I received from Eng. Ventola the following second article on the E-Cat technology: in this case, focused on a “Type II” design of the Hot-Cat reactor tested by third parties:

The picture here below, published in a skinny version in the patent application filed by Industrial Heat on April 26, 2014, shows a layered tubular reactor device (Fig. 4), also represented in cross-sectional view (Figg. 5 and 6). It can be described as Energy Catalyzer HT, where HT stands for “high temperature” and it is the second of three different embodiments described in such patent application, so hereinafter I’ll indicate it as “E-Cat HT – II“.


Diagram of a reactor device E-Cat HT “Type II design”  (from IH’s patent, slightly modified).
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

This reactor, with the powder charge widely and uniformly distributed along the central axis of the reactor, was used in the second of the three tests, or “experiments”, described in the first Third Party Report (TPR-1). Such experiment consisted in a 96-hours run of the device continuously powered – i.e. never operating in self-sustained mode – and was performed, successfully, on December 13-17, 2012 in Ferrara, Italy (see table below about the TPR tests).


All the tests described in the Third Party Reports released from the scientists Levi et al.

According to the dispersive description given in the cited patent and widely integrating the information contained on this issue in the TPR-1, the reactor device (200) used in this experiment was a layered cylindrical device having an inner tube (210). Such inner tube, made of AISI-310 steel, had a 3 mm thick cylindrical wall (212) with a 33 mm diameter.

Two cone-shaped end caps (214) made of AISI-316 steel were hot-hammered into the longitudinal ends of the inner tube, sealing it hermetically. Cap adherence was obtained by exploiting the higher thermal expansion coefficient of AISI-316 steel with respect to AISI-310.

As such, the inner tube constitutes a vessel sealed against ingress or egress of matter, including gaseous hydrogen. This represents a distinction of this type of reactor over previous reaction vessels (normal E-Cat or, if you prefer, E-Cat LT, where LT stands for ‘Low temperature’), that were preloaded with pressured gases such as hydrogen (see the previous Patent Application WO 2009125444, international extension of an Italian patent filed in 2008).

E-Cat_Type_II_3The E-Cat HT “Type II design” before the Third Party test performed on December 13-17, 2012.
You can see the black paint and the power cables to the three internal resistor coils.

The inner tube contained a powder reaction charge (216) uniformly distributed along the axis of the device, and consisting of a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. However the fuel was, more precisely, a mixture of nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst consisting, according to the TPR-1, of some “additives” pressurized with the hydrogen gas and not disclosed being an industrial trade secret (I hope to discuss this topic in a future article).

A silicon nitride cylindrical outer shell (222), 33 cm in length and 10 cm in diameter, was coated with a special aeronautical-industry grade black paint (produced in the N-E of Italy), capable of withstanding temperatures up to 1200 degrees Celsius. A cylindrical inner shell (218), which was made of different ceramic material – corundum – was located within the outer shell.

The inner shell housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils (220), which were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the center axis of the device. The three resistor coils essentially run the interior length of the device and were independently wired to a power supply by wires (230) that extended outward from the reactor device (see Fig. 6).

The resistor coils within the reactor were fed by a Triac power regulator device (302, see Fig. 7) which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate the power input with a controlled waveform, which is an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the powder reaction charge, had no bearing on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the experiment.


The experimental setup of the second test on a Hot-Cat reactor described in this article.
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

Due to the failure in the first test performed in November 2012, when the primer resistor coils were run at about 1 kW, in this second experiment the continuous power input to the reactor was limited to a much lower value, 360 W, so the E-Cat HT’s hourly power consumption was 360 W. The E-Cat HT’s power production was almost constant, with an average of 1609 W (Fig. 8).

A wide band-pass power quality monitor (320) – a PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer produced by PCE Instruments – measuring the electrical quantities on each of the three phases was used to record the power absorbed by the resistor coils. It was connected directly to the reactor device resistor coil power cables by three clamp ammeters (326) and three probes (328), respectively for current and voltage measurements.

Finally, an IR thermography camera (306), model Optris PI Thermal Imager, was used to acquire a thermal image on a display (312) and to measure the surface temperature of the reactor device with a 2% precision of measured value, in order to make an infrared thermographic calorimetry. The thermal camera was positioned about 70 cm below the reactor device in order not to damage the camera itself from the heat transferred by rising convective air currents.


The almost constant radiative thermal power of the tested reactor, useful for estimating COP.
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

The Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the reactor device was obtained as the ratio between the total energy emitted by the device (radiated power + the power dispersed by convection) and the energy consumed by its three resistor coils. The resulting COP, with many conservative assumptions, was 5.6 +/- 0.8 (would be 4.5 taking into account only the radiative energy).

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone


    • Luca

    • December 5, 2014

    • 3:21 PM

    • Reply

    Bene….attendo di leggerLe con impazienza.
    La storia delle LENR, appasionante dal punto di vista tecnico, è diventato realmente
    una storia di successo. Come fosse uno dei migliori sceneggiati a puntate degli ultimi 10 anni.
    Buon lavoro
    Gian Luca

    • Luca

    • December 4, 2014

    • 10:14 AM

    • Reply

    Molto interessante.
    Il modo di esprimersi dell’Ing. Ventola può raggiungere anche chi non
    ha dimestichezza con apparati e grandezze elettriche.
    Aspetto con ansia ulteriori interventi.
    PS: ha qualche spiegazione per quanto evidenziato nel grafico in fig.8 verso l’ora 83…85?
    Il calo di potenza da cosa potrebbe essere stato causato?

    • Anch’io attendo con curiosità le nuove puntate sull’Hot-Cat (immagino che l’Ing. ci legga e possa in qualche modo rispondere alla tua domanda in una di queste), ad ogni modo su questo blog cerco di dare spazio un po’ a tutte le “voci” e quindi i suoi post “fanno la fila” come gli altri… sono già sommersa di materiale e di nuove proposte… 🙂

Leave a Reply