Rossi: Small E-Cat Prototype Units are 100 W Called 'Quarks' (Update#7 — Each QuarkX is 'Like a Pencil')

Another day, another detail from Dr. Rossi about the E-Cat X.

Update #7 (March 30, 2016)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the JONP how they were going to sell the E-Cat QuarkXs — he said:

Andrea Rossi
March 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM
Lars Lindberg:
Very small, like a pencil, assembled in combination with “n” others.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #6 (March 27, 2016)

Someone on the JONP posted a question about whether protective glasses are needed around the E-Cat QuarkX. Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
March 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Lisa Rychlicki:
Yes. The light is unsustainable for the eyes if you look straight into it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #5 (March 20, 2016)

Another exchange about the QuarkX from the JONP:

Ron Stringer
March 24, 2016 at 5:04 PM
Making light, heat and electricity with the same device is a pretty good trick! The implication is that you can adjust the energy of the photons emitted by your quarkx. Can you tune the colour of the light? Can you choose to have a quark emit red or blue, for instance?
Hope you can answer this one!
Ron

Andrea Rossi
March 24, 2016 at 5:07 PM
Ron Stringer:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #4 (March 20, 2016)

Here’s an interesting Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

Dear Andrea:
Where do you think that the E-Cat QuarkX will be introduced to the public for the first time ?

Andrea Rossi
March 20, 2016 at 7:31 PM
Christel:
In the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi has said that he plans a news conference in June in Sweden, where I presume he will be talking about the E-Cat X/QuarkX (since this is now his latest version of the E-Cat); so if he is going to introduce the E-Cat QuarkX in the USA first, this will mean it will be before the conference in Sweden — so maybe April/May? How he will introduce it is unclear — maybe a press conference here, or perhaps some visitors will be allowed to see it.

Update #3 (March 18, 2016)

Some more information about the Quark from a Q&A between Joseph Fine and Andrea Rossi:

1- Since each Quarkx has its own control processor and there probably are redundant and higher level control (“management”) processors, can all or most of the control system and related instrumentation be operated remotely? AR: yes

2- Or must some of the processors be placed close to the Quarkx modules? AR: not necessarily

3- If so can existing Leonardo Corp’s transfer techniques be used to cool these processors and related instrumentation to safe temperatures, so vital electronics don’t burn out, lose power or operate erratically?

AR: yes, but it is not a good thing make safety devices of a system depend on instrumentation internal of the system itself.

Update #2 (March 17, 2016)

Here are some interesting responses by Andrea to some new questions about the E-Cat X Quarks

Can you tell us about the Quark

1. Are the prototypes as small as you can practically make with existing materials and the present state of your proprietary and confidential knowledge? AR: yes

2. Or could you make a prototype even smaller? AR: maybe

3. Does this technology hold any potential for transforming heat which is not produced from the e-cat operation but comes from another source into electricity? AR: yes

The answer to the last question is especially interesting to me because it implies that the Quark can be used independent of an E-Cat as a thermoelectric device that could use any form of heat to create electricity.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s another comment posted by Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Rossi was asked if they would have “mini-modules” that could be combined for small and large purposes, and he responded:

Andrea Rossi
February 29, 2016 at 9:43 AM
Yes, we are making a prototype that we call “quark” because very tiny and foundamental, with a power of 100 W assemblable up to any power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Some people have referred to these small modules as ‘Lego blocks’, and having them in 100 W sizes could make them suitable for very many purposes, large and small — especially if they can be used to provide electricity only, as Rossi said was possible yesterday (although he said that would mean ‘lower efficiency’ (whatever that means).

It’s fascinating to hear about these E-Cat X developments. So far, except for the confirmation of the E-Cat X’s existence by Fulvio Fabiani, we only have Rossi’s word for these E-Cat advancements. I look forward to when more information is released that confirms what he is reporting.

UPDATE: I was curious about whether these Quarks could deliver electricity only, so I asked AR about this:

Dear Andrea,
Can you make a quark that produces electricity only (no heat), with an efficiency of COP >1?

Andrea Rossi
March 1, 2016 at 8:55 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes.
F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Ophelia Rump

    A quark producing 100w of electricity makes perfect sense. It the output were heat, that would be great for heating novelty teacups.

    • William D. Fleming

      Great idea. You could have one in your pocket on cold days.

      • Ophelia Rump

        One in each sneaker, Nike Heat.

    • Jonnyb

      And blackbox recorders with electricity and heat.

  • Ophelia Rump

    A quark producing 100w of electricity makes perfect sense. It the output were heat, that would be great for heating novelty teacups.

    • William D. Fleming

      Great idea. You could have one in your pocket on cold days.

      • Ophelia Rump

        One in each sneaker, Nike Heat.

        • Fedir Mykhaylov

          The main thing is not to get radiation burn legs

    • Jonnyb

      And blackbox recorders with electricity and heat.

  • William D. Fleming

    Maybe these quarks could be incorporated into an electric motor–built right into the armature.

  • William D. Fleming

    Maybe these quarks could be incorporated into an electric motor–built right into the armature.

  • Gerard McEk

    I assume these quarks are being developed to allow for power controlability in a multiple Ecat unit. AR made a remark that smaller units were developed that quickly can be switched on and off. If you can’t control the output power of the E-cat X than this is the approach. Controlling a jet engine requires energy control in small steps. Besides that, it gives you redundancy and a higher availability of the multipele E-cat energy source. Disadvantage of such a multiple E-cat system: More complex.

  • Gerard McEk

    I assume these quarks are being developed to allow for power controlability in a multiple Ecat unit. AR made a remark that smaller units were developed that quickly can be switched on and off. If you can’t control the output power of the E-cat X than this is the approach. Controlling a jet engine requires energy control in small steps. Besides that, it gives you redundancy and a higher availability of the multipele E-cat energy source. Disadvantage of such a multiple E-cat system: More complex.

  • Mats002

    Fry pan with integrated oven.

  • Mats002

    Fry pan with integrated oven.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Quarks can have a charge of either -1/3 (down, strange, bottom) or +2/3 (up, charm, top). So Rossi’s F9 mantra (“The results could be either positive or negative”) seems to require a more specific interpretation 😉

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Quarks can have a charge of either -1/3 (down, strange, bottom) or +2/3 (up, charm, top). So Rossi’s F9 mantra (“The results could be either positive or negative”) seems to require a more specific interpretation 😉

  • Jimr

    I can’t understand how Rossi can be working on so many different projects with the limited number of employees he indicated he has.

    • Dods

      He’s just Meson around. i’ll get my coat. 😉

    • Ophelia Rump

      His people appear to be adept at design and fabrication. He is not working alone anymore.

    • Observer

      He is the kind of person who cannot not be working on something.

  • Jimr

    I can’t understand how Rossi can be working on so many different projects with the limited number of employees he indicated he has.

    • Dods

      He’s just Meson around. i’ll get my coat. 😉

    • Ophelia Rump

      His people appear to be adept at design and fabrication. He is not working alone anymore.

    • Observer

      He is the kind of person who cannot not be working on something.

  • Prof. Songsheng Jiang (china) published a new report of advanced experiments
    done in December 2015 (120 min self sustaining at ~450 W)

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/111-Pr-Songsheng-Jiang-publish-a-report-on-newer-experiments-done-in-December-2015/

    • artefact

      Bob! : “This paper reports a result of anomalous heat generation in
      hydrogen-loaded metals at temperature below 1300 °C. The heat was
      produced in the fuel sample (mixture of nickel powder and LiAlH4), which
      was filled a nickel cell, and then the cell was placed in a sealed
      stainless-steel chamber.”

  • Prof. Songsheng Jiang (china) published a new report of advanced experiments
    done in December 2015 (120 min self sustaining at ~450 W)

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/111-Pr-Songsheng-Jiang-publish-a-report-on-newer-experiments-done-in-December-2015/

    • artefact

      Bob! : “This paper reports a result of anomalous heat generation in
      hydrogen-loaded metals at temperature below 1300 °C. The heat was
      produced in the fuel sample (mixture of nickel powder and LiAlH4), which
      was filled a nickel cell, and then the cell was placed in a sealed
      stainless-steel chamber.”

  • Hank Mills

    Rossi didn’t name this reactor after a sub-atomic particle. He named the technology Quark because they are going to make him rich as a Ferengi!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(Star_Trek)

    It only makes sense: the technology is worth millions of bars of gold press latinum!

    • Jas

      Quark is also a type of German cream cheese.

    • Private Citizen

      Originally named from a line in Joyce’s Finnegans Wake: “Three quarks for Muster Mark!”

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Apparently the use of a whole battery of small reactors allows you to get the maximum COP of the installation.Using the external temperature sensor can be heated only to the reactors where the process dies.. Others are in the self-help mode.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes

  • It would be of interest to know what the electrical output is.
    At what voltage ?
    Is it direct voltage or alternating, is the direct voltage smooth or chopped.
    Is the start up time instant of ramped.
    If the units are modular and can be linked can they be linked parallel and/or series.
    What is the life time of each module, can they be swapped out when run down.
    If all of these things are possible BLOODY HELL!

  • Bob Matulis

    I would be interested to learn how much shielding is required for the quark. If gamma bursts are happening protection from the radiation would be important.

    • Axil Axil

      IMHO, the gamma happens during fuel prep and not during online reactor operations.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Axil – the big gamma yes

        beyond that it is <100KeV (and not always present) except in exceptional circumstances – which I will elucidate on later – but I need to put out the other reactor design.

        • Lars

          Will you at MFMP try to go for direct electricity?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Why not!

          • Karl Venter

            Hi Bob

            What would it take to make electricity
            would you use the <100KeV "x ray to generate it?

          • Axil Axil

            A grid that covered the surface of the reactor connected to ground gather charge. A ground wire with a transistor in that circuit directs the grid voltage to ground controlled by a transistor that controls the flow of electricity using a bias voltage.

      • Bob Matulis

        Interesting!!

  • Bob Matulis

    I would be interested to learn how much shielding is required for the quark. If gamma bursts are happening protection from the radiation would be important.

    • Axil Axil

      IMHO, the gamma happens during fuel prep and not during online reactor operations.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Axil – the big gamma yes

        beyond that it is <100KeV (and not always present) except in exceptional circumstances – which I will elucidate on later – but I need to put out the other reactor design.

        • Lars

          Will you at MFMP try to go for direct electricity?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Why not!

          • Karl Venter

            Hi Bob

            What would it take to make electricity
            would you use the <100KeV "x ray to generate it?

          • Axil Axil

            A grid that covered the surface of the reactor connected to ground gather charge. A ground wire with a transistor in that circuit directs the grid voltage to ground controlled by a transistor that controls the flow of electricity using a bias voltage.

      • Bob Matulis

        Interesting!!

  • Gryphon

    Wonder how compact these things are? Surely it is too early for any serious miniaturisation of control systems/shielding etc at this stage in the ecatx’s development. Guess there is no point enquiring with Rossi as I suspect he doesn’t know for sure himself. I would expect that there comes a size of device where a reduction in output no longer yields a proportionate reduction in size.

  • Gryphon

    Wonder how compact these things are? Surely it is too early for any serious miniaturisation of control systems/shielding etc at this stage in the ecatx’s development. Guess there is no point enquiring with Rossi as I suspect he doesn’t know for sure himself. I would expect that there comes a size of device where a reduction in output no longer yields a proportionate reduction in size.

  • Private Citizen

    Originally named from a line in Joyce’s Finnegans Wake: “Three quarks for Muster Mark!”

  • catfish

    had to do this..

  • US_Citizen71

    If you housed it in this you would have a lightbulb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

  • US_Citizen71

    If you housed it in this you would have a lightbulb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

  • Bob Greenyer

    Stack and Wrap

  • Bob Greenyer

    Stack and Wrap

  • Lars

    If you would take a guess, how much electricity do you think the quark can produce?

  • Lars

    If you would take a guess, how much electricity do you think the quark can produce?

  • Lars

    When Rossi says they have 100 W quarks, what does that mean? Does it give 100 W more power then it consume? If its thermal output, how do they calculate electrical input compared to thermal output?

  • Björn

    Do we know anything about how the ecat fire is controlled? How is it limited to 100 watts?

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Lars February 29, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Is the quark producing 100 W direct electricity

    Andrea Rossi February 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM
    Lars:
    No, the “quark” is smaller. It is very fundamental. Like quarks. That’s my concept of it.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    I could imagine that the quarks also do not produce much heat. Maybe alpha or something else.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Earlier he said it’s 100W. Perhaps he made a typo earlier, perhaps it’s only 10W. Or the size changes daily.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Lars February 29, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Is the quark producing 100 W direct electricity?

    Andrea Rossi February 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM
    Lars:
    No, the “quark” is smaller. It is very fundamental. Like quarks. That’s my concept of it.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Earlier he said it’s 100W. Perhaps he made a typo earlier, perhaps it’s only 10W. Or the size changes daily.

  • NCkhawk

    Is anybody else wondering how so much exponential progress is even possible in such a short amount of time?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi’s goal all the time was direct electricity production, and it was the last important feature which was still missing. Now that he finally found it in Christmas 2016, it marks the end of exploratory R&D phase and the beginning of implementation, exponential growth and proliferation phase. Many ideas that he had over the years now make sense for him to put into practice, because the tech is now basically final. The pattern is common in any R&D: a phase of virtual stagnation is often followed by a breakthrough and rapid progress.

      • NCkhawk

        Considering the pace of progress from the multitude of very credible scientist in CF over the past 25 years, it is inconceivable that Rossi is making this much progress in such short order. What happened to the E-Cat 1MW factory and all of that excitement of just 6 or 8 weeks ago? How (and why) have the gears changed this quickly? I hope it is all true but this all defies logic and has to remain in the realm of the nearly impossible until he proves otherwise.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          As we know, the 1MW factory test ended and people, including Rossi, are now just waiting for the report. These few weeks are therefore a “grace period” (Rossi’s expression) where he has time to push forward the E-cat X and its automated production without distraction.

          • NCkhawk

            Silicon / software progress has at times moved very quickly in a development cycle. I don’t think that Moore’s law is a valid comp to energy / thermal system development – how long have we been stuck with 35% affordable Carnot – 100 years? There is no believable way that energy / thermal systems can move from 1MW shipping container sized heat & steam systems, that may or may not work, to 100W modules in this short amount of time. Still pulling for Rossi but this is all too fantastical to be credible. It makes one really wonder what he is up to? .

          • Omega Z

            Going from a 1MW plant to 100 watt reactor is not that complicated when you take 1 thing into consideration.

            Small has always been the norm with this technology. Scaling it up has always been the issue. However, Rossi has discovered a new truth about small. Watch and learn. In a matter of months, you shall understand.

        • bachcole

          Are you going to keep your handle and not change it when you discover that you stepped in epistemological doodoo? (:->) I also need a fresh breath of confirmation, but I prefer uncertainty over stepping in doodoo by calling the current situation “nearly impossible”.

        • US_Citizen71
          • roseland67

            I have the Vezzini refrigerator magnet

        • Observer

          The only way you can prove something is nearly impossible is to do what the majority has failed to do.

          That describes Rossi to a tee.

        • Omega Z

          If you can make a 3.5 killowatt Hot-cat with temps around 1400`C, Scaling the technology down to around 100 watts is not that difficult.

          I suspect what you’re having problems with is why would he do that.
          There is a method to Rossi’s madness. Give it time and you will shall see what that is…

      • LarryJ

        “Because the tech now is basically final”

        You’re kidding right? We don’t even have a product on the market or have any definitive answers for what is actually even happening. Serious well funded research has barely begun. It is not final. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Maybe you are right, but I wasn’t kidding.

        • bfast

          Even if the thing produces 24 watts in electric mode, that’ll still trickle charge a battery at 2 amps quite nicely. That’ll keep the battery in my fishing boat going forever.

        • jimbo92107

          A 100W Quark unit would easily keep an electric bicycle battery charged enough to deliver 1kW. Even a scooter battery wouldn’t need much to keep a 10kW motor happy. My neighbor charges his Chevy Volt on house current. I’m told that it takes about 370kWH to power a Volt 1,000 miles. So, a car the size of a Volt with just an electric motor would require somewhere between 5 to 10 Quarks to keep it charged up all the time for daily commuting.

          Of course, unlike a Volt, the Quark would be producing power all the time, even while you’re driving. So maybe 5 Quark units would do the trick, especially after you subtract 700 pounds of weight for the missing engine, gasoline, exhaust parts and heavier suspension. A Nissan Leaf might be a better measuring stick…

          • Stephen

            If it can converts external heat to electricity this is already interesting. If it effectively removes the heat from the system and converts into electricity effectively cooling the system this could be really important.

            If that heat can instead be converted into electricity the main advantage it may bring is not the electricity but rather the removal of heat with out needing to radiate it elsewhere.

            Normally in situations requiring thermal control heat is removed from one place but needs to radiated somewhere else. For satellites for example the heat is radiated in a direction away from the sun and earth towards cold space. Another example is the cooling of Computer chips in your computer. There are many other such examples. Being able to remove the heat with out radiating it else where could bring some benefits in engineering design that enable its use in hot environments, and free up the design constraints and extra weight and normally associated with heat transport and radiation requirements.

            Of course in normal systems we are constrained by the laws of thermal dynamics:

            From Wiki we have:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics:

            ====

            The four laws of thermodynamics are:

            Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium independently with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

            First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

            Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

            Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the logarithm of the multiplicity of the quantum ground states.

            =====

            These laws especially the second law suggest that heat is not normally lost from the system, which is why in classical systems when an area is cooled the heat removed normally needs to be radiated in a cool surroundings elsewhere.

            There are however recent evidences especially where certain materials can convert heat into electricity:

            There are a few interesting articles that may be relevant in some way:

            Interesting article on electron cooling: Tuning ultrafast electron thermalization pathways in a van der Waals heterostructure

            http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

            http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

            The paper is here:

            http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo

            Interesting article on conversion of waste heat to electricity conversion in Bismuth related to the Nernst effect:

            http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

            http://rd.springer.com/article

            Article on Magnetic Spin waves, Magnons and conversion of heat to electricity:

            http://www.spacedaily.com/repo….

            http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

            http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2

            Interesting articles about election behaviour in 1D metallic Surfaces:

            http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

            http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

            http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…

            I do wonder if the Laws of Thermal Dynamics can be conserved even if heat is removed from the system by increasing entropy elsewhere in a way that does not introduce heat. Perhaps from nuclear effects or something?

          • Ged

            Well, you are right, you can remove heat by increasing entropy, all you need is a spontaneous endothermic reaction. Heat, or enthalpy, is only one half of the Gibbs free energy equation. If enthalpy change is positive, so that heat is absorbed, all you need is a larger entropy*temperature change to drive the reaction. I’ve personally experienced plenty of these fun little heat sucking reactions (Consequently, endothermic reactions are limited by environmental temperature and heat conduction). This process is actually sorta used to drive mthanol steam reformation and hydrogen production, all by absorbing heat and turning it into chemical (hydrogen) energy. Ultimately, entropy goes up and less energy comes out as hydrogen than went in as reactants and heat, but it puts heat directly to work.

            Could Rossi have found an endothermic process that turns LENR reactants and ambient heat into electricity, by increasing overall entropy when at high enough temperatures? We know his early work was on exotic thermoelectrics, which did sort of work just not as well as hoped, so maybe he is calling back to his roots to help here.

            It really depends on what he is using to make electricity. If we knew that, the rest of the mystery should be easy to solve.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I am familiar with one simple reaction that “cools” and produces energy. The Thermoelastic effect as manifested in rubber relaxation will simultaneously produce mechanical work when a stretched elastomer is relaxed and a lower temperature. The rubber goes from a regular “strain induced crystallization” state toward a more amorphous un-oriented state. I am not sure that entropy is increased, however.

            You can see this for yourself by taking a natural rubber balloon and stretching it as far as you can. The rubber gets hot (use your forehead or lip to sense the temperature change. With it remaining stretched, let it cool to room temperature. Then relax the rubber and observe how cool it gets. Joule investigated this thermodynamic enigma and published a paper in which he revealed the thermocouple used to measure it.

          • If there is an endothermic effect in Rossi’s ‘electric’ reactors, then given that these seem to be layered devices, perhaps there may be layers acting as semiconductors. If that’s the case then endothermy may possibly arise as a wholly thermoelectric ‘Peltier effect’ rather than any necleonic reaction.

            http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/thermoelectric-cooling

          • Ted-X

            The heat removal looks definitively as some new nuclear effect. Some people are claiming that the 4 deg. C at the bottom of the oceans is due to some unknown endothermic nuclear effect. The 4 deg. C is there in all oceans, even in the tropics.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Cold bottom water is no mystery. In polar areas, the whole water column is cold, obviously. Cold water is heavier than warm water so it tends to spread under warm water. Evaporation exceeds rainfall on average in tropics so in tropics there is slow upward flow of water, and deep water flows towards tropics everywhere. These factors together explain why all deep waters are cold, even though cold polar seas cover a relatively small fraction of the total ocean area.

          • Mike Henderson

            Can lead-containing photovoltaics (perovskites) convert high energy rays to electricity with high efficiency?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell
            https://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-novel-material-turns-space-radiation-into-electr/

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Mike, yes, I was looking at methylammonium lead iodide after GS5.2 with a view to explaining claims for the E-Cat X-Ray electricity output before Pekka reminded me about the approach used by Focus Fusion ( layers of conductors ).

            Can the LiNiH3 be formed without the pressure?
            http://scitation.aip.org.sci-hub.io/content/aip/journal/apl/102/9/10.1063/1.4794067

            What is the response of Li + Ni + H compounds to photons?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yet another rabbit hole. So few working on all the complexities needed to engineer these units. It really is sad that every scientist on earth should be figuring this out. And yet the few mighty men are ridiculed for not bringing to market a device thousands should be working on.

    • Bob Greenyer

      When you understand how it works – these things are logical steps.

    • LarryJ

      All information based technologies improve at an exponential rate. This is not at all intuitive as we are wired to think in a linear fashion. This is why most people tend to underestimate short term projects and greatly overestimate long term projects. The mapping of the human genome is a good example. It was started around 1990 and reached the half way point by 1999. 4 years later it was completed in 2003 and cost around 2.7 billion dollars. Now they can do 50 a day for $1000 each.

      http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-the-human-genome-project

      This exponential improvement is also seen in Moore’s Law. The ecat is an information based technology and its improvement will be exponential. It will not be long now before we have nuclear batteries. When I see people here talking about decades before this tech is ubiquitous it is due to their intuitive use of linear estimates and has very little bearing on reality. The world in decades will for better or worse be unrecognizable from the world today and most people living now will live to see it. I used to wonder how so much change could possibly be powered. Now I know. An excellent book on the topic is Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It looks to me that Moore’s law stopped a few years ago.

        • LarryJ

          If you believe that Moore’s Law only relates to silicon semiconductors and the lithographic processes used to manufacture them I would tend to agree with you. However, Moore’s law refers to the density of transistors on an integrated circuit which is actually the density of information storage. The media is not the main point. Most technology curves appear as an elongated S where the new tech starts to rise slowly from the bottom of the S then rises more steeply as the new tech matures and then flattens out as it reaches its upper limits. Right now we are at the upper part of the S with silicon, the S has flattened out and we are transitioning to new storage technologies. There are bound to be competing ideas and technologies but inevitably one will make the cut and the curve will start to repeat. I believe the rumours of Moore’s Laws death are greatly exaggerated.

      • “people tend to underestimate short term projects and greatly overestimate long term projects” – I thought it was just the opposite

        • LarryJ

          That would be because like most of us you tend to think in a linear fashion. It’s what we are wired to do. Exponential thinking is very counter intuitive.

          • True, if you consider the time required (project = time for the project). But if you think of the technology available for the project (project = capabilities of the project), that was underestimated. Anyway, I agree with your point of view. Just define project 🙂

    • tchernik

      People started following the scientific method instead of the authority principle, did “silly” and “ridiculous” experiments and started finding things that were there all the time, but that we refused to see?

      It won’t be the first time in human history that refusing to obey tradition and authority takes us into new places.

      • jaman73

        My comment, ” …can existing Leonardo Corp’s transfer techniques be used” should have said “can existing Leonardo Corp’s heat transfer techniques” ….. The words “heat transfer” means coolant flows etc. I originally said Industrial Heat’s heat transfer… but the words Industrial Heat transfer got changed to Leonardo Corp’s transfer. The intent of the question was to ask how control processors near the quark modules are cooled down. – Joseph

        • LuFong

          I think Andrea Rossi got the memo that he is not the spokesman for IH nor its products (as strange as that might sound).

          • georgehants

            All this is potentially Wonderful but for me only the report is at this time of importance.
            We need yet another countdown clock on page.
            Without loosing faith in anything, I get the feeling that many of us are a bit shell shocked continually waiting for that final conformation from Mr. Rossi et al.
            Also no other clear replications of real worth from anywhere in the
            World, not in anyway putting down the Wonderful work of MFMP etc.
            I know I am a bit ragged from it all.

          • C. Kirk

            I have zero doubts that the Rossi effect is real and very potent…. the only question I have is how close to mass commercialization is the 1MW plant…. If the ERV report is positive that will add a lot of credence to Rossi’s statements about QuarkX (which of course has the potential to be hugely transformational) so yes the suspense now is incredible…

  • NCkhawk

    Is anybody else wondering how so much exponential progress is even possible in such a short amount of time?

    • bachcole

      Although I sympathize with your consternation, I don’t think that it is warranted in this particular case since it would have been easy to do this development in parallel. Just because he didn’t mention it does mean that he or others have not been working on it.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi’s goal all the time was direct electricity production, and it was the last important feature which was still missing. Now that he finally found it in Christmas 2016, it marks the end of exploratory R&D phase and the beginning of implementation, exponential growth and proliferation phase. Many ideas that he had over the years now make sense for him to put into practice, because the tech is now basically final. The pattern is common in any R&D: a phase of virtual stagnation is often followed by a breakthrough and rapid progress.

      • NCkhawk

        Considering the pace of progress from the multitude of very credible scientist in CF over the past 25 years, it is inconceivable that Rossi is making this much progress in such short order. What happened to the E-Cat 1MW factory and all of that excitement of just 6 or 8 weeks ago? How (and why) have the gears changed this quickly? I hope it is all true but this all defies logic and has to remain in the realm of the nearly impossible until he proves otherwise.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          As we know, the 1MW factory test ended and people, including Rossi, are now just waiting for the report. These few weeks are therefore a “grace period” (Rossi’s expression) where he has time to push forward the E-cat X and its automated production without distraction.

          • NCkhawk

            Silicon / software progress has at times moved very quickly in a development cycle. I don’t think that Moore’s law is a valid comp to energy / thermal system development – how long have we been stuck with 35% affordable Carnot – 100 years? There is no believable way that energy / thermal systems can move from 1MW shipping container sized heat & steam systems, that may or may not work, to 100W modules in this short amount of time. Still pulling for Rossi but this is all too fantastical to be credible. It makes one really wonder what he is up to? .

          • Omega Z

            Going from a 1MW plant to 100 watt reactor is not that complicated when you take 1 thing into consideration.

            Small has always been the norm with this technology. Scaling it up has always been the issue. However, Rossi has discovered a new truth about small. Watch and learn. In a matter of months, you shall understand.

        • bachcole

          Are you going to keep your handle and not change it when you discover that you stepped in epistemological doodoo? (:->) I also need a fresh breath of confirmation, but I prefer uncertainty over stepping in doodoo by calling the current situation “nearly impossible”.

        • US_Citizen71
          • roseland67

            I have the Vezzini refrigerator magnet

        • Christina

          Hi,

          Rossi said that he was done with the tests; he was handing the E-Cat 1MM factory over to his associates (probably brilliant engineers and scientists) and he was concentrating on the E-Cat X (with which he’d probably had other brilliant engineers and scientists working). They all probably share info they discover, so it’s conceivable, I suppose, once everyone knows the ABCs, or rather, the 1 2 3s of LENR.

        • Observer

          The only way you can prove something is nearly impossible is to do what the majority has failed to do.

          That describes Rossi to a tee.

        • Omega Z

          If you can make a 3.5 killowatt Hot-cat with temps around 1400`C, Scaling the technology down to around 100 watts is not that difficult.

          I suspect what you’re having problems with is why would he do that.
          There is a method to Rossi’s madness. Give it time and you will shall see what that is…

      • LarryJ

        “because the tech is now basically final”

        You’re kidding right? We don’t even have a product on the market or have any definitive answers for what is actually even happening. Serious well funded research has barely begun. It is not final. Rossi has just built the model T of cold fusion. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Maybe you are right, but I wasn’t kidding.

    • Bob Greenyer

      When you understand how it works – these things are logical steps.

    • LarryJ

      All information based technologies improve at an exponential rate. This is not at all intuitive as we are wired to think in a linear fashion. This is why most people tend to underestimate short term projects and greatly overestimate long term projects (with the notable exception of hot fusion research where estimates are based on political issues). The mapping of the human genome is a good example. It was started around 1990 and reached the half way point by 1999. 4 years later it was completed in 2003 and cost around 2.7 billion dollars. Now they can do 50 a day for $1000 each.

      http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-the-human-genome-project

      This exponential improvement is also a well known feature of Moore’s Law. The ecat is an information based technology and its improvement will be exponential. It will not be long now before we have nuclear batteries. When I see people here talking about decades before this tech is ubiquitous it is due to their intuitive use of linear estimates and has very little bearing on reality. The world in decades will for better or worse be unrecognizable from the world today and most people living now will live to see it. I used to wonder how so much change could possibly be powered. Now I know. An excellent book on the topic is Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near. Note that the line representing Moores law appears linear because the chart scale is logarithmic and clearly illustrates just how incredible the improvement rate of genome mapping is.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It looks to me that Moore’s law stopped a few years ago.

        • LarryJ

          If you believe that Moore’s Law only relates to silicon semiconductors and the lithographic processes used to manufacture them I would tend to agree with you. However, Moore’s law refers to the density of transistors on an integrated circuit which is actually the density of information storage. The media is not the main point. Most technology curves appear as an elongated S where the new tech starts to rise slowly from the bottom of the S then rises more steeply as the new tech matures and then flattens out as it reaches its upper limits. Right now we are at the upper part of the S with silicon, the S has flattened out and we are transitioning to new storage technologies. There are bound to be competing ideas and technologies but inevitably one will make the cut and the curve will start to repeat. I believe the rumours of Moore’s Laws death are greatly exaggerated.

      • “people tend to underestimate short term projects and greatly overestimate long term projects” – I thought it was just the opposite

        • LarryJ

          That would be because like most of us you tend to think in a linear fashion. It’s what we are wired to do. Exponential thinking is very counter intuitive and only applies to information based technology projects. Building a house is not a good example of the type of projects I am referring to but researching the human genome is.

          • True, if you consider the time required (project = time for the project). But if you think of the technology available for the project (project = capabilities of the project), that was underestimated. Anyway, I agree with your point of view. Just define project 🙂

    • Thomas Amend

      The progress indicates to me that AR is on the right track with his understanding of LENR. With serious flaws in his working knowledge, he would have to check out each and every dead end – no progress. Instead, with his insight, he finds lots of low hanging fruits and I am happy (and jealous) to see him having all the fun harvesting those fruits after so many years of struggle.

    • tchernik

      People started following the scientific method instead of the authority principle, did “silly” and “ridiculous” experiments and started finding things that were there all the time, but that we refused to see?

      It won’t be the first time in human history that refusing to obey tradition and authority takes us into new places.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland March 1, 2016 at 4:45 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Can you make a quark that produces electricity only (no heat),
    with an efficiency of COP >1?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland”

    AR: Yes. F9.

    • mcloki

      If this is true, that’s a complete revolution. The products that can be made from this boggle the mind.

      • artefact

        Many revolutions: e-cat / hot cat / x-cat electricity / x-cat without heat

    • TVulgaris

      The question would have been better to include whether or not he HAS made an electricity-only QuarkX.

  • I do not understand the appeal of this small a unit. This technology needs to be refueled, and I do not see refueling such a small unit as being financially practical. You must be able to recycle all the materials easily. Do we refuel hearing aid batteries? No! I suspect that a high temperature alumina E-Cat for jet engines is a good idea and a steel E-Cat where temperatures are kept below 650 degrees C that produces both heat and electricity is a good idea. For producing electricity, 650 degrees C is perfect and I think working with steel will be cheaper and more reliable.

    • LarryJ

      Maybe to refuel you simply replace the module. Like sticking in a new AA battery that lasts a year. The modules will probably be disposable and recycled.

      • I don’t see that as being economic at all. We need bigger E-Cats, not smaller E-Cats. A one megawatt steel 650 degree E-Cat X would be economical for electricity production, part derived from directly produced DC current and part derived from heat in the usual way.

        • LarryJ

          But that would require Leonardo to have many different product lines for different uses. The quark idea lets him move forward with a single product that he can produce by the billions and that can be modified and clustered by others for any use. Just like churning out AA batteries. Control is the only issue I see and since it’s all computerized anyway that issue is moot once the control algorithm for a specific application has been worked out. If the OEM wanted bigger units then they could make or purchase larger sub assemblies that could be swapped in and out of their end products for maintenance or other purposes. You might even have manufacturers that only produce larger sub assemblies for use by OEM manufacturers that don’t want to fiddle with quarks. A whole new industry would be born.

          • What if one quark explodes? What happens to the others around it? Bigger is simpler, more inspectable, and more efficient. A 5 kilowatt size, a 10 kilowatt size, a 50 kilowatt size, a 100 kilowatt size, and a 1 megawatt size would all be great. I just do not see the quark as being realistic and I would bet against it.

          • TVulgaris

            What happens when a 5.4Wh NiCd or NiMH cell shorts internally (the equivalent size, we’re told, to a QuarkX)? You MIGHT get a very small fire; the same size lithium cell will produce a slightly larger one, but doesn’t pose a dreadful fire hazard (check with NFPA code if you want). What do you think would be the failure modes for a single-core 1 MW reactor? The hazardous ones I can think of are BIG fire, or serious explosion. Safety was one of the major constraints in the IH test, all along, and 250 KW was the largest size of reactor tried.

            Most of this argument are directly analogous to debating clustering vs. multicore. We could cram orders of magnitude greater numbers of cores into the same processor…but why bother when the performance gains may not even begin to be worth the potential loss risk?
            Maximizing the reactor size will guarantee only the wealthy and large companies have access to the tech.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Don’t forget F8. In fact if you add the 8 and the 9 you get 17 which is an unlucky number in Italy. Sort of the Italian equivalent of 13.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And if you take 8 from 9 it equals 1, which in logic systems is most often used to define a positive outcome.

        • Omega Z

          CC,

          There is a method to Rossi’s madness.

          In time you will understand. Imagine an E-cat powered car or Home system that goes 10 years without a recharge. All with the same size fuel charge of the current E-cats.

          • I hope you are right.

          • Omega Z

            CC,

            I’m not always right with my speculations, But I think I understand where Rossi is going with this. It solves many issues with the E-cat. It is much more adaptable in previous problematic uses.

        • Brent Buckner

          Bob Greenyer has written something along the lines of Rossi’s claims for the E-cat X being credible because the required mechanisms would follow very clearly from Greenyer’s understanding of MFMP’s LENR success.

    • LindbergofSwed

      Andrea Rossi

      March 1, 2016 at 11:00 AM

      Pekka Janhunen:

      We have studied how to change fuel in an easy way.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • I read that before. I just do not believe it.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I can believe that perhaps they have an easy method, but I wholeheartedly agree with your concerns above. Field operations are always expensive and problematic no matter how simple technically. The quark reactor is a good idea for applications that need it, but composing a large reactor from a large number of quarks sounds a bad idea to me.

          • US_Citizen71

            The screen you are reading this on if it is an LED flat panel and at least HD resolution has over 2 million separate LEDs for each color making over 6 million separate parts and they work just fine. They do not need refueling but I think you get the point.

            How hard is it to change a battery? That is really what refueling the E-Cats is likely to be similar to. Simple replacement of a sealed container that has electrical junctions. Personally I would change the heater at the same time as the fuel as it is a part that would wear and degrade, so I would build it into the changeable fuel container..

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m not sure if I got the point of the first paragraph. With the second paragraph I agree completely.

          • US_Citizen71

            What I was trying to illustrate with the first part is just because something has a large number of parts it doesn’t automatically equate to an impossible to produce product. If you take into account all of the components in the ICs that are inside a LED monitor you would arrive at about the same number of ‘Quarks’ need to build a gigawatt reactor.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Thank you, agreed, but the problem was not the sheer number of components, but refuelling them individually.

          • Gerald

            Out of the box, I’m just rude awakened to a problem at work. But if you can treat a quark filling or the whole quark as a bullit and build a gatlin gun or a semi automatic wapon style loading type.. Or build a tape robot style filling.

            From the speed Rossi advances the last year it looks like he has more and more backup from good engineers.

    • mcloki

      Portability and mobility. Opens up a world of possibilities when you don’t have to recharge every day.

      • A fusion nuclear reactor in your laptop computer? I just do not see it happening. In your backyard? Yes, I can see that.

        • mcloki

          IN your lawnmower? Boat, Snowblower, Pool heater, Sauna hot tub. power tools? All the industrial uses on construction sites. The electricity infrastructure is already in your home so its easiest to continue to use that. It’ll end up being whatever is cheaper.

  • I do not understand the appeal of this small a unit. This technology needs to be refueled, and I do not see refueling such a small unit as being financially practical. You must be able to recycle all the materials easily. Do we refuel hearing aid batteries? No! I suspect that a high temperature alumina E-Cat for jet engines is a good idea and a steel E-Cat where temperatures are kept below 650 degrees C that produces both heat and electricity is a good idea. For producing electricity, 650 degrees C is perfect and I think working with steel will be cheaper and more reliable.

    • LarryJ

      Maybe to refuel you simply replace the module. Like sticking in a new AA battery that lasts a year. The modules will probably be disposable and recycled.

      • I don’t see that as being economic at all. We need bigger E-Cats, not smaller E-Cats. A one megawatt steel 650 degree E-Cat X would be economical for electricity production, part derived from directly produced DC current and part derived from heat in the usual way.

        • LarryJ

          But that would require Leonardo to have many different product lines for different uses. The quark idea lets him move forward with a single product that he can produce by the billions and that can be modified and clustered by others for any use. Just like churning out AA batteries. Control is the only issue I see and since it’s all computerized anyway that issue is moot once the control algorithm for a specific application has been worked out. If the OEM wanted bigger units then they could make or purchase larger sub assemblies that could be swapped in and out of their end products for maintenance or other purposes. You might even have manufacturers that only produce larger sub assemblies for use by OEM manufacturers that don’t want to fiddle with quarks. A whole new industry would be born.

          • What if one quark explodes? What happens to the others around it? Bigger is simpler, more inspectable, and more efficient. A 5 kilowatt size, a 10 kilowatt size, a 50 kilowatt size, a 100 kilowatt size, and a 1 megawatt size would all be great. I just do not see the quark as being realistic and I would bet against it.

          • bachcole

            But quarks are plug-and-play. Both would have their uses.

          • TVulgaris

            What happens when a 5.4Wh NiCd or NiMH cell shorts internally (the equivalent size, we’re told, to a QuarkX)? You MIGHT get a very small fire; the same size lithium cell will produce a slightly larger one, but doesn’t pose a dreadful fire hazard (check with NFPA code if you want). What do you think would be the failure modes for a single-core 1 MW reactor? The hazardous ones I can think of are BIG fire, or serious explosion. Safety was one of the major constraints in the IH test, all along, and 250 KW was the largest size of reactor tried.

            Most of this argument are directly analogous to debating clustering vs. multicore. We could cram orders of magnitude greater numbers of cores into the same processor…but why bother when the performance gains may not even begin to be worth the potential loss risk?
            Maximizing the reactor size will guarantee only the wealthy and large companies have access to the tech.

        • Omega Z

          CC,

          There is a method to Rossi’s madness.

          In time you will understand. Imagine an E-cat powered car or Home system that goes 10 years without a recharge. All with the same size fuel charge of the current E-cats.

          • I hope you are right.

          • Omega Z

            CC,

            I’m not always right with my speculations, But I think I understand where Rossi is going with this. It solves many issues with the E-cat. It is much more adaptable in previous problematic uses.

    • LindbergofSwed

      Andrea Rossi

      March 1, 2016 at 11:00 AM

      Pekka Janhunen:

      We have studied how to change fuel in an easy way.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • I read that before. I just do not believe it.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I can believe that perhaps they have an easy method, but I wholeheartedly agree with your concerns above. Field operations are always expensive and problematic no matter how simple technically. The quark reactor is a good idea for applications that need it, but composing a large reactor from a large number of quarks sounds a bad idea to me.

          • US_Citizen71

            The screen you are reading this on if it is an LED flat panel and at least HD resolution has over 2 million separate LEDs for each color making over 6 million separate parts and they work just fine. They do not need refueling but I think you get the point.

            How hard is it to change a battery? That is really what refueling the E-Cats is likely to be similar to. Simple replacement of a sealed container that has electrical junctions. Personally I would change the heater at the same time as the fuel as it is a part that would wear and degrade, so I would build it into the changeable fuel container.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m not sure if I got the point of the first paragraph. With the second paragraph I agree completely.

          • US_Citizen71

            What I was trying to illustrate with the first part is just because something has a large number of parts it doesn’t automatically equate to an impossible to produce product. If you take into account all of the components in the ICs that are inside a LED monitor you would arrive at about the same number of ‘Quarks’ needed to build a gigawatt reactor.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Thank you, agreed, but the problem was not the sheer number of components, but refuelling them individually.

          • Gerald

            Out of the box, I’m just rude awakened to a problem at work. But if you can treat a quark filling or the whole quark as a bullit and build a gatlin gun or a semi automatic wapon style loading type.. Or build a tape robot style filling.

            From the speed Rossi advances the last year it looks like he has more and more backup from good engineers.

    • mcloki

      Portability and mobility. Opens up a world of possibilities when you don’t have to recharge every day.

      • A fusion nuclear reactor in your laptop computer? I just do not see it happening. In your backyard? Yes, I can see that.

        • mcloki

          IN your lawnmower? Boat, Snowblower, Pool heater, Sauna hot tub. power tools? All the industrial uses on construction sites. The electricity infrastructure is already in your home so its easiest to continue to use that. It’ll end up being whatever is cheaper.

    • Rod

      On Rossi’s ecat.com website, there are a few ‘Conceptual’ drawings of what a Domestic E-Cat X might look like. The drawings are probably a little dated by now. Looks simple enough to me. It’s probably missing an LCD of some sort to display status and setup info, a power cable to reinvigorate the reaction of reactor, ports for hookup to your computer or the Internet, and wiring to connect it to an inverter (if DC is output) or directly to your home’s main electrical panel (if AC is output). Is there enough shielding on this thing? Why the multiple valves to the same line? Will Rossi manufacture the entire unit, or just the reactor?

      http://ecat.com/news/public-concept-drawings-of-domestic-ecat

      • cashmemorz

        Whoa, hold your design horses. Rossi does not want at this stage of design ANY power cable for the simple reason that it would make it look too suspicious that it can be totally powered of the grid. If I had an E-Cat powering my house heating and I wanted to show it to a sceptic, the first thing that the sceptic would point out is the power cable. “Obviously it is powered by the grid: COP<1". Any power for start up would have to be an internal battery. Preferably as small as possible. After startup then any electricity. Just like the Orb phone. It has no external recharge port.

    • tchernik

      If it needs to be refueled every few weeks and it can power my laptop, robot, scooter or my camping car for all that time, it’s a winner.

    • cashmemorz

      Yes. Hearing aid batteries ARE recycled. Take ANY battery to a recycle depot. It will be accepted, stored and picked up by the battery recycling specialist(s). Some stores also have a drop off bin especially for hearing aid batteries. I saw and used one at a major department store over 20 years ago. This was for my father’s hearing aid batteries. This was in Canada, Toronto at the Eaton Centre. (Canadians spell it centre and USA spell it center.) Specialized battery recycling is a highly developed industry. The environment is a special place. We happen to live in it. So it is worth taking care of even the little bits of toxic material as in hearing aid batteries. Just assuming that it is a tiny bit and therefore it can be disregarded in the bigger scheme of things makes an ass of you and me.

      • The materials are used, but are the batteries reloaded? I don’t think so. Will they have to manufacture new Quarks to refuel? Sounds expensive and inefficient to me. I want to go bigger, not smaller.

        • cashmemorz

          Rossi has stated that the energy modules will be retrieved by an Industrial Heat technician specially trained in this procedure. Then the basic material in the modules will be recycled.

        • TVulgaris

          Remanufactured DNE refueled. It is more extensive and probably more expensive, but that does not mean it is not still cheaper than new.
          And why bigger? If there is is a cell failure in a battery stack, cell replacement may entail substantial remanufacture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean high cost.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I still don’t believe that 100% electricity production is possible. Although the question looks crystal clear, it’s possible that Rossi understands it as “if you only need electricity and do not need heat, can you use the quark”. The answer is yes: it produces electricity and waste heat. Perhaps Rossi is thinking in customer need terms rather than physics terms at the moment.

    • Warthog

      It’s already possible…see “nuclear battery”. One foil containing an alpha (or beta) emitting isotope as one electrode. A second foil as counterelectrode. Run a wire between the foils. I can’t sink much current, but it IS “all electric”. Unsurprisingly, the version using an alpha particle emitter is termed an “alphavoltaic” and the beta emitter a “betavoltaic”.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes but not without waste heat. For example, beta is not monoenergetic which unavoidably gives significant waste heat: some particles reach the other plate with excess energy which is thermalised while others fall short and fall back to the source electrode, thermalising there. Same in solar cells for example whence one uses multi-junction etc.

        • LarryJ

          It would seem likely that heat is required to power the process so maybe when he says he can produce 100% electricity at reduced efficiency he means the cop of the electricity is >1 but the cop of the heat is <1 due to waste heat so in his view electricity produced but no heat produced.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I still don’t believe that 100% electricity production is possible. Although the question looks crystal clear, it’s possible that Rossi understands it as “if you only need electricity and do not need heat, can you use the quark”. The answer is yes: it produces electricity and waste heat. Perhaps Rossi is thinking in customer need terms rather than physics terms at the moment.

    • bachcole

      Or, he’s lost his marbles. Either theory matches the data points, and perhaps a few other theories also.

    • Warthog

      It’s already possible…see “nuclear battery”. One foil containing an alpha (or beta) emitting isotope as one electrode. A second foil as counterelectrode. Run a wire between the foils. I can’t sink much current, but it IS “all electric”. Unsurprisingly, the version using an alpha particle emitter is termed an “alphavoltaic” and the beta emitter a “betavoltaic”.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes but not without waste heat. For example, beta is not monoenergetic which unavoidably gives significant waste heat: some particles reach the other plate with excess energy which is thermalised while others fall short and fall back to the source electrode, thermalising there. Same in solar cells for example whence one uses multi-junction etc.

        • LarryJ

          It would seem likely that heat is required to power the process so maybe when he says he can produce 100% electricity at reduced efficiency he means the cop of the electricity is >1 but the cop of the heat is <1 due to waste heat so in his view electricity produced but no heat produced.

  • Axil Axil

    What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.

    It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat transfer system to meet the spec that is required.

    A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the basic module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the responsibility of the systems developer.

    The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems. How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are defined by how it is configured.

    For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be configured by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that ball inside an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor designer to test each ball for status and replace it when its operational life is over as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.

  • Axil Axil

    What Rossi wants to do is produce the most basic LENR module that is possible and do it as efficiently as possible using economies of scale.

    It will be up to the systems integrator to design the backplane and heat transfer system to meet the spec that is required.

    A factory steam boiler, a railroad locomotive, a ship engine, a steel blast furnace, a cement plant, or a jet engine will all use the Quark as the basic module. How the Quark is put together it its thousands will be the responsibility of the systems developer.

    The Quark will be the lowest common denominator of all LENR based systems. How it is configured to produce heat and/or light, and/or electricity are defined by how it is configured.

    For example, an existing 200 megawatt pebble bed reactor might be configured by encasing a single Quark inside a carbon ball and placing that ball inside an existing pebble bed reactor. It is up to the Chinese reactor designer to test each ball for status and replace it when its operational life is over as it goes through its daily inspection cycle.

  • catfish

    Andrea Rossi always gives subtle clues about what he’s working on. Thanks to MFMP it is know understood how Pb is important to the original design he was using at some point. But we also know from Rossi’s almost stream of consciousness posts that he had the idea for E-catX but did not think it would be possible due to current materials limitation. That changed very quickly. He’s not a materials scientist, so I doubt he invented unobtainium one morning. I do suspect he found the material he needed or had an employee point it out. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics IS working on an x-ray to electric photogenerator (though they are a hot-fusion group and have not had full success yet). Perhaps he tried something similar to their own direct-electricity conversion ideas. Tri-Alpha is also working on this. It seems to me, Rossi and these groups were working, fusion and LENR on opposite ends of the same problem.

  • Sandy

    I predict that there will be a huge, worldwide market for bicycles powered by LENR reactors.

    • tchernik

      I predict there will be a huge market for everything powered by LENR reactors.

    • Omega Z

      Already is. Their called motorcycles.

    • jimbo92107

      A 100W Quark unit would easily keep an electric bicycle battery charged enough to deliver 1kW. Even a scooter battery wouldn’t need much to keep a 10kW motor happy. My neighbor charges his Chevy Volt on house current. I’m told that it takes about 370kWH to power a Volt 1,000 miles. So, a car the size of a Volt with just an electric motor would require somewhere between 5 to 10 Quarks to keep it charged up all the time for daily commuting.

      Of course, unlike a Volt, the Quark would be producing power all the time, even while you’re driving. So maybe 5 Quark units would do the trick, especially after you subtract 700 pounds of weight for the missing engine, gasoline, exhaust parts and heavier suspension. A Nissan Leaf might be a better measuring stick…

    • in China their biggest market for electric vehicle is e-bike.

      is there a waiting list ?

      note that e-bike is not really a motorcycle nor a moped.
      the idea is :
      – a lightweight two wheel vehicle, thus allowing easy transportation and maneuvers, even inside buildings
      – normal speed for bike (<25kph 15mph), requiring simple shielding (basic helmet), and competences (no license)
      – complement to pedalling, limited speed,reducing average power need, peak power need, frame robustness, braking power, thus cost of acquisition and maintenance
      – required pedalling promoting beneficent physical activity, while capping required pedal power in slope not to deter average rider
      – limited require pedalling power avoiding sweating, and thus shower at work.

      This is the perfect vehicle in a city, except for rain.

      • BillH

        And wind of course, imagine trying to ride into a 15mph headwind.

        • TVulgaris

          It’s a powered vehicle- that’s a really easy design parameter.

  • Axil Axil

    A question to ask Rossi: Can the Quark power itself?

    • DrD

      Then he also said it’s COP>1 with 100% electric so my question was how come it can’t self power.
      His answer was he can’t say yet.
      I can only assume it’s COP is so close to 1 that there’s no point just running itself with no or negligible useful output.
      But using feeders makes sense.

  • Axil Axil

    A question to ask Rossi: Can the Quark power itself?

    Lars
    March 1, 2016 at 7:48 PM
    Can the Quark power itself?

    Andrea Rossi
    March 1, 2016 at 9:18 PM
    Lars:
    Partly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Awhile back, Rossi said that an E Cat X would need two other feeder units to become self powering. The small and cost effective size of the Quark makes the clustered system an infinite COP device able to be deployed anywhere off the grid.

    • DrD

      Then he also said it’s COP>1 with 100% electric so my question was how come it can’t self power.
      His answer was he can’t say yet.
      I can only assume it’s COP is so close to 1 that there’s no point just running itself with no or negligible useful output.
      But using feeders makes sense.

  • Brokeeper

    “We have studied how to change fuel in an easy way”
    What would be easier and cheaper than to design a simple all enclosed subassembly of Quarks that can be easily swapped out by the user with a new auto delivered package (by an E-Cat powered drone)? The spent module would then be returned to and recycled at the factory. This would be faster and cheaper than refueling each sub unit by a certified technician.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Certainly. Opening the hermetic enclosure as a field operation sounds a bad idea.

      • Brokeeper

        Great point. Safety considerations is a plus for certification.

      • Brokeeper

        Alow me to interpret.  I think what Roger is saying is: living a year within the 1MW container, with lose quarks flying around, has made AR a little quarky in the established scientific community crying “The Quarks are coming, the Quarks are coming!”

      • Jonnyb

        If you take this to it’s logical conclusion eventually there will be no need for grid connection as everything will have it’s own power source, maybe like a battery? but with years of power, from light bulbs, to T.V.s to cars. By the way I no Cars don’t have grid connections in case some smart person picks up on that.

        • artefact

          But we need the grid to integrate all the existing power sources… like coal .. 🙂

          • Pekka Janhunen

            All terms are collected under the integral, but some of them may have zero coefficients:-)

          • But what will happen when their owners realise this?

          • Jonnyb

            In the short term artefact but not in the long term.

          • roseland67

            Sarcasm meter on stun,
            Well done artefact

          • artefact

            you got it.

      • artefact

        On JONP:

        “Wendy March 19, 2016 at 2:23 AM
        Dear Andrea Rossi,
        A 1 MW plant made by the QuarkX Ecat would be smaller of the 1 MW E-Cat tested for one year ?
        Thanks, Wendy

        Andrea Rossi March 19, 2016 at 8:42 AM
        Wendy:
        Much smaller. I think it could be contained in a cubic meter.
        Warm Regards, A.R.”

        • DrD

          Frustrating, all this waiting.
          We should have a poll.
          1) What dimensions will be the quark?
          2) What will be the COP of the first E-Catx?
          My guesses
          1) 2.5 x 4 x 10 (cm).
          2) Infinite (no external power at all needed after start-up).

  • Brokeeper

    “We have studied how to change fuel in an easy way”
    What would be easier and cheaper than to design a simple all enclosed subassembly of Quarks that can be easily swapped out by the user with a new auto delivered package (by an E-Cat powered drone)? The spent module would then be returned to and recycled by robotics at the factory. This would be faster and cheaper than refueling each sub unit by a certified technician.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Certainly. Opening the hermetic enclosure as a field operation sounds a bad idea.

      • Brokeeper

        Great point. Safety considerations is a plus for certification.

  • LindbergofSwed

    Rossi says the E-Cat X will produce heat and electricity and light. To me it seems smarter to only go for electricity. Why produce heat and light when electricity can provide everything for you?

    • LindbergofSwed

      Lars

      March 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM

      Is your goal with E-Cat X to only produce electricity and with that being able to produce heat and light?

      Andrea Rossi

      March 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM

      Lars:

      No, she makes the three.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • bachcole

        I’m sorry. I will need confirmation for me to believe that.

        • I tend to agree, but we have not even seen an E-Cat X yet. It sounds like a very different animal than even the Hot-Cat. We need evidence to believe anything, and there is no evidence to date.

        • LarryJ

          Sometimes you need to let yourself go and make a leap of faith based more on what you know could be than what you know is. No one will hold it against you. Otherwise you deny yourself the joy of dreaming and speculating. Given the dearth of hard evidence and the avalanche of hopeful comments it would appear that is what most of us are here for. I have been following this for years and so far I can say with some certainty that nobody does crazy like Rossi does crazy so I’m happy to suspend disbelief for a while and go along for the ride. So far he has never let me down.

        • GreenWin

          If it turns out that MFMP cookbook works reasonably – it would create heat, light (UV-soft X) and bursts of energetic particles. All three can be converted to electricity – though not very efficiently.

        • I also have a problem with the light bit. If the ‘new’ ecats are layered devices then only the edges would be able to emit light -the rest would be obscured by the substrate plates.

          Unless (a) the device operates at white heat or (b) the light is secondary,i.e.,produced by an external phosphor layer from soft X-radiation. But (a) is obviously incompatible with the electricity only option (‘street lights’)..

      • DrD

        SO?
        As he said, the answer is, NO.

    • Omega Z

      Note Rossi has said producing less heat reduces the efficiency and thus produces less electricity.

      So why would you want to use an electric heat device at lower efficiency and in turn use that reduced amount of electricity to power an electric heater. Unless of coarse you have stock in an electric heater manufacturer. 🙂

      • Best to buy stock in radiator and electric fan manufacturers…

  • LindbergofSwed

    Rossi says the E-Cat X will produce heat and electricity and light. To me it seems smarter to only go for electricity. Why produce heat and light when electricity can provide everything for you?

    • LindbergofSwed

      Lars

      March 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM

      Is your goal with E-Cat X to only produce electricity and with that being able to produce heat and light?

      Andrea Rossi

      March 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM

      Lars:

      No, she makes the three.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • bachcole

        I’m sorry. I will need confirmation for me to believe that.

        • I tend to agree, but we have not even seen an E-Cat X yet. It sounds like a very different animal than even the Hot-Cat. We need evidence to believe anything, and there is no evidence to date.

          • bachcole

            That does not mean that I disbelieve. I am completely agnostic, being in that scary place called “uncertainty”. (:->) It is the only honest place I feel that I can be.

          • Bruce__H

            Exactly! And yet you call other people “skeptopaths” for adopting the same attitude. Why?

          • roseland67

            This is what happens when Bachcole becomes stuck between the crushing grip of logic and reason

          • jimbo92107

            At this point I’m prepared to be amazed by either a positive or a negative outcome. What a show!

        • LarryJ

          Sometimes you need to let yourself go and make a leap of faith based more on what you know could be than what you know is. No one will hold it against you. Otherwise you deny yourself the joy of dreaming and speculating. Given the dearth of hard evidence and the avalanche of hopeful comments it would appear that is what most of us are here for. I have been following this for years and so far I can say with some certainty that nobody does crazy like Rossi does crazy so I’m happy to suspend disbelief for a while and go along for the ride. So far he has never let me down and speculating about what might be coming is so enlightening compared to the 6 o’clock news.

          • bachcole

            I’m still here. And I am certain the 1Mwatt plant will be a physics success, even if I am uncertain of a commercial success.

          • TVulgaris

            Why would a 3rd party allow plant space for something without commercial potential after 90 days? Unless it’s completely privately held, or an IH property, management would have to answer to shareholders- and I’d think IH would have to answer for different reasons, anyway.

        • GreenWin

          If it turns out that MFMP cookbook works reasonably – it would create heat, light (UV-soft X) and bursts of energetic particles. All three can be converted to electricity – though not very efficiently.

        • I also have a problem with the light bit. If the ‘new’ ecats are layered devices then only the edges would be able to emit light -the rest would be obscured by the substrate plates.

          Unless (a) the device operates at white heat or (b) the light is secondary,i.e.,produced by an external phosphor layer from soft X-radiation. But (a) is obviously incompatible with the electricity only option (‘street lights’)..

    • Omega Z

      Note Rossi has said producing less heat reduces the efficiency and thus produces less electricity.

      So why would you want to use an electric heat device at lower efficiency and in turn use that reduced amount of electricity to power an electric heater. Unless of coarse you have stock in an electric heater manufacturer. 🙂

      • Best to buy stock in radiator and electric fan manufacturers…

  • Frechette

    Actually an E Cat-X putting out 100 watts of heat would make an excellent pocket warmer for wintertime.

    • bfast

      A bit on the hot side. A 10 watt heater is probably too much.

      • TVulgaris

        Yeah, 100W would do a hot-suit quite nicely during the worst winter in Siberia or Antarctica.

  • Frechette

    Actually an E Cat-X putting out 100 watts of heat would make an excellent pocket warmer for wintertime.

    • bfast

      A bit on the hot side. A 10 watt heater is probably too much.

      • TVulgaris

        Yeah, 100W would do a hot-suit quite nicely during the worst winter in Siberia or Antarctica.

  • bfast

    Even if the thing produces 24 watts in electric mode, that’ll still trickle charge a battery at 2 amps quite nicely. That’ll keep the battery in my fishing boat going forever.

  • Andy Kumar

    Further down, Bachcole says, “Or, he’s lost his marbles. Either theory matches the data points, and perhaps a few other theories also.”
    .
    How did he get away with dissing the inventor?

    • Brokeeper

      Alow me to interpret.  I think what Roger is saying is: living a year within the 1MW container, with loose quarks flying around, has made AR a little quarky in the established scientific community crying “The Quarks are coming, the Quarks are coming!”

    • bachcole

      I am not dissing Rossi. I am presenting the theory that he may be losing it because he is getting old and saying things so amazing and wonderful (and as yet unconfirmed) that they seem too amazing to be true. I am getting old, and I am very slowly losing it, but I don’t see that as dissing. It is the way of the world. I hope that I am wrong. But until confirmation, I remain solidly in the uncertain state-of-mind regarding these latest wonders.

      • Brokeeper

        Unfortunately I relate. I think. I guess. Maybe.

        What was that!!!

      • Bruce__H

        bachole: ” I hope that I have wrong. But until confirmation, I remain solidly in the uncertain state-of-mind regarding these latest wonders.”

        Completely commendable. But doesn’t this make you what you have called a “skeptopath”?

        • Skip

          No. Skeptic!

          • Bruce__H

            I completely agree that the proper term is skeptic. I think open-minded skepticism is the right approach here. But bachole seems to want to call a person who adopts this point of view a skeptopath and I’m trying to figure out why.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Skeptopath means someone is skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical. Or attacks others for things they think are impossible, therefore think they are able to slander people for the sake of their skepticism. Like someone calling the cern people frauds for saying the higgs particle is 126 Gev which means we are either a chaotic multi universe or we are a single stable universe. They have a right to their opinions, even though they have pissed away billions of dollars to tell us something we already knew. Rossi and others deserve the same respect but don’t get it, partly because of skeptopaths. If you don’t believe in LENR, you are here to start trouble not be constructive. So forgive us if we don’t know you, and we jump the gun. At this point a lot of us are trigger happy, so to speak.

          • Bruce__H

            Are you saying that belief in LENR is a prerequisite to interest in it?

          • TVulgaris

            I would say reasonable acceptance of hundreds, perhaps thousands at this time, of papers by hundreds of researchers (in at least 20 countries I’m aware of off the top of my head) published over the past 27 years that have led to a building support of a perhaps-mislabeled phenomenon would identify your interest as other than malice, while a blanket rejection of the entire field because one of the primary tinkerers in the field has made unverified claims and exaggerated his early progress the opposite. Any relation to Mary_Yugo, by any chance?

          • Bruce__H

            Well I certainly wouldn’t issue a blanket rejection of a whole field because one person turns out to be a fraud. Would anyone do that?

            I don’t see the same movement in the field, though, that you do.

          • Bruce__H

            The problem with what you say is that all sorts of crazy fields have evolved for themselves a supportive literature of thousands of papers maintained by hundreds of researchers. Think homeopathy or chiropracty. To exhibit the extent of the literature is not, in itself, an argument that what is being studied is real or that skepticism is unwarranted.

        • bachcole

          Sorry, Bruce, I don’t read your posts anymore since you are a certified skeptopath. I do have the self-control to look away and erase or delete them. I did notice that you followed me here and I can now say that you are a malicious skeptopath. You won’t be around long here, Brucey.

          • Bruce__H

            I am praising your attitude towards Rossi’s adventures and claims. It seems to me that you are open-minded and would be charmed to see that his claims are real but would like to see some more data before you are convinced.

            I just can’t figure out why you call other people who adopt this attitude “skeptopaths” (which, I assume, is a term of derision). It all seems very odd and inconsistent to me.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Seems to me bachcole knows you from somewhere else. Do you doubt lenr or Just Rossi’s new devices he said he has come up with?

          • bachcole

            Because I said that I believed in homeopathy (from personal experience) elsewhere, Bruce_H maliciously attacked me and then followed me here and continued to maliciously attack me. I doubt that he has the slightest interest in cold fusion and would not even be here if it weren’t for his desire to be malicious. I would be astonished and happy if he were anything but a malicious skeptopath. I doubt that he has even read any of the evidence for cold fusion, so far.

          • Bruce__H

            I doubt both.

            The whole field of LENR is interesting. When I look for convincing evidence, though, I don’t yet see it. Mr. Rossi is particularly fascinating because at this point there is no middle ground for his claims. He can’t just be someone who is misinterpreting his results … either he has a working system just as he says, or he is a fraud who has rigged his systems so as to appear to be doing things they aren’t. I find myself in a superposition of states about him with, I’m afraid, the Rossi’s-a-fraud side is winning for now. Still, I’d love to be wrong about this!

            I don’t see why it is pathological to ask for good evidence about important claims. I think it is just normal.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I understood that he suspects mainly only E-cat X, not the old E-cat.

      • bachcole

        You are right, Pekka, as usual, except I do not suspect anything. I am merely withholding enthusiastic belief until I get confirmation of the E-Cat X and the light and electricity generating E-Cat, which I believe is said to be the E-Cat X.

    • GreenWin

      Andy! Nice to see you staying vigilant. With Kirvit’s ‘New Energy Ties’ bankrupt there few left to monitor Rossi’s marbles. Glad to know you’re our mibster.

      • bachcole

        mibster?

        • blanco69

          Roger, Maybe it’s a technical term for marble monitor.

  • Omega Z

    Already is. Their called motorcycles.

  • in China their biggest market for electric vehicle is e-bike.

    is there a waiting list ?

    note that e-bike is not really a motorcycle nor a moped.
    the idea is :
    – a lightweight two wheel vehicle, thus allowing easy transportation and maneuvers, even inside buildings
    – normal speed for bike (<25kph 15mph), requiring simple shielding (basic helmet), and competences (no license)
    – complement to pedalling, limited speed,reducing average power need, peak power need, frame robustness, braking power, thus cost of acquisition and maintenance
    – required pedalling promoting beneficent physical activity, while capping required pedal power in slope not to deter average rider
    – limited require pedalling power avoiding sweating, and thus shower at work.

    This is the perfect vehicle in a city, except for rain.

    • BillH

      And wind of course, imagine trying to ride into a 15mph headwind.

      • TVulgaris

        It’s a powered vehicle- that’s a really easy design parameter.

      • Hi all

        There is a certain confidence and swagger detectable in Andrea Rossi’s resent answers.

        Kind Regards walker

    • Skip

      No. Skeptic!

      • Gerard McEk

        @ update 2 Q3: I would assume that if the E-cat quark converts ‘heat of another source’ into electricity, the quark also produces heat itself to make that happen. But it is an interesting conformation of AR.

  • Jonnyb

    If you take this to it’s logical conclusion eventually there will be no need for grid connection as everything will have it’s own power source, maybe like a battery? but with years of power, from light bulbs, to T.V.s to cars. By the way I no Cars don’t have grid connections in case some smart person picks up on that.

    • artefact

      But we need the grid to integrate all the existing power sources… like coal .. 🙂

      • Pekka Janhunen

        All terms are collected under the integral, but some of them may have zero coefficients:-)

        • But what will happen when their owners realise this?

      • Jonnyb

        In the short term artefact but not in the long term.

      • roseland67

        Sarcasm meter on stun,
        Well done artefact

        • artefact

          you got it.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I understood that he suspects mainly only E-cat X, not the old E-cat.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Why 62Ni? – The complete justification: https://youtu.be/k0PtOSYRZto

    • LindbergofSwed

      Thanks, so much going on now. May the Signal be with you!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Why 62Ni? – The complete justification: https://youtu.be/k0PtOSYRZto

    • BillH

      I’m struggle to remember the isotopic values measured at the end of the Lugano experiment, I seem to recall that almost all of the Ni had turned to 62Ni when the ash was analysed. From this I assumed the experiment had been halted when the catalyst had been transmuted. I can see that this might have been a mistake, this seems to suggest that that enriched 62Ni was necessary to create a stronger effect and might have been created much earlier in the test? At the very least this seems to be a great way of creating enriched 62Ni, which as you indicated appears to be very expensive to buy.

      While Googling 62Ni I came across this interesting site:-

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html

      Could this 62Ni be the best sledgehammer to crack open the nuclear nut?

    • LindbergofSwed

      Thanks, so much going on now. May the Signal be with you!

    • Charlie tapp

      What happened to Ecco no posts anywhere

      • Bob Greenyer

        I imagine he is taking time off – he deserves it!

  • Brokeeper

    Unfortunately I relate. I think. I guess. Maybe.

    What was that!!!

  • GreenWin

    Andy! Nice to see you staying vigilant. With Kirvit’s ‘New Energy Ties’ bankrupt there few left to monitor Rossi’s marbles. Glad to know you’re our mibster.

  • GreenWin

    A poem by Henry Gibsen:

    The Quark is a quantum device
    For sale at Industrial price
    If one of them fails
    There’ll be raffish details
    From the X-Cat chasing its mice.

  • GreenWin

    A poem by Henry Gibsen:

    The Quark is a quantum device
    For sale at Industrial price
    If one of them fails
    There’ll be raffish details
    From the X-Cat chasing its mice.

  • Bruce__H

    I am praising your attitude towards Rossi’s adventures and claims. It seems to me that you are open-minded and would be charmed to see that his claims are real but would like to see some more data before you are convinced.

    I just can’t figure out why you call other people who adopt this attitude “skeptopaths” (which, I assume, is a term of derision). It all seems very odd and inconsistent to me.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Seems to me bachcole knows you from somewhere else. Do you doubt lenr or Just Rossi’s new devices he said he has come up with?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I imagine he is taking time off – he deserves it!

  • roseland67

    This is what happens when Bachcole becomes stuck between the crushing grip of logic and reason

  • bachcole

    I am not really following the quark thingie very closely because:

    1. It is not confirmed

    2. By the time I get confirmation, it will already be different.

    • LarryJ

      I think you may be in the wrong place. I think maybe The Wall Street Journal is what you’re looking for.

      • bachcole

        I think that I have been here at e-catworld.com about 10 times longer than you have, LarryJ, following this story and supporting Rossi and LENR in general. So I don’t think that you have the credentials to say whether I should be here or elsewhere. Your saying that is exactly the attitude in science that we are trying to correct. It is actually quite contemptible.

        Your attitude is that of a true believer. My attitude is that I just want some confirmation for miracles and wonders that seem too good to be true. I do not disbelieve nor believe. I am uncertain. And all of the insults and haranguing in the world is not going to change my position. Only confirmation will change my position. If you do not have the cojones to deal with uncertainty, don’t take it out on me.

        • LarryJ

          Ouch! Don’t poke the bear.

  • Gerard McEk

    @ update 2 Q3: I would assume that if the E-cat quark converts ‘heat of another source’ into electricity, the quark also produces heat itself to make that happen. But it is an interesting conformation of AR.

  • artefact

    Update2 Q3: I imagine Rossi with a bunsen burner in his hand pointing it on an x-cat q(uark) and then lights in the background start to shine. And then he says: “he he he”.

    • vokzzi V

      I understand your frustration , but Rossi does not owe us anything . 99% of the world population does not know that Rossi exist.We have choices. We can ignore Rossi or wait with excitement and hope . I think it ‘s pretty fun to hang out here .

      • hempenearth

        Frank (or anyone) I think I’ve missed something – interview/news conference with Mats in Sweden in June OK, but I don’t see that that means the Quark X will be introduced in the USA before that. I thought the Sweden gig was mostly about the year long test of the 1MW plant and the report about it due out mid April (latest).

        • Frank Acland

          My understanding is that Rossi’s press conference will be independent of Mats’ conference, although Mats says AR has agreed to attend and do an on-stage interview. I have also heard through private channels that there could be some kind of event connected to the E-Cat X in the USA prior to the Sweden meeting.

          • hempenearth

            Ok, thanks for that

      • I think we are (mostly) aware that Rossi is under no obligation to prove any of his claims or even to provide any ‘ongoing’ information. I’m reasonably certain that this isn’t Bachcole’s point. However some commenters here have been following this story for five years or more, giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt when predictions failed to materialise, or facts seemed to contradict his statements, and perhaps a little weariness is creeping in. Despite this, by and large most long-time contributors to this blog have remained ‘followers’, and are prepared to accept provisionally most of what AR claims.

        In recent times though we have seen the e-cat evolve from various, often unreliable, versions of a nuclear-level reactor system that produces heat by consuming hydrogen, lithium or nickel (depending on which operating theory is adopted) to wonderful easily controlled micro-reactors and now to even more wonderful electricity-generating devices – all unfortunately with no evidence for their existence other than statements on JoNP. Under the circumstances it would seem to me to be foolish to accept all these claims without question, and ‘hopeful suspension of disbelief’ is probably the best that some of us can manage these days.

        If the above makes me a ‘pathoskeptic’ in the eyes of some newer indentities posting here, then so be it – although I would suggest a quick flick through my comment history to see if such a label is justified, first.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I doubt everything at least a bit, but I see no reason to particularly doubt Rossi’s recent developments much more than the earlier ones. Rossi’s development over five years seems generally speaking consistent with the usual pattern of R&D proceeding in spurts.

          • Probably true, Pekka, but I’m playing ‘devil’s advocate’ by suggesting a neutral or even slightly skeptical viewpoint as a counter-balance to the sometimes unquestioning and excitable speculation that is occasionally apparent on this blog. I don’t expect this cautious approach to win me many ‘upvotes’!

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Upvotes are rarer nowadays than they used to be because only registered ones can vote. By the way, by “everything” I meant everything, not only AR.

          • artefact

            Something like: I can disclose more about the quarks only after the R&D with them is completed.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Perhaps the e-Cat X is a thermionic converter lithium vapor. Сonversion factor heat to electricity will 20%.

  • artefact

    Update2 Q3: I imagine Rossi with a bunsen burner in his hand pointing it on an x-cat q(uark) and then lights in the background start to shine. And then he says: “he he he”.

  • Jas

    This flavour of Quark is definately Strange.

    • Ged

      Let’s not even get into what colors it could come in.

  • blanco69

    Roger, Maybe it’s a technical term for marble monitor.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Koen Vandewalle March 18, 2016 at 5:54 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Is it correct that the so-called “Self Sustaining Mode”, is no longer important or even counterproductive in the E-Cat QuarkX ?
    Kind Regards, Koen

    Andrea Rossi March 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM
    Koen Vandewalle:
    I will be able to answer when the E-Cat X will be published, very likely in June.
    Warm Regards, A.R.

    Andrea Rossi March 18, 2016 at 7:10 AM
    Norman:
    She is continuing to operate in the new laboratory of Leonardo Corporation and is still very, very promising.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Koen Vandewalle March 18, 2016 at 5:54 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Is it correct that the so-called “Self Sustaining Mode”, is no longer important or even counterproductive in the E-Cat QuarkX ?
    Kind Regards, Koen

    Andrea Rossi March 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM
    Koen Vandewalle:
    I will be able to answer when the E-Cat X will be published, very likely in June.
    Warm Regards, A.R.

    Andrea Rossi March 18, 2016 at 7:10 AM
    Norman:
    She is continuing to operate in the new laboratory of Leonardo Corporation and is still very, very promising.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Stephen

    If it can converts external heat to electricity this is already interesting. If it effectively removes the heat from the system and converts into electricity effectively cooling the system this could be really important.

    If that heat is converted into electricity the main advantage it may bring is not the electricity but rather the removal of heat with out needing to radiate it elsewhere.

    Normally in situations requiring thermal control heat is removed from one place but needs to radiated somewhere else. For satellites for example the heat is radiated in a direction away from the sun and earth towards cold space. Another example is the cooling of Computer chips in your computer where the heat is radiated to the outside environment. There are many other such examples. Being able to remove the heat with out radiating it else where could bring some benefits in engineering design that enable its use in hot environments, and free up the design constraints and extra weight and normally associated with heat transport and radiation requirements.

    Of course in normal systems we are constrained by the laws of thermal dynamics:

    From Wiki we have:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics:

    ====

    The four laws of thermodynamics are:

    Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium independently with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

    First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

    Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

    Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the logarithm of the multiplicity of the quantum ground states.

    =====

    These laws especially the second law suggest that heat is not normally lost from the system, which is why in classical systems when an area is cooled the heat removed normally needs to be radiated in relatively cool surroundings elsewhere.

    There are however recent evidences especially with certain materials which can convert heat into electricity:

    There are a few interesting articles that may be relevant in some way:

    Interesting article on electron cooling: Tuning ultrafast electron thermalization pathways in a van der Waals heterostructure

    http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

    The paper is here:

    http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo

    Interesting article on conversion of waste heat to electricity conversion in Bismuth related to the Nernst effect:

    http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

    http://rd.springer.com/article

    Article on Magnetic Spin waves, Magnons and conversion of heat to electricity:

    http://www.spacedaily.com/repo….

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2

    Interesting articles about election behaviour in 1D metallic Surfaces:

    http://www.spacedaily.com/repo

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_

    http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…

    I do wonder if the Laws of Thermal Dynamics can be conserved even if heat is removed from the system by increasing entropy elsewhere in a way that does not introduce heat. Perhaps from nuclear effects or something?

    • Ged

      Well, you are right, you can remove heat by increasing entropy, all you need is a spontaneous endothermic reaction. Heat, or enthalpy, is only one half of the Gibbs free energy equation. If enthalpy change is positive, so that heat is absorbed, all you need is a larger entropy*temperature change to drive the reaction. I’ve personally experienced plenty of these fun little heat sucking reactions (Consequently, endothermic reactions are limited by environmental temperature and heat conduction). This process is actually sorta used to drive methanol steam reformation and hydrogen production, all by absorbing heat and turning it into chemical (hydrogen) energy. Ultimately, entropy goes up and less useful/work energy comes out as hydrogen than went in as reactants and heat, but it puts heat directly to work (i.e. never 100% efficient. For some interesting discussion on this, see: https://willyyanto.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/reuse-of-waste-heat-as-the-endothermic-energy-supply-for-methanol-steam-reforming-reaction-to-produce-hydrogen/ )

      Could Rossi have found an endothermic process that turns LENR reactants and ambient heat into electricity, by increasing overall entropy when at high enough temperatures? We know his early work was on exotic thermoelectrics, which did sort of work just not as well as hoped, so maybe he is calling back to his roots to help here.

      It really depends on what he is using to make electricity. If we knew that, the rest of the mystery should be easy to solve.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I am familiar with one simple reaction that “cools” and produces energy. The Thermoelastic effect as manifested in rubber relaxation will simultaneously produce mechanical work when a stretched elastomer is relaxed and a lower temperature. The rubber goes from a regular “strain induced crystallization” state toward a more amorphous un-oriented state. I am not sure that entropy is increased, however.

        You can see this for yourself by taking a natural rubber balloon and stretching it as far as you can. The rubber gets hot (use your forehead or lip to sense the temperature change. With it remaining stretched, let it cool to room temperature. Then relax the rubber and observe how cool it gets. Joule investigated this thermodynamic enigma and published a paper in which he revealed the thermocouple used to measure it.

      • If there is an endothermic effect in Rossi’s ‘electric’ reactors, then given that these seem to be layered devices, perhaps there may be layers that act as semiconductors to provide rectification of the DC output (or that may be an inherent property of the active layers).

        If that’s the case then endothermy may possibly arise as a wholly thermoelectric ‘Peltier effect’ rather than any nucleonic reaction.

        “A thermoelectric cooling system typically employs a matrix of semiconductor pellets sandwiched in between two large electrodes.” Seemingly a very good description of the e-cat x/quark, IF the fuel layers between the (stainless?) steel plates have semiconducting properties.

        http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/thermoelectric-cooling

    • Ted-X

      The heat removal looks definitively as some new nuclear effect. Some people are claiming that the 4 deg. C at the bottom of the oceans is due to some unknown endothermic nuclear effect. The 4 deg. C is there in all oceans, even in the tropics.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Cold bottom water is no mystery. In polar areas, the whole water column is cold, obviously. Cold water is heavier than warm water so it tends to spread under warm water. Evaporation exceeds rainfall on average in tropics so in tropics there is slow upward flow of water, and deep water flows towards tropics everywhere. These factors together explain why all deep waters are cold, even though cold polar seas cover a relatively small fraction of the total ocean area.

  • Frank Acland

    Lars Lindberg

    March 18, 2016 at 2:02 AM
    Do you mean the quark can be used with other heatsources and produce electricity in a meningfull way?

    Andrea Rossi

    March 18, 2016 at 7:09 AM
    Lars Lindberg:
    She can be combined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Brokeeper

      I’m thinking using cheap clean natural gas to heat the Quarks as a combined higher system’s cost COP ratio for 100% electricity. SSM could still be long for 100W performance.

      • But why use another type of heat source? If Rossi’s claims are true, one or more ‘electricity quarks’ running at low COP could be used to generate electricity by converting the heat from one or more ‘thermal quark(s)’ running
        at high COP.

        This is all beginning to sound rather too good to be true.

        • Brokeeper

          Perhaps to calm some the lobby beasts.
          There lies the real question, what is the electrical only COP?

          • Yes, the Sifferkoll post linked by artefact above suggests that gaming of comments by all parties may be well under way.

            If anything though, Rossi’s claims seem to be designed to increase the perceived threat that cold fusion presents to established energy interests and the politicians that parasitise the money flow.

            I hope Rossi’s canniness is up to the situation, but I am still of the opinion that if the potential of CF is to be realised then the ‘core secrets’ MUST become available to all and sundry to develop. Otherwise we are likely to see a pale shadow of what might have been (see the Siffercoll post at http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/something-really-bothers-me-about-the-apcoworldwide-lenr-connection/ ).

          • georgehants

            Morning Peter, all agreed, I think I have made my point that Cold Fusion is for everybody enough times.
            I get the feeling that many of us are a bit shell shocked continually waiting for that final conformation from Mr. Rossi et al.
            Also that no other clear replications of real worth from anywhere in the World, not in anyway putting down the Wonderful work of MFMP etc.
            I know I am a bit ragged from it all.

          • Morning George. I think part of the ‘shell shock’ you describe comes from the growing realisation here that cold fusion isn’t any longer a niche interest among a small group of like minded ‘followers’. It’s becoming clearer that it is now part of a geoplitical game of strategy being played out mostly in the dark, by powerful and often amoral interests, many of which will be inimical to the simple idea that CF would be developed by Rossi, manufactured freely and then offered to anyone with the money, in an open market.

            In the past I’ve speculated that when the PTB became aware that AR really has what he claims – a powerful new energy source that will immediately render most others obsolete, and result in trillions in losses to the existing energy stakeholders – then any idea of a free run to market would end.

            I think we’re now seeing indications in the various public pronouncements that in fact our future may be in the process of being quietly stolen from our grasp, and will only be wheeled out (slowly) when it is firmly under corporate control. I and others who believe this are obviously getting rather ‘jittery’ as a result.

          • georgehants

            So agree, but like anything, us who can see the negative possibilities begin to sound like doomsayers to those unable to look at the possible sense in a new system, suited to the massive production with very few workers possible today and with Cold Fusion even more so.
            I was thinking yesterday that the film 1984 has not been shown on British TV for a very long time, I do not know about Sky etc. as we refuse to pay to watch adverts.
            Is it because it is a little to near the Truth of today’s oligarchy?

        • Ged

          Musn’t forget that in all cases these would be burning fuel, just on the atomic level. So it isn’t free energy by any means, but chaining reactions like you suggest could definitely increase overall system efficiency compared to non-atomic sourses.

          • More like ‘compounding’ than ‘chaining’. An e-cat electrical power source could consist of a stack of ‘quarks’, some being optimised for heat output and others for electricity production, interposed in whatever ratio is ideal.

            Wrap the whole thing in thermal insulation and it should be good to go. F10 (programmed as: ‘If Rossi’s claims are accepted at face value’.

          • Ged

            The latter is indeed possible, if the Quark undergoes an endothermic process when converting LENR into electricity rather than heat. Really hard to imagine that or how it would work in this system.

          • Again in conventional terms there would need to be a transfer medium, so possibly IR radiation? Of course, that would make the ‘quark’ a photoelectric device on top of everything else. I wonder if it can also defy gravity or cure all known diseases?

          • Ged

            From what I hear, it can cure Kardashians, but I just can’t believe that one.

          • Lars Lindberg

            Matt

            March 20, 2016 at 5:45 PM

            Whatever happened to the hot cat? You just stopped talking about it one day.

            Translate

            Andrea Rossi

            March 20, 2016 at 6:05 PM

            Matt:

            The Hot Cat is evolved into the E-Cat QuarkX. So far. F8, F9.

            Warm Regards,

            A.R.

          • LarryJ

            Hyperbole detracts from the value of your argument.

          • A joke. I tend to have a rather dry sense of humour I’m afraid.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, that is exactly how I also interpreted the remark of AR. I do not see much value in enhancing chemical energy with nuclear energy. Your interpretation is indeed too good to be true. I believe we can expect electrical energy source that produces heat that maybe must be released by ventilation, but also produces a lot of electricity of which a small part is being used to control the unit. This is a very exciting development!
          This week I tried to provoke AR by asking him if he thought if and E-cat could be totally stand allone. He said ‘maybe’. This is even better!

          • clovis ray

            wow,

        • LarryJ

          All of cold fusion is too good to be true. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I believe most technological breakthroughs start off as too good to be true. A specious argument at best.

    • Buck

      ‘direct’ conversion of geothermal to electricity mediated by LENR rather than by less efficient steam turbine?

  • Frank Acland

    Lars Lindberg

    March 18, 2016 at 2:02 AM
    Do you mean the quark can be used with other heatsources and produce electricity in a meningfull way?

    Andrea Rossi

    March 18, 2016 at 7:09 AM
    Lars Lindberg:
    She can be combined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Brokeeper

      I’m thinking using cheap clean natural gas to heat the Quarks as a combined higher system’s cost COP ratio for 100% electricity. SSM could still be long for 100W performance. Maybe it would reduce the cost of natural gas driven electric utilities as much as one tenth assuming COP of 10 excluding cost of the modular LEGO (Low Energy Gas Operated) plants.

      • But why use another type of heat source? If Rossi’s claims are true, one or more ‘electricity quarks’ running at low COP could be used to generate electricity by converting the heat from one or more ‘thermal quark(s)’ running at high COP.

        This is all beginning to sound rather too good to be true.

        • Brokeeper

          Perhaps to calm the lobby beasts some.
          Therein lies the real question, what is the electrical only COP?

          • Yes, the Sifferkoll post linked by artefact above suggests that gaming of public comments by all parties may be well under way.

            If anything though, Rossi’s latest claims seem to be designed to increase the perceived threat that cold fusion presents to established energy interests and the politicians that parasitise the money flow. He was under no compulsion to publish the claims yet chose to do so, so this appears to be a strategic move on his part – although the purpose remains unfathomable at the moment.

            I hope Rossi’s canniness is up to the situation, but I am still of the opinion that if the full potential of CF is to be realised then the ‘core secrets’ MUST become available to all and sundry to develop. Otherwise we are likely to see only a pale shadow of what might have been (see the Sifferkoll post at http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/something-really-bothers-me-about-the-apcoworldwide-lenr-connection/ ).

          • georgehants

            Morning Peter, all agreed, I think I have made my point that Cold Fusion is for everybody enough times.
            I get the feeling that many of us are a bit shell shocked continually waiting for that final conformation from Mr. Rossi et al.
            Also that no other clear replications of real worth from anywhere in the World, not in anyway putting down the Wonderful work of MFMP etc.
            I know I am a bit ragged from it all.

          • Morning George. I think part of the ‘shell shock’ you describe comes from the growing realisation here that cold fusion isn’t any longer a niche interest among a small group of like minded ‘followers’. It’s becoming clearer that it is now part of a geopolitical game of strategy being played out mostly in the dark, by powerful and probably amoral interests, many of which will be inimical to the simple idea that CF would be developed by Rossi, manufactured freely and then offered to anyone with the money, in an open market.

            In the past I’ve speculated that when the PTB became aware that AR really has what he claims – a powerful new energy source that will immediately render most others obsolete, and result in trillions in losses to the existing energy stakeholders – then any idea of a free run to market would end. Rossi will of course know more of this than any outside observer, and will be playing his cards as well as he is able, although his options will be severely limited.

            I think we’re now seeing indications in the various public pronouncements that in fact our future may be in the process of being quietly stolen from us, and CF will only be wheeled out (slowly) when it is firmly under corporate control. I and others who believe that this is likely to be the case are obviously getting rather ‘jittery’ as a result. There is probably only a narrow window during which even the free release of cold fusion ‘how to’ information can be exploited, after which legislation placing the whole technology behind a ‘nuclear’ firewall will close the window.

          • georgehants

            So agree, but like anything, us who can see the negative possibilities begin to sound like doomsayers to those unable to look at the possible sense in a new system, suited to the massive production with very few workers possible today and with Cold Fusion even more so.
            I can watch from our window one man and a tractor plough ten fields in a day, how many people does it take as a percentage of the population, to produce all the food needed by our society, forgetting imports of foods ungrowable here. (without Cold Fusion)
            I was thinking yesterday that the film 1984 has not been shown on British TV for a very long time, I do not know about Sky etc. as we refuse to pay to watch adverts.
            Is it because it is a little to near the Truth of today’s oligarchy?

        • Ged

          Musn’t forget that in all cases these would be burning fuel, just on the atomic level. So it isn’t free energy by any means, but chaining reactions like you suggest could definitely increase overall system efficiency compared to non-atomic sourses.

          • More like ‘compounding’ than ‘chaining’. An e-cat electrical power source could consist of a stack of ‘quarks’, some being optimised for heat output and others for electricity production, interposed in whatever ratio is ideal.

            Wrap the whole thing in thermal insulation and it should be good to go. F10 (programmed as: ‘If Rossi’s claims are accepted at face value’).

            However, conventional wisdom suggests that heat can only be exploited for power when a differential exists – power (electricity in this case) is then extracted from the ‘flow’ of heat energy from the hot zone to the cooler zone. This suggests that either a thermal dump (air or water flow) must be incorporated, or AR is infering that his device can ‘suck’ heat energy out of its environment in some ‘absolute’ way without the need for such a differential.

          • Ged

            The latter is indeed possible, if the Quark undergoes an endothermic process when converting LENR into electricity rather than heat. Really hard to imagine that or how it would work in this system.

            Edit: ok, let me amend my reply a bit. Endothermic reactions suck up heat to do work, without there being any heat differential needed. These reactions are Enthalpically unfavorable (absorbs heat), but are much more Entropically favorable, so that the Gibbs free energy is still negative and the reaction can release energy and spontaneously proceed. Of course, entropy is temperature dependent, so this only works at certain temp ranges (needs enough heat to suck up to overcome the energy of activation barrier).

            So, how can an LENR reaction be enthalpically unfavored, but entropically so to a greater extent? I would guess it depends on what the fuel composition is, such that rearrangements of the fuel caused by LENR lead to higher entropy, but also absorb heat. The dissolution of ionic bonds can do this, but… hm… It really must depend on how exactly this device can directly turn LENR into electricity. That probably is being medicated by some phase change, and/or dialectric material? Hm… This requires a lot more thought.

          • Again in conventional terms there would need to be a transfer medium, so possibly IR radiation? Of course, that would make the ‘quark’ a photoelectric device on top of everything else. I wonder if it can also defy gravity or cure all known diseases?

          • Ged

            From what I hear, it can cure Kardashians, but I just can’t believe that one.

          • LarryJ

            Hyperbole detracts from the value of your argument.
            Nobody knows anything about the quark so why rule out photoelectric. Best to keep an open mind and see how things unfold.

          • A joke. I tend to have a rather dry sense of humour I’m afraid.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, that is exactly how I also interpreted the remark of AR. I do not see much value in enhancing chemical energy with nuclear energy. Your interpretation is indeed too good to be true. I believe we can expect electrical energy source that produces heat that maybe must be released by ventilation, but also produces a lot of electricity of which a small part is being used to control the unit. This is a very exciting development!
          This week I tried to provoke AR by asking him if he thought if and E-cat could be totally stand allone. He said ‘maybe’. This is even better!

          • clovis ray

            wow,

        • LarryJ

          All of cold fusion is too good to be true. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I believe most technological breakthroughs start off as too good to be true. A specious argument at best.

        • roseland67

          Beginning?

    • Buck

      ‘direct’ conversion of geothermal to electricity mediated by LENR rather than by less efficient steam turbine?

  • cashmemorz

    Whoa, hold your design horses. Rossi does not want at this stage of design ANY power cable for the simple reason that it would make it look too suspicious that it can be totally powered of the grid. If I had an E-Cat powering my house heating and I wanted to show it to a sceptic, the first thing that the sceptic would point out is the power cable. “Obviously it is powered by the grid: COP<1". Any power for start up would have to be an internal battery. Preferably as small as possible. After startup then any electricity. Just like the Orb phone. It has no external recharge port.

  • The materials are used, but are the batteries reloaded? I don’t think so. Will they have to manufacture new Quarks to refuel? Sounds expensive and inefficient to me. I want to go bigger, not smaller.

    • cashmemorz

      Rossi has stated that the energy modules will be retrieved by an Industrial Heat technician specially trained in this procedure. Then the basic material in the modules will be recycled.

      • LarryJ

        I think you may be in the wrong place. I think maybe The Wall Street Journal is what you’re looking for.

    • TVulgaris

      Remanufactured DNE refueled. It is more extensive and probably more expensive, but that does not mean it is not still cheaper than new.
      And why bigger? If there is is a cell failure in a battery stack, cell replacement may entail substantial remanufacture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean high cost.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Quark – three cawing, croaking three. I do not understand why use a third-party heat to produce electricity?

    • cashmemorz

      What language do you try to speak in? What third party? Are you being sarcastic about the three parts of quark as being a third party? Hmmmm…

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Quark – three cawing, croaking three. I do not understand why use a third-party heat to produce electricity?

    • cashmemorz

      What language do you try to speak in? What third party? Are you being sarcastic about the three parts of quark as being a third party? Hmmmm…

  • pg

    Please, just detonate and put us out of our hoping misery

    • Brokeeper

      LOL!

  • pg

    Please, just detonate and put us out of our hoping misery

    • Brokeeper

      LOL!

  • artefact
    • The Sifferkoll post, although speculative, seems to confirm many ofmy worst fears (frequently expressed here) about ‘PTB’ interference in the emergence of CF. Rossi wouldbe well advised to look to Europe for a clearer path, although possibly not to Sweden, the UK or France, all of which are in thrall to the US.

      • artefact

        I agree

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Completely unnecessary jumping to the wall by sifferkoll. For any law firm, patent attorney, Swiss bank or consultant firm like Apco, the client’s trust is everything. Thus when they serve a client, they serve the client, no one else. Because failing a client’s trust once would mean the end of business for them.

      It’s not surprising that IH seeks reputable professional help in PR when preparing their outcoming. The only thing is that I would have put bcc instead of cc to Apco in the mail, because that would have avoided unnecessary speculations. Maybe it was a typo.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        I’m not the least bit freaked out by APCO being on the case.

        Looks like validation that to me that LENR+ is real and the PTB are preparing for its market entrance. This is a great thing.

        People that think that it would be better that LENR+ be rolled out via an underground network of garage tinkerers are very naive, imo.

  • artefact
    • The Sifferkoll post, although speculative, seems to confirm many of my worst fears (frequently expressed here) about ‘PTB’ interference in the emergence of CF. Rossi would be well advised to look to Europe for a clearer path, although possibly not to Sweden, the UK or France, all of which are vassals of the US.

      • artefact

        I agree

    • akupaku

      This article by sifferkoll is pretty much what I am afraid of. I guess with all the replications around the world PTB now know that the cat (pun intended, lol) is out of the bag and LENR cannot be completely stopped anymore. But they still might start delaying tactics to push any public announcements and demos as far into the future as possible. And Rossi and IH possibly being in the lead giving them a mafia style “offer” that they cannot say no to is conceivable. Personal and family threats might just be enough if buying and other money offers are declined. Or an unfortunate sudden “suicide” or fatal “heart attack” or “accident” could happen.

      LENR research has been quite successfully suppressed and ridiculed over 25 years already. A few more years of suppression is probably worth a few trillion dollars.

      Such suppression and ridicule also applies to many other fields of unconventional knowledge and inquiry, I will not name any here to not start a flaming uproar. Sometimes I feel that we have not advanced very much from the days of Galileo Galilei and the Holy Inquisition.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Completely unnecessary jumping to the wall by sifferkoll. For any law firm, patent attorney, Swiss bank or consultant firm like Apco, the client’s trust is everything. Thus when they serve a client, they serve the client, no one else. Because failing a client’s trust once would mean the end of business for them.

      It’s not surprising that IH seeks reputable professional help in PR when preparing their outcoming. The only thing is that I would have put bcc instead of cc to Apco in the mail, because that would have avoided unnecessary speculations. Maybe it was a typo.

      • I’m not the least bit freaked out by APCO being on the case.

        Looks like validation that to me that LENR+ is real and the PTB are preparing for its market entrance. This is a great thing.

        People that think that it would be better that LENR+ be rolled out via an underground network of garage tinkerers are very naive, imo.

  • Guru Khalsa

    Would this make a perfect AC unit heat pump with no outside heat exchanger just some quarks to cool down the transfer fluid and generate the electricity to run the pump?

    • Brokeeper

      Perhaps micro heat pumps to carry around during summer or winter or in space?

      • HiggsField

        The question I would like to throw out there: Is the E-Cat another EEStor?

        I remain a firm skeptic of Rossi. I’m just not convinced, sorry! What will this group be saying two years from now when we are still waiting for something truly definitive to happen?

        • Ged

          That’s the beautiful thing, time will tell! Why guess, when all you have to do is wait 2 years to find out ;)?

  • Guru Khalsa

    Would this make a perfect AC unit heat pump with no outside heat exchanger just some quarks to cool down the transfer fluid and generate the electricity to run the pump?

    • Brokeeper

      Perhaps micro heat pumps to carry around during summer or winter or in space?

  • Frank Acland

    OT: I wonder who owns these domains (registration info is private):

    http://www.ecatgenerator.com
    http://www.ecatgenerators.com

    • artefact

      There is a redirect to ecat.info

    • They have a really nice photograph which shows very good artistic taste. I wish I could get interested in the Quark, but I just can’t. I don’t see how the tiny little Quark could possibly be cost effective. I want an E-Cat Supernova, not a Quark. I hope Rossi does not stop working on bigger E-Cats.

      • Frank Acland

        According to AR the quarks can be used to make any size E-Cat you like.

        • Yea, but I just don’t see it. The cost structure makes no sense to me. Just because you can do something does not mean that it is efficient or affordable.

          BTW I just did a quick search, and most obvious URLs with LENR are already taken. *lenrsource.com*, however, seems to be available.

        • bachcole

          I will believe it when I get confirmation.

          • LarryJ

            So will everybody. Not a very forward looking approach. More a rear view approach that is not particularly helpful in spreading the word about how the world is about to change.

          • We don’t know in what ways the ‘world is about to change’ or even if it will – it is still possible that all will not go smoothly, and that significant changes to energy supplies may still be a decade or more down the line.

            In the absence of firm evidence it would not only be irresponsible to attempt to proselytize, but also entirely pointless. The technology of cold fusion is being developed out of the public gaze, following business logic that is entirely unaffected by anything a few bloggers have to say, and we need to accept that we are just along for the ride.

          • bachcole

            Nicely put.

          • US_Citizen71

            The color of the light is likely a function of the temperature of the QuarkX. If you have watched any of MFMP’s experiments you have seen the light emitted by their Glowstick change depending on its temperature the QuarkX would be no different.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Q: Dear Mr. Rossi, you say, that the e-catx produces light. It is very easy to convert electricity in light. With LEDs we have very advanced sources of light and the next generation of LEDs, organic LEDs, are on the way. So what are the special advantages of an e-catx as a light source compared to existing light sources?

            Andrea Rossi
            March 24, 2016 at 3:39 PM
            Hergen:
            I hope the COP. F8, F9.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            This seems to suggest that the light is not (primarily) produced by incandescence, which is extremely inefficient. On the other hand it remains unclear what exactly he meant by “COP” in this case. In case that the light is just “waste light” that is exploited in addition to heat and electricity you could be right.

          • US_Citizen71

            The special advantage could be that it is self powering. I work in marketing any add-on use tends to be mentioned about a product. Anything small and dense makes a great paper-weight. : ) Dream but don’t raise your expectations, I believe Rossi/IH are nearing the announcement phase, marketing language and attitudes are going to increase in their communications.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I am not at all dreaming. Although I must admit that I would be a little disappointed if Rossi had just reinvented the light bulb. I asked him about this yesterday, and he replied “No.”

          • Ged

            Haha. Actually, I read that as him making a joke, saying he’s hoping the difference between the E-catX and all other light sources is a positive COP for the E-cat. Afterall, he’s trying to make a reactor, not a fancy light bulb (so one would hope!).

          • DrD

            Because I believe the quark will produce enough electric to power itself and its controls and have enough left to produce heat and/or light. Hence, once started it needs no external power input at all. You know how COP is defined — power out/power in. Power in =zero, so what’s the COP?
            F9
            3 weeks and we might know.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            With an ‘infinite’ COP it would make no difference whether you produce the light directly or by the generated electricity. But actually, the COP is not infinite, as has been pointed out here many times. So if the light were produced by incandescence it would likely be a waste of energy to use the E-Cat as a light source, since together with the visible light a lot of IR radiation would escape that could otherwise be captured. For these and other reasons I think that the problem is more complex than it might seem at first sight.

          • DrD

            I doubt it will be by incandescence but does it really matter and yes, it doesn’t matter much if the COPs infinite but you would still need a bigger unit if the light producing efficiency isn’t so high.

            As for that COP, so far the COP’s achieved by most are very small, certainly not infinite. In fact few are better than heat pumps but I was referring to the future possibility of the E-Catx.
            It’s very basic maths.
            If the quark can produce more continuous electrical power output than ALL of the power it needs needs to operate it then it has an infinite COP.

            The COP of an individual E-Catx may indeed be only 6.
            However, the breakthrough, which was the game changer was the claim that the E-Catx now efficiently produces it’s own electric.
            We don’t yet know how efficient that is so I admit that it is possible that it is very low and might still need external power in which case I agree COP can not be infinite.
            I think most of us accept that the E-CAT (heat only) was capable of a COP of 6 and AR claims the E-Cat is better.
            Nevertheless I will be conservative and use 6.
            A single 100W quark with a COP of only 6 has a TOTAL continuous, power input requirement including all controls of a mere 16.67W.
            (100/6)=16.67
            All we need to supply all of that 16.67W without external input is for the quark to operate with 16.67% electric output, the rest can be heat.
            Once started up the quark generates ALL of the 16.67W of input power itself so NO external input is required.
            Even allowing for an overal 50% fall in efficiency (as a result of outputting electric plus heat) it still outputs 16.7W electric plus 33.3W of heat.
            In order to remove the need for external power input at start up and for continuity you will need a battery and therefore about 20% electric for a short periods to charge the battery.
            So even 100% of the on going start up power comes from the E-catx.
            This would make it ideal for use off- grid and automobiles.
            Again, the COP is defined as Power out/Power in.
            For the overall system.
            Power out = 50W, Power in = zero.
            50/0 is infinite!!!!

            As I said, all this depends upon the heat only COP being about 6 or more.
            Plus the ability to produce electric without a significant drop in efficiency, 50% would be comfortably tolerable.

            One more point. If the overall COP is not infinite then cars will still need an additional energy source.
            That’s all I have to say, if your still not convinced we will have to wait and see.

          • LarryJ

            We can expect the ERV report within 3 weeks but that will have nothing to do with the quark.

            Rossi hopes to speak about the quark near the end of June when hopefully the preliminary R&D phase will have ended and he has promised to shed a little more light on it. That is closer to 12 weeks.

          • DrD

            I agree, we will have to wait till R&D is complete (F8 as he says) for specific details. Even then, I’m sure there will be a lot of unanswered questions.
            However, he has already told us that the quark (a 100W E-Catx) is an improved E-Cat, including more compact, more efficient, higher COP etc so the report will give us a very useful baseline and that is what I referred to. No direct information regarding the electric and light of course. I see the electric as the most significant break through second to his basic Ecat (Rossi effect).
            I can’t wait to here what overal COP the 1MW had achieved, 6, 20, more?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m not wondering the quark (downscaled X) so much. The powder has always been small/thin, so the device can also. Heat transfer depends on scale, but just means reengineering. The temperature/size combination is not unique since normal lightbulb filament is smaller and hotter than quark. Radiation shielding is not hard if X-rays are soft.
            The X’s direct electricity production is miraculous, though. I have no idea how it’s done. I thought thermophotovoltaics, but Rossi denied it.

          • Ged

            What about using a wire directly passing through the e-cat, like Celani? Or rather, two conductive plates running along the fuel chamber (cooler, less likely for thermal damage or reaction with the fuel)? All the LENR reaction needs to do is to create a voltage differential (an electric field could do this too) and it can drive a current.

  • Frank Acland

    OT: I wonder who owns these domains (registration info is private):

    http://www.ecatgenerator.com
    http://www.ecatgenerators.com

    • artefact

      There is a redirect to ecat.info

    • They have a really nice photograph which shows very good artistic taste. I wish I could get interested in the Quark, but I just can’t. I don’t see how the tiny little Quark could possibly be cost effective. I want an E-Cat Supernova, not a Quark. I hope Rossi does not stop working on bigger E-Cats.

      • Frank Acland

        According to AR the quarks can be used to make any size E-Cat you like.

        • Yea, but I just don’t see it. The cost structure makes no sense to me. Just because you can do something does not mean that it is efficient or affordable.

          BTW I just did a quick search, and most obvious URLs with LENR are already taken. *lenrsource.com*, however, seems to be available.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I tend to agree with your scepticism regarding cost structure. It’s possible that Rossi has been a bit carried away by the miniaturisation and temporarily forgotten economic reality. But on the other hand, usually Rossi is very cost aware. Maybe he knows what he’s doing also this time, maybe he has some clever concept how to change fuel in a large number of quarks. It’s also possible that, quite simply, in industrial units he’ll use larger E-cat X’s, instead of quarks.

        • bachcole

          I will believe it when I get confirmation.

          • LarryJ

            So will everybody. Not a very forward looking approach. More a rear view approach that is not particularly helpful in spreading the word about how the world is about to change.

          • bachcole

            That, my friend, is a ginormous and insulting mis-characterization, which you have done in the past to me. I refuse to be harangued by you in to believing your perspective. My current perspective I have made crystal clear, and no one yet has presented a good reason why is it wrong. My perspective is that Rossi has been talking about things so unlikely over the past 4 or 5 months that I remain unconvinced until such time as I see confirmation. All I need is confirmation, not you insulting me for being honesty with myself and everyone else.

          • Brent Buckner

            Bob Greenyer has written something along the lines of Rossi’s claims for the E-cat X being credible because the required mechanisms would follow very clearly from Greenyer’s understanding of MFMP’s LENR success.

          • bachcole

            Give me one good reason why I should believe Rossi concerning the latest wonders and miracles? Being helpful about spreading the news does not count. All I want and need is confirmation.

            I myself have gone through age related decline and have pulled out of it at least twice with radical improvement in my diet. I say this not to encourage other people to do likewise (which would be a good idea), but to point out that I have EXPERIENCED it twice, and I know that it could happen to Rossi and any other older people. {As I tell my son, if I don’t get enough sleep, I am elderly. If I get enough sleep, I am merely old.} So I want to see some confirmation before I will believe that these wonders and miracles are real and not the product of the imagination or confusion of a rapidly fading genius like Nikola Tesla.

            Please don’t respond unless you have confirmation that what Rossi has been saying lately is true. Everything else is just opinion.

          • vokzzi V

            I understand your frustration , but Rossi does not owe us anything . 99% of the world population does not know that Rossi exist.We have choices. We can ignore Rossi or wait with excitement and hope . I think it ‘s pretty fun to hang out here .

          • I think we are (mostly) aware that Rossi is under no obligation to prove any of his claims or even to provide any ‘ongoing’ information. I’m reasonably certain that this isn’t Bachcole’s point.

            Some commenters here have been following this story for five years or more, giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt when claims seemed absurdly extravagant, predictions of market entry failed to materialise, or facts seemed to contradict his statements, and perhaps a little weariness (or wariness) may be creeping in. Despite this, by and large most long-time contributors to this blog have remained ‘followers’, are prepared to accept provisionally most of what AR claims, and are fully convinced by the evidence that practical cold fusion reactors are real and that much is now taking place ‘behind the scenes’.

            In recent times though we have seen the e-cat evolve overnight from a clunky, often unreliable, heat producing prototype reactor system to wonderful easily controlled micro-reactors and now to equally wonderful electricity-generating devices – all unfortunately with no evidence for their existence other than statements on JoNP.

            Under the circumstances it would seem to me to be rather foolish to accept all these claims without question or some doubt, and a ‘hopeful suspension of disbelief’ is probably the best that some of us can manage these days.

            If the above makes me a ‘pathoskeptic’ in the eyes of some newer indentities posting here, then so be it – although in the interests of fairness I would suggest a quick flick through my long term comment history first, to see if such a label is justified.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I doubt everything at least a bit, but I see no reason to particularly doubt Rossi’s recent developments much more than the earlier ones. Rossi’s development over five years seems generally speaking consistent with the usual pattern of R&D proceeding in spurts.

          • Probably true, Pekka, but I’m playing ‘devil’s advocate’ by suggesting a neutral or even slightly skeptical viewpoint as a counter-balance to the sometimes unquestioning and excitable speculation that is occasionally apparent on this blog. I don’t expect this cautious approach to win me many ‘up-votes’!

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Upvotes are rarer nowadays than they used to be because only registered ones can vote. By the way, by “everything” I meant everything, not only AR.

          • bachcole

            I can only up-vote once, unfortunately.

          • bachcole

            I see accelerated age-decline, perhaps. That is why is do not fully embrace the wonders and miracles too hard for me to accept without confirmation. I pray (spiritual or religious, both are just fine) fervently that I am wrong.

          • bachcole

            I agree. I sit here quietly awaiting confirmation, neither believing nor disbelieving.

          • Bruce__H

            Good man!

            I think your attitude is healthy. The problem with just believing what people say is that they could be introducing their own expectations or imagination or confusion into the mix. This is why I, like you, would like objective evidence.

            I think this is a good stance to adopt when considering all sorts of claims. The problem is that others develop a quasi-religious attitude to their preferred beliefs and will call you a “skeptopath” for it. It isn’t pathological, though. It’s just ordinary, productive, skepticism.

          • clovis ray

            They don’t want the world to know just yet, though the time is getting short,

          • We don’t know in what ways the ‘world is about to change’ or even if it will – it is possible that all will not go smoothly, and that significant changes to energy supplies may still be a decade or more down the line.

            In the absence of firm evidence it would not only be irresponsible to attempt to proselytize, but also entirely pointless or even counterproductive. The technology of cold fusion is being developed out of the public gaze, following business logic that is entirely unaffected by anything a few bloggers have to say. We need to accept that we are just along for the ride.

          • bachcole

            Nicely put.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I’m not wondering the quark (downscaled X) so much. The powder has always been small/thin, so the device can also. Heat transfer depends on scale, but just means reengineering. The temperature/size combination is not unique since normal lightbulb filament is smaller and hotter than quark. Radiation shielding is not hard if X-rays are soft.
            The X’s direct electricity production is miraculous, though. I have no idea how it’s done. I thought thermophotovoltaics, but Rossi denied it.

          • Ged

            What about using a wire directly passing through the e-cat, like Celani? Or rather, two conductive plates running along the fuel chamber (cooler, less likely for thermal damage or reaction with the fuel)? All the LENR reaction needs to do is to create a voltage differential (an electric field could do this too) and it can drive a current.

      • g

        Perhaps you dont value off the grid options as much as others

        • We need both, big power plants and small power plants. There will be grid and off-grid requirements for electricity.

  • jaman73

    My comment, ” …can existing Leonardo Corp’s transfer techniques be used” should have said “can existing Leonardo Corp’s heat transfer techniques” ….. The words “heat transfer” means coolant flows etc. I originally said Industrial Heat’s heat transfer… but the words Industrial Heat transfer got changed to Leonardo Corp’s transfer. The intent of the question was to ask how control processors near the quark modules are cooled down. – Joseph

  • TVulgaris

    I would say reasonable acceptance of hundreds, perhaps thousands at this time, of papers by hundreds of researchers (in at least 20 countries I’m aware of off the top of my head) published over the past 27 years that have led to a building support of a perhaps-mislabeled phenomenon would identify your interest as other than malice, while a blanket rejection of the entire field because one of the primary tinkerers in the field has made unverified claims and exaggerated his early progress the opposite. Any relation to Mary_Yugo, by any chance?

    • Bruce__H

      The problem with what you say is that all sorts of crazy fields have evolved for themselves a supportive literature of thousands of papers maintained by hundreds of researchers. Think homeopathy or chiropracty. To exhibit the extent of the literature is not, in itself, an argument that what is being studied is real or that skepticism is unwarranted.

  • TVulgaris

    Why would a 3rd party allow plant space for something without commercial potential after 90 days? Unless it’s completely privately held, or an IH property, management would have to answer to shareholders- and I’d think IH would have to answer for different reasons, anyway.

  • Ryan

    My hope here is that these quarks can be scaled enough to do cool things with tech that may be coming down the pike. NASA appears to be continuing with research on the EMDrive and, if it works as hoped, we could see some dramatic changes in the world if we also were to have a power source that could easily be put in place to run it. http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/nasa-is-in-process-of-getting-another.html

  • Ryan

    My hope here is that these quarks can be scaled enough to do cool things with tech that may be coming down the pike. NASA appears to be continuing with research on the EMDrive and, if it works as hoped, we could see some dramatic changes in the world if we also were to have a power source that could easily be put in place to run it. http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/nasa-is-in-process-of-getting-another.html

  • georgehants

    All this is potentially Wonderful but for me only the report is at this time of importance.
    We need yet another countdown clock on page.
    Without loosing faith in anything, I get the feeling that many of us are a bit shell shocked continually waiting for that final conformation from Mr. Rossi et al.
    Also no other clear replications of real worth from anywhere in the
    World, not in anyway putting down the Wonderful work of MFMP etc.
    I know I am a bit ragged from it all.

    • C. Kirk

      I have zero doubts that the Rossi effect is real and very potent…. the only question I have is how close to mass commercialization is the 1MW plant…. If the ERV report is positive that will add a lot of credence to Rossi’s statements about QuarkX (which of course has the potential to be hugely transformational) so yes the suspense now is incredible…

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Wendy March 19, 2016 at 2:23 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    A 1 MW plant made by the QuarkX Ecat would be smaller of the 1 MW E-Cat tested for one year ?
    Thanks, Wendy

    Andrea Rossi March 19, 2016 at 8:42 AM
    Wendy:
    Much smaller. I think it could be contained in a cubic meter.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • DrD

      Frustrating, all this waiting.
      We should have a poll.
      1) What dimensions will be the quark?
      2) What will be the COP of the first E-Catx?
      My guesses
      1) 3 x 3 x 10 (cm).
      2) Infinite (no external power at all needed after start-up).

  • LarryJ

    Ouch! Don’t poke the bear.

  • HiggsField

    The question I would like to throw out there: Is the E-Cat another EEStor?

    I remain a firm skeptic of Rossi. I’m just not convinced, sorry! What will this group be saying two years from now when we are still waiting for something truly definitive to happen?

    • I hope so, because EEStor is a legit company with world changing tech.

      • HiggsField

        Really!!

    • Ged

      That’s the beautiful thing, time will tell! Why guess, when all you have to do is wait 2 years to find out ;)?

      • HiggsField

        Well the problem is I’ve already waited 2 years and a great deal longer than that. There are indications IH may be distancing themselves from Rossi which should be very concerning for all. There is god reason the doubt any of the results that have today been published. Scientists are unfortunately among the easiest people to fool when it come to trickery.

        • Ged

          There are absolutely no indications IH is distancing from Rossi. Quite the opposite, so don’t get pulled into that meaningless hole.

          What results have been published today? I may have missed something, and your sentence is a bit unclear, so please correct me if I have.

          The fact of the matter is -a lot- has advanced and developed over the last two years, and plenty of what Rossi has said has indeed come true.

          Scientists listen to data, just what the data says. We can only be -temporarily- fooled by fabricated or falsified data, but inevitably such is Always exposed as soon as anyone goes to replicate, continue, or expand the work. The whole cloned human embryoes debacle is a good example of that, and the time frame involved for the truth to correct.

          So far, the data is mounting in support of Rossi from multiple angles; yet that could always change. But, one thing we scientists seem to understand that you may overlook, is that data collection and evaluation takes time. Two years is to us what a work week is to you, so unfortunately I must apologize for my failure to sympathise with that scale’s pain of waiting.

          But do not fear! All things are coming to a head now, and a final confrontation will be in merely months. Then you will have strong evidence one way or another, as IH is making big moves and it won’t be long till we know why. So, two years is not how long you have to wait now to be certain of Rossi’s exposure or vidication. Just a single scientist’s equivilant to an afternoon ;).

          • HiggsField

            I see your a passionate supporter, and that’s OK. I will not go through the litany of issues I have with what has been published from tests etc, going right back to the beginning of this saga. “We scientists”.. I should point out that I’m an Engineer but you do not know me, what companies I’ve worked for, or how credentialed I happen to be. I would love this to be real thing, but I think it’s not. I’m very concerned by the lack of definitive replications. I’m pleased that IH is investing in this arena, but Universities are not jumping on board, that’s an issue. I’m an ardent supporter of BLP, but I’m not holding my breath that we will see anything that really works. Same here with Rossi. I hope I’m wrong, but you can buy me a beer if I turn out to be right;)

          • Ged

            I am no passionate supporter, I just like to watch :). But I do call out silliness when I see it, sometimes. There are plenty of issues, but there is also plenty of support, so no one can make any definitive claim till we see what’s coming next (other than IH based on what they’ve seen, but they aren’t telling yet).

            If it doesn’t work and the house of cards falls down, oh well. But until we have proof, I’m not buying claims one way or the other. Since Rossi refuses ordinary people’s money (e.g. you or I), and investments by public funds like Woodford are made to IH, not him, I’m not so worried about how this turns out (Rossi would be the worst scam artist in history if that is what this is; for a good scam, see Maria Duval http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/psychic-maria-duval-chapter-one/ ).

            Universities are on board, SKINR for instance was spun off of those efforts, but the problem is the “reputation trap” and that keeps them “under the radar”. Universities, which I have far more experience with than I sometimes like, are extremely political. Reputation means more than it should, to an irrational degree more often than not. Part of that is simply because science is messy, and people want something to simplify that mess, and “reputations” help. Sometimes they are justly and duly earned. But serious issues arise when an entire subject becomes black marked or politicized, and rationality as well as empirical investigation gets tossed out the window. But there are folks at MIT, at University of Missouri, at Russian and Japanese and Italian universities, that are working on this (a few inspired directly by Rossi, but also other tangential work), so it’s wrong to say that universities aren’t on board.

            And it’s easy to forget all we’ve already seen! A great deal of all the nay saying is simple forgetfulness, so we are witnessing lately.

            Anyways, my point that was countering your concern about another 2 year wait, is don’t worry about it. We -will know- soon enough. Data is all that matters, and it is always flowing in. If BLP works, awesome. If Rossi works, awesome. If none work, awesome, as now we have more data and know more about the world.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting remark and ditto answer from AR:
    In the past AR said that the Quarks are microprocessor controlled. But that doesn’t say anything. My television and radio receiver are too. The only question is how many of these Quarks are controlled by one uP?

    Jones
    March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM
    DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment on this:

    There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small – 100 Watts. This would make a conventional control system for a large plant seem excessive. I wonder is the new design is sufficiently stable that, after start up, it can be controlled by varying the amount of electricity extracted.

    Answer AR: “The comment on Vortex is intelligent”.

    • Rene

      It does not matter if e-cat XYZZY are microprocessor controlled/managed, relay logic driven or based on fluidics logic. What matters is the control mechanism itself (heat, RF, magnetics, electrostatics, etc.), how small that mechanism is determines complexity. How quickly that mechanism maintains linearity determines efficacy. None of that has been disclosed to any useful degree.
      My guess is that small reactors make for small thermal mass, hence lower latency for the controlling mechanisms – a good thing.

      • Gerard McEk

        It can be that by ‘extracting a varying amount of electrical energy’ the total power of the QuarkX can be controlled. I would imagine that the more power you extract, the lower output energy. Not very useful for the usage of the electrical power. Today Rossy admitted that using these small multiple QuarkX’s units improves the controllability of the output power.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting remark and ditto answer from AR:
    In the past AR said that the Quarks are microprocessor controlled. But that doesn’t say anything. My television and radio receiver are too. The only question is how many of these Quarks are controlled by one uP?

    Jones
    March 20, 2016 at 8:15 AM
    DR Rossi – interesting comment on Vortex-L by a ashfield could you comment on this:

    There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small – 100 Watts. This would make a conventional control system for a large plant seem excessive. I wonder is the new design is sufficiently stable that, after start up, it can be controlled by varying the amount of electricity extracted.

    Answer AR: “The comment on Vortex is intelligent”.

    • Rene

      It does not matter if e-cat XYZZY are microprocessor controlled/managed, relay logic driven or based on fluidics logic. What matters is the control mechanism itself (heat, RF, magnetics, electrostatics, etc.), how small that mechanism is determines complexity. How quickly that mechanism maintains linearity determines efficacy. None of that has been disclosed to any useful degree.
      My guess is that small reactors make for small thermal mass, hence lower latency for the controlling mechanisms – a good thing.

      • Gerard McEk

        It can be that by ‘extracting a varying amount of electrical energy’ the total power of the QuarkX can be controlled. I would imagine that the more power you extract, the lower output energy. Not very useful for the usage of the electrical power. Today Rossy admitted that using these small multiple QuarkX’s units improves the controllability of the output power.

  • Lars Lindberg

    Lars

    March 20, 2016 at 6:18 AM

    Can the quark be seperated from the E Cat heat energy source? So it can be used with other heat energy sources?

    Translate

    Andrea Rossi

    March 20, 2016 at 7:34 AM

    Lars:

    Yes.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Lars Lindberg

      Matt

      March 20, 2016 at 5:45 PM

      Whatever happened to the hot cat? You just stopped talking about it one day.

      Translate

      Andrea Rossi

      March 20, 2016 at 6:05 PM

      Matt:

      The Hot Cat is evolved into the E-Cat QuarkX. So far. F8, F9.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    • So it looks like the ecat-x has now evolved into two separate inventions, a nucleonic heater and a 100W reactor that also acts as a power converter (thermoelectric? photovoltaic?) by optimising one or the other function (or perhaps a 2-part unit that can be split into separate heater and converter units).

      Either way, two groundbreaking inventions for the price of one would be rather impressive, but could also be disruptive in a business sense, for the reasons I’ve suggested in earlier posts (to the irritation of several commenters it would seem).

      Mar 17: “Does this technology hold any potential for transforming heat which is not produced from the e-cat operation but comes from another source into electricity?” AR: yes

      Mar 20: “Can the quark be seperated from the E Cat heat energy source? So it can be used with other heat energy sources?” AR: yes

  • Mike Henderson

    Can lead-containing photovoltaics (perovskites) convert high energy rays to electricity with high efficiency?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell
    https://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-novel-material-turns-space-radiation-into-electr/

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Mike, yes, I was looking at methylammonium lead iodide after GS5.2 with a view to explaining claims for the E-Cat X-Ray electricity output before Pekka reminded me about the approach used by Focus Fusion ( layers of conductors ).

      Can the LiNiH3 be formed without the pressure?
      http://scitation.aip.org.sci-hub.io/content/aip/journal/apl/102/9/10.1063/1.4794067

      What is the response of Li + Ni + H compounds to photons?

      • Michael W Wolf

        Yet another rabbit hole. So few working on all the complexities needed to engineer these units. It really is sad that every scientist on earth should be figuring this out. And yet the few mighty men are ridiculed for not bringing to market a device thousands should be working on.

  • bachcole

    I’m stuck on F9 until I get confirmation. (:->)

    • Guru Khalsa

      Don’t forget F8. In fact if you add the 8 and the 9 you get 17 which is an unlucky number in Italy. Sort of the Italian equivalent of 13.

      • bachcole

        What is F8?

        • artefact

          Something like: I can disclose more about the quarks only after the R&D with them is completed.

        • Skip

          Fate?
          😉

        • Guru Khalsa

          F9= the results of the test can be positive or negative
          F8= I cannot disclose this information

          • bachcole

            F7 = I neither believe nor disbelieve??? (:->)

          • wpj

            Hurray! Been searching everywhere for F8 = ????? Seem to have missed it somehow!

        • LarryJ

          F9= If the results of the 1 MW test are positive but could also be negative
          F8=If the preliminary R&D of the ecatx/Quark is positive

      • Bob Greenyer

        And if you take 8 from 9 it equals 1, which in logic systems is most often used to define a positive outcome.

  • hempenearth

    Frank (or anyone) I think I’ve missed something – interview/news conference with Mats in Sweden in June OK, but I don’t see that that means the Quark X will be introduced in the USA before that. I thought the Sweden gig was mostly about the year long test of the 1MW plant and the report about it due out mid April (latest).

    • Frank Acland

      My understanding is that Rossi’s press conference will be independent of Mats’ conference, although Mats says AR has agreed to attend and do an on-stage interview. I have also heard through private channels that there could be some kind of event connected to the E-Cat X in the USA prior to the Sweden meeting.

      • hempenearth

        Ok, thanks for that

  • This comment seems to mean that the ‘quark’ is a power converter (thermoelectric? photovoltaic in the UV/X-ray spectrum?) that operates at high efficiency, while e-cat x is a nucleonic heater, and it is the combination of the two that produces electrical power.

    But the story over Christmas was that Rossi had an idea, made some changes and was able to produce DC power from his prototype ecat-x. The only scenario that seems to fit is that Rossi was separately experimenting with a power converter (perhaps a development of the type he invented earlier in his career) and he suddenly decided to add one of these to an operating e-cat x, with successful results.

    Or have I missed or forgotten one or more salient posts? (Not entirely unprecedented.).

  • NCkhawk

    I’m guessing that all IH wants for Easter is an E-Cat with a COP>1. Seriously starting to wonder if we’ll know more by April Fools Day? . Most of you folks are giving Rossi way too much credibility and credit. Mats is putting his reputation and future on the line – quite a gamble in my opinion. Why are only a handful of folks on here willing to question the exponentially growing splendor of Rossi’s tale? If he truly has a 100W quark that produces electricity (or maybe even excess heat), then he has beat the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks team record for technological breakthrough / progress / results with their SR71 Blackbird (18 months). How much money and manpower did they have compared to Rossi? Its all just too fanstastical for me.
    .

    • Hi all

      The way that big secrets are kept is by the masses incredulity.

      Kind Regards walker

    • DrD

      Well, four weeks from now we will all know if you’re right or wrong.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Well if Rossi and Mills are on to the same phenomenon, and Mills’ power density is much much greater, then it stands to reason that Rossi could scale up his power density greatly. So 100watts for a cigarette pack sized reactor is not too extreme.

  • Skip

    Fate?
    😉

  • clovis ray

    Great news, maybe we can go and see it live,

  • clovis ray

    Great news, maybe we can go and see it live,

  • peacelovewoodstock

    No U.S. trademark registered for “quark” related to energy production … a chance for a front runner to “get involved”! FWIW no trademark registered for “luxenergy” either

    • magicsnd1

      Quark was the name of a 1970’s sci-fi sitcom. Their mission was collecting space garbage, with a ship that looked like an old plastic kids toy. The science officer was a Vegeton named (get ready….) Ficus. Good stuff and there are some re-runs you can find on u-tube. It’s also available on DVD (all 8 episodes). http://quark.name

      And let’s not forget Quark the Ferengi, from the Star Trek series.

      • peacelovewoodstock

        The TV show rings a bell, I must have seen it at least once but those were times of frequent heavy ingestion of delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol so memory is a bit hazy!

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Perhaps the e-Cat X is a thermionic converter lithium vapor. Сonversion factor heat to electricity will 20%.

  • US_Citizen71

    The color of the light is likely a function of the temperature of the QuarkX. If you have watched any of MFMP’s experiments you have seen the light emitted by their Glowstick change depending on its temperature the QuarkX would be no different.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Q: Dear Mr. Rossi, you say, that the e-catx produces light. It is very easy to convert electricity in light. With LEDs we have very advanced sources of light and the next generation of LEDs, organic LEDs, are on the way. So what are the special advantages of an e-catx as a light source compared to existing light sources?

      Andrea Rossi
      March 24, 2016 at 3:39 PM
      Hergen:
      I hope the COP. F8, F9.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      This seems to suggest that the light is not (primarily) produced by incandescence, which is extremely inefficient. On the other hand it remains unclear what exactly he meant by “COP” in this case. In case that the light is just “waste light” that is exploited in addition to heat and electricity you could be right.

      • US_Citizen71

        The special advantage could be that it is self powering. I work in marketing any add-on use tends to be mentioned about a product. Anything small and dense makes a great paper-weight. : ) Dream but don’t raise your expectations, I believe Rossi/IH are nearing the announcement phase, marketing language and attitudes are going to increase in their communications.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I am not at all dreaming. Although I must admit that I would be a little disappointed if Rossi had just reinvented the light bulb. I asked him about this yesterday, and he replied “No.”

      • Ged

        Haha. Actually, I read that as him making a joke, saying he’s hoping the difference between the E-catX and all other light sources is a positive COP for the E-cat. Afterall, he’s trying to make a reactor, not a fancy light bulb (so one would hope!).

      • DrD

        Because I believe the quark will produce enough electric to power itself and its controls and have enough left to produce heat and/or light. Hence, once started it needs no external power input at all. You know how COP is defined — power out/power in. Power in =zero, so what’s the COP?
        F9
        3 weeks and we might know.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          With an ‘infinite’ COP it would make no difference whether you produce the light directly or by the generated electricity. But actually, the COP is not infinite, as has been pointed out here many times. So if the light were produced by incandescence it would likely be a waste of energy to use the E-Cat as a light source, since together with the visible light a lot of IR radiation would escape that could otherwise be captured. For these and other reasons I think that the problem is more complex than it might seem at first sight.

          • DrD

            I doubt it will be by incandescence but does it really matter and yes, it doesn’t matter much if the COPs infinite but you would still need a bigger unit if the light producing efficiency isn’t so high.

            As for that COP, so far the COP’s achieved by most are very small, certainly not infinite. In fact few are better than heat pumps but I was referring to the future possibility of the E-Catx.
            It’s very basic maths.
            If the quark can produce more continuous electrical power output than ALL of the power it needs needs to operate it then it has an infinite COP.

            The COP of an individual E-Catx may indeed be only 6.
            However, the breakthrough, which was the game changer was the claim that the E-Catx now efficiently produces it’s own electric.
            We don’t yet know how efficient that is so I admit that it is possible that it is very low and might still need external power in which case I agree COP can not be infinite.
            I think most of us accept that the E-CAT (heat only) was capable of a COP of 6 and AR claims the E-Cat is better.
            Nevertheless I will be conservative and use 6.
            A single 100W quark with a COP of only 6 has a TOTAL continuous, power input requirement including all controls of a mere 16.67W.
            (100/6)=16.67
            All we need to supply all of that 16.67W without external input is for the quark to operate with 16.67% electric output, the rest can be heat.
            Once started up the quark generates ALL of the 16.67W of input power itself so NO external input is required.
            Even allowing for an overal 50% fall in efficiency (as a result of outputting electric plus heat) it still outputs 16.7W electric plus 33.3W of heat.
            In order to remove the need for external power input at start up and for continuity you will need a battery and therefore about 20% electric for short periods to charge the battery.
            So even 100% of the on going start up power comes from the E-catx.
            This would make it ideal for use off- grid and automobiles.
            Again, the COP is defined as Power out/Power in.
            For the overall system.
            Power out = 50W, Power in = zero.
            50/0 is infinite!!!!

            As I said, all this depends upon the heat only COP being about 6 or more.
            Plus the ability to produce electric without a significant drop in efficiency, 50% would be comfortably tolerable.

            One more point. If the overall COP is not infinite then cars will still need an additional energy source.
            That’s all I have to say, if your still not convinced we will have to wait and see.

        • LarryJ

          We can expect the ERV report within 3 weeks but that will have nothing to do with the quark.

          Rossi hopes to speak about the quark near the end of June when hopefully the preliminary R&D phase will have ended and he has promised to shed a little more light on it. That is closer to 12 weeks.

          • DrD

            I agree, we will have to wait till R&D is complete (F8 as he says) for specific details. Even then, I’m sure there will be a lot of unanswered questions.
            However, he has already told us a lot about that the quark (a 100W E-Catx) is an improved E-Cat, most importantly, it is more compact, more efficient, higher COP etc so the report will give us a very useful baseline and that is what I referred to. No direct information regarding the electric and light of course. I see the electric as the most significant break through second to his basic Ecat (Rossi effect).
            I can’t wait to here what overal COP the 1MW had achieved, 6, 20, more?

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Amos March 25, 2016 at 2:31 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    1. Is it possible to replace nickel with Platinum to boost power for applications were cost is not a factor, like space propulsion, and for people / businesses that can afford higher prices for the E-Cat?
    2. How quickly can the Quark X be stopped and started? Vehicles need something that can stop/start relatively instantly.
    3. How will refueling work for the Quarks installed in cars?
    Regards, Amos

    Andrea Rossi March 25, 2016 at 6:33 AM
    Amos:
    1- yes, the possible use of Pt is written in my US Patent, independently from the applications
    2- seconds
    3- I will tell you when we will have cars working with the E-Cat ( F8, F9 ).
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Omega Z

      As to #2, what would be more important is how long to come to full power.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Does this mean that the light can be emitted from the reactor without any shielding issues for other radiations?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Does this mean that the light can be emitted from the reactor without any shielding issues for other radiations?

  • Tadej

    Rainbow of colors, thats nice.

  • Tadej

    Rainbow of colors, thats nice.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland March 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You said recently that your problem is the multitude of your potential customers. I think this could be a major challenge, as when people realize what your E-Cats can do, the demand will be huge. You will essentially be starting from nothing, to where you need to be producing millions of units a year immediately to meet expectations. Can you realistically do it? Or should we be prepared for very long waiting lists for delivery of E-cat products?
    Best wishes,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi March 25, 2016 at 9:21 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Leonardo Corporation is prepared and ready.
    The deliveries of all the robotized lines will be fast, the factory is already ready and I designed the E-Cat QuarkX in a way that will ease the manufacturing, because I have designed it together with the robot experts I am working with and the electronic engineers I am making with the prototypes.
    Leonardo Corporation is ready, do not worry. We will be very fast with the distribution, because we want to burn out ALL our possible competitors, whose only strategy I can see is hope to be ready to copy our products, pretending they will have invented them. They will be beaten in two fronts: patent violation and price: Leonardo Corporation will start immediately with very low prices, due to the massive production they will not be ready to do. I have pretty good intelligence about all what is happening around, what really is behind the chatters and there is nobody ready with any structure necessary to compete with us, let alone a product. Leonardo Corporation will have warships, they will have paper ships, made of the same substance of my paper ships I used to make and test in the fountain of the zoo of Milan ( Milano, Italy ) when I was 4 years old.
    F8, F9.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • DrD

      Amen and Amen.

    • Tom59

      AR in overdrive mode… and so far he has delivered on his promises. I propose to start a new calendar after an event, which will truly benefit mankind: Year 1 NT (New Times).

    • artefact

      I wonder if the serious competitor is brilliantlightpower…

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland March 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You said recently that your problem is the multitude of your potential customers. I think this could be a major challenge, as when people realize what your E-Cats can do, the demand will be huge. You will essentially be starting from nothing, to where you need to be producing millions of units a year immediately to meet expectations. Can you realistically do it? Or should we be prepared for very long waiting lists for delivery of E-cat products?
    Best wishes,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi March 25, 2016 at 9:21 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Leonardo Corporation is prepared and ready.
    The deliveries of all the robotized lines will be fast, I already signed the MOU, the factory is already ready and I designed the E-Cat QuarkX in a way that will ease the manufacturing, because I have designed it together with the robot experts I am working with and the electronic engineers I am making with the prototypes.
    Leonardo Corporation is ready, do not worry. We will be very fast with the distribution, because we want to burn out ALL our possible competitors, whose only strategy I can see is hope to be ready to copy our products, pretending they will have invented them. They will be beaten in two fronts: patent violation and price: Leonardo Corporation will start immediately with very low prices, due to the massive production they will not be ready to do. I have pretty good intelligence about all what is happening around, what really is behind the chatters and there is nobody ready with any structure necessary to compete with us, let alone a product. Leonardo Corporation will have warships, they will have paper ships, made of the same substance of my paper ships I used to make and test in the fountain of the zoo of Milan ( Milano, Italy ) when I was 4 years old, with the engineering assistance of my dad. This having been said, I must add that there is also some competitor that is working very seriously and upon technology really different from ours: but they don’t talk, as I did until 2011.
    F8, F9.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    Edit: he changed the text a bit

    • DrD

      Amen and Amen.

    • Tom59

      AR in overdrive mode… and so far he has delivered on his promises. I propose to start a new calendar after an event, which will truly benefit mankind: Year 1 NT (New Times).

    • artefact

      I wonder if the serious competitor is brilliantlightpower…

  • Reminds me of how a laser beam can be different colors.

  • Reminds me of how a laser beam can be different colors.

  • “choose to have a quark emit red or blue” (or white)

    Could use use Quarks to produce both the electricity and the light needed to run a professional theater digital projector?

    • US_Citizen71

      Doubt it, I think the light is just incandescence and an added advantage. LED’s and other light sources including lasers can do the job better and with less heat generation to deal with.

  • “choose to have a quark emit red or blue” (or white)

    Could use use Quarks to produce both the electricity and the light needed to run a professional theater digital projector?

    • US_Citizen71

      I doubt it, I think the light is just incandescence and an added advantage. LED’s and other light sources including lasers can do the job better and with less heat generation to deal with.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Any body heated1400 degrees Celsius emits in the visible range. There are methods for increasing the light output of incandescent bodies in Nernst lamps or caps Auer.

    • Roland

      The colour temperature of the hydrino reaction is on the order of 5,000C and the energy densities are extreme, hence the engineering challenges.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Any body heated1400 degrees Celsius emits in the visible range. There are methods for increasing the light output of incandescent bodies in Nernst lamps or caps Auer.

    • Roland

      The colour temperature of the hydrino reaction is on the order of 5,000C and the energy densities are extreme, hence the engineering challenges.

  • We need both, big power plants and small power plants. There will be grid and off-grid requirements for electricity.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Well that is easy. Just create the best light spectrum that is most efficient for Photovoltaics and convert into electricity, like Mills.

    • Ged

      Problem with photovoltaics in any setting is the same–very inefficient. The majority of the light (>80%) will just be wasted. There are plenty of better ways to extract energy, such as heat transfer with molten salts, which are very effective (~70% efficiency for MS versus ~20% for PV).

      • Michael W Wolf

        Yes, Mills has said that also. PV is really in it’s infancy, So time will improve efficiency. Ecat x will produce light no matter what electricity it produces. Mills says his system will just dump heat as a by product only. Because the PV is efficient enough for tremendous power. He said more or less the heat is a problem not the power. Mills also discussed the unknown longevity of PV. It may be the only restricting integration of his system to keep it from lasting 10-20 years per unit. You should listen to his last demo, he discusses it with a representative from the PV company that is engineering a system for his reactor.

      • Roland

        PV efficiencies improve with energy density which is why Mills is going with PVs originally designed for concentrator solar arrays where mirrors focus arriving sunlight from a large area onto a small high temperature PV with approximately 60% conversion efficiency.

        Given fuel costs, pure water, efficiency isn’t as significant a variable in commercial considerations as you might initially think. The latent heat left over is to be dumped into a truck radiator without, so far, trying to recover that potential as well.

        We’ll see how this plays out in the engineered system as several other ideas, such as the mechanical fuel ignition design and PVs directly exposed to the reaction, had serious shortcomings that only became apparent when they were actually built and run.

        Pretty much par for the course with experimental technologies, try it, fail, learn something, have a fresh idea, try again.

        • Michael W Wolf

          I was thinking that too. If he is pulsing 2000 times a second, that may be a lot of wear and tear on those PV’s. They are not really made for that and may be a problem. It was mentioned at the demo, but Mills did not seem too concerned about it. But then again he needs to play down obstacles to keep up confidence, so we will see soon enough.

          • artefact

            The PVs do not see the pulses. There is a thin plate of Tungsten between the reactor and the PVs. The Tungsten is supposed to glow bright from the heat of the light radiation. That is what the PVs then use.

          • US_Citizen71

            It would convert soft X Rays to visible light as well since they would be absorbed.

          • Roland

            Exactly; this is the current envisioned solution to the problems associated with directly exposing the PV cells to the reaction. The actual engineered execution of this idea may end this particular chapter or reveal fresh design deficiencies.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Oic, why were they talking about the extra strain on to PV’s from the sun cell? I assumed it was the pulse rate.

    • DrD

      Why? It’s far more efficient to use ut to generte its own light Or electric or heat. The fuel only lasts a year.

      • pangoo

        It depends on the efficiency of the electricity-only quark. How it would compare to Mills method with photovoltaics is the real question. Electricity generation is the real goal.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Hmm, if it produces all three, PV could make use of the light portion. I can’t see where it produces either or, I think it would produce all three. Unless Rossi came up with some ground breaking multi conversion system. When I used the term efficient, I was referring to the PV efficiency not the ecat x.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Well that is easy. Just create the best light spectrum that is most efficient for Photovoltaics and convert into electricity, like Mills.

    • Ged

      Problem with photovoltaics in any setting is the same–very inefficient. The majority of the light (>80%) will just be wasted. There are plenty of better ways to extract energy, such as heat transfer with molten salts, which are very effective (~70% efficiency for MS versus ~20% for PV).

      • Michael W Wolf

        Yes, Mills has said that also. PV is really in it’s infancy, So time will improve efficiency. Ecat x will produce light no matter what electricity it produces. Mills says his system will just dump heat as a by product only. Because the PV is efficient enough for tremendous power. He said more or less the heat is a problem not the power. To convert the heat to electricity would add too much weight for non industrial use. Mills also discussed the unknown longevity of PV. It may be the only restricting integration of his system to keep it from lasting 10-20 years per unit. You should listen to his last demo, he discusses it with a representative from the PV company that is engineering a system for his reactor. The more I hear from Rossi, the more it sounds like he has “mini” suncells.

      • Roland

        PV efficiencies improve with energy density which is why Mills is going with PVs originally designed for concentrator solar arrays where mirrors focus arriving sunlight from a large area onto a small high temperature PV with approximately 60% conversion efficiency.

        Given fuel costs, pure water, efficiency isn’t as significant a variable in commercial considerations as you might initially think. The latent heat left over is to be dumped into a truck radiator without, so far, trying to recover that potential as well.

        We’ll see how this plays out in the engineered system as several other ideas, such as the mechanical fuel ignition design and PVs directly exposed to the reaction, had serious shortcomings that only became apparent when they were actually built and run.

        Pretty much par for the course with experimental technologies, try it, fail, learn something, have a fresh idea, try again.

        • Michael W Wolf

          I was thinking that too. If he is pulsing 2000 times a second, that may be a lot of wear and tear on those PV’s. They are not really made for that and may be a problem. It was mentioned at the demo, but Mills did not seem too concerned about it. But then again he needs to play down obstacles to keep up confidence, so we will see soon enough.

          • artefact

            The PVs do not see the pulses. There is a thin plate of Tungsten between the reactor and the PVs. The Tungsten is supposed to glow bright from the heat of the light radiation. That is what the PVs then use.

          • US_Citizen71

            It would convert soft X Rays to visible light as well since they would be absorbed.

          • Roland

            Exactly; this is the current envisioned solution to the problems associated with directly exposing the PV cells to the reaction. The actual engineered execution of this idea may end this particular chapter or reveal fresh design deficiencies.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Oic, why were they talking about the extra strain on to PV’s from the sun cell? I assumed it was the pulse rate.

    • DrD

      Why? It’s far more efficient to use it to generate its own light Or electric or heat. The fuel only lasts a year.

      • pangoo

        It depends on the efficiency of the electricity-only quark. How it would compare to Mills method with photovoltaics is the real question. Electricity generation is the real goal.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Hmm, if it produces all three, PV could make use of the light portion. I can’t see where it produces either or, I think it would produce all three. Unless Rossi came up with some ground breaking multi conversion system. When I used the term efficient, I was referring to the PV efficiency not the ecat x.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Set a working 100 watt quark on a glass stand. Employ it to charge a battery. Draw power from the battery to light three 14 watt LED bulbs and provide warmth with the excess energy. Turn demo on. House the whole set- up in a clear, hard plastic, ventilated bubble. Let stand for fifty years. The working demonstration may, when the 50 years have passed by, have convinced a few establishment physicists that Rossi and LENR are the genuine article.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      add: changing charge once a year, say.

    • Oystein Lande

      Think not 😉
      Since It would only confirm that wireless transfer of energy is possible as per established physics 😉

      • Fibber McGourlick

        Wouldn’t include wireless receiver

        • Oystein Lande

          The only procedure that will convince the mainstream science of LENR is a recipe in a scentific paper that mainstream scientists may use to make a replication of LENR. And then witness the effect with their own eyes from a device produced by Themselves with no influence from outsiders.

          • Fibber McGourlick

            My post was meant as irony. Didn’t work, I guess.

          • Karl Venter

            And why do we want to convince mainstream scientists?
            They have been such great support over past 20 or so.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Set a working 100 watt quark on a glass stand. Employ it to charge a battery. Draw power from the battery to light three 14 watt LED bulbs and provide warmth with the excess energy. Turn demo on. House the whole set- up in a clear, hard plastic, ventilated bubble. Let stand for fifty years. The working demonstration may, when the 50 years have passed by, have convinced a few establishment physicists that Rossi and LENR are the genuine article.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      add: changing charge once a year, say.

    • Oystein Lande

      Think not 😉
      Since It would only confirm that wireless transfer of energy is possible as per established physics 😉

      • Fibber McGourlick

        Wouldn’t include wireless receiver

        • Oystein Lande

          The only procedure that will convince the mainstream science of LENR is a recipe in a scentific paper that mainstream scientists may use to make a replication of LENR. And then witness the effect with their own eyes from a device produced by Themselves with no influence from outsiders.

          • Fibber McGourlick

            My post was meant as irony. Didn’t work, I guess.

          • Karl Venter

            And why do we want to convince mainstream scientists?
            They have been such great support over past 20 or so.

  • Ged

    There are absolutely no indications IH is distancing from Rossi. Quite the opposite, so don’t get pulled into that meaningless hole.

    What results have been published today? I may have missed something, and your sentence is a bit unclear, so please correct me if I have.

    The fact of the matter is -a lot- has advanced and developed over the last two years, and plenty of what Rossi has said has indeed come true.

    Scientists listen to data, just what the data says. We can only be -temporarily- fooled by fabricated or falsified data, but inevitably such is Always exposed as soon as anyone goes to replicate, continue, or expand the work. The whole cloned human embryoes debacle is a good example of that, and the time frame involved for the truth to correct.

    So far, the data is mounting in support of Rossi from multiple angles; yet that could always change. But, one thing we scientists seem to understand that you may overlook, is that data collection and evaluation takes time. Two years is to us what a work week is to you, so unfortunately I must apologize for my failure to sympathise with that scale’s pain of waiting.

    But do not fear! All things are coming to a head now, and a final confrontation will be in merely months. Then you will have strong evidence one way or another, as IH is making big moves and it won’t be long till we know why. So, two years is not how long you have to wait now to be certain of Rossi’s exposure or vidication. Just a single scientist’s equivilant to an afternoon ;).

  • Ged

    I am no passionate supporter, I just like to watch :). But I do call out silliness when I see it, sometimes. There are plenty of issues, but there is also plenty of support, so no one can make any definitive claim till we see what’s coming next (other than IH based on what they’ve seen, but they aren’t telling yet).

    If it doesn’t work and the house of cards falls down, oh well. But until we have proof, I’m not buying claims one way or the other. Since Rossi refuses ordinary people’s money (e.g. you or I), and investments by public funds like Woodford are made to IH, not him, I’m not so worried about how this turns out (Rossi would be the worst scam artist in history if that is what this is; for a good scam, see Maria Duval http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/psychic-maria-duval-chapter-one/ ).

    Universities are on board, SKINR for instance was spun off of those efforts, but the problem is the “reputation trap” and that keeps them “under the radar”. Universities, which I have far more experience with than I sometimes like, are extremely political. Reputation means more than it should, to an irrational degree more often than not. Part of that is simply because science is messy, and people want something to simplify that mess, and “reputations” help. Sometimes they are justly and duly earned. But serious issues arise when an entire subject becomes black marked or politicized, and rationality as well as empirical investigation gets tossed out the window. But there are folks at MIT, at University of Missouri, at Russian and Japanese and Italian universities, that are working on this (a few inspired directly by Rossi, but also other tangential work), so it’s wrong to say that universities aren’t on board.

    And it’s easy to forget all we’ve already seen! A great deal of all the nay saying is simple forgetfulness, so we are witnessing lately.

    Anyways, my point that was countering your concern about another 2 year wait, is don’t worry about it. We -will know- soon enough. Data is all that matters, and it is always flowing in. If BLP works, awesome. If Rossi works, awesome. If none work, awesome, as now we have more data and know more about the world.

  • bachcole

    “Light From QuarkX Can be ‘Tuned’ to Certain Colors”. These are the kinds of miracles and wonders that I am having problems with. Among E-Cat believers, am I the only one having trouble with these kinds of miracles and wonders?

    • Oystein Lande

      No, you are not 😉

    • Stephen Haigh

      This is what happens when you start to get an understanding of the underlying theory. Until then youre just trial and error experimenting, a true understanding allows “miraculous” design. My view is that Rossi/Cook are developing this understanding given that they have lots of experimental data to shape their theories.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        It seems to me that Rossi is more concerned with the practical application of their e-Cat. On the research apparently is not enough time and money. Where extended analysis of gaseous and solid ash reactors? In addition to the compressed phrase of helium detected nothing.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Clarke’s first law

      When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

      Clarke’s second law

      The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

      Clarke’s third law

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      __________________________________________________________

      Most of the public thought that Tesla was an old crackpot. Meanwhile he brought us the foundation for most of what makes what we consider to be high technology today.

      Rossi consistently shows none of the trademarks of the fraudster and all signs of being the rare eccentric wild fire talent.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I am not sure what Clarke wants to say with his third law. What is the intended meaning of “magic” in this context? If he meant magic tricks one might agree, but anyway with the addition “for those who do not know how it works”.

      • bachcole

        I am not now nor have I ever said that Rossi is a fraudster. I am in a state of uncertainty over the fact that there is another explanation. I am with Rossi 100% up to the 1MW test. But people are remarking about how he has aged so much and lost weight. There are marks of age related accelerated decline. AND the people around him could very well be rationalizing his mentioning these latest wonders and miracles because they believe him and/or they don’t want to hurt the feelings of the greatest inventor in the history of the world. This mistaken support is also commonly a part of age related accelerated decline.

        I want very badly that this theory is wrong. But until we get confirmation of these wonders and miracles, I will be in a state of uncertainty, not a terribly confortable place to be. But honesty demands that I sit in this gloomy epistemological dungeon until there is confirmation one way or the other.

        • tchernik

          Besides, we need proof. LENR never has been about believing in words and promises, and all about experimental observations.

    • Axil Axil

      http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/02/LycurgusCup1.jpg

      The Romans added powdered gold to glass to color it. Adding fine metal powder to glass is how stained glass windows are made. This is all well known science.

      http://phys.org/news/2015-12-imaging-technique-captures-beauty-metal-labeled.html

  • Oystein Lande

    No, you are not 😉

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    The change in wave-length it is possible to believe. It’s hard to believe a figure of 50% electricity and 50% heat. All conversion methods provide at the present level of 20-25%. Either Mr. Rossi is seriously mistaken in assessing the generation of heat, or there is a double effect it more like thermal emission generator and bettavoltaik.

    • Hi all

      As I pointed out elsewhere. Working LENR allows us to move into space at which point ICBM’s become as antique as a stone axe.

      As to mass destruction, why when you can use an LENR micro drone to put your opponent to sleep or otherwise incapacitate them, then transport them to a place of incarceration awaiting trial. Or heck. Why even bother with incarceration just have your drone escort them around and give them a slap when they are naughty.

      People seem to still fall for the idea that new weapons get used in the same way as old weapons.

      I worked in this field. 😉

      Kind Regards walker

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    The change in wave-length it is possible to believe. It’s hard to believe a figure of 50% electricity and 50% heat. All conversion methods provide at the present level of 20-25%. Either Mr. Rossi is seriously mistaken in assessing the generation of heat, or there is a double effect it more like thermal emission generator and bettavoltaik.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Clarke’s first law

    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    Clarke’s second law

    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    Clarke’s third law

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I am not sure what Clarke wants to say with his third law. What is the intended meaning of “magic” in this context? If he meant magic tricks one might agree, but anyway with the addition “for those who do not know how it works”.

  • Axil Axil

    http://hsong.web-bi.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TOC6.jpg

    Surface Plasmon Polaritons can release EMF by varying the size of the cavity that stores the EMF. Rossi has found a way to vary the size of the SPP cavity used in the reaction. Usually, the size produces XUV and x-ray light when a dark mode SPP releases its hord of photons.

    Light is stored in a whispering gallery wave.

    https://www.mpg.de/8401320/standard_full.jpg

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This seems to make more sense than the incandescence hypothesis. I only wonder how the light gets out of the reactor. If he uses an alumina casing parts of it could certainly come through, but the color would be altered. A glass window might not stand the temperature.

      • Axil Axil

        It is possible for light to pass through properly prepared metal surfaces.

        http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.0603.pdf

        IV Concluding remarks

        Observation of unexpectedly large optical transmission in subwavelength openings in
        opaque metal slabs has caused tremendous excitement because of its implication for
        several novel applications in nanophotonics. A very large number of reports on this topic
        have appeared in the literature in the past decade or so. Much effort has been expended
        for understanding the physics of the observed phenomena but the consensus on this is still
        emerging. It is realized that there are important differences in light energy transfer
        mechanisms for an array of subwavelength holes and slits. Many complex effects
        involving surface waves, diffraction, interference and localized modes in individual apertures need to be taken into account together to fully understand the peculiar features
        seen in the optical transmission spectra. In this non exhaustive, limited review, we
        focused primarily on the status of this effort. The various exciting applications proposed
        and demonstrated were not covered. It is expected that with continued work using
        sophisticated experiments and numerical simulations, our understanding of the physics of
        the ‘extraordinary optical transmission’ will be complete in the near future. One hopes
        that this will lead to further breakthroughs in nanophotonics applications.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_optical_transmission

        • Obvious

          And here is another way to do some tricks with light.

          “As described in a new Science paper, Tenio Popmintchev et al. directed short pulses from an infrared laser onto atoms of several gasses held under high pressure. The complex interaction between the infrared photons and the electrons within the atoms produced a broad spectrum of light, ranging from ultraviolet up to X-rays. The emitted light was coherent, meaning the photons travel together in a correlated fashion, and came in very short pulses of intense light.”
          “To create X-ray light using HHG [high-harmonic generation], the researchers used femtosecond (10-15 second) pulses from an infrared laser, directed onto a container of gas (helium, neon, argon, or nitrogen). The container itself is a waveguide, a chamber with a shape, dimensions, and electrical properties that shape the behavior of the light wave. The waveguide geometry and the high pressures in the gas together give rise to the HHG. In this case, the researchers found an optimal pressure in helium of about 35 atmospheres; above that, the atom-atom interactions broke up the coherence of the emitted X-ray light.”

          http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/turning-an-infrared-laser-into-an-x-ray-source/

      • DrD

        Alumina in it’s crystalline form is Sapphire. It is has a wide pass band spanning the optical with absorption bands (or not) that depend on the purity. Pure synthetic sapphire is transparent to white light.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, something like this might be suitable:

          http://www.crystaltechno.com/Img/3_Sapphire_Tube_Crystaltechno.jpg

          However, it will cost much more than the usual “GlowStick” tubes.

          • DrD

            It’s been a long time since I used it but I think synthetic sapphire isn’t prohibitively expensive. I didn’t have to pay for it of course. I did a quick search but all I found was for jewelry. It can be machined but with difficulty. Found this http://www.tydexoptics.com/materials1/for_transmission_optics/synthetic_sapphire/

          • Stephen

            I think Sapphire glass is used for some watches for its robustness and resistance to scratching. If I remember right Apple were looking at a supplier for manufacturing it in relatively cheaply and in larger amounts for their IPhones a year or so back but It failed for some reason. I wonder if that if the plan is still there or the manufacturing equipment still exists.

          • artefact

            I think the quarks will be square and kind of flat or round but flat with the waver construction inside. No tubes. Probably with a sapphire plate on top looking like a high power led.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe. I think the optimal form will depend on the purpose. Rossi has said that he could make the Quarks in any shape. Of course, if the primary goal were heat production, he would need to place a heat exchanger somewhere. But a reactor in the centre of a tube that is directly cooled by flowing water might also be an option.

      • US_Citizen71
      • Pekka Janhunen

        There is also Perlucor (https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/ ) which tolerates 1600 C. Not sure about composition, perhaps MgO. Don’t know about price either.

    • Ted-X

      One practical way to control the microcavities is to use the cryogenic treatment of the particles of nickel. The microctystals crack down into (perhaps) nano-crystals. The exposure time may control the size of the crystals and the cavities.

      • DrD

        I had the same thought

    • artefact

      Nice. thanks.

      • Bruce__H

        You are probably correct that the names used to describe the processes here don’t matter. What does matter however is whether Rossi has fully disclosed the process for building his ecat machinery. If he has left something out, a secret additive for instance, then the whole process is left unprotected by the patent he holds and there is no possibility of his being able to aggressively protect IP.

        Has anyone tried to build a device following the specifications in the US patent that was approved for Rossi last summer?

        • Omega Z

          Everyone deviates when attempting to replicate.

      • DrD

        Not a “fleet” though or at least not what I meant by it. I was trying to describe 100’s of them, meaning that with the simplicity of LENR they could be made cheap and small with a very small crew and lots of them.
        Better shut before some one gets ideas, not that they won’t anyway.

  • Axil Axil

    http://hsong.web-bi.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TOC6.jpg

    Surface Plasmon Polaritons can release EMF by varying the size of the cavity that stores the EMF. Rossi has found a way to vary the size of the SPP cavity used in the reaction. Usually, the size produces XUV and x-ray light when a dark mode SPP releases its hord of photons.

    Light is stored in a whispering gallery wave.

    https://www.mpg.de/8401320/standard_full.jpg

    • Andreas Moraitis

      This seems to make more sense than the incandescence hypothesis. I only wonder how the light gets out of the reactor. If he uses an alumina casing parts of it could certainly come through, but the color would be altered. A glass window might not stand the temperature.

      • Axil Axil

        It is possible for light to pass through properly prepared metal surfaces.

        http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.0603.pdf

        IV Concluding remarks

        Observation of unexpectedly large optical transmission in subwavelength openings in
        opaque metal slabs has caused tremendous excitement because of its implication for
        several novel applications in nanophotonics. A very large number of reports on this topic
        have appeared in the literature in the past decade or so. Much effort has been expended
        for understanding the physics of the observed phenomena but the consensus on this is still
        emerging. It is realized that there are important differences in light energy transfer
        mechanisms for an array of subwavelength holes and slits. Many complex effects
        involving surface waves, diffraction, interference and localized modes in individual apertures need to be taken into account together to fully understand the peculiar features
        seen in the optical transmission spectra. In this non exhaustive, limited review, we
        focused primarily on the status of this effort. The various exciting applications proposed
        and demonstrated were not covered. It is expected that with continued work using
        sophisticated experiments and numerical simulations, our understanding of the physics of
        the ‘extraordinary optical transmission’ will be complete in the near future. One hopes
        that this will lead to further breakthroughs in nanophotonics applications.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_optical_transmission

        • Obvious

          And here is another way to do some tricks with light.

          “As described in a new Science paper, Tenio Popmintchev et al. directed short pulses from an infrared laser onto atoms of several gasses held under high pressure. The complex interaction between the infrared photons and the electrons within the atoms produced a broad spectrum of light, ranging from ultraviolet up to X-rays. The emitted light was coherent, meaning the photons travel together in a correlated fashion, and came in very short pulses of intense light.”
          “To create X-ray light using HHG [high-harmonic generation], the researchers used femtosecond (10-15 second) pulses from an infrared laser, directed onto a container of gas (helium, neon, argon, or nitrogen). The container itself is a waveguide, a chamber with a shape, dimensions, and electrical properties that shape the behavior of the light wave. The waveguide geometry and the high pressures in the gas together give rise to the HHG. In this case, the researchers found an optimal pressure in helium of about 35 atmospheres; above that, the atom-atom interactions broke up the coherence of the emitted X-ray light.”

          http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/turning-an-infrared-laser-into-an-x-ray-source/

      • DrD

        Alumina in it’s crystalline form is Sapphire. It is has a wide pass band spanning the optical with absorption bands (or not) that depend on the purity. Pure synthetic sapphire is transparent to white light.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, something like this might be suitable:

          http://www.crystaltechno.com/Img/3_Sapphire_Tube_Crystaltechno.jpg

          However, it will cost much more than the usual “GlowStick” tubes.

          • DrD

            It’s been a long time since I used it but I think synthetic sapphire isn’t prohibitively expensive. I didn’t have to pay for it of course. I did a quick search but all I found was for jewelry. It can be machined but with difficulty. Found this http://www.tydexoptics.com/materials1/for_transmission_optics/synthetic_sapphire/

          • Stephen

            I think Sapphire glass is used for some watches for its robustness and resistance to scratching. If I remember right Apple were looking at a supplier for manufacturing it in relatively cheaply and in larger amounts for their IPhones a year or so back but It failed for some reason. I wonder if that if the plan is still there or the manufacturing equipment still exists.

          • artefact

            I think the quarks will be square and kind of flat or round but flat with the waver construction inside. No tubes. Probably with a sapphire plate on top looking like a high power led.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe. I think the optimal form will depend on the purpose. Rossi has said that he could make the Quarks in any shape. Of course, if the primary goal were heat production, he would need to place a heat exchanger somewhere. But a reactor in the centre of a tube that is directly cooled by flowing water might also be an option.

      • US_Citizen71
      • Pekka Janhunen

        There is also Perlucor (https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/ ) which tolerates 1600 C. Not sure about composition, perhaps MgO. Don’t know about price either.

    • Ted-X

      One practical way to control the microcavities is to use the cryogenic treatment of the particles of nickel. The microctystals crack down into (perhaps) nano-crystals. The exposure time may control the size of the crystals and the cavities.

      • DrD

        I had the same thought

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2014/02/LycurgusCup1.jpg

    The Romans added powdered gold to glass to color it. Adding fine metal powder to glass is how stained glass windows are made. This is all well known science.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-imaging-technique-captures-beauty-metal-labeled.html

  • magicsnd1

    Quark was the name of a 1970’s sci-fi sitcom. Their mission was collecting garbage in near-earth space, with a ship that looked like an old boot. The science officer was a Vegeton named (get ready….) Ficus. Good stuff but no re-runs that I can find.

  • LarryJ

    F9= If the results of the 1 MW test are positive but could also be negative
    F8=If the preliminary R&D of the ecatx/Quark is positive

  • pixelblot

    Here’s an interesting link to a video showing a company called Polymax that can print custom shapes of magnetic fields on the surface of a magnet. I wonder if there could be some application for this in conjunction with the E-cat or LENR in general. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with them.

    (2 minute mark and beyond)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IANBoybVApQ

    • artefact

      Nice. thanks.

    • BillH

      This is a great video, magnetism and electromagnetism are so intriguing, and this shows there is a lot more to be discovered, thanks.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    It seems to me that Rossi is more concerned with the practical application of their e-Cat. On the research apparently is not enough time and money. Where extended analysis of gaseous and solid ash reactors? In addition to the compressed phrase of helium detected nothing.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    If the e-Cat uses thermionic converter one can increase efficiency when applied carbon nanotubes on cathode increases the electron emission.

  • Observer

    Drone + E-Cat X = New Sun

  • Observer

    Drone + E-Cat X = New Sun

  • Gerard McEk

    Hmm, #5 does not seem to comply with:

    Øystein Lande
    March 28, 2016 at 9:10 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    You said the QuarkX can be tuned to emit specific light frequencies?
    Andrea Rossi

    March 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    Oeystein Lande:
    No, I did not say this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Yes, I noticed that, too. Interpreting Rossi’s statements is a challenge. Maybe it means that the Quark can produce coloured, but not monochromatic light.

      • Brent Buckner

        Or that an individual QuarkX can be manufactured to produce any specific colour from some palette, but that individual QuarkX can not subsequently be tuned to produce another colour from that palette.

  • Gerard McEk

    Hmm, #5 does not seem to comply with:

    Øystein Lande
    March 28, 2016 at 9:10 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    You said the QuarkX can be tuned to emit specific light frequencies?
    Andrea Rossi

    March 28, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    Oeystein Lande:
    No, I did not say this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Yes, I noticed that, too. Interpreting Rossi’s statements is a challenge. Maybe it means that the Quark can produce coloured, but not monochromatic light.

      • Brent Buckner

        Or that an individual QuarkX can be manufactured to produce any specific colour from some palette, but that individual QuarkX can not subsequently be tuned to produce another colour from that palette.

    • bachcole

      This makes me feel so much more hopeful and happy. One less miracle and wonder that I have to worry about.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        His following answers from the same day make me rather concerned.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    His following answers from the same day make me rather concerned.

  • deleo77

    It sounds like Mitchell Swartz’s NANOR.

    • Hi all

      Yes there are similarities to the NANOR. I thought of them as Rossi’s chief competitor if they could get backing, then around October they went dark.

      I wonder if IH bought them up to and brought Hagelstein and Swartz’s in with Rossi to do development, Rossi has mentioned additional members of the Development team.

      Kind Regards walker

  • deleo77

    It sounds like Mitchell Swartz’s NANOR.

    • Hi all

      Yes there are similarities to the NANOR. I thought of them as Rossi’s chief competitor if they could get backing, then around October they went dark.

      I wonder if IH bought them up too, and brought Hagelstein and Swartz’s in with Rossi to do development, Rossi has mentioned additional members of the Development team.

      Kind Regards walker

  • DrD

    Frank, the answer to question 3 in FAQ might need revising?

    • Frank Acland

      That’s fine — what would you suggest?

      • DrD

        I honestly don’t know. I suppose when it was composed it was unlikely that what AR is now describing could be forseen. I mean 100W from a “pencil” and even NO heat, just electric.

        • DrD

          Maybe it’s a bit premature until we actually see one.

          • Hi all

            Watch from 24:40
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjl8ka3F6QU

            🙂

            Kind Regards walker

          • MLWerner

            Watch What? Did you misplace a link?

          • Hi all

            In reply to MLWerner

            Yes but it is edited and back up now

            🙂

            Kind Regards walker

          • Gerald

            🙂 Obamian…

          • Gerard McEk

            #7: E-cat X has a power level of 20.000 W and the size of a sigarette package.
            The QuarkX has a power of 100 W and is pencil sized.
            This means that these 200 pencil sized QuarkX’s units either consist of very small pencils QuarkX’s or that a 20 kW QuarkX’s unit is considerably bigger in size.

          • US_Citizen71

            As Rossi likely has never been a smoker he might not understand the difference between the words pack and carton in English. 200 pencils and a carton of cigarettes is about right.

          • artefact

            Or the new description is with cooling plates etc. and the 20kW description not…

          • Omega Z

            E-cat X about the size of a cigarette with 20KW(20 E-cat X’s) being the size of a cigarette pack. Rossi hasn’t really said what size the Quark is. He always says this will be revealed after the test in process.

          • Brokeeper

            Interesting, he discribed a fictitious element named after him “Obamium” to have the characteristics of LENR: “stable and not too hot and not too cold”. (Starting aroud 31:00)

          • psi2u2

            Yes, very interesting mention of alternatives to traditional rocket fuels.

          • roseland67

            No,
            That’s crazy talk DrD

          • DrD

            We search primarily on subject or content, I can’t think of an occasion where we had need to search on assignee(company) but there are instances where you would want to. The point is, you can’t “hide” it by that means.
            The last I heard the US Patent office is still rejecting anything that has any mention of LENR or cold fusion.
            Shame on them, how long before they’re taken to task.

          • Rene

            “We search primarily on subject or content,…” so did we when I participated in patent minefield detection, which is why the titles of many software patents are so ‘elusive’. Similar motivations happen in hardware or process related patents. In the end the search has to be of claims and methods, which too can be ‘steganogrified’. What I expect to see (if it is not already there), is the method of barely LENR, something that works but barely. Then later a set of linking patents that describes means and methods of controlling those reactions to achieve high energy output. That last one is the golden egg.

          • Warthog

            “a” patent has been turned down. The question is “which one”. Note that he has previously said there are MANY patents being filed on different aspects of the systems.
            It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.

          • Bruce__H

            The question isn’t which patent has been turned down, it is which one has been accepted. Only on that patented device does Rossi have any IP protection. And I don’t think that that particular patented device is an ecat.

            http://www.google.com/patents/US9115913

            It sounds to me like an ordinary chemical reaction is involved — the breakdown of lithium aluminum hydroxide — which is known to be exothermic.

            https://books.google.ca/books?id=3UArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=exothermic+lithium+aluminum+hydride&source=bl&ots=4P_UoiE3Ms&sig=QMfKWqHSZHWc8sAo3gEsUvrLH7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWydu9rOvLAhVnmoMKHYqiDw4Q6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=exothermic%20lithium%20aluminum%20hydride&f=false

            This is why I am wondering if anyone has tried to build the device Rossi describes in the patent that was accepted. If they build it and it yields energy beyond what a chemical reaction produces then that is proof that Rossi’s claims are real. In the patent, Rossi never actually says how much power this device produces but if you read the patent carefully no more than 6 kwh is ever suggested. This would power a residential house for about 4 hours.

            “It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.”

            I’m not sure what you have in mind here. But if Rossi can’t patent the device he calls an ecat, then it is public domain. So I don’t see how he can talk about mass producing it and at the same time aggressively protecting IP. The only way he can protect it is to keep it secret, i.e., not sell it publicly.

          • Warthog

            There are many possible modifications that can be made to a “public-domain” pseudo-E-cat to develop a patented version.

            These can be either differences in design, or differences tn “composition of matter .

            Unfortunately, your Google link fails to give THE most critical part(s) of the patent, which are the “Claims”. All that you have posted is the explanatory/background material. The “Claims” are what the inventor says is DIFFERENT from all other “known art”, and what he says is therefore patentable (i.e. “unique and non-obvious) over and above the “known art”.

            Even if the art “is” in the public domain, that doesn’t keep Rossi from mass-producing and selling it…..all that means is that others aside from Rossi can also mass-produce and sell it. And trade secret information is mass-produced and sold publicly all the time. The company selling it thinks that it is sufficiently difficult for competitors to analyze and discover the info that it is safe to sell.

          • Omega Z

            Read it more closely,

            http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=09115913&SectionNum=4&IDKey=F26FEF275AA7&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=9115913.PN.%2526OS=PN/9115913%2526RS=PN/9115913

            Claims-Page 8, In section 3, What it says is, It has been found that after the reaction has generated approximately 6KW hours of energy, it may be desirable to apply approximately 1KW hour of electrical energy to reinvigorate the reaction sequence.

            This is actually simplified, because the timing of SSM is random and may be power 1 second on with SSM of 6 seconds. Or replace seconds by minutes. Anyway, Rinse repeat as it will average 1KW input to 6KW output 24/7.

            This patent wasn’t published(Kept in the dark) until just before it was granted. Rossi may have others that also are in the dark.

            An additional published patent-
            Patent # US20140326711A1
            Applicant : Industrial Heat
            Inventors: Andrea Rossi
            Assignee: Leonardo Corporation
            http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711

            Click Classification takes you to bottom of page find this number-> G21B 3/00 then click takes you to this page-
            http://web2.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ipcpub/#refresh=page&notion=scheme&version=20130101&symbol=G21B0003000000

            You’ll find
            Low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors [2006.01]
            ———————————————————————
            Note:
            You can’t Patent LENR. Only Devices and Processes that achieve Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR).
            You can’t Patent Nickel, Lithium, Aluminum. or (LiAlH4)
            YOU May be able to Copyright a very specific fuel mix or hydride recipe.

            Copyright’s vary by country, but I believe this applies to U.S. copyright.
            “Jan 3, 2016 – 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.”

          • Bruce__H

            Thanks for the directions to the previous patent. I’ll take a look

            I did read the July 2015 patent as closely as I could (not being an expert in patents) and noticed the passage you quote about reinvigorating the reaction after 6 kW hours of operation. This doesn’t tell you, however, about the rate of energy production or how many times the reaction can be reinvigorated. Perhaps it is only once.

  • DrD

    Frank, the answer to question 3 in FAQ might need revising?

    • Frank Acland

      That’s fine — what would you suggest?

      • DrD

        I honestly don’t know. I suppose when it was composed it was unlikely that what AR is now describing could be forseen. I mean 100W from a “pencil” and even NO heat, just electric.

        • DrD

          Maybe it’s a bit premature until we actually see one.

          • roseland67

            No,
            That’s crazy talk DrD

  • Hi all

    The similarity to AA size of 3 batteries in line is interesting. Being able to bundle them for increased heat or light or electricity output makes for a very adaptable package.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Tivnan

      I also thought of AA batteries to imagine the form factor of the Quark-X. Besides the obvious difference in function, I don’t think the Quark-X in its present state could work as a portable energy source like a battery because it may require input to trigger and sustain the reaction. Although SSM may be possible, Rossi has indicated that it presents a serious control problem. If intermittent (or continuous) energy pulses are required, then the Quark may be better suited to stationary applications. This is another reason why industry is being targeted first. Domestic applications are inherently more mobile and prone to safety concerns, especially transportation. I predict these will only become feasible in later generations of the Quark-x. I want an E-Cat powered lawn-mower as much as the next guy, but we are long way from that day. Of course, that won’t stop a lot of yahoos from trying.

  • Hi all

    The similarity to AA size of 3 batteries in line is interesting. Being able to bundle them for increased heat or light or electricity output makes for a very adaptable package.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Tivnan

      I also thought of AA batteries to imagine the form factor of the Quark-X. Besides the obvious difference in function, I don’t think the Quark-X in its present state could work as a portable energy source like a battery because it may require input to trigger and sustain the reaction. Although SSM may be possible, I think Rossi has indicated that it presents a serious control problem (please correct me if I’m wrong on this). If intermittent or continuous energy pulses are required, then the Quark may be better suited to stationary applications. This is another reason why industry is being targeted first. Domestic applications are inherently more mobile and prone to safety concerns, especially transportation. I predict these will only become feasible in later generations of the Quark-x. I want an E-Cat powered lawn-mower as much as the next guy, but we are long way from that day. Of course, that won’t stop a lot of yahoos from trying.

  • Frank Acland

    March 30, 2016 at 4:25 AM

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I am sure that you will breath a momentary sigh of relief with the results in your hand. I am curious to what will you be producing in the factory that you are building. Will you be building a specific building block and then letting other companies use those blocks to make their own products or will you be producing specific products yourself.

    Andrea Rossi

    March 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    Manuel Cilia:

    We will build our products in our factory.

    By the way, I just finished the meeting with ABB and defined the scheduling of the work, the robot lone configuration, the functions to be implemented. I am very satisfied. It was time to pass from the desiging of laboratories to the desogn of factories: I miss so much a good, solid and effective industry. I am in essence a factory man and I couldn’t wait to start this stage of my work with the E-Cats. Our mission in a nutshell: make jobs, make good products, kill the competition with intrinsic competitivity and with a ferocious defense of our Intellectual Property, allow our Customers to make money with our products.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    LikeShow more reactionsComment

  • Frank Acland

    March 30, 2016 at 4:25 AM

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I am sure that you will breath a momentary sigh of relief with the results in your hand. I am curious to what will you be producing in the factory that you are building. Will you be building a specific building block and then letting other companies use those blocks to make their own products or will you be producing specific products yourself.

    Andrea Rossi

    March 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    Manuel Cilia:

    We will build our products in our factory.

    By the way, I just finished the meeting with ABB and defined the scheduling of the work, the robot lone configuration, the functions to be implemented. I am very satisfied. It was time to pass from the desiging of laboratories to the desogn of factories: I miss so much a good, solid and effective industry. I am in essence a factory man and I couldn’t wait to start this stage of my work with the E-Cats. Our mission in a nutshell: make jobs, make good products, kill the competition with intrinsic competitivity and with a ferocious defense of our Intellectual Property, allow our Customers to make money with our products.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    LikeShow more reactionsComment

    • Bruce__H

      How can he possibly ferociously defend his intellectual property if he can’t patent it? His patent application to the US patent office was recently turned down.

      Without a patent anyone can take the product apart, reverse engineer it, and sell it for their own profit.

      • Michael W Wolf

        As far as I know he has a patent in hand.

        • Bruce__H

          The US patent that was awarded to Rossi this summer doesn’t seem to describe an LENR process. It seems to suggest a strictly chemical process that will heat water in a reaction chamber. An application for a patent on what sounds like an LENR device was rejected in January.

          • clovis ray

            No one ever said it was lenr to begin with it has lots of names the rosie effect as one Great one.can you prove it is lenr.

          • Bruce__H

            You are probably correct that the names used to describe the processes here don’t matter. What does matter however is whether Rossi has fully disclosed the process for building his ecat machinery. If he has left something out, a secret additive for instance, then the whole process is left unprotected by the patent he holds and there is no possibility of his being able to aggressively protect IP.

            Has anyone tried to build a device following the specifications in the US patent that was approved for Rossi last summer?

          • Omega Z

            Everyone deviates when attempting to replicate.

          • Bruce__H

            So someone has tried to build the device from the description in the patent?

          • clovis ray

            Lol

        • Rene

          It is often the case that when a person or company wishes to temporarily hide a patent application (or patent) that they assign it to some inconspicuous company or employee. Internal contracts/agreements deal with eventual ownership transfer. It makes the search process harder. If you want to see if a patent is in hand, you have to search by the names of the employees of Rossi’s company(ies), maybe even IH.

          • DrD

            We search primarily on subject or content, I can’t think of an occasion where we had need to search on assignee(company) but there are instances where you would want to. The point is, you can’t “hide” it by that means.
            The last I heard the US Patent office is still rejecting anything that has any mention of LENR or cold fusion.
            Shame on them, how long before they’re taken to task.

          • Rene

            “We search primarily on subject or content,…” so did we when I participated in patent minefield detection, which is why the titles of many software patents are so ‘elusive’. Similar motivations happen in hardware or process related patents. In the end the search has to be of claims and methods, which too can be ‘steganogrified’. What I expect to see (if it is not already there), is the method of barely LENR, something that works but barely. Then later a set of linking patents that describes means and methods of controlling those reactions to achieve high energy output. That last one is the golden egg.

      • Warthog

        “a” patent has been turned down. The question is “which one”. Note that he has previously said there are MANY patents being filed on different aspects of the systems.
        It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.

        • Bruce__H

          The question isn’t which patent has been turned down, it is which one has been accepted. Only on that patented device does Rossi have any IP protection. And I don’t think that that particular patented device is an ecat.

          http://www.google.com/patents/US9115913

          It sounds to me like an ordinary chemical reaction is involved — the breakdown of lithium aluminum hydroxide — which is known to be exothermic.

          https://books.google.ca/books?id=3UArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=exothermic+lithium+aluminum+hydride&source=bl&ots=4P_UoiE3Ms&sig=QMfKWqHSZHWc8sAo3gEsUvrLH7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWydu9rOvLAhVnmoMKHYqiDw4Q6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=exothermic%20lithium%20aluminum%20hydride&f=false

          This is why I am wondering if anyone has tried to build the device Rossi describes in the patent that was accepted. If they build it and it yields energy beyond what a chemical reaction produces then that is proof that Rossi’s claims are real. In the patent, Rossi never actually says how much power this device produces but if you read the patent carefully no more than 6 kwh is ever suggested. This would power a residential house for about 4 hours.

          “It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.”

          I’m not sure what you have in mind here. But if Rossi can’t patent the device he calls an ecat, then it is public domain. So I don’t see how he can talk about mass producing it and at the same time aggressively protecting IP. The only way he can protect it is to keep it secret, i.e., not sell it publicly.

          • Warthog

            There are many possible modifications that can be made to a “public-domain” pseudo-E-cat to develop a patented version.

            These can be either differences in design, or differences tn “composition of matter .

            Unfortunately, your Google link fails to give THE most critical part(s) of the patent, which are the “Claims”. All that you have posted is the explanatory/background material. The “Claims” are what the inventor says is DIFFERENT from all other “known art”, and what he says is therefore patentable (i.e. “unique and non-obvious) over and above the “known art”.

            Even if the art “is” in the public domain, that doesn’t keep Rossi from mass-producing and selling it…..all that means is that others aside from Rossi can also mass-produce and sell it. And trade secret information is mass-produced and sold publicly all the time. The company selling it thinks that it is sufficiently difficult for competitors to analyze and discover the info that it is safe to sell.

          • Bruce__H

            When I access the Google patents link I find that the claims are listed on the right-hand side.

            I agree with everything else you say. It is a mystery to me, though, why Rossi says he will be vigorously defending his IP when I don’t think he has patented it. If he want to try and keep it secret that is fine but then why the patent that he has obtained? Why does this patent just seem to involve harnessing the heat from a normal exothermic chemical reaction?

          • Warthog

            This time the claims are showing up as you say. My browser often screws up due to all the ads needing Adobe Flash (which should actually be called Adobe Crash, as that is what it really does).

            I don’t know how I can say this more plainly. A single patent in this case means almost nothing. Neither you nor I know what other applications and what aspects he has filed other patents on. THAT is what he means by “vigorously defending his IP”. As I read the Google patent copy, it appears to be a straightforward summation of exactly what has been reported here on E-cat World, so I don’t see what you find so mysterious.

          • bachcole

            My operating system is Linux Mint, and Adobe Crash crashes my system a whole bunch. What is your operating system?

          • Warthog

            Windows 10….though not totally by choice. My home desktop suffered terminal electrosclerosis and had to be replaced. Nice new Dell on sale from Office Depot…came with W10 (which was NOT ready for prime time….I had hell for a month before the M’soft updates yielded a system that mostly works). I am building a new desktop from box and motherboard and have a legal W7 ready to load.

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t think that the device described in the July 2015 patent is a straightforward description of the device discussed on E-cat World. Isn’t there supposed to be a secret additive that Rossi uses when preparing the fuel? And wasn’t nickel supposed to be the consumed part of the fuel instead of a catalyst?

            In fact the Rossi patent application that was denied in January was for a device considerably different from the one described in the successful July patent (the denied application described nickel as a fuel that was used up). So what’s up with that one? Is that the device that he thinks of as an E-cat? It is certainly described as a fusion device in the (unsuccessful) application whereas the device in the (successful) July 2015 is never described as a fusion device.

          • Omega Z

            Read it more closely,

            http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=09115913&SectionNum=4&IDKey=F26FEF275AA7&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=9115913.PN.%2526OS=PN/9115913%2526RS=PN/9115913

            Claims-Page 8, In section 3, What it says is, It has been found that after the reaction has generated approximately 6KW hours of energy, it may be desirable to apply approximately 1KW hour of electrical energy to reinvigorate the reaction sequence.

            This is actually simplified, because the timing of SSM is random and may be power 1 second on with SSM of 6 seconds. Or replace seconds by minutes. Anyway, Rinse repeat as it will average 1KW input to 6KW output 24/7.

            This patent wasn’t published(Kept in the dark) until just before it was granted. Rossi may have others that also are in the dark.

            An additional published patent-
            Patent # US20140326711A1
            Applicant : Industrial Heat
            Inventors: Andrea Rossi
            Assignee: Leonardo Corporation
            http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711

            Click Classification takes you to bottom of page find this number-> G21B 3/00 then click takes you to this page-
            http://web2.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ipcpub/#refresh=page&notion=scheme&version=20130101&symbol=G21B0003000000

            You’ll find
            Low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors [2006.01]
            ———————————————————————
            Note:
            You can’t Patent LENR. Only Devices and Processes that achieve Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR).
            You can’t Patent Nickel, Lithium, Aluminum. or (LiAlH4)
            YOU May be able to Copyright a very specific fuel mix or hydride recipe.

            Copyright’s vary by country, but I believe this applies to U.S. copyright.
            “Jan 3, 2016 – 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.”

          • Bruce__H

            Thanks for the directions to the previous patent. I’ll take a look

            I did read the July 2015 patent as closely as I could (not being an expert in patents) and noticed the passage you quote about reinvigorating the reaction after 6 kW hours of operation. This doesn’t tell you, however, about the rate of energy production or how many times the reaction can be reinvigorated. Perhaps it is only once.

  • Hi all

    There is a certain confidence and swagger detectable in Andrea Rossi’s recent answers.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    Watch from 24:40
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjl8ka3F6QU

    🙂

    Kind Regards walker

    • MLWerner

      Watch What? Did you misplace a link?

      • Hi all

        In reply to MLWerner

        Yes but it is edited and back up now

        🙂

        Kind Regards walker

    • Gerald

      🙂 Obamian…

    • Brokeeper

      Interesting, he discribed a fictitious element named after him “Obamium” to have the characteristics of LENR: “stable and not too hot and not too cold”. (Starting aroud 30:00)

    • psi2u2

      Yes, very interesting mention of alternatives to traditional rocket fuels.

  • Michael W Wolf

    As far as I know he has a patent in hand.

  • Observer

    So…

    Is it a magic wand or a hot rod?

  • Observer

    So…

    Is it a magic wand or a hot rod?

  • Gerard McEk

    #7: E-cat X has a power level of 20.000 W and the size of a sigarette package.
    The QuarkX has a power of 100 W and is pencil sized.
    This means that these 200 pencil sized QuarkX’s units either consist of very small pencils QuarkX’s or that a 20 kW QuarkX’s unit is considerably bigger in size.

    • Alessandro F.

      Maybe QuarkX incorporates basic control circuits and startup energy storage in its package.
      Maybe I’m dreaming a very good dream.

    • US_Citizen71

      As Rossi likely has never been a smoker he might not understand the difference between the words pack and carton in English. 200 pencils and a carton of cigarettes is about right.

      • artefact

        Or the new description is with cooling plates etc. and the 20kW description not…

    • Omega Z

      E-cat X about the size of a cigarette with 20KW(20 E-cat X’s) being the size of a cigarette pack. Rossi hasn’t really said what size the Quark is. He always says this will be revealed after the test in process.

  • Shawn Wierzbicki

    I think scalability of the reactions taking place is where the almost exponential increase in power output is taking place. But, I hope Rossi comes out with 5kW units the size of a small box. Then bye bye Southern Edison electricity for me…

    Just as a curious matter. How big can we go? What is the power output of an Ecat X of 4x4x4 dimensions? Large-scale units will have the advantage from a business perspective of large-scale investments.

    Does anyone else realize how profound in terms of defence technology this development in the art of deterrence deliver? Essentially build a fleet of E-Cat X’s that would power a fleet of stationary large laser defence systems and you don’t have to worry about ICBM’s raining from the sky…

    I’m just trying to imagine the new equilibrium point that we would see with the practical application of this tech.

    • DrD

      AR recently said a 1 MW E-catx made of quarks would be smaller than 1 meter cube.
      He implied if not actually stated that any size is possible (n x 100W).
      With a fleet of LENR powered submarines hiding for months on end you might worry about swarms of nuke cruise missiles or torpedoes with very short times to target.
      It’s a nasty line of thought.

      • Shawn Wierzbicki

        True that. In addition with the advent of hypersonic cruise missiles things aren’t as peachy. But such technologies of which we speak of are only within the capability of advanced nations. And most of such advanced nations realize that there is nothing to gain from such a war. The tendency in the past has been leaning towards (not enough though) disarmament. Even if we get such militaristic nut-jobs as Trump in power (from a Western POV) there are enough redundancy measures in place for them to ever start such a war.

        I still think a fleet of high altitude blimps equipped with a constant power source provided by the E-Cat X and laser systems would provide enough coverage to prevent any scenario of 1,2, or many nukes from reaching their destinations in a worst case scenario. Ground bases would also provide additional coverage and upkeep of such a system would be minimal to the taxpayer, while providing a wall of defence from rogue nations such as North Korea. False sense of security? Nope. Greater threats exist today in terms of biological weapons and such jazz… Anyway…

        If Russia (I should state, the last nation I suspect of such evil intentions) or any other developed nation decided to go MAD, then a more beneficial response would be defence instead the profoundly and pathologically wrong doctrine of mutually assured destruction devised by the Dr.Strangeloves of the West…

        Weaponization of space should be a cause for concern with this new technology… But, if we’ve prevented such measures thus far (God thank the rational minds that prevented Reagan’s wet dream of peace through strength from the stars), then I don’t see what is the problem so far.

        Essentially, this technology enables us to get away from Earth and render the doctrine of MAD and deterrence useless; but that’s a few generations down the road if we can make it that far with the looming threat from greater causes of concern (such as biological warfare getting out from secret labs or climate change or the pitiful budget designated to provide an early warning system from civilization destroyers hurdling from space)…

    • Hi all

      As I pointed out elsewhere. Working LENR allows us to move into space at which point ICBM’s become as antique as a stone axe.

      As to mass destruction, why when you can use an LENR micro drone to put your opponent to sleep or otherwise incapacitate them, then transport them to a place of incarceration awaiting trial. Or heck. Why even bother with incarceration just have your drone escort them around and give them a slap when they are naughty.

      People seem to still fall for the idea that new weapons get used in the same way as old weapons.

      I worked in this field. 😉

      Kind Regards walker

  • DrD

    AR recently said a 1 MW E-catx made of quarks would be smaller than 1 meter cube.
    He implied if not actually stated that any size is possible (n x 100W).
    With a fleet of LENR powered submarines hiding for months on end you might worry about swarms of nuke cruise missiles or torpedoes with very short times to target.
    It’s a nasty line of thought.

  • akupaku

    Building 1 MW or even bigger plants with 100 W pencil units does not seem to make sense to me. Changing the fuel once a year would be a major undertaking. Much easier to change the fuel of fewer 250 KW or even bigger units. Unless it is some similar scheme as current nuclear power plants use with their uranium pellet rods. But still bigger basic units look more lucrative to me in a big power plant. 100 W pencils seem to be more usable in small consumer applications.

    Nuclear power plants are stopped too every few years for fuel change and maintenance for several months so maybe this is not a big issue (?).

    Maybe it has something to do with production techniques if 100 W units are easier to manufacture with robots than really big ones.

    Of course, in an ideal world the power grid is obsolete and we have lots of small power units for each house. But this transition is probably going to take many years if it is allowed to happen at all.

    • JiW

      Perhaps this small pencil like shape and size is required by the process? And then these 100 W pencils can be “assembled in combination with “n” others” like Rossi says.

      How about a box shaped unit of 10x10x100 W or 10 kW? Then, instead of single pencils, these 10 kW boxes could be convenient basic units for refueling. Just pull the used box of pencils out and push a new unit in.

    • Omega Z

      I think the 100 W enable power control as to ramping up and down according to needs at the moment. Otherwise, you may be producing 10KW when all you need is watts. This is when cheap energy becomes expensive.

    • Hi all

      In reply to akupaku

      The concept is a standard one in industry. Easier to show you on a video,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDmeDeygRik

      Kind Regards walker

      • We should get this kid to reverse engineer an E-cat.

        • Omega Z

          Barry, I once took a 9 volt battery apart like that and found my Car keys.

          Yep, Reached into my pocket to get my nail clippers and there they was. 🙂

        • DrD

          Or an Orbo/Ocube.

      • akupaku

        Hmmm, still does not make sense to me to build a 1 MW plant from 9 volt batteries no matter how you assemble them to bigger superunits. Changing them when they are finished would be a nightmare and they probably have slightly different life times as I expect Rossi’s pencils will have. You would have to change when the pencil in a given superunit (assuming they are assembled to bigger superunits like the 9 V battery) with the lowest life time expires unless you have some extra capacity left.

        Still looks a better idea to me to use bigger like 250 KW units for big power plants. Smaller consumer grade devices is a different thing of course. Maybe Rossi aims to go after the consumer market and small devices after all.

        • US_Citizen71

          It all depends on how big the modules are that make up the fuels blocks. It is conceivable to have pre-built 1MW fuel units that are replaced. They would just be the 100W Quarks mounted into a frame with connections for power and cooling. Replacement would be quick and easy, likely less than day maybe even less than an hour once it was cooled, it would depend on the design of the plant and the module. The whole module would be recycled and turned into a new one. Very similar to the battery swap idea that has been floating around for electric cars.

    • Roland

      What if Rossi’s projected $50/kW cost is based on the Ecat X design in mass production; $5.00 each for 100w continuous for a year or more, then recycle rather than refuel.

      The same price as the Duracell 9V shown below…

    • DrD

      I agree about the refueling issue for MW or greater. It intrigues me. Otherwise MW units made up from 10k quarks seems ok.
      Perhaps they will be subdivided, say 100kW units or xx.

  • Omega Z

    I think the 100 W enable power control as to ramping up and down according to needs at the moment. Otherwise, you may be producing 10KW when all you need is watts. This is when cheap energy becomes expensive.

  • LilyLover

    When the n X 100 W format is adopted, everything in a household becomes a cordless stand alone gadget. From TV to washing machine. Noting inside a home needs cord, so Rossi is cutting the cord at appliance-towall scenario rather than at the electric company level. Slow and steady adoption of things – more business to Rossi to interact with all types of manufacturers!

    • Rene

      I disagree. That format of the ecat-q is the reactor. There is a lot of support stuff around it: heat dissipaters, inverters, the control logic, and required just-in-case shielding. And, so far, no mention has been made that the unit is self-powered.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Many appliances can work with DC so no need for inverter, usually. [Battery+Ecat]->DC->device.

        • Rene

          Ecat->(unregulated DC)->Device->Magic smoke escapes, device fried.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    The silence from IH is deafening.

    • LarryJ

      There is not much for them to say unless the ERV report is published. They don’t run a blog like Rossi and they might want to remain under the radar until they have product ready to ship.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How about: “We just proved there is an energy source with the potential to replace coal as a fuel!”

        • US_Citizen71

          But unless they are ready to deal with they demand for more information such as the entire test data, tours of the plant, reference samples to be tested by universities etc. such an announcement risks being another Pons and Fleischmann fiasco. All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            It is my opinion, the “demand for more information” is the least of IH concerns. It would be interesting and profitable to know who IH has shared the report with. This is all about strategies to control who makes the most money from this huge new energy source.

          • psi2u2

            “All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.”

            Exactly.

        • LarryJ

          Just more hearsay without publication of the ERV report.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    The silence from IH is deafening.

    • LarryJ

      There is not much for them to say unless the ERV report is published. They don’t run a blog like Rossi and they might want to remain under the radar until they have product ready to ship.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How about: “We just proved there is an energy source with the potential to replace coal as a fuel!”

        • US_Citizen71

          But unless they are ready to deal with they demand for more information such as the entire test data, tours of the plant, reference samples to be tested by universities etc. such an announcement risks being another Pons and Fleischmann fiasco. All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            It is my opinion, the “demand for more information” is the least of IH concerns. It would be interesting and profitable to know who IH has shared the report with. This is all about strategies to control who makes the most money from this huge new energy source.

          • psi2u2

            “All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.”

            Exactly.

        • LarryJ

          Just more hearsay without publication of the ERV report.

  • Hi all

    In reply to akupaku

    The concept is a standard one in industry. Easier to show you on a video,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDmeDeygRik

    Kind Regards walker

    • We should get this kid to reverse engineer an E-cat.

      • Omega Z

        Barry, I once took a 9 volt battery apart like that and found my Car keys.

        Yep, Reached into my pocket to get my nail clippers and there they was. 🙂

      • DrD

        Or an Orbo/Ocube.

  • Warthog

    This time the claims are showing up as you say. My browser often screws up due to all the ads needing Adobe Flash (which should actually be called Adobe Crash, as that is what it really does).

    I don’t know how I can say this more plainly. A single patent in this case means almost nothing. Neither you nor I know what other applications and what aspects he has filed other patents on. THAT is what he means by “vigorously defending his IP”. As I read the Google patent copy, it appears to be a straightforward summation of exactly what has been reported here on E-cat World, so I don’t see what you find so mysterious.

    • Bruce__H

      I don’t think that the device described in the July 2015 patent is a straightforward description of the device discussed on E-cat World. Isn’t there supposed to be a secret additive that Rossi uses when preparing the fuel? And wasn’t nickel supposed to be the consumed part of the fuel instead of a catalyst?

      In fact the Rossi patent application that was denied in January was for a device considerably different from the one described in the successful July patent (the denied application described nickel as a fuel that was used up). So what’s up with that one? Is that the device that he thinks of as an E-cat? It is certainly described as a fusion device in the (unsuccessful) application whereas the device in the (successful) July 2015 is never described as a fusion device.

  • jimbo92107

    Here is an article about a new Micro Electromechanical System (MEMS) that seems appropriate for Rossi’s e-cat x for controlling the reaction at a microscopic scale. Rather than having a pencil, this might enable form factors incorporated onto self-powered microchips.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-larger-nanoscale.html

    Rossi may not be aware of this research. Could somebody pass it along to him? He might have a lot of fun with it.

  • jimbo92107

    Here is an article about a new Micro Electromechanical System (MEMS) that seems appropriate for Rossi’s e-cat x for controlling the reaction at a microscopic scale. Rather than having a pencil, this might enable form factors incorporated onto self-powered microchips.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-larger-nanoscale.html

    Rossi may not be aware of this research. Could somebody pass it along to him? He might have a lot of fun with it.

  • Frank Acland
    • Stephen Taylor

      A “glowstick heater” is a great concept. If COP is 6 or more the performance would be so obviously superior to an unfueled control that anyone could confirm its usefulness immediately. This, unfortunately, points out that the lack of a convincing product or demonstration prototype is either secrecy or lack of a working reactor. Which is it?

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is a tongue in cheek April Fool’s post. The glow stick is not all that different than the heating core of many electric heaters in the market. I use to joke that due to the possible ban of incandescent light-bulbs that I was going to start an import business for 100W incandescent heaters from eastern Europe. Context is everything.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes, I get that. Looking at the picture and reading the caption it’s hard not to think about how easy it would be to prove beyond any doubt the huge difference in performance between a fueled version and an identical non-fueled version running side by side. With a cop of 6 or more the non- fueled version would be acting like a normal 1500 watt space heater. The fueled version would be putting out something like 9 or 10 thousand Watts. One nice and toasty while the other is burning your face off.
          The point is that there is simply no excuse or logical reason why a person in possession of this type of revolutionary advance would be incapable of convincing the most stubborn skeptic in a matter of minutes. I conclude it either doesn’t exist or the person doesn’t want us to know it exists.

          • US_Citizen71

            I vote the latter. If a demonstration device like you outline above was shown it would put many in the energy industry immediately on the defense. Unless you are ready for the ensuing battle with product to deploy you don’t start that war. For me there is enough soft and hard evidence, if you believe the tests from around the world, to believe the effect is real.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes , fortunately AR has learned much of this in his life ( the hard way)

          • DrD

            I think that’s why he says fossil fuels and LENR will co-exist, even long term.I can’t imagine any other reason.

          • DrD

            The official rumour is that COP was over 20. E-Catx is supposed to be better still. And you get electric and/or heat.

  • Frank Acland
    • Göran Jansson

      First of April today?

    • Stephen Taylor

      A “glowstick heater” is a great concept. If COP is 6 or more the performance would be so obviously superior to an unfueled control that anyone could confirm its usefulness immediately. This, unfortunately, points out that the lack of a convincing product or demonstration prototype is either secrecy or lack of a working reactor. Which is it?

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is a tongue in cheek April Fool’s post. The glow stick is not all that different than the heating core of many electric heaters in the market. I use to joke that due to the possible ban of incandescent light-bulbs that I was going to start an import business for 100W incandescent heaters from eastern Europe. Context is everything.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes, I get that. Looking at the picture and reading the caption it’s hard not to think about how easy it would be to prove beyond any doubt the huge difference in performance between a fueled version and an identical non-fueled version running side by side. With a cop of 6 or more the non- fueled version would be acting like a normal 1500 watt space heater. The fueled version would be putting out something like 9 or 10 thousand Watts. One nice and toasty while the other is burning your face off.
          The point is that there is simply no excuse or logical reason why a person in possession of this type of revolutionary advance would be incapable of convincing the most stubborn skeptic in a matter of minutes. I conclude it either doesn’t exist or the person doesn’t want us to know it exists.

          • US_Citizen71

            I vote the latter. If a demonstration device like you outline above was shown it would put many in the energy industry immediately on the defense. Unless you are ready for the ensuing battle with product to deploy you don’t start that war. For me there is enough soft and hard evidence, if you believe the tests from around the world, to believe the effect is real.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes , fortunately AR has learned much of this in his life ( the hard way)

          • DrD

            I think that’s why he says fossil fuels and LENR will co-exist, even long term.I can’t imagine any other reason.

          • DrD

            The official rumour is that COP was over 20. E-Catx is supposed to be better still. And you get electric and/or heat.

          • bachcole

            What happened to all of those narrow bandwidth colors? I guess Rossi disavowed that rumor.

  • Roland

    What if Rossi’s projected $50/kW cost is based on the Ecat X design in mass production; $5.00 each for 100w continuous for a year or more, then recycle rather than refuel.

    The same price as the Duracell 9V shown below…

  • DrD

    I agree about the refueling issue for MW or greater. It intrigues me. Otherwise MW units made up from 10k quarks seems ok.
    Perhaps they will be subdivided, say 100kW units or xx.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Svein Henrik April 1, 2016 at 7:04 AM
    Dear Andrea.
    We are earlier informed of a new ECXQ test in Europe and end of R&D period within 2 month.
    1. Will the test start within April, or May?
    2. Will details of ECXQ be presented in May, June or later?
    3. Are answers the above questions depended of IH’s decisions?
    4. Will ECXQs be made available to cooperating OEMs in Europe?
    5. Is the 1 year function period of the ECXQ dependent of the intermittens of use?
    6. May it be an idea to give samples of single units to be tested by universities?
    Thank You for earlier answers and attention.
    Regards: Svein Henrik

    Andrea Rossi April 1, 2016 at 7:51 AM
    Svein Henrik:
    1- from June on, all is not impossible
    2- cristal ball requested
    3- no. Leonardo Corporation is the owner of all the IP related to the E-Cat and we of Leonardo Corporation decide independently our strategy, depending only on the results we achieve with our R&D, that is on course in laboratories independent from all our Licensees. Obviously, we are delighted to listen and hold in due consideration all the suggestion our Licensees give us.
    4- possibly
    5- maybe
    6- yes, when the product will be ready, not in phase of preliminar R&D
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • So if I’m understanding recent statements correctly, in a couple of months or more, a new round of year-long field tests will begin on one or more ecat-X prototypes. Meanwhile the LT system has disappeared into the woodwork, while followers ignore the evasions and continue to hold out some faint hope of seeing a redacted summary of what the ‘ERV’ reported in due course.

      Sadly, this (situation going ‘dark’) is exactly what has been predicted by myself and one or two others, once corporate interests became involved. So now we’ll probably have to make do with more unverifiable ‘Rossi says’ for another 15 months or so, hoping meanwhile that either some other group publicly comes up with a CF breakthrough, or that there are indications somewhere other than JoNP that wheels are turning. And yes, I know that Rossi/IH don’t owe me or anyone else here anything – I’ve said as much on many occasions.

      I think I’ll be spending rather more time gardening and playing with my vintage car in the future, rather than following developments here on a daily basis.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Agaricus, I think we are thinking the same way. Certainty is not foreseeable. If Rossi wanted to convince everyone he would not have to do it in the market place. He could easily construct a couple of glow stick room heaters with and without fuel and run irrefutable demonstrations of active vs control performance. He does not want certainty or he does not have what he claims. Either way, we need to go back to our other endeavors and stop wasting our time waiting for something that may never happen. I’ll stay engaged but only from a distance. Ciao.

        • I think it is probably IH that doesn’t want certainty, for strategic reasons, and that Rossi reluctantly complies with this requirement.

          I don’t have any doubt that Rossi has exactly what he claims, and that CF products will become available in an industrial context in due course. but please see my reply to EEStorFanFibb above for the rest.

          • Brent Buckner

            I think $0.05/kWh would be revolutionary. Consider that it could be delivered without a grid, so reliable inexpensive electricity could proliferate in low trust areas. Consider that it could re-arrange geopolitics. Consider that it could be a clean power supply for centuries.

        • Brent Buckner

          I think he gave folks a chance for relative certainty with the Lugano test; I don’t lay the criticisms of the calorimetry at his feet.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Svein Henrik April 1, 2016 at 7:04 AM
    Dear Andrea.
    We are earlier informed of a new ECXQ test in Europe and end of R&D period within 2 month.
    1. Will the test start within April, or May?
    2. Will details of ECXQ be presented in May, June or later?
    3. Are answers the above questions depended of IH’s decisions?
    4. Will ECXQs be made available to cooperating OEMs in Europe?
    5. Is the 1 year function period of the ECXQ dependent of the intermittens of use?
    6. May it be an idea to give samples of single units to be tested by universities?
    Thank You for earlier answers and attention.
    Regards: Svein Henrik

    Andrea Rossi April 1, 2016 at 7:51 AM
    Svein Henrik:
    1- from June on, all is not impossible
    2- cristal ball requested
    3- no. Leonardo Corporation is the owner of all the IP related to the E-Cat and we of Leonardo Corporation decide independently our strategy, depending only on the results we achieve with our R&D, that is on course in laboratories independent from all our Licensees. Obviously, we are delighted to listen and hold in due consideration all the suggestion our Licensees give us.
    4- possibly
    5- maybe
    6- yes, when the product will be ready, not in phase of preliminar R&D
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • So if I’m understanding recent statements correctly, in a couple of months or more, a new round of year-long field tests will begin on one or more ecat-X prototypes. Meanwhile the LT system has disappeared into the woodwork, while followers ignore the evasions and continue to hold out some faint hope of seeing a redacted summary of what the ‘ERV’ reported in due course.

      Sadly, this (situation going ‘dark’) is exactly what has been predicted by myself and one or two others, once corporate interests became involved. So now we’ll probably have to make do with more unverifiable ‘Rossi says’ for another 15 months or so some indeterminate time, hoping meanwhile that either some other group publicly comes up with a CF breakthrough, or that there are indications somewhere other than JoNP that wheels are turning. And yes, I know that Rossi/IH don’t owe me or anyone else here anything – I’ve said as much on many occasions.

      I think I’ll be spending rather more time gardening and playing with my vintage car in the future, rather than following developments here on a daily basis.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Agaricus, I think we are thinking the same way. Certainty is not foreseeable. If Rossi wanted to convince everyone he would not have to do it in the market place. He could easily construct a couple of glow stick room heaters with and without fuel and run irrefutable demonstrations of active vs control performance. He does not want certainty or he does not have what he claims. Either way, we need to go back to our other endeavors and stop wasting our time waiting for something that may never happen. I’ll stay engaged but only from a distance. Ciao.

        • I think neither party wants certainty, for strategic reasons, even though I’m sure Rossi may be eager for his incredible invention to become widely recognised.

          I don’t have any doubt that Rossi has exactly what he claims, and that CF products will become available in an industrial context in due course. but please see my reply to EEStorFanFibb above for the rest.

        • Brent Buckner

          I think he gave folks a chance for relative certainty with the Lugano test; I don’t lay the criticisms of the calorimetry at his feet.

      • Rossi said there won’t be a year long test of the EcatX. It will be much shorter (ending before the calender year ends).
        I think IH has the option to manufacture and sell (as per it’s agreement with Leonardo Corp) the 1MW regular ecat plant and will probably still do so.

        Meanwhile it appears LC is deciding to focus it’s current R&D efforts on the promising ecat X and possibly make a factory for it in Sweden if it proves viable. And LC might also build and sell 1MW low temp ecat plants at this factory too.

        It has been clearly shown I think that IH has licensing rights to the ecat X as well and if it proves commercially viable will likely go ahead with manufacturing and selling it as well.

        This is clear from the rebranding they are doing (see domains found such as luxenergy, lightenergy, lightpower… etc. – some found today by Veblin) indicates they are able to participate in at least selling EcatX tech in their regions, if not also manufacture them.

        My point is, I see NOTHING that indicates that ecat tech is going dark. Or that there is a schism between IH and LC. It looks like both companies are planning to unleash ecat tech onto the world relatively soon.

        For one thing, Rossi has indicated that a press conference is planned for June.

        IH and LC cooperative efforts have simply evolved, and naturally and logically separated since the 1MW plant test ended. Nothing to worry about.

        • My point was really that now things have become ‘serious’, that for commercial reasons outside observers won’t be kept up to speed with developments, and the actual emergence of product will probably be as much of a surprise to us as to anyone else. Rossi will undoubtedly continue to make claims and drop hints on JoNP, but as he is almost certainly under various constraints I don’t expect anything quantifiable to come through this channel.

          As to possible disagreements between IH and LC (I didn’t actually mention this in my post above), I think these must be seen as inevitable, and to be resolved by negotiation as is usual in any business relationship. Both parties have made statements that can be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that IH aren’t happy with some of Rossi’s statements, and that for some reason Rossi feels the need to establish ascendancy over IH by ‘clarifying’ their relationship in legalistic terms. Nothing particularly unusual there, except perhaps the public airings.

          Like you, I await any further information in June, but as I said, don’t hold out any great hopes of learning much about the ‘ERV’ report in the meantime. I’ve made a couple of edits to my initial post in response to your comments (strikethrough/italics) and hope I have been able to clarify what I was hoping to convey.

  • US_Citizen71

    It all depends on how big the modules are that make up the fuels blocks. It is conceivable to have pre-built 1MW fuel units that are replaced. They would just be the 100W Quarks mounted into a frame with connections for power and cooling. Replacement would be quick and easy, likely less than day maybe even less than an hour once it was cooled, it would depend on the design of the plant and the module. The the whole module would be recycled and turned into a new one. Very similar to the battery swap idea that has been floating around for electric cars.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Well, that makes the relationship between IH and Rossi crystal clear: IH is nothing more than a licensee of Leonardo and has nothing to do with ongoing E-Cat research. If IH decides to “create” their form of the E-Cat in their 20,000 sq ft lab, the fight is on.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Well, that makes the relationship between IH and Rossi crystal clear: IH is nothing more than a licensee of Leonardo and has nothing to do with ongoing E-Cat research. If IH decides to “create” their form of the E-Cat in their 20,000 sq ft lab, the fight is on.

  • enantiomer2000

    So how does Rossi plan on licensing the tech? Will he sell the devices themselves? Blacklight Power (now Brilliantlight Power) plans on charging $.05/kWh. This is about 1/3 the price of electricity in my area (So California). This would be great, but I wouldn’t really say revolutionary. If Rossi could get down to about $.01/kWh or less that would crush BrLP:
    http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/BrLP-Business-Presentation-032916.pdf

    • Shawn Wierzbicki

      I wouldn’t bet on them to deliver. They’ve had a history of sensationalized claims and never delivering.

      Besides their technology doesn’t make sense. If you’re getting such reactions why utilize the photovoltaic approach and instead have the reactions run kinetically?

      Further, their claims of a lower quantum level achieved through unknown processes have been thoroughly debunked by respected physicists.

      Finally, Rossi’s e-cat X has no explosions or moving parts making it superior from a more practical approach.

      What puzzles me most about BrLP is that they haven’t gone the KISS method and used kinetic motion instead of PVC’s converting the light output of the reaction to generate electricity.

      They’re a weird company that keeps on making grand claims; but, hasn’t yet delivered on any of them…

      • enantiomer2000

        Shawn, care to explain? By kinetic motion, do you mean a steam engine of some kind? Wouldn’t that be a lot bulkier than PV? Also keep in mind both Rossi and Mills are doing things that have been debunked by respected physicists. Also both of them have made high claims for a long time now without much to show for it. Rossi does claim to have higher density, buy has he talked about how he will license the tech? Does he plan on charging per kWh like BrLP?

        • Shawn Wierzbicki

          For the matter. Rossi is just charging for the unit itself. BrLP wants to charge per kW?

          I’ve been observing BLP for a while now and every time they promised a delivery date or commercial release, it never came to be. Rossi has already provided more substance than BLP and his product is superior to the one of BLP in many ways. I don’t see how BLP has ANY credibility based on their history of unfulfilled claims…

      • Axil Axil

        “If you’re getting such reactions why utilize the photovoltaic approach and instead have the reactions run kinetically?”

        The SunCell would then turn into the Papp engine which is now an open source IP since the 1968 patent has expired.

        • Shawn Wierzbicki

          Is this a joke or are you being serious?

      • Giancarlo Tortuga

        It can be coupled to a Stirling engine (10% efficiency) or to a microturbine… Like the recent turbine using CO2 and heat exchanger (50% efficiency). Obviously to power electric engines.

    • Shawn Wierzbicki

      A cigarette box with the potential power output of 20 kW would outperform BrLP’s claims any day.

      • BillH

        This cigarette box claim worries me a bit, if you can’t extract the energy at a fast enough rate, over heating and explosion would be a possibility. Just think how much heat is generated from a laptop battery of a similar size and multiply that by 15.

        • Shawn Wierzbicki

          Possibly a reason why Rossi is opting for smaller “quark” units that would not be liable to such scenarios. Still hope he offers larger units (for home 10kW or used to power vehicles) that can easily be refilled and would require less maintenance.

        • Bob Tivnan

          True, but I wouldn’t want an E-Cat on my lap any time soon. This is why Rossi is targeting industrial applications. Engineering the heat transfer is going to be a challenge though, especially if the E-Cat requires an optimal operating temerature range.

    • Brent Buckner

      I think $0.05/kWh would be revolutionary. Consider that it could be delivered without a grid, so reliable inexpensive electricity could proliferate in low trust areas. Consider that it could re-arrange geopolitics. Consider that it could be a clean power supply for centuries.

  • My point was really that now things have become ‘serious’, that for commercial reasons outside observers won’t be kept up to speed with developments, and the actual emergence of product will probably be as much of a surprise to us and to anyone else. Rossi will undoubtedly continue to make claims and drop hints on JoNP, but as he is almost certainly under various constraints I don’t expect much of value to come through this channel.

    As to possible disagreements between IH and LC, I think these must be seen as inevitable, and to be resolved by negotiation. Both parties have made statements that can be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that IH aren’t happy with some of Rossi’s statements, and/or that Rossi feels the need to establish ascendancy over IH by ‘clarifying’ their relationship. Nothing unusual there.

    Like you, I await any further information in June, but as I said, don’t hold out any great hopes of learning much about the ‘ERV’ report in the meantime. I hope I have been able to clarify what I was hoping to convey in my initial post.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder why Rossi maintains his view that an integration of all energy sources will be needed. It does not cope with his idea to ‘crush the competition’, what he also wants to do. Low energy cost of his E-cat X or QuarkX will also push those other energy sources of the market and I am sure he is intelligent enough to see that. Would he be pushed to say this?

    • artefact
      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but can LENR be stopped? Within a few years after the introduction the E-cats can be cloned. The technology should not be too difficult. I assume that AR does not want to toutch the car-/aircraft-/ship- markets, because Big Oli is The Boss there and warned him, but others (China, India, small companies) may start to pick that market. You can’t stop this happening!

    • LuFong

      It doesn’t make any sense but it’s a quick way for Rossi to dismiss possible concerns about market acceptance of his technology. And it is almost a certainty that the wealthy and powerful oil & gas industry is watching all competitors, including LENR, very closely. It’s just that there is no real threat now and I suspect with what we get from IH and Rossi about the ERV test, won’t be for quite a while.

      The oil & gas industry has to make significant long term investments that hinge on the supply, demand, cost, and hence price of their commodity. If they make a mistake they pay a huge price. Once E-Cat/LENR technology becomes accepted as real you will see push back. Hopefully the market forces will be allowed to operate and LENR will become just one more significant reason to ween the world off oil & gas.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder why Rossi maintains his view that an integration of all energy sources will be needed. It does not cope with his idea to ‘crush the competition’, what he also wants to do. Low energy cost of his E-cat X or QuarkX will also push those other energy sources of the market and I am sure he is intelligent enough to see that. Would he be pushed to say this?

    • artefact
      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but can LENR be stopped? Within a few years after the introduction the E-cats can be cloned. The technology should not be too difficult. I assume that AR does not want to toutch the car-/aircraft-/ship- markets, because Big Oli is The Boss there and warned him, but others (China, India, small companies) may start to pick that market. You can’t stop this happening!

    • bachcole

      He does not want to awaken a sleeping giant. He does not want to poke a sleeping bear.

      • Gerard McEk

        See my reply to Artefact, below.

  • Axil Axil

    “If you’re getting such reactions why utilize the photovoltaic approach and instead have the reactions run kinetically?”

    The SunCell would then turn into the Papp engine which is now an open source IP since the 1968 patent has expired.

  • Gerard McEk

    See my reply to Artefact, below.

  • Bob Tivnan

    True, but I wouldn’t want an E-Cat on my lap any time soon. This is why Rossi is targeting industrial applications. Engineering heat transfer is going to be a challenge though.

  • LuFong

    My first post on this website 5 years ago point out that the heat producing E-Cat is a perfect match for the tar sands like oil mining and production.

    Given that most oil is used for transportation purposes I think oil will be around for awhile. Also nuclear plants (and oil as well) will be around a while as well because of the sunk costs. Coal will be the first to go.

    Renewables will lead the way while Rossi tries to find the magic formula and make himself rich.