [Test 1] could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source.  The short duration of the tests suggests that it’s important to make more long and complete experiments. An appropriate scientific program will be drawn up.

Looks rather good, doesn’t it?  But its not hot steam at just over 100º C leading to some thought on how harvesting might be done.

Another resource is Jed Rothwell’s technical brief from last week that offers an easily understood English look at the demonstration.

Are there great gaping holes in the demo?  Just one – the potential for an energy source in the control box, suggesting now too late that the box construction might have been better done with transparent materials.  That would cancel the allegation that a battery or capacitor source was used to make up the needed power.

Without making a hard conclusion, the Rossi/Focardi appears to work.  There will be a need for more disclosure to enable repeatable study.  But, Rossi understands that the hard proof will be the sales or leasing of units in operation and has written in a forum saying, “Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”

If you need cheap heat, can stand the early commercial uncertainty and don’t really mind the explanation is scientifically and proprietarily incomplete, you might want to get an email off.  No law says you have to wait, at least not yet.

Rossi directed commercial inquiries to info(at)


13 Comments so far

  1. World Spinner on January 25, 2011 1:29 AM

    Cold Fusion From Italy Updated | New Energy and Fuel…

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

  2. BFast on January 25, 2011 4:17 PM

    Ok, I’m confused, “A second kink is found when the reactor fully ignites raising the measured temperature to 101.6 +/-0.1°C and transforming the water into steam.”

    contradicts, “But its not hot steam at just over 100º C leading to some thought on how harvesting might be done.”

    Further, “Are there great gaping holes in the demo? Just one – the potential for an energy source in the control box…” seems a bit surprising. A lithium battery pack the size of this device won’t output 10kw for any length of time.

  3. Brian Westenhaus on January 25, 2011 5:27 PM

    Hi BFast,

    Water steams at 100º C but can be heated and pressurized to much higher levels. There are lots of benefit for harvesting energy at higher levels, which makes one wonder how the reactor would respond against pressure over the demo’s ambient and how getting to 250º of 400º could be accomplished. It will be important for progress to address these two points.

    On the counter claims front looking for holes, the control box looks to be the only hiding place. Some one will find a miracle battery or cap, just wait. Well, they’ll find lots of things . . .


  4. Neil Taylor on January 25, 2011 5:39 PM

    They do appear to have something going here. Most definitely some refinement R & D is needed, but what they have at the moment appears marketable. A sterling engine can utilize these temperatures to produce electricity – relatively cheaply in today’s markets. I would gamble a venture, at this point, if the price were right, as the potentials are very great……

  5. Cold fusion experiment reproduced? Now what? « Serendipity on January 26, 2011 10:32 AM

    […] “Cold Fusion From Italy Updated” and related posts ( […]

  6. Alan Fletcher on January 27, 2011 4:49 PM

    Let us suppose it’s a fake. How?

    It’s a cylinder 6 in diam by 5 feet long = 1700 cubic inches = 28 litres.

    The observed excess power has been noted at 12KW.

    Leaving out nuclear, consider a self-contained system of batteries or chemicals.

    Wiki Energy_density has a table of energy densities for enclosed systems.

    The best battery is Lithium-Manganese, energy density of 2 MJ/L * 28 L = 55.6 MJ or 15.5 KWH.

    Batteries could sustain the observed output of 12 KW for 1.3 hours.

    The 30 minute test was too short to rule out batteries.

    The best chemical is Copper Thermite, at 20.9 MJ/L = 581 MJ or 161 KWH. This could run for 13.4 hours at a rate of 12KW.

    The “black box” experiment should be run for 24 hours to rule out any known chemical reaction.

    (I also posted this on )

    One of the observers lifted the control box … and would have noticed if it were extremely heavy.

  7. m a r i o on January 30, 2011 5:29 AM

    The best battery of Lithium-Manganese or LiFepo4 able to maintain that power (12Kw), should weigh 130kg (286 pounds). probably the person who lifted the box is Hercules. anyway the time will tell.

  8. Updating Rossi’s Cold Fusion | New Energy and Fuel on February 8, 2011 1:07 AM

    […] More than another week has passed since we had a look at the Rossi/Foldari cold fusion or more accur….  At that time most of the news was centered on the results offered by the professors at Bologna University who over saw the demonstration. Meanwhile others have offered that perhaps the reactor itself was packed with batteries, but the demonstration reactor doesn’t seem to be supported in a way to carry a large weight. Rossi Focardi Apparatus Closeup. Click image for the largest view. […]

  9. Updating Rossi’s Cold Fusion | Ace Campaign on February 8, 2011 10:09 AM

    […] false;});}); Font size: More than another week has passed since we had a look at the Rossi/Foldari cold fusion or more accur….  At that time most of the news was centered on the results offered by the professors at Bologna […]

  10. Efficiency Of Electric Resistance Heating System | Heating, Cooling and HVAC on February 20, 2011 4:45 PM

    […] “Cold Fusion From Italy Updated” and related posts ( […]

  11. Philip Galiano on August 7, 2011 7:18 AM

    That was a scientific test ? Conducted where? For how long?
    Viewed by how many Scientists? With what credentials?
    I’m sorry folks, the whole scene/test/report was Micky Mouse by high school standards.

    You want to get some credible information from this invention
    you’ll have to get some adults with inquisitive minds/backrounds involved!

  12. saulo quaggio on October 11, 2011 3:15 PM

    Lithium polymer batteries can reach 250WH/kg. For half an hour, 500W/kg. The power generated by the “reactor” was measured about 10KW. So, 20Kg of batteries would do the job. Not much to heal into a equipment that size. A fuel burning device would be 20 times smaller… The people really believe in what they want.
    It´s easy to prove that this thing works, just keep it running 10KW for a week in a controlled place.
    Another reason for disbelief, put aside the criminal background of the “scientist”: anyone that discovered such a valuable device will keep it secret until production of a commercial application. Did you ever notice any successfull invention publicized in advance? What these guys do want is easy money from faithful idiots.

  13. the brownies on May 11, 2014 2:42 AM

    Everything is very open with a very clear clarification of the challenges.
    It was really informative. Your site is extremely helpful.
    Thank you for sharing!

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind